Interesting read. It is hopeful to read an optimistic assessment of the state of the environment but it's hard to know what to believe. The doomsday cries might be a bit heavy-handed compared to the reality of the situation but I'd still be more inclined toward a greener way of living. Anything that benefits the environment,  even on a local scale,  is inspiring to me. 

It will be interesting to see how advancements in technology might in fact help to reduce pollution in the future but technology is always a double edged sword.

Quote from: Trev on June 26, 2019, 10:29:09 PM
Quote from: Rodge on June 26, 2019, 09:29:47 PM
I'm must admit to being something of a climate skeptic...

Here's a bunch of predictions scientists were making in 1970.. Pretty much on the same scale as Nostradamus himself!!

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

I'd be pretty certain the technology available now for making predictions is a bit more reliable now than in 1970 though

From my viewpoint it's not so much about technologies being able to make predictions; it is about the motivations and interpretations of those who are creating the narratives..

I'm not denying that the world is fucked; but I'm certainly questioning the conclusions these people are selling us..

Quote from: Rodge on June 26, 2019, 09:29:47 PM
I'm must admit to being something of a climate skeptic...

Here's a bunch of predictions scientists were making in 1970.. Pretty much on the same scale as Nostradamus himself!!

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/
"That was a well written piece of non claptrap that didn't make me want to vomit". Joking aside, the aei describes itself as non partisan yet has taken flak for receiving millions in payments from exxonmobil and attempting to bribe independent scientists to make up critiques of papers on environmental issues. Aside from that the quotation marks like "earth day" and "environmentalists" , coupled with the derisive tone should be enough to show where their opinions lie.

Quote from: Scáthach on June 26, 2019, 10:50:49 PM
Quote from: Rodge on June 26, 2019, 09:29:47 PM
I'm must admit to being something of a climate skeptic...

Here's a bunch of predictions scientists were making in 1970.. Pretty much on the same scale as Nostradamus himself!!

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/
"That was a well written piece of non claptrap that didn't make me want to vomit". Joking aside, the aei describes itself as non partisan yet has taken flak for receiving millions in payments from exxonmobil and attempting to bribe independent scientists to make up critiques of papers on environmental issues. Aside from that the quotation marks like "earth day" and "environmentalists" , coupled with the derisive tone should be enough to show where their opinions lie.

I hear you..

If I could be bothered I'm sure I could find  some evidence to show the exact same behaviour from "legitimate" climate scientists..

As John Bush once sang "Opinion's are all contradictions"..

We're living in 2019 after all ;)

This is it. At this stage I'm not even sure I exist anymore :laugh:

This seems to me the perfect time to quote the great Andy Cairns; "The world is fucked and so am I, or maybe it's the other way round I can't seem to decide".

He also sang 'masturbation saved my life'. Maybe we all just need to have a collective wank and chill the fuck out

Quote from: Pedrito on June 27, 2019, 12:20:00 AM
He also sang 'masturbation saved my life'. Maybe we all just need to have a collective wank and chill the fuck out
I'm only able to get off on the texture of single use plastic though.

Quote from: Rodge on June 26, 2019, 09:29:47 PM
I'm must admit to being something of a climate skeptic...

Here's a bunch of predictions scientists were making in 1970.. Pretty much on the same scale as Nostradamus himself!!

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

Currently reading Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker and he is drawing similar conclusions to the ones above while going into a lot more detail.  I'm curious to see what his position is regarding the melting polar ice caps as he tends to have a much more optimistic view of the current and future state of the planet which goes against the current popular narrative.

Yeah, but Steven Pinker is also a hack.

A hack? How so? He seems to me to be eloquent and well researched.  There is always a counter argument to any position but he seems to rely on a lot of data to back up his observations rather than simply saying nice things.

Does Harvard University employ hacks? Maybe I'm blinded by the bright lights?

He starts out with an idea and then collects and presents only data which agrees with that idea. That, from my view, makes him a hack. He's certainly eloquent - seductively so, we could say...but hacks can be and often are eloquent. I don't know how well-researched he really is, because I don't know whether he sits on data he has researched but which is inconvenient to his message, or whether he just doesn't know about it, despite his numerous critics, specialists in the fields he dabbles in, flashing it up at him.

Specifically:
His positions on the link between intelligence and genetics (culminating in the idea that the Ashkenazi jewish population have a genetic advantage for "intelligence") are morally suspect and, more importantly, built on chimeric conceptual foundations, not to mention a field of biology which is still far from fully understood.

