Talk:Clive James

Who the fuck is this guy and why do I care? --Token Conservative (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What, are we going to start cataloging every single person and the face of the Earth who has ever said they aren't sure if global warming is real?--Token Conservative (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say he's a fairly good example of how an intelligent commentator can be end up being mostly wrong about climate change because of the way the media portrays it, and the reaction to his comments shows how this thought process reinforces itself. In terms of a postmodernist critique of science, James compared the (media filtered) doomsday scenarios of rising sea levels with 1970s Futurist ideas of personal jet packs and colonising the planets, that is, scientists getting carried away into science fiction. I think that says something about postmodernism, at least about the cultural image of the scientist Tombo1bo (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning postmodernism? It's not something Clive James is associated with at all. In fact, he's been critical of it. [1] Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I probably don't, but I meant the mode of debate in the arts and media, which he resides within, seems to be informed by postmodernist ideas about the nature of science as just another social construct with no special validity, and which has been wrong before. I didn't know he had ben critical of it himself, you're right to take that bit out. Tombo1bo (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"he's a fairly good example of how an intelligent commentator can be end up being mostly wrong about climate change because of the way the media portrays it" - true. But not article-worthy true, just a paragraph somewhere. Is there a "media portrayal of global warming" article somewhere? Sophie^Wilder 10:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There is not, but there certainly is scope for something on 'science in the media', which this would go under. Ben Goldacre has written a lot about how newspapers especialy just don't get how science is practiced, and global warming is a excellent case study in that. That is the point I was trying to get at with this, as Clive James is pretty well known and respected in the UK as a sort of accessible intellectual, and the practice of science dosen't really feature in his experience. This may tell us something about the media establishment and how unfamiliar it is with science. So yes I agree we should make the point about science and the media, and mention of James' comments belongs within such an article. Tombo1bo (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Clive James is quite famous in the UK and Australia. He is very smart, but verbally (he's a writer and a talker), with no evidence whatsoever of scientific understanding. He's also getting on a bit - still sharp, but not fast. He'd be an example of someone being taken in by the manufactured controversy. This really isn't a very missiony article at all - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Shall we get rid of it? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that I have any authority, but I agree that this isn't MC as well. Perhaps we should delete it. --P3A58NT86 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)