I don't know how to react to that except with contempt and disgust. — Srap Tasmaner
the same mud-slinging Olivier started — Isaac
Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix
Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too. — Olivier5
I don't know how to react to that except with contempt and disgust. — Srap Tasmaner
Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too.
— Olivier5
Because you say so or because this is your dream? — I like sushi
You do understand that the targets already in place are just pointless political posturing without any real intent other than to quell the masses? — I like sushi
capitalism will save us — I like sushi
Our brains are just not currently constructed to deal with the kind of scales we are grasping at. — I like sushi
I find the idea that more GG emissions would be desirable to mitigate climate change a bit counter-intuitive. — Olivier5
There's no reason to assume as you do that future research findings will save us from an increasingly aggressive climate. — Olivier5
There is no kind of blind assumption that population growth decreases with wealth. This happens everywhere. The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases — I like sushi
Talk of 'the end of research' is the kind of hysteria I mean btw ;) — I like sushi
The biggest issue we seem to have is our inability to abstract exponential growth. — I like sushi
working in psychology, we responded to the replication crisis quite well I think — Isaac
That is likely because you know you can do the same without knowing and probably have. — I like sushi
Most GG gas emissions are from China, the US and Europe that have already went through their demographic transition. — Olivier5
The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases — I like sushi
African countries who ARE currently undergoing rapid growth, consume a minute fraction of global fossil fuels production. — Olivier5
I'm saying we want more consumption in poorer regions. Severe poverty barely exists in western countries anymore and China has literally gone from mass poverty to almost none overnight. Hopefully Africa will do the same too BUT this means more energy consumption. — I like sushi
If (as Janus said) population increase is the main concern then decrease poverty curbs this dramatically — I like sushi
Personally I'm more concerned with the destruction of natural habitats but that has more to do with poverty than carbon emissions so my bias lies there more than anywhere thinking about it. — I like sushi
Is your argument that the health services in several major countries, the Lancet and the BMJ are touting a theory which is on a par with UFOs? — Isaac
That they now can is new technology. — Isaac
So why mention "newness" if you agree they're safe and effective?
— Xtrix
Come on! It's you that keeps insisting that the word 'safe' doesn't mean 'without risk'. — Isaac
We can at least SEE the effect of a halting economy on a global scale and have a better idea of the kind of impact it would have ... although the fallout for the poorest will probably not be appreciated fully for a generation or two yet. — I like sushi
Big changes have to come from the top, forced by people. — Manuel
Undoubtedly humanity has the potential to do almost everything we can imagine. We just don't tend to agree about how to go about it though or what is most important — I like sushi
We've waited for too long now. — Olivier5
I guess you lump Hans Rosling in with him too because he isn't a climatologist? — I like sushi
I've heard BOTH of these people say that climate change is a prominent risk. It is others who spin it as 'overly optimistic' or 'climate denial'. — I like sushi
Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg's book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.
To answer these questions, UCS invited several of the world's leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg's book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg's skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science – namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review.
These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg's book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick's words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".
These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Correcting the misperceptions these works foster is an essential task, for, as noted above, groups with anti-environmental agendas use these works to promote their objectives. It is also an unfortunate, time-consuming distraction, for it pulls talented scientists away from the pressing research needed to help us understand the environmental challenges we face and their prospective solutions.
I listen to what people say I don't just dismiss everyone as a lunatic even if I think they are WAY off mark. — I like sushi
I don't believe the best way to do so is to act arrogantly or look down on others — I like sushi
I don't wish to sound patronising here but I need to highlight this. This is the typical attitude of western living. In the parts of the world that matter people cannot CHOOSE between private and public transportation because they reside in countries that are too poor to accommodate this option. — I like sushi
Indeed, something you should try every now and then.
— baker
:lol:
Coming from you, this is hilarious. — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.