Reddit reviews The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World

I believe they spent 11 pages touting 9 errors that were found in a 540 page book. Amazon.com

>What on earth is he talking about? Millions do starve every year.


Share of undernourished people in the developing world:

Year 1970 1980 1990 2005 2007 2009
37 % 28 % 20 % 16 % 17 % 16 %

link

The predictions of the 70s and 80s about resource collapse and famines were exactly opposite to what actually happened when you look at the numbers objectively. If you only read the press releases of the NGOs who have this as a cause (and the newspapers who uncritically reprint them) you'd conclude the opposite, but it's not what's really happening. Millions upon Millions have been lifted out of poverty in the last couple of decades. Indeed high grain prices now are largely because these millions are upgrading their diet to include more meat.


I think you should do some research before dismissing the claims that contradict your worldview as 'lies'. At least try out a few authors. One that will challenge your belief system is Lomborg's Skeptical Enviornmentalist

Lomborg, serial misleader?

The guy whose book was found to contain: "Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results"?

The guy whose next book, Cool It!, was found by a different person to contain: "misrepresentation of academic research, misquotation of data, reliance on studies irrelevant to the author’s claims and citation of sources that seem not to exist"?

The guy who received millions of dollars from conservative organisations linked to Koch?

The guy who keeps writing columns with scientific credibility very low?

The guy who blithely described a 20-foot sea-level rise (6 meters – a plausible outcome of unmitigated global warming in a few centuries) which would inundate about 16,000 square miles of coastline where more than 400 million people currently live as:

> That’s a lot of people, to be sure, but hardly all of mankind. In fact, it amounts to less than 6% of the world’s population – which is to say that 94% of the population would not be inundated. more details

Now if you don't believe or care about any of that, I have a challenge for you.

Use Amazon's Look Inside the Book and choose "Surprise Me!" and read a few pages from his book. Tell us the page numbers.

Now visit the catalogue of errors for those pages, and read those, and judge whether the extract from Lomborg's book had any value?

Don't worry too much about the lack of "domain knowledge"...most companies understand that industry knowledge is something that only really comes with experience. It's usually enough just to be able to speak to a subject conversationally at the layman level.

For instance, in defense simulation, being able to verbally summarize the original Bay of Biscay analysis would be a fantastic discussion point in an interview (in fact, it would probably go over most managers' heads). Likewise, for environmental science, being able to discuss a few of the chapters from Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist would be a good way to express interest and rudimentary knowledge of the topic (being careful to tiptoe around any emotional political / philosophical positions, of course).

As to getting your foot in the door...you can't always seek out such things. Often you simply maintain yourself in a state of readiness, such that when the opportunity appears before you, you're ready and able to step into it.

By way of comparison, I had been programming odd jobs for 10 years before I randomly met a Discrete Maths professor while tinkering away at a Master's Degree (never completed). It turned out that in his day job, he was a hiring manager for the Operations Research department of a major local defense company. There were 30 other students in that class simultaneously vying for his attention, but...I was more prepared, and more forthright in expressing my interest (that was a gamble), and in the end, I got offered a job.

You can make such chance meetings more likely by seeking out opportunities to meet more people. As I said, I made some life-changing contacts through taking some extra night courses. I've met some interesting people by attending local Java User Group meetings. I even met a young undergrad, possibly not unlike yourself, similarly interested in careers in Operations Research, by attending a Reddit meet-up at a local alehouse. I've even made some interesting career contacts through my family's church. And if you chance to be in a job involving travel, you can strike up some absolutely fascinating conversations in airports and airline seats (see, "Is this seat taken?").

Wherever people are, potential contacts maywill be in hiding. But they won't speak up if you don't. You need to break the ice and get conversation rolling.

Oh, and as for companies / agencies: Lockheed Martin Simulation & Training Systems (STS), Mission Systems & Sensors (MS2), Missiles & Fire Control (MFC), Aeronautics (LM-Aero) and the like are all good, as are their many competitors (Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, L3, etc). There are all the "Beltway Bandits" surrounding D.C., like Booz Allen Hamilton. There are the big generic consultancies like SAIC and Accenture (not my favorite niche, but they do land some juicy contracts).

Don't overlook gaming experience. A year or two on SimCity, CityVille, FarmVille, etc can actually provide some authentic and useful experience, as long as the game is architected in a reasonable manner. Then there are the big gaming giants who are almost always hiring, mostly because they tend to burn people out after a year or two (EA Tiburon, etc).

As I'm sure you've seen posted elsewhere, open-source contributions are a great way to get your feet wet. Find the open-bug or requested-feature lists for OpenSim, FlightGear, VDrift or similar, and implement a couple. That counts as real experience (I've hired people based on their open-source commit log), and will give you a chance to decide if this is really something you want to delve into.

