Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2936
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by robertk » Sat May 26, 2018 1:59 am

Brilliant series of posts Luewenhook.

pulga
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by pulga » Sat May 26, 2018 3:06 am


User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Sat May 26, 2018 6:16 am

pulga wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 3:06 am
Hydroelectricity isn't without controversy, at least in the Western United States.

A Catch 22 Is Ensnaring Hydroelectricity And Salmon In The Northwest

Removal of Klamath Dams Would Be Largest River Restoration in U.S. History
Here, too.
But every power source has its drawbacks, its adverse impacts, and each one needs a balanced appraisal - and hindsight is a great help in this. :thinking:
When we went mad for coal power, we had no idea that global warming was a possible outcome. When we went mad for dams, we didn't count the costs to the natural environment. When we went mad for nuclear power, we assumed that we would find a solution to the waste storage problem.
Now, of course, we're going mad for wind and solar. They appear to have fewer potential problems than fossil fuels or nuclear power but we really haven't lived with them for long enough to see all the consequences.
The best solution to our power needs, of course, is demand reduction.

:namaste:
Kim

pulga
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by pulga » Sat May 26, 2018 6:58 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:16 am

The best solution to our power needs, of course, is demand reduction.
I fully concur with you on that point.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Sat May 26, 2018 10:37 am


User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat May 26, 2018 11:29 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 10:37 am
You wanted data ...
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
Who wanted this data?
What is this data for?

IMO what readers want is information. It takes attention, mindful and diligent practice to turn data into useful information.

Ironic that ad hominem arguments, snark and innuendo directed against others followed by a series of unsupported claims in one post -- including claims that others are boring and cherry pick -- is followed by dumping a entire report in the laps of the readers with only cryptic comments (3 words!) about relevance. Well ... we certainty can't say that anyone cherry picked this amorphous blog of data.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sat May 26, 2018 12:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat May 26, 2018 12:12 pm

pulga wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 3:06 am
Hydroelectricity isn't without controversy, at least in the Western United States.
A Catch 22 Is Ensnaring Hydroelectricity And Salmon In The Northwest
Removal of Klamath Dams Would Be Largest River Restoration in U.S. History
I think many/most lovers of nature and environmentalists have a love/hate relationship with hydro-electrical power. There are many who wish most of them had not been built and see the extra power as just encouraging bad behavior.

For some the existence of dams is seen as a greater threat than global warming. Or that somehow wind and solar power alone (less hydro) plus energy use reduction alone will take care of climate change. A counter-productive strategy for a climate change mitigation campaign by one analysis. In the US I think the re-elect Donald Trump movement will silently give up prayers of thanks for such thinking.

The existence of large scale man-made works in and of itself is an affront to some people's sense of self.
:yingyang: But not to be too superior here. There are other behaviors that I experience as an affront -- but I, course, consider my stuff to be on a more advanced level! :pig:
------------------------------------------------
Itiapu dam provides nearly all of Paraguay's power and a big chunk for Brazil.
The world's largest waterfall by volume, the Guaíra Falls, was drowned by the newly formed Itaipu reservoir. The Brazilian government liquidated the Guaíra Falls National Park, and dynamited the submerged rock face where the falls had been, facilitating safer navigation, thus eliminating the possibility of restoring the falls in the future. A few months before the reservoir was filled, 80 people died when an overcrowded bridge overlooking the falls collapsed, as tourists sought a last glimpse of the falls.

The Guaíra Falls was an effective barrier that separated freshwater species in the upper Paraná basin (with its many endemics) from species found below it, and the two are recognized as different ecoregions. After the falls disappeared, many species formerly restricted to one of these areas have been able to invade the other, causing problems typically associated with introduced species. For example, more than 30 fish species that formerly were restricted to the region below the falls have been able to invade the region above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Sat May 26, 2018 12:28 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 11:29 am
Kim OHara wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 10:37 am
You wanted data ...
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
Ironic that ad hominem arguments, snark and innuendo directed against others followed by a series of unsupported claims in one post -- including claims that others are boring and cherry pick -- is followed by dumping a entire report in the laps of the readers with only cryptic comments (3 words!) about relevance. Well ... we certainty can't say that anyone cherry picked this amorphous blog of data.
Please have the courage to name names, Leeuw2. Without them all you you are doing is what you decry: snark and innuendo.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Marine invertebrate migrations trace climate change over 450 million years

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 27, 2018 2:55 am

The natural history of the earth has long been a study of climate change. That is also true for anthropology, archaeology and history. Awareness of the impact of changes of climate has been a part of these fields for 100 years and more.
Traces of responses to past climate change can give us an indication of what to expect in the future.

