4 ms·
I ditched the article after the writer failed to understand the rationale behind the naming of the common scientific behavior known as "positive feedback." Clea
by tmallen 18y ago
I ditched the article after the writer failed to understand the rationale behind the naming of the common scientific behavior known as "positive feedback." Clearly alarmist BS.
- hugh 18y agoI missed that on my first read-through. Yes, that's truly terrible. But if you stopped after that you missed the bit about how great life was in Britain in the period 1938-1944, when we apparently were using less resources, but were happier, and how we need to get that feeling back. update: Also, the article promises that if you want more then there's information available on their website. Unfortunately I can't find anything on their website except two copies of an enormous counter (yup, still 100) and an invitation to spam your friends with their monthly newsletter. Can anyone find it?
- hugh 18y agoI actually found the two-page "Technical note" at: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/sbfxot55p5k3kd454n14zvyy01082008141045.pdf http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/sbfxot55p5k3kd454n14... and it's pretty useless. Lots of talk of parts-per-million, but absolutely no justification of the most important danger-world-in-crisis idea: that there will be a tipping point beyond which change is "irreversible". In summary, I suggest ignoring this article, and the people who wrote it, entirely.
- tmallen 18y agoHe's referring to government rationing and fold-up houses while being bombed by the Axis forces? Yea, people were just loving life back then. I wonder what England's energy expenditures were to drive the military.