>Any good books that you might recommend that tell a different story than the ones listed above?

I don't read about politics anymore, because I don't think it's worth the effort to figure out what needs to be done if I'm unable to affect things much. I have no special talent for making people like me, organizing groups of protestors, or schmoozing with politicians.

Anyhow, here are some conservative thinkers who seem like they should be intelligent:

Arnold Kling - this might be good

Mencius Moldberg - his commenters/blogroll might also be a good place to look

John McCarthy

Bjorn Lomberg

Here you go.

I've been reading this book and when I mention something I read out of there often I get looked at like I am some kind of crazy. I hate that the word "skeptic" is becoming pejorative.

I am happy to talk about scientific and technical sources. My apologies for the wall of text; I hope it's readable.

First of all, my answer reflects my own personal opinions and preferences. I'm a techie, a capitalist, and I once worked for an energy transmission company. Many will disagree with me, and that's fine... but you can (and should!) judge the veracity of scientific sources for yourself. That's a quality I look for in sources - they didn't fall back upon "settled" opinions, but saw for themselves what does or does not make any danged sense.

In this case, I originally learned about the Helms project many years ago, from listening to Dr. Bill Wattenburg's radio show. He's from California, and so talks about these issues frequently. Dr. Bill is a nuclear scientist, and an accomplished engineer. He has an unapologetically pro-nuclear power viewpoint, but (in my opinion) he still takes care to weigh the pro's and con's of various other generation and transmission technologies. I've learned a great deal from Dr. Bill, not the least of which is to develop a healthy skepticism towards big claims.

Beyond that, a great way to learn about various sources of information on energy issues is Anthony Watts' website. Even if you don't agree with everything (or anything!) here, WUWT is a very useful gateway to a whole variety of science-based (and suitably contrarian) primary sources. Whatever your views, Watts and his correspondents are very close to the ongoing argument about the future of energy, and how people choose to live. It's raucous, informative, and occasionally news-making.

I've had many other influences, but one more for now: I was greatly informed by Bjorn Lomborg's influential book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. He has several other worthy titles, but I quite like this one as a starting-point. It isn't recent; but this is as much a critical-thinking exercise, as it is a scientific investigation. Again, many people will discount his ideas... but ask yourself why this is (and whether they have actually countered his arguments) before you draw your conclusions.

 

For my part, I am rather optimistic about the future of energy. Once people begin reading a genuine diversity of viewpoints, they are likely to observe there is very much to be hopeful about. If you didn't hear more about some of the intriguing developments before now, one reason is because these particular advances may not not suit the dominant viewpoint, and are often filtered out by the gatekeepers of news networks and accepted-science journalism. Thank Goodness we now have many sources to choose from... if only more people pursued them.

Another reason is that (when compared to the news cycle) scientific progress is frustratingly slow - Mother Nature gives up her secrets with the utmost reluctance. It takes a long time to improve upon an existing (really good) technology, to the point where it makes more economic sense to do it the new way. This is a critical factor - in order to be widely accepted by the public, the new method must be able to make money. Subsidies only get you so far. People change their routines in order to get more for their money - it's simply human nature.

Everyone has their biases (myself included), but so many so-called scientists have successfully suspended reality, that the academic apparatus of 'accepted science' begins to look like something far different - in some extreme cases, it resembles a return to Lysenkoism. More than anything else, this statist impulse to bend science to the government's will is what I rally against. Once you strip the compulsion away, the science is far more objective, and the technology is much easier to discuss.

I'll consider any energy solution, if I decide that I can afford it. Beyond that: May the best technology win.

So many ways to go with this.....

Saying "we need to plan based on metrics" is not "fuck people." There's a book I would advocate you reading if you haven't already, The Skepical Environmentalist. One of the key take-aways is that we don't spend enough time figuring out how to spend resources WISELY and with the greatest benefit.

Of course, "greatest benefit" is a matter of opinion and subject to hijack, but your response shows that you clearly have your mind made up to the point of not taking the time to evaluate or understand an opposing viewpoint.

At least in Europe you've got Björn Lomborg. The only sensible 'solutions' I've heard have come from him.

A lot of the 'solutions' outlined in the Kyoto protocol are stupid expensive and wouldn't help all that much over the course of this century. Lomborg proposes a lot of cheaper and more effective solutions in Cool It.

Here's a 17 minute TED talk by him on the topic.

He also wrote an excellent book titled [The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World.] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683)

...I'd really like an updated version of that book. Most of his stats stop at 1999/2000.

Just leaving this here for those interested in this thesis:

https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-Prosperity-Evolves-P-S/dp/0061452068

And this:

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683