Marine invertebrate migrations trace climate change over 450 million years
2018
Researchers at Geozentrum Nordbayern at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) have now discovered that marine animals have been migrating for millions of years when the temperature on Earth increases or decreases.

Most living organisms have settled into ecological niches, and one of the decisive factors in their choice of habitat is a certain temperature . Marine animals such as tropical species need warmer water for their metabolism; animals that depend on a higher oxygen content require colder water. They therefore migrate either toward the poles or the equator as soon as the temperature changes, and have been doing so for millions of years. "Whilst the climate appears to be changing more rapidly today than ever before, the climate also changed rapidly in the past, forcing organisms to migrate in order to survive. Adaptation tended to be the exception," says Prof. Wolfgang Kießling, Chair of Palaeoenvironmental Research.

By investigating fossils, Prof. Kießling and Dr. Carl Reddin, who is also at GeoZentrum Nordbayern, have shown that coral, molluscs and sponges have been following their preferred cold and warm zones for a half-billion years. Isotherms (geographic lines denoting the same temperature, for example 20 degrees C) shift toward the poles or the equator as soon as the global temperature rises or decreases. Isotherms have been shifting toward the poles for several years due to global warming.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-marine-an ... years.html
Quote from the paper
Major taxa studied
Well‐fossilized marine benthic invertebrates comprising stony corals, bivalves, gastropods, brachiopods, trilobites and calcifying sponges.

Methods
We track deviations in the latitudinal distribution of range centres of age boundary crossing taxa from the expected distribution, and compare responses across latitudes. We build deviation time series, spanning hundreds of million years, from fossil occurrences and test correlations with seawater temperature estimates derived from stable oxygen isotopes of fossils.

Results
... climate is capable of explaining nearly a third of the variance in ancient latitudinal range shifts.

Main conclusions
Latitudinal range shifts occurred in concert with climate change throughout the post‐Cambrian Phanerozoic. Low latitude taxa show the clearest climate‐migration signal through time, corroborating predictions of their shift in a warming future.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /geb.12732
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note on Reading Science Papers and Press Releases
Reports often mix research findings with theory and predictions. They are not the same thing and should not be given equal weight.
A phrase such "it is thought that there will be a ..." is a prediction for the future based on theory. Such phrases most often occur in concluding comments but also sometimes in introductions or endings of sections. They also often occur more often in press releases which are not peer reviewed and are typically not read and approved by the scientists quoted.
It's easy (I know because I've done it often enough) to remember the theory and predictions discussed in the conclusions right alongside the more objective findings of the research.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Marine invertebrate migrations trace climate change over 450 million years

Post by Kim OHara » Sun May 27, 2018 3:31 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 2:55 am
The natural history of the earth has long been a study of climate change. That is also true for anthropology, archaeology and history. Awareness of the impact of changes of climate has been a part of these fields for 100 years and more.
Traces of responses to past climate change can give us an indication of what to expect in the future.

Marine invertebrate migrations trace climate change over 450 million years
2018
Researchers at Geozentrum Nordbayern at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) have now discovered that marine animals have been migrating for millions of years when the temperature on Earth increases or decreases.

Most living organisms have settled into ecological niches, and one of the decisive factors in their choice of habitat is a certain temperature . Marine animals such as tropical species need warmer water for their metabolism; animals that depend on a higher oxygen content require colder ... Isotherms have been shifting toward the poles for several years due to global warming.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-marine-an ... years.html
Quote from the paper
Major taxa studied
Well‐fossilized marine benthic invertebrates comprising stony corals, bivalves, gastropods, brachiopods, trilobites and calcifying sponges.

...
Results
... climate is capable of explaining nearly a third of the variance in ancient latitudinal range shifts.

