tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post8215369131966419275..comments2023-04-27T11:21:20.431+02:00Comments on stickman's corral: Review - Extreme Environment (Ivo Vegter)Grant McDermotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-89896273804809656722015-02-24T20:49:38.680+01:002015-02-24T20:49:38.680+01:00"Very balanced view of Rachel Carson."
..."Very balanced view of Rachel Carson."<br /><br />He concludes she was right, then? I hadn't expected that from Vegter.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-44659186814847044692014-03-02T16:31:29.277+01:002014-03-02T16:31:29.277+01:00I really do appreciate people taking the time and ...I really do appreciate people taking the time and effort to comment on this blog. However, this particular comment is just a rambling confusion of non sequiturs and conspiratorial claptrap. I don't even know where to start, so I won't.Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-88323318693659819162014-03-01T18:09:43.164+01:002014-03-01T18:09:43.164+01:00Climate Change is a meaningless description of wha...Climate Change is a meaningless description of what the proponents of it really means. They mean Global Warming caused by the release of global warming gases, CO2, methane, water vapor etc which they claim will cause 1. Global rise in temperatures causing ice caps to melt and sea-levels to rise 2. Increased uncertainty about weather conditions and an increase in storms / too much rain in mostly easter parts of continents and droughts on mostly western parts of continents. The climate CONSTANTLY changes if it didn't life on earth would not have existed the way it does. So why not use the term Global Warming? If Climate Change is the real problem coupled to Global Warming then maybe a longer but still accurate term to be used can be Climate Changed induced by Global Warming.<br /><br />But let's think about a warming globe. The globe was warmer in the past. Especially in the age of dinosaurs. These enormous animals survived because there was more plant material in the food change probably because it rained more and the global temperature was warmer creating more equatorial conditions and moderate climate regions all over the world . It was probably because there was more water in circulation on earth and not iced-up in the pole caps and glaciers. So is global warming really such a big issue? Past warmer conditions was not created by human activity but by solar activity. Colder conditions is also caused by solar conditions but also volcanic activity and possibly by huge meteorite impacts which both create cloudy conditions which keep sunlight away from the earth's surface. The cosmological and solar "climate" is not constant, it goes through cycles just as our planetary climate goes through cycles.<br /><br />Environmental degradation, mostly deforestation of equatorial and boreal forests, as well as pollution of air, water, soil and food chain (plants & animals) is the real problem. CO2 is a natural part of the environment and plants thrive on it. They need it for photosynthesis a process that is the key of life on earth. Without it, virtually no food chain as we know it, would exist.<br /><br />So global warming as such cannot really be a threat to humanity. An increase in unpredictable weather patterns is the biggest threat. But is it caused by human generated green house gases? Maybe you should investigate HAARP and other weapons of climate warfare. The HAARP installation in Alaska is a US Military research facility. Military research is to create weapons. If it was a civilian research institute, it would be open to visitors and collaborative research projects with scientific research projects with other countries. It is a classified research institute that classify their research. <br /><br />I agree with Ivo on so-called Climate Change but for different reasons. To me it is real but the cause of it is not human industrial activity but climate warfare. Global warming doesn't seem to be happening. Has global temperatures increases as predicted? I disagree with Ivo on most issues especially his stance on GE food (or rather non-stance in this book) and his whole view of environmental protection and industrialization. I think he gets nice commissions from polluting corporates to publish friendly articles in news papers and in the books he writes. Who funded the writing of this book?Tertiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12867838660082297423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-43075246955765951252013-06-12T02:17:58.483+02:002013-06-12T02:17:58.483+02:00Brilliant review...and spot on re: climate change....Brilliant review...and spot on re: climate change. I wonder what he says about the most recent data, 97% of scientists agreeing that current climate change is manmade. Actually, I don't wonder what he says about that.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15721372430394985329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-84439719921504846662013-01-26T13:29:33.315+01:002013-01-26T13:29:33.315+01:00Okay. I see this is becoming a bit of a recurring ...Okay. I see this is becoming a bit of a recurring theme. Maybe I should address it in a new post...Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-50470040276750126242013-01-25T15:29:54.351+01:002013-01-25T15:29:54.351+01:00Excellent review, but I agree with the previous co...Excellent review, but I agree with the previous commentators. Your final analysis seems too kind given the many errors that you highlight. (I expect you wouldn't be so forgiving when reading an academic paper?)<br /><br />E.K.Eirik K.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-36483488698281496922013-01-23T18:00:23.471+01:002013-01-23T18:00:23.471+01:00Perhaps, but it is highly debatable whether this m...Perhaps, but it is highly debatable whether this message is generally conveyed by the book. Certainly, it was not the impression that I was left with -- as indicated by my review.Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-8142934712123217312013-01-23T15:55:33.832+01:002013-01-23T15:55:33.832+01:00Many of the comments here assume that Vegter is ag...Many of the comments here assume that Vegter is against all environmentalists. However, the book is about "Extreme" environmentalists of the fundamentalist type.Johan Krugernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-28365905393918133732013-01-21T17:18:09.332+01:002013-01-21T17:18:09.332+01:00RE: Irreducible uncertainty
