I have two problems with Noam Chomsky: the first is that he never makes any prediction that can be objectively tested. For example, imagine he said something l

I have two problems with Noam Chomsky: the first is that he never makes any prediction that can be objectively tested. For example, imagine he said something like, "Over the next 4 years there is a 90% chance that the IPCC estimate for world carbon emissions in 2050 will increase by at least 20%". That is a concrete statement. We can test it. We can write down the current IPCC estimate for world carbon emissions in 2050 and do it again in 4 year's time, and see if it really has gone up 20%. Over time we could see if things he labels "90% chance" actually do occur 90% of the time, and thereby objectively assess Chomsky's judgement about future events. But instead he uses lazy rhetoric such as, "driving toward a cliff" or "most dangerous organisation in history", which does nothing to change the minds of people who don't already agree with his world view. The second problem is that he gives zero weight to arguments that go against his position. Yes, it's true that over the last 50 years workers have lost job security. But what about the broad benefits workers have received: cars and planes that are cheaper and crash less often; a flat-screen colour TV with 30 channels you can buy with a day's wage; the internet; mobile phones; less lead in the atmosphere; less chance of nuclear war; less chance of dying in the Iraq war than in the Vietnam or Korean wars; better health care. On these benefits Chomsky is silent. And it's not just in hindsight where Chomsky wears blinkers: if battery and solar power continues to develop at its current rate, no coal power stations or petrol vehicles will be built after 2030. On this enormous benefit Chomsky is again silent.