Main conclusions
Latitudinal range shifts occurred in concert with climate change throughout the post‐Cambrian Phanerozoic. Low latitude taxa show the clearest climate‐migration signal through time, corroborating predictions of their shift in a warming future.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /geb.12732
All true, I'm sure, but of very little relevance to AGW because the current rate of change is so much greater than anything seen in the fossil record - events such as the giant meteor impact http://www.chicxulubcrater.org excepted.
And they precipitated mass extinction events. :thinking:
Note on Reading Science Papers and Press Releases
Reports often mix research findings with theory and predictions. They are not the same thing and should not be given equal weight.
A phrase such "it is thought that there will be a ..." is a prediction for the future based on theory. Such phrases most often occur in concluding comments but also sometimes in introductions or endings of sections. They also often occur more often in press releases which are not peer reviewed and are typically not read and approved by the scientists quoted.
It's easy (I know because I've done it often enough) to remember the theory and predictions discussed in the conclusions right alongside the more objective findings of the research.
True, too, but it's easy enough to remember which is which and give them appropriate weight. I trust my readers to do so, in fact, when I post links and extracts here, as I so often do. All I'm doing, usually, is alerting people to news so that they can follow it up for themselves if they wish.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Marine invertebrate migrations trace climate change over 450 million years

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 27, 2018 5:00 am

The quote below is another example of mixing research findings with theory and predictions. They are not the same thing and should not be given equal weight.

In in response to an paper on fossil marine benthic invertebrates
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 3:31 am
All true, I'm sure, but of very little relevance to AGW because the current rate of change is so much greater than anything seen in the fossil record - events such as the giant meteor impact http://www.chicxulubcrater.org excepted.
And they precipitated mass extinction events. :thinking:
The quote assumes without evidence presented that "the current rate of change is much greater than anything seen in the fossil record".
It also Makes a prediction that marine invertebrates won't be able to respond by migrating rapidly enough.

One of the things I enjoy about science is that it bursts the bubble of "things that just everybody knows are true".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_bet
----------------------------------------------------------
As a general observation nature quite often surprises pessimistic biologists with it's resiliency.

Working from memory here -- In paleoclimatology the the resolution of many ocean temperature proxies are often on the scale of 120 years or more.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Electric Subsidies vs. Electricity Produced

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 27, 2018 5:41 am

Image

In the USA the state of New Jersey’s recently passed legislation to prevent the premature closure of the state’s nuclear plants. That's a victory for climate change action in my book. The legislation put subsidies on electricity generated by nuclear, solar and off-shore wind with solar getting 18 to 28 times more in subsidies for solar energy than will be received by nuclear plants. Companies that install solar panels were among the groups lobbying for the solar subsidy.

Image

-- http://environmentalprogress.org/big-ne ... or-nuclear

I'm not opposed to other forms of renewable power but it's clear from the numbers that nuclear is doing most of the zero-carbon work at a fraction of the subsidy.
WORLDWIDE:
Image
Global declines in the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear (-7%) has not been made up by growth in wind and solar (+4.5).

In the USA:
Image
-- http://environmentalprogress.org/global-overview/

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Electric Subsidies vs. Electricity Produced

Post by Kim OHara » Sun May 27, 2018 11:42 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 5:41 am
[img]... In the USA the state of New Jersey’s recently passed legislation to prevent the premature closure of the state’s nuclear plants. That's a victory for climate change action in my book. The legislation put subsidies on electricity generated by nuclear, solar and off-shore wind with solar getting 18 to 28 times more in subsidies for solar energy than will be received by nuclear plants. Companies that install solar panels were among the groups lobbying for the solar subsidy....
-- http://environmentalprogress.org/global-overview/
I looked up the website from which Leeuw2 took all the information in this post, and I'm simply going to quote a couple of paragraphs from it and, as usual, rely on my readers to decide how much faith they want to put in the site and, I guess, Leeuw2.
Founder & President

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment" and Green Book Award-winning author and policy expert.
As Founder and President of Environmental Progress, Michael led the grassroots environmental effort to save nuclear power plants in Illinois and New York, which prevented an increase in emissions equivalent to adding 5.7 million cars to the road.
Michael is a leading pro-nuclear environmentalist. ...
http://environmentalprogress.org/founder-president/
Energy and the Environment

Why do we need nuclear?

Isn't clean energy on the rise?

But isn't clean energy increasing in absolute terms?

Aren't you making a big deal of just a 4.5 percent decline? Isn't the trend flat?

But don't Germany and California show you can reduce emissions by deploying a lot of solar and wind?

Does the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say nuclear is needed?

Why do we need nuclear?

