Looks like a companion piece to Andy A. West's book (The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism). They're studying the same phenomena, and pointing out associated problems and destructive impacts on society.
I believe West wrote an excellent book, which won't get the respect it deserves due to the author's apparent lack of formal credentials and its sponsorship by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Well worth a read - a fascinating project by an outsider using the tools of a domain to demonstrate important conclusions that established practitioners have not picked up on. If the analytical framework holds up, will be an important contribution. You can get the drift at Judith Curry's blog Climate Etc. where there is extensive coverage and discussion - much of the best in extensive participation by West himself.
Hulme, a Cambridge professor, will be far more difficult to ignore or dismiss. In addition to Hahn's review here, you may wish to read the useful review and summary by Simon Maxwell. He writes from the perspective of one who has been actively engaged in conventional climate-related work.
I haven't read the book but I think I'll be a fan. It is not enough for lefties that we act rationally and recognize that every action involves tradeoffs. That thinking is impossible for the Manichean mind to admit as it undermines the good vs evil narrative. It is too subtle, too reasonable. Climatism (hopefully soon to be used regularly in print) is just another apocalyptic vision of the Left and a variation on - men are bad, and successful men are really bad. Success means someone else's oppression or in this case oppression of the Earth. That is an absurdist viewpoint that finds easy acceptance in a new western philosophy littered with logical fallacies.
Thank you, Roger. Guest articles like this are a nice addition, and hopefully will take a little pressure off you to produce content, giving you some much needed time for research which we all will eventually benefit from.
I’d add on that climatism has an interesting sociology of science effect: it honors the atmospheric scientist over the humble agricultural scientist or petroleum geologist or wildlife biologist; it honors abstractions over observations (what I call asking Nature a question and not waiting around for the answer), modeling and satellite imagery over on the ground measurements, and the endless stream of predicting bad things without involving the scientific fields that have historically worked with past problems and solutions. Social scientists keep pointing out the problems of top-down research, say on biodiversity conservation prioritization without involving local people, and yet journals keep churning out papers that purport to tell us about “the world’s climate” or “the world’s biodiversity.”
Historians of science may recognize the 19th century class bias of “purer” science vs. applied.. regular historians may look at this as a form of scientific colonialism.. And so science prioritized and designed by scientists.. by the scientists of the scientists and for the scientists, as it were, continues on. Would we have to be so internationalized if not for abstractions like climate or biodiversity? Is that just an excuse for busy-body scientists to tell others what to do? As we have seen forests are now “too important for climate” to be left to the likes of forest scientists; and agriculture now has Scientists Who Know Better at Stanford and Yale. Climatism, like scientism, is way too convenient for those who Think They Know Better to avoid the rough and tumble of democracy.
It ties in with the recent renaissance in Stoicism — for which the cardinal virtues of courage, prudence, justice and wisdom are integral — which I believe is a philosophy of living that we would do well to lean on and unite around more as global civilization.
Thought you'd be interested in this: investors betting that warmer weather will lead to more disruptive storms that will drive oil prices higher:
https://wkzo.com/2023/08/08/analysis-oil-hedge-funds-place-their-bets-on-heat-fueled-hurricane-season/
At least they are putting their money where their mouth's are
Looks like a companion piece to Andy A. West's book (The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism). They're studying the same phenomena, and pointing out associated problems and destructive impacts on society.
I believe West wrote an excellent book, which won't get the respect it deserves due to the author's apparent lack of formal credentials and its sponsorship by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Well worth a read - a fascinating project by an outsider using the tools of a domain to demonstrate important conclusions that established practitioners have not picked up on. If the analytical framework holds up, will be an important contribution. You can get the drift at Judith Curry's blog Climate Etc. where there is extensive coverage and discussion - much of the best in extensive participation by West himself.
Hulme, a Cambridge professor, will be far more difficult to ignore or dismiss. In addition to Hahn's review here, you may wish to read the useful review and summary by Simon Maxwell. He writes from the perspective of one who has been actively engaged in conventional climate-related work.
Here's the link to Maxwell's review: https://simonmaxwell.net/blog/climate-change-isnt-everything-by-mike-hulme.html
I haven't read the book but I think I'll be a fan. It is not enough for lefties that we act rationally and recognize that every action involves tradeoffs. That thinking is impossible for the Manichean mind to admit as it undermines the good vs evil narrative. It is too subtle, too reasonable. Climatism (hopefully soon to be used regularly in print) is just another apocalyptic vision of the Left and a variation on - men are bad, and successful men are really bad. Success means someone else's oppression or in this case oppression of the Earth. That is an absurdist viewpoint that finds easy acceptance in a new western philosophy littered with logical fallacies.
Thank you, Roger. Guest articles like this are a nice addition, and hopefully will take a little pressure off you to produce content, giving you some much needed time for research which we all will eventually benefit from.
I’d add on that climatism has an interesting sociology of science effect: it honors the atmospheric scientist over the humble agricultural scientist or petroleum geologist or wildlife biologist; it honors abstractions over observations (what I call asking Nature a question and not waiting around for the answer), modeling and satellite imagery over on the ground measurements, and the endless stream of predicting bad things without involving the scientific fields that have historically worked with past problems and solutions. Social scientists keep pointing out the problems of top-down research, say on biodiversity conservation prioritization without involving local people, and yet journals keep churning out papers that purport to tell us about “the world’s climate” or “the world’s biodiversity.”
Historians of science may recognize the 19th century class bias of “purer” science vs. applied.. regular historians may look at this as a form of scientific colonialism.. And so science prioritized and designed by scientists.. by the scientists of the scientists and for the scientists, as it were, continues on. Would we have to be so internationalized if not for abstractions like climate or biodiversity? Is that just an excuse for busy-body scientists to tell others what to do? As we have seen forests are now “too important for climate” to be left to the likes of forest scientists; and agriculture now has Scientists Who Know Better at Stanford and Yale. Climatism, like scientism, is way too convenient for those who Think They Know Better to avoid the rough and tumble of democracy.
An online search of his name turned up this intriguing essay on the role of virtue on our ever-changing planet…
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/humanities/humanities-03-00299/article_deploy/humanities-03-00299.pdf?version=1404135120
It ties in with the recent renaissance in Stoicism — for which the cardinal virtues of courage, prudence, justice and wisdom are integral — which I believe is a philosophy of living that we would do well to lean on and unite around more as global civilization.