Climate Change

[marct]

I figured invoking Diamond would get a real academics hackles up. That's because his books aren't peer reviewed and much of them are a thought exercises.

Nah, it's not 'cause it's not peer reviewed,it's because it is way to deterministic .

Unlike a Thomas Kuhn paradigm shift what we see from Diamond is not a change in definition or shift in the generalizations of science, but what Thomas Kuhn warned us about in a shift of perception. Science disciplines exist within a closed culture that determines the validity of the principles being discussed. Governments and individuals may examine science and determine the usability or applicability but to inject that into the process will destroy the foundations of western science.

Are you talking about the operation of what Kuhn called "normal science"? If so, Diamond's work is within its parameters; at least those of the past 25 years or so. I'm not sure that I would agree with calling it a "closed culture", although it is definitely insular . Still and all, most of the schools of philosophy of science would tend to agree that any "science" must have some sensory focal point - something hat an observation or hypothesis can be tested against.

In climatology we know that areas of the world were lush and populous and now are deserted barren and devoid of human habitation. The evidence trumps the argument that humans are incapable of impacting the environment. Once that point is established we're only arguing about how bad the effect will be, and whether somebody has the right to destroy the same eco-sphere that others inhabit.

Tsk, tsk, tsk - extrapolating from the specific to the general ! Consider, by way of example, the Antarctic continent. We know that it was "lush and populous" and is now barren and deserted. That, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything except that it was once nice and now isn't. Q: Where is the human agency? A: Not there. We also know of specific cases where human agency was the prime cause of ecological disruptions (e.g. Easter Island). The argument should never be that humans are incapable of impacting the environment - only a politician, theologian or 2 year old would ever hold that position. The argument should be that humans, while capable of impacting the environment, are certainly not the sole agency in ecological change (Lucifer anyone? That's a ref to the asteroid not the semi-deity ). Therefore, once that point is established, we must strive to assign probabilistic degrees of causal efficacy to all identifiable factors.

Let's leave the question of "rights" for another time <evil grin>.

I look at the issue as more than a greenie versus industrialist. I look at the entirety of the problem and the impacts of particular consumer patterns and industrial trends as national security issues.

Actually, we are pretty similar in our outlook. Personally, I am more interested in the relationship between technologies, socio-cultural organization and meaning systems - all of which means that my time horizon, once I'm in full academic mode, tends to be in the 1000's of years.

Marc