The truth about nuclear is quite simple. Only nuclear power can lift all humans out of poverty without cooking the planet, or keeping cities like Delhi and Beijing caked in deadly particulate matter. Coal and fossil fuels can lift people out of poverty but at a high environmental cost. ...
http://environmentalprogress.org/energy ... vironment/

:popcorn:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Electric Subsidies vs. Electricity Produced

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 27, 2018 2:57 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 11:42 am
I looked up the website from which Leeuw2 took all the information in this post, and I'm simply going to quote a couple of paragraphs from it and, as usual, rely on my readers to decide how much faith they want to put in the site and, I guess, Leeuw2.
QUESTION:
1) What is it in the paragraphs cited would help readers "decide how much faith they want to put in the site and, I guess, Leeuw2"?

2) The paragraphs you cite include a number of references to nuclear power. Are you aware of the modest consensus on nuclear power among climate scientists and US scientists in general?

RECOMMENDATION TO READERS:
The trope Kim used generally implies a criticism. If readers have doubts I suggest checking out the bios of Environmental Progress's Science & Economy Advisors -- http://environmentalprogress.org/advisors/

In any case, a feature of science and of a society that holds values of intellectual integrity is that we can disagree with someone's conclusions about the social, economic and political implications without discarding their scientific, social or economic data.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Consensus divides Environmentalist on Climate Change & Nuclear Energy

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 27, 2018 3:50 pm

As a general observation I'd say that everybody has some issue about which they might be called a "science denier". (On a podcast I'd process that phrase with ominous echo effects.) As a corollary (nearly) everyone who invokes scientific consensus tends to ignore at lease one inconvenient one.
(There's an idea for a documentary ... "Inconvenient Consensus". Oh? Already taken? Sorry.)
---------------------------------
These articles reflect my understanding of the consensus about using nuclear energy for climate mitigation.
Denialism and the ‘Scientific Consensus’: Naomi Oreskes’ Attacks on Nuclear Energy and GMOs Expose Deep Divide Among Environmentalists
Climate change scientists and journalists are still boiling over Naomi Oreskes’ denialism accusation.
... In the wake of the global Paris summit in December, the Harvard historian [ Naomi Oreskes] wrote an article for The Guardian in which she chastised four eminent scientists, including former NASA chief scientist James Hanson, for being “climate denialists.”
--http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... yet-cop-21

Why? Because, she said, they drew public attention to the consensus science view on nuclear power—that it could play a key role as a green alternative to fossil fuels because of the still limited potential of alternative energy—a perspective heretical to old school environmentalists.

“There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs,” she wrote.
It was a catalyzing moment, for it drew a unique line in the sand, dramatizing a critical divide in the climate change movement and a sharp split in the environmental community on a host of issues.
It’s like liberals attacking Bernie Sanders for not being liberal enough,” noted scientist James Conca, writing for Forbes.

On one side are what are often being called the ecomodernists—liberal scientists and activists like Hansen and philanthropist Bill Gates who put pragmatism and cost-benefit analysis ahead of ideology. Pushing back are old school environmentalists—Naomi Oreskes, Jim Green, Alan Jeffery and Paul Ehrlich, among others, who are deeply suspicious of the role of modern technology to address environmental challenges such as climate change; new energy extraction techniques such as fracking; or global food security—the GMO debate.
old school environmentalists ... are deeply suspicious of the role of modern technology to address environmental challenges such as climate change
... Is Naomi Oreskes, science historian at Harvard University and ardent supporter of the science of climate change, a visionary as her supporters claim?
Or, as a growing number of critics maintain, is she a populist Luddite, the intellectual Rottweiler of in-your-face, environmentalism, unduly wary of modern technology, and whose activist policies are crippling environmental reforms?

But what happens when the views of the geekers and the mainstream liberal environmental community diverge? When that happened with Ehrlich, he abandoned the hard science and instead embraced political activism, empirical evidence be damned, and we know how that turned out.
As for Oreskes, let’s assess her views on two issues beyond the climate change debate in which there are clear examples of a scientific consensus: agricultural biotechnology—the debate over so-called GMOs; and nuclear energy.