I certainly agree tha...RE: Irreducible uncertainty <br />I certainly agree that this important and much of the literature is actually aimed at dealing with this precise issue. (See the work of Marty Weitzman in particular, e.g. <a href="http://www.macalester.edu/~wests/econ231/Rev%20Environ%20Econ%20Policy-2011-Weitzman-275-92.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.) I just wanted to present the expected utility framework here as the requisite starting point, without getting bogged down in a discussion of the more sophisticated approaches to uncertainty. (I was hinting at it with my comment on "ambiguity" but should perhaps have gone further!)Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-53868694567114652382013-01-21T16:40:38.470+01:002013-01-21T16:40:38.470+01:00I am not particularly knowledgeable about environm...I am not particularly knowledgeable about environmental concerns, but I agree with James that this review seems far kinder than one I would have given the book, base don the information you present about it. For example:<br /><br />"Vegter sarcastically inquires whether anyone recalls their grandparents and parents "complaining about catastrophic death of the oceans after the war?"<br /><br />is the stupidest statement I have read today.<br /><br /><i>Of course</i> there are examples of environmentalists making mistakes or being hyperbolic. But judging a movement by its worst arguments - which is what Vegter seems to do - is the tactic of the intellectually dishonest.<br /><br />As a side note, Vegter (and perhaps your?) use of probability seems spurious to me. The nature of climate change is clearly a prime example of irreducible uncertainty, to which we simply cannot attach a value.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-60414408276911796522013-01-21T12:30:40.284+01:002013-01-21T12:30:40.284+01:00Superb comment and I don't have much to add. (...Superb comment and I don't have much to add. (I did have a few sentences on how the Climategate emails were actually a great example of sceptic exaggeration -- being continually taken out of context, etc. -- but removed them before publishing due to length.)<br /><br />I agree, for example, that the exclusion of local inhabitants in the Niger Delta is the defining feature of that saga. My brief discussion probably did not do the issue full justice.Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-75884946193184773872013-01-21T12:00:37.139+01:002013-01-21T12:00:37.139+01:00Hi Grant,
Great review. Really in-depth and, i t...Hi Grant, <br /><br />Great review. Really in-depth and, i think, a refreshingly genuine attempt at engagement with an author who is clearly misguided on the issue of climate change.<br /><br />That said, i do have one or two comments. Firstly, i think you are too gentle in some of your criticisms. To describe the The Great Global Warming Swindle as a documentary 'plagued by controversy', is to greatly understate the extent to which that 'documentary' has been shown to be baseless and organised in a fashion which is overtly intellectually dishonest. Second, i think you don't do justice to what you refer to as the 'climategate emails' - i think that even the name lends too much legitimacy to sceptic claims about them. The extent to which those emails were misrepresented in sceptic accounts has been shown elsewhere (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies), while 8 different committees conducted investigations into the controversy, all finding no no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. With this in mind the most remarkable thing about those emails is the extent to which they are still invoked as any sort of meaningful critique of climate scientists - itself highlighting the dominance of baseless sceptic influence - and the extent to which they highlight utter failure of the established media (a few outlets excluded) to report comprehensively on climate change.<br /><br />Finally, there is a comment which i think needs to be made in the context of these sorts of discussions. The debate being had in this book, and in your review, is entirely about levels of knowledge regarding environmental fragility (itself a proxy for social (in)security) and the role of technology in overcoming these problems. While these discussions are theoretically important (and will become increasingly important as the climate changes and the world's population increases (and grows more wealthy)), they are not as benign as they seem to describe themselves. For central to such discussions is the de-politicisation of the problems they are describing. <br /><br />The problem is that in such discussions, issues are described as if they affect all of mankind equally. As such the tend to focus on absolute limits: regarding production and exposure. All of this ignores the fact that vulnerability theory has, for the last 25 years, relentlessly told us that it is not a lack of absolute production which lies at the heart of human insecurity, but rather access to that production. The danger with the sorts of technocratic accounts of 'environmental problems', described in this book, is that they ignore all of this context. In so doing they reduce the discussion about what we should do to simple technical trade-offs, ignoring what the impact of these decisions might be on access (which is what really matters). This is dangerous because increasing the production of goods which people have less control over renders such 'solutions' useless. <br /><br />Thus our discussion over fracking, nuclear, GMO, the Niger Delta (etc.) all need to also ask: what happens to control over these resources when we decide on certain developmental solutions (to my mind this will be more revealing of the dynamics of the Niger Delta, than trying to lay blame on either the corporation, the state or local activists).<br /><br />The major problem with large technical solutions (fracking, nuclear, GMO) is that they tend to place control over resources in fewer and fewer hands. Much existing evidence in the development-environment literature suggests that such solutions won't address the problems they are being touted as solving. In fact, they may make many of them worse.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-57020851759671164152013-01-21T09:43:25.735+01:002013-01-21T09:43:25.735+01:00Thanks Richard.
It's interesting, people see...Thanks Richard. <br /><br />It's interesting, people seem very divided by Ivo -- they either love him or hate him -- but I've found him to be more than reasonable and willing to engage if you are civil... (He described this review as "Tough, but largely fair, even on those points where we evidently disagree.") Also, as I said, there are are parts of the book that I really liked in spite of my criticisms. Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-12225102218008366402013-01-21T05:08:51.429+01:002013-01-21T05:08:51.429+01:00Wow Grant. Excellent... Thank you.
I've had ...Wow Grant. Excellent... Thank you. <br /><br />I've had the occasional twitter discussion with Ivo too...<br /><br />-RPRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16765184784111171364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-49425204941693267452013-01-20T22:38:32.698+01:002013-01-20T22:38:32.698+01:00Thank you sir, the feedback is always appreciated....Thank you sir, the feedback is always appreciated... Especially on a lengthy post like this. With regards to time, luckily my studies keep me pretty up-to-date on these topics, and so I didn't have to do too much additional research as such. (Typing everything up did take a while, though!)Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5442825777886761537.post-14631900604525768492013-01-20T18:46:06.529+01:002013-01-20T18:46:06.529+01:00Grant, this is an amazing review. Well done. Where...Grant, this is an amazing review. Well done. Where do you get the time to do this kind of research?Patrick Maddennoreply@blogger.com