Sensationalism is not a firm basis for serious debate or serious action. If anything is going to save the human race, it is technology, but to hear these breathless alarmists talk, they are anti-technology, anti-progress, and apparently want us all to live stacked up in massive cities with no real quality of life at all. I tend to see this as either an exhibition of control-freak tendencies or simply full-on communism. Either way, it sucks.
>>to hear these breathless alarmists talk, they are anti-technology, anti-progress, and apparently want us all to live stacked up in massive cities with no real quality of life at all. I tend to see this as either an exhibition of control-freak tendencies or simply full-on communism.
Where is the second half of the article where, after discussing at length many bad possible outcomes, the guy goes on to propose detailed social engineering schemes to solve the looming planetary crisis??
Either you did not read this article closely, or you are simply trolling. In my opinion, the real ending of the piece was marvelously open-ended. The author concludes by highlighting the irrational , but quintessential human, tendency to see some bright-side to the whole thing-- here are our climate scientists like Hansen and others, that know the most and see of everyone how screwed we are, still maintaining some faith we'll figure it out. And they didn't need 'communism', 'mega city' or some other nebulous concept to help them to that conclusion-- it was/is either habitual, or fantastical.
You're right in that I never made it to the end, it was just that bad. It's like the weekend crap fearmonger articles you get on Zerohedge every weekend, albeit with better graphics. Not trolling.
Do you dispute the accuracy of the statements made in the article, or just that they should be put in writing?
If you believe the article to be filled with lies, you could explain why.
If you just think it's filled with truths that should not be uttered, that seems to me like a rather strange position to take. The goal is to build political will in favor of government action that puts a price on CO2 emissions. Terrifying people about things that are truly terrifying, while not guaranteed to help a whole lot, is at worst not counterproductive. And if you happen to terrify/enlighten/educate the right handful of rich people it might just have a tremendous impact.
To be honest I also at times thought the author's alarmism went a bit far and could have scared off serious readers, but as a general principle I still don't think its valid to critique someone on a basis that is non-existent: e.g., the author at no point explicitly endorsed any of the concepts or ideas you mentioned in the GP comment.
You're applying your feelings where there is well-informed scientific consensus on the matter. It's not sensationalism when the science backs it up. It's too bad you don't like it, but nobody really has anything to indicate the contrary.