Some 65% of AAAS scientists favor building more nuclear power plants—a clear though not overwhelming consilience. [AAAS = American Association for the Advancement of Science] Why? Because nuclear power generates green energy and does not rely on fossil fuels. A group of scientists, journalists and policy wonks calling themselves eco-modernists, have laid out a green case for nuclear energy in numerous forums. “Nuclear fission today represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy,” the group declared in what has come to be known as “An Ecomodernist Manifesto“. --http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english/

Ecomodernists—liberal thinkers who embrace, within limits, the positive role of technology in solving intractable environmental challenges—are the intellectual antagonists of Oreskes, who carries into the culture wars the 1960 and ‘70s environmental movement’s suspicion of technologically-based solutions.
-- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-enti ... 11688.html
Those are key points of the article.
A internet search also found this piece which gives additional information about specific climate scientists and prominent Democratic policymakers who support nuclear power.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... 3a55872ef5

-----------------------------------------------
QUESTIONS TO READERS:
In light of this consensus on nuclear power among climate scientists and others as well as the story about the divide among environmentalists:
  • Were you aware of this consensus on nuclear power? Not at all? A little? Somewhat? Yes, aware?
  • Refering to the consensus on nuclear power among climate To the best of your recollection, in your reading or listening how often is this topic mentioned?
  • From Buddhist leaders or advocacy groups that you are aware of -- has this topic been explained? A little? Never, to your recollection?
---------------------------------------------------------


The article also examines Oreskes for inconsistency with consensus on GMO's.
Unwrapping Oreskes on food, farming and GMOs
The consensus view on GMOs is even stronger than on global warming: 88% say GMO foods are no less safe than conventionally bred or organically grown varieties—a position endorsed by some 270 organizations around the world, from the National Academy of Sciences to the Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities to Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ ... sensus.pdf

So where does Professor Oreskes, champion of the scientific consensus, come down on these issues?

Oreskes: Consensus schmensus. Forgetaboutit. I was just kidding.

When asked during an interview on climate change whether she would embrace the consensus endorsing GMO food safety and the role it could play, along with nuclear energy, to help address the climate change challenge—Oreskes twisted herself into an academic pretzel, suddenly questioning the validity of consensus thinking:
I think to jump to the conclusion that the solution is nuclear power or genetically modified crops is, let’s just say, not supported by the evidence. ... One of the things we know about technology is that it’s almost always a two-edged sword. It does some things for us very well but it often creates other different problems.
Oreskes’ defensive response is odd. No one has suggested that “the solution” to any challenge is nuclear power or GM crops. No serious person believes in Oreskes’ strawman argument that technological solutions like GMO based farming (higher yields, lower chemical inputs, no and low till farming to reduce carbon emissions, reduction in the use of methane-creating cows) will reduce all carbon emissions and usher in a golden ecological age. But GM crops and nuclear power provide demonstrated sustainability benefits that even Oreskes can’t pretend to ignore.

Can nuclear energy and GMOs be tools for use by progressive problem solvers? The consensus is overwhelmingly “yes.”

As Emil Karlsson, a Swedish science editor of the respected Debunking Denialism blog, has noted, numerous studies have shown the positive climate change impact of GM-based farming, estimated to be equivalent to taking 12 million cars off the road each year. (Lemaux, 2009; Ronald, 2011; Brookes, 2014; Barfoot and Brookes, 2014).

Oreskes’ blanket dismissal of crop biotechnology because of fears of potential collateral consequences—without detailing any actual reality-based dangers—is a classic tactic wielded by anti-modernists, from Ehrlich to Friends of the Earth and Center for Food Safety.

“A rational analysis has to involve a consideration of the benefits and risks, without fear mongering about the risks or undefined ‘damages’,” Karlsson wrote. “Naive applications of the precautionary principle simply will not cut it.”

The fact is that the “solution” to any prickly problem involves trade-offs—even and especially alternative energy, such as wind, sun and water power, as preferred or exclusive ways to address global warming. Many independent minded sustainability experts are critical of hydro-based energy because it results in destroying rivers to create dams; wind power has that annoying problem of chopping up birds; the sun is great, when it shines, which happens in the desert, but not so great in most of the world where the energy-sucking population centers exist; the list of precautionary trade-offs is endless.

Critical thinkers engage in cost-benefit analysis; they don’t just dismiss innovative technologies. Oreskes’ views read very much like Ehrlich’s views in the 1960s, which rejected the emerging consensus that technology could help address global hunger issues. Their antipathy toward technology echoes the views of early nineteenth century Luddites, who fancied themselves as ‘progressives’ while they fought against the the early industrial revolution in Europe.
-- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-enti ... 11688.html
-------------

ASIDE: Interesting the dynamics of exchanges of diverse opinions. First is the value of institutionalized disconfirmation.
http://www.organizingcreativity.com/201 ... versities/
Second, is that if we are open, even troll-like responses can stimulate thought and awareness of a topic that might need further exploration.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests