4 ms·

The degree to which environmental orthodoxy brooks no questions (let alone outright dissent) is both scary and unscientific. Cue the torches and pitchforks...

• pmorici 17y ago
  It's the far left's equivalent of the far right's tired line; if you criticize the war strategy, you don't "support the troops". It's ironic that both ends of the spectrum pull the same stunts on their pet issues. It all boils down to fear, the simplest of political power tools. If you can make people sufficiently "afraid" of something you can get them to unquestioningly support things that would be otherwise unthinkable.
  • borism 17y ago
    This is ridiculous. It is about science, not politics. First make a decent scientific point, then make statements like "environmental orthodoxy" or "far left's equivalent". Or maybe there is also a "Newton and Galileo orthodoxy" and Aristotle was right all this time?
    • jacoblyles 17y ago
      1) What changes will occur in the global environment in the future and 2) how we should react to it are separate issues. You will note that (1) is a completely scientific issue, whereas (2) is not. Science can inform the choices we make in response to global warming, but there is no correct scientific answer to how we choose to make the tradeoffs between carbon abatement, economic growth, and etc. What the authors of the book were primarily guilty of was not questioning the scientific orthodoxy about the effects of global warming, but suggesting that carbon abatement was a costly way of addressing global warming compared to alternative remedies. In short, they arrived at the "wrong" political/economic conclusions, where wrong == unpopular.
      • araneae 17y ago
        Right. In order to prevent global warming, we'd have to stop putting carbon into the atmosphere entirely. Otherwise we're just slowing global warming, not stopping it. And that's not going to happen. Aside from that, it's completely unrealistic that we'll even be able to slow it, given that it needs to be done in all nations,and that's just not going to happen. What we need are large scale technological solutions.
        • eru 17y ago
          > In order to prevent global warming, we'd have to stop putting carbon into the atmosphere entirely. There are processes that remove CO_2 from the atmosphere. Take photosynthesis as an example. Animals have exhaled CO_2 as long as they existed. We do not need to stop it. (There may be a point that restricting the output to sensible levels is worthwhile. But the sensible level can be above zero.)
          • araneae 17y ago
            Yes, there are processes that remove CO_2 from the atmosphere. And these only have enough power to compensate for natural outputs of CO_2, like that produced from respiration. When we burn fossilized fuels, we're taking fossilized carbon and putting it into the atmosphere- billions of years worth of the natural process of fossilization reversed nearly instantaneously. In order for that to be compensated for naturally, we'd have to increase fossilization rates. This is impossible. Only a comparative technological solution to increasing fossilization rate (i.e. figuring out how to bury all that atmospheric carbon) will work.
      • borism 17y ago
        Right. But building public policy on how we should react by basing it on pseudo-scientific foundation is casino. You may win, it's just very unlikely.