The overall position he defends in Enlightenment Now and The Better Angels of our Nature, that things today are better than they've ever been which means that we're progressing in the "right" direction, is the result of a nimble dance between large-scale historical myopia, on the one hand, and a skewed microscope lens view of recent global development, on the other. Below, there's a brief video of Chomsky responding to one point of that, and elsewhere his use of only one highly, highly controversial data measure of global poverty as "proof" that poverty is declining is again evidence of his "hack" approach to "scientific" reasoning. I can't interpret the bottomline as anything other than apologetics for the globalization of Western liberal capitalism and democracy, a sort of update and spin-off to Fukuyama's infamous The End of History and the Last Man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0n4dbHbdA

Edit: As for whether Harvard employs hacks, his strictly academic early work in psycholinguistics is serious stuff. He is a hack today in the same way that Dawkins, the brilliant former evolutionary biologist and ethologist, is a hack today.

#43 July 06, 2019, 02:10:40 PM Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 02:22:30 PM by Eoin McLove
Having absolutely no scientific background I can hardly argue either point but is it not likely the case that he has studied the data,  made a conclusion- perhaps influenced to a greater or lesser degree in favour of his own tendency towards technology as our hope for a solution rather than a smashing of the machines and a return to the fields- decided that this is the best course of action and presented the data that backs up his conclusion?

At some point even a scientist must weight up the data and deliver some sort of answer. If the book was 450 pages of graphs nobody would buy it and the argument would not get made.

I am torn between both approaches to the environmental question as the romantic part of my brain envisions a(n unrealistic?) bucolic future for society but the pragmatic part of my brain realises how miserable life would be without electricity and other modern conveniences.  Doomsaying is very 'in' (whoever came up with the title of this thread really needs to cool the jets) but it isn't the most inspiring rallying cry.  If there is a path to a better future for our planet that includes all the benefits of modern science and technology then it is likely to be a much more appealing call to arms.

What's your take on nuclear power,  out of interest? He is an advocate and George Monbiot is a recent convert, too- a greener green you'd be hard pressed to find.  I'd have been in the sceptic camp until reading what these dudes say on the matter but now I'm not so sure.  My lingering concern is how to cleanly and effectively deal with the waste.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on July 06, 2019, 02:10:40 PM
Having absolutely no scientific background I can hardly argue either point but is it not likely the case that he has studied the data,  made a conclusion- perhaps influenced to a greater or lesser degree in favour of his own tendency towards technology as our hope for a solution rather than a smashing of the machines and a return to the fields- and decided that this is the best course of action? I am torn between both approaches as the romantic part of my brain envisions a(n unrealistic?) bucolic future for society but the pragmatic part of my brain realises how miserable life would be without electricity and other modern conveniences.  Doomsaying is very 'in' (whoever came up with the title of this thread really needs to cool the jets) but it isn't the most inspiring rallying cry.  If there is a path to a better future for our planet that includes all the benefits of modern science and technology then it is likely to be a much more appealing call to arms.

I'm neither a Luddite nor a Rousseauist (return to a bucolic existence). I'm saying that Pinker uses the data to promote a politico-economic vision of the modern world which I'm very much opposed to. There's no reason to believe the baby of technology has to be thrown out with the bathwater of neo-liberalism. In fact, I'm quite convinced there's a genetic fallacy in claiming that we have that technology only "thanks to" modern capitalism, a genetic fallacy in the sense that because technological progress was made in parallel to the rise of modern capitalism therefore modern capitalism must be the reason for it. I think that in a wholly social democratic western world (a term I take from the American pragmatists rather than Bernie Sanders  ;) ), we could have made better, more experientially enriching technological progress. Of course, there's no way of proving this, it's just a counter-factual to argue against the idea of "capitalism therefore technological progress". But Pinker is very much in the latter camp, as far as I can see, especially hammered home by his reasoning on poverty.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on July 06, 2019, 02:10:40 PMWhat's your take on nuclear power,  out of interest? He is an advocate and George Monbiot outta a recent convert- a greener green you'd be pressed to find.  I'd have been in the sceptic camp until reading what these dudes say on the matter but now I'm not so sure.  My lingering concern is how to cleanly and effectively deal with the waste.

I know that a lot of very knowledgeable people are in favour of it, and presumably others who are against it, but I don't know enough about it one way or the other to say anything more than, "Safety first!"