I have watched Craven’s “Most Terrifying Video” and found it rather…anti-climactic 8-)He’s basically saying is that we should refer to scientific authorities. Yuck…is THAT it?
“Undeniable”???
Something I haven’t seen yet is an understanding that risk management cannot be seriously done if one of the “four boxes” is so heavily catastrophist, whilst the consequences of action are disregarded as minimal and confined to economics alone.
Somebody please google about “Bufo marinus”…
The tragedy is that we’ve been this way before, many times, and scientist-advocates have already brought us disasters around their pet ideas. Eugenics, and the Bufo Marinus.
I say, I am catastrophist myself, and if the human race decides to waste all resources in fighting the AGW fake monster, it’s going to be “amen” and “r.i.p.” to all of us
Tags: AGW, Bufo Marinus, catastrophism, climate change, Eugenics, Greg Craven, Most Terrifying Video, risk management
Omnologos - Comments 
January 27, 2008 at 5:42 am |
Seriously? Your response to Craven’s video is ‘Bufo Marinus’?
1. “Something I haven’t seen yet is an understanding that risk management cannot be seriously done if one of the “four boxes” is so heavily catastrophist, whilst the consequences of action are disregarded as minimal and confined to economics alone.”
Are you willing to expand on the omitted consequences you’re referring to? If so, would they alter the risk calculus Craven sets up?
2. Any good catastrophist would be too paralyzed with fear to post on a blog, let alone suggest we avoid ‘wasting resources’ to address the most scientifically grounded and credible threat we as a species face. The terrors visited on us by science…indeed, penicillin, agricultural advances and more free and democratic societies resulting from increased levels of education are all horrific monsters of this scary new ‘scientific’ world. See you in the cave!
January 27, 2008 at 9:03 am |
You’re right, wesley, it would deserve more time to comment. For the time being please look at this link.
As for the catastrophism, I should have put the “sarcasm” tag
April 19, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
Hi, and sorry for being over a year late with this comment, but I was out for lunch.
I think everyone should look at where they want to be in 50 years time – I say 50 but it could be any number relating to your long term future. So if you’re 65, let’s call it 10 years.
The vast majority of people look to the future and want it to be better – ok, some retrogrades want us all to go back to live in caves, a few just think everything should stay as it is, but most want an improvement, generally speaking with cool technical stuff and more leisure time.
Now climate change aside, the human race is running on empty – basically we’ve shagged the planet even before we look at the climate change debate. Look at desertification, fisheries collasping, soil erosion, deforestation, marine dead zones, coral bleaching, loss of biodiversity, loss of genetic agricultural diversity etc etc. You can be skeptical about that too if you like, but you would even more out on a limb.
So, my conclusion is that the steps to become ‘sustainable’ as a civilisation (i.e. one that is not going to crock itself) are the same steps we would all recommend after deciding where we want to be in 50 years. Or 10. And they are the same steps we would take to solve the climate change issue, more or less.
Sure it’s change and lots of people are naturally averse to it, but change happens all the time anyway, so let’s just get on with it and get it done. Once we’re on that road it’ll seem entirely normal. It’s just the paradigm shift that unfortunately gets people’s backs up.