Doesn't appeal to me. Precisely the sort of alarmist propaganda environmentalists around the world are using. Intentions, however noble and good, can do harm when they have the effect of spreading misinformation. Have you read this? I specifically liked the reference to horse-crap and how experts thought it would be a major problem for cities of the future.
I'd recommend reading realclimate. Climate crisis is a consensus arrived at by thousands of scientists who are immensely more credible than a writer of fiction who masquerades as a leading climatologist (why politicians bed with him is no secret). Not that I suggest you should take scientists's word for it. But, as non-experts we should be careful on who we pick for guidance.
You have a point, but let's not get into WHO made that speech. I feel that's grounds for bias. Here are some points I'd like to make.
Environmentalism is today both a scientific as well as a social movement. Not long ago was another such movement, the one based on Eugenics. Eugenics warned of a major impending disaster, and postulated solutions. Eugenics was backed by influential people, like celebrities, literary figures, politicians, Nobel Prize winners, and indeed, MANY eminent scientists, Alexander Graham Bell, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford being just a few of them.
Several prestigious institutions of repute performed Eugenics 'research', and backed the movement: Carnegie, Rockefeller Foundation, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association, National Research Council... (the list is quite long)
Laws were passed to handle the crisis. And public outcry was in favour of the movement. Critics were all just reactionary. Today, of course, we know that Eugenics was a whole lot of bullshit. We call Hitler a psychotic madman, and don't think of him as a man who tried to save the world and humanity.
Consesus does not signify fact.
I'm NOT stating that all environmental concerns are invalid, but just that many are greatly exaggerated. There are major problems with environmentalism today. The biggest problem is that the media never presents/discusses/reports anything but sensational news - and even that news is often disinformation and misinformation.
The second is that as the inevitable result of 'taking the movement to the people', environmentalism has become a fad, and most of those who profess it have no real idea of the science involved, and go about doing more harm than good with their half-baked knowledge. Their intentions may be really noble, but the effects of half-knowledge are dangerous.
Believe me, I've spent a lot of time interacting with several 'environmentalists' and 'activisits' and I was shocked at how so few of them were knowledgeable about the 'issues' they were so passionate about. What's worse, many of them refused to change their opinion even after being presented with information that would rationally require them to do so. In other words, they were just sticking to what they'd grown up to believe. This is characteristic of a religion, not a science. So it wouldn't be wrong to say many of them are zealots.
Third, environmentalism is being increasingly used as a political tool, especially in the west, and in developed countries. Developed countries, which achieved rapid industrialization at a time when environmental concerns were unheard of, today point fingers at developing countries, and try impose regulations that will effectively curb industrial and economic growth. Once anything enters the realm of politics, you can be sure there's a whole lot of half-truths and full-lies in that propaganda.
All these things considered, I tend to take all doomsday prophecies with some lumps of salt.
Doesn't appeal to me. Precisely the sort of alarmist propaganda environmentalists around the world are using. Intentions, however noble and good, can do harm when they have the effect of spreading misinformation. Have you read this? I specifically liked the reference to horse-crap and how experts thought it would be a major problem for cities of the future.
Now, now. That's just mean to the Penguins.
I'd recommend reading realclimate. Climate crisis is a consensus arrived at by thousands of scientists who are immensely more credible than a writer of fiction who masquerades as a leading climatologist (why politicians bed with him is no secret). Not that I suggest you should take scientists's word for it. But, as non-experts we should be careful on who we pick for guidance.
See this. Choose a link that appeals to you.
Try the link below for specific pointers addressing the speech he made. http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/34225
You have a point, but let's not get into WHO made that speech. I feel that's grounds for bias. Here are some points I'd like to make.
Environmentalism is today both a scientific as well as a social movement. Not long ago was another such movement, the one based on Eugenics. Eugenics warned of a major impending disaster, and postulated solutions. Eugenics was backed by influential people, like celebrities, literary figures, politicians, Nobel Prize winners, and indeed, MANY eminent scientists, Alexander Graham Bell, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford being just a few of them.
Several prestigious institutions of repute performed Eugenics 'research', and backed the movement: Carnegie, Rockefeller Foundation, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association, National Research Council... (the list is quite long)
Laws were passed to handle the crisis. And public outcry was in favour of the movement. Critics were all just reactionary. Today, of course, we know that Eugenics was a whole lot of bullshit. We call Hitler a psychotic madman, and don't think of him as a man who tried to save the world and humanity.
Consesus does not signify fact.
I'm NOT stating that all environmental concerns are invalid, but just that many are greatly exaggerated. There are major problems with environmentalism today. The biggest problem is that the media never presents/discusses/reports anything but sensational news - and even that news is often disinformation and misinformation.
The second is that as the inevitable result of 'taking the movement to the people', environmentalism has become a fad, and most of those who profess it have no real idea of the science involved, and go about doing more harm than good with their half-baked knowledge. Their intentions may be really noble, but the effects of half-knowledge are dangerous.
Believe me, I've spent a lot of time interacting with several 'environmentalists' and 'activisits' and I was shocked at how so few of them were knowledgeable about the 'issues' they were so passionate about. What's worse, many of them refused to change their opinion even after being presented with information that would rationally require them to do so. In other words, they were just sticking to what they'd grown up to believe. This is characteristic of a religion, not a science. So it wouldn't be wrong to say many of them are zealots.
Third, environmentalism is being increasingly used as a political tool, especially in the west, and in developed countries. Developed countries, which achieved rapid industrialization at a time when environmental concerns were unheard of, today point fingers at developing countries, and try impose regulations that will effectively curb industrial and economic growth. Once anything enters the realm of politics, you can be sure there's a whole lot of half-truths and full-lies in that propaganda.
All these things considered, I tend to take all doomsday prophecies with some lumps of salt.