In science, you need a theory, an approach, and a way to measure the results. In politics, you only need an opinion and a microphone. Therefore, it is interesting that a major Green advocate -- promoting sensible environmental solutions -- took the stand to criticize past Green efforts.
George Monbiot (winner of a UN Global award, among others) recently scribed Let's Face it, none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking problem. There was immediate outcry and, as usual, the pundits somehow claiming this is proof that Green=Bad are missing the point on this.
It is not that Monbiot is criticizing the goal or principals of Green, rather, he criticizes the approach and lack of cohesive solution-making. Writes Monbiot, "none of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this mess" -- the problem still stands.
We need this sort of understanding, because saying your approach is wrong does not (as Monbiot is being falsely accused) equate to that purpose being incorrect. As eloquently noted by Carl Sagan (in a 1987 CSICOP keynote):
Alex
... in the midst of fundraising-- visit and buy mission patches before it expires May 21st!
George Monbiot (winner of a UN Global award, among others) recently scribed Let's Face it, none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking problem. There was immediate outcry and, as usual, the pundits somehow claiming this is proof that Green=Bad are missing the point on this.
It is not that Monbiot is criticizing the goal or principals of Green, rather, he criticizes the approach and lack of cohesive solution-making. Writes Monbiot, "none of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this mess" -- the problem still stands.
We need this sort of understanding, because saying your approach is wrong does not (as Monbiot is being falsely accused) equate to that purpose being incorrect. As eloquently noted by Carl Sagan (in a 1987 CSICOP keynote):
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.Understand that SAYING YOU SCREWED UP IS GOOD! It's simple ignorance to cling to a position once you realize it's doomed. Rather than being 'intellectually bankrupt', he's saying they need to put accuracy over ideology-- and who can complain with that?
Alex
... in the midst of fundraising-- visit and buy mission patches before it expires May 21st!
I think the article you cited makes fine points that as a strategic resource wanes, others fill the gap. As a young man I remember plowing through bad fiction stories by Rachel-Carson-of-energy wanna-be's where the world was a shambles and the last piece of coal was in a museum somewhere. But that's no reason not to go ahead and do some basic science for better solutions than the crappy wind tech we will end up getting because researchers think government funding is smart.