Monday, November 25, 2024
Latest:
Videos

Steven Pinker’s Un-Enlightened Writing on Climate and Energy — Alex Epstein comments

Artis Modus



ImproveThePlanet

Alex Epstein analyzes the climate change section of Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now.

Source

Similar Posts

33 thoughts on “Steven Pinker’s Un-Enlightened Writing on Climate and Energy — Alex Epstein comments”

  2. It is difficult to believe that Pinker is a true ally in the battle for reason and science when he is capable of this kind of writing.

  3. Thanks Alex, I am sure this is book has a lot of good points in other chapters, but this chapter seems to suffer from many of the dogma's that circle around in the mainstream. Maybe he is a good debate opportunity, because I would hope many of his audience would be somewhat open to your reasonable approach on this topic!

  6. As horrible as this section of Pinker's book is I can't imagine why the rest of it is really worth reading. Thanks for the analysis, Alex.

  8. I have read the highlighted page (haven't read the book/chapter). Then I began listening to the reviewer whom stated that the chapter was "really bad" and then the reviewer seemed to go on a merry go round about the complex issues regarding climate change. Issues that science has addressed in it's conclusions and predictive "climate models" ( Predictions based on the available evidence not some guy reviewing a book on youtube)

    However, whilst pinker doesn't claim to be a expert on climate change as he's a cognitive psychologist, the highlighted page does represent the general scientific consensus of anthropogenic ( The human effect on) climate change.

    So, I urge people to read the information on reliable websites ( rather than listen to some guy go on about figures of some graph etc, he may or may not have interpreted correctly whom also seems to have a bias towards using fossil fuels. See Vids on his youtube page entitled " the moral use of fossil fuels". Maybe he as a coal fire at home that he loves to pollute the neighborhood with 😉 ( Just kidding).

    A few of the international government and non government websites that reflect the general scientific consensus on climate change.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change
    https://www.wwf.org.uk/what-we-do/area-of-work/climate-change-and-energy
    https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/climate-change
    https://climate.nasa.gov/ ( haven't cited the current American government because "In June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement, causing widespread condemnation both internationally and domestically)
    http://whc.unesco.org/en/climatechange
    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/energy-environment-climate/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

  11. That whole idea that it works like a greenhouse is wrong. Greenhouses work by limiting convection currents, while the ill named greenhouse effect works by re-radiation of infrared radiation by atmospheric elements such as CO2, CH4 and H2O. The earth absorbs light from the sun, then emits infra-red radiation, heat, which is then re-radiated in every direction by the greenhouse gases. The radiation radiated back to the earth increases the surface temperature.

  12. Thank you for your amazing dependable information, driving force not to mention schooling to maintain my journey to progressively more consciously aware and spiritually connected.

  14. Thanks to ALL who stored their personal use vehicles and otherwise
    made an effort to save a World for our Children.
    Go, with knowledge graced, into that night, that our dreams
    of "More!"; called out. Per: 🦊 D’Fox & Friends 🦊@🦊 FoCzNews.com 🦊

  15. I’ve given this video 7 minutes, and it doesn’t seem to get any further than discuss one page of Pinker’s latest book. I urge Alex Epstein to listen to the entire book, that will take him about 20 hours, and then he might make an informed comment worth listening to.
    Pinker’s point about climate change is that it’s inevitable, human made or not, due to carbon dioxide emissions or not. It is a inevitable problem, but problems are – and here he is inspired by the the upbeat take on our universe from David Deutsch – solvable! (As long as they are not breaking the laws of physics).
    Pinker’s book is a great read, and I recommend anyone anytime two other great books of his: The blank slate – the denial of human nature, and The better angels of our nature.

  16. I was looking for a good critique of Pinkers climate chapter. Its not here, Alex is an apologist not a thinker.
    Best quote about "reading smart people maybe me!!!"

  17. So in summary your saying he oversimplified certain aspects in a chair of the book that deals with something complicated? Is that a big deal when the general takeaway is correct?

  19. 14:05 That's exactly it. The book 500 pages long.

    Imagine if Pinker had backed up all of the specific points you raise. But wait! Some smart climate justice warriors will also be unsatisfied with the chapter – more things to back up! What about presupposition apologists?
    And that's just one chapter. Soon we have a 5000 page book!

    Pinker summarizes the mainstream view among physical scientists. Is that irresponsible? Should that make you "suspicious"? Of course not.

  20. The speaker finds a lot of places in Pinkers work to be "suspicious". I find his (Alexs) motivations here to be exactly that, seeing that fossil fuel interests fund his work.

  24. If you want a snapshot of Pinker, of his style and his values, just look up how he uses Ayn Rand on page 446. His only mention of this seminal thinker in the body of this 453 page book is:

    "Though she later tried to conceal it, Ayn Rand's celebration of selfisness, her deification of the heroic capitalist, and her disdain for the general welfare had Nietzsche written all over them."

    There is no enlightenment here.

  28. Oil spills have gone down, the speed of CO2 emmissions have slowed down a lot. That what I got from this chapter 😁

    You talk too much here, get to your point.. 😤

  29. I could substitute your name for Steven pickers in your review and replay it and it would be equally as valid since you didn’t provide any reason or rationale as to why I should question him or believe you no data no supporting information nothing

  32. I'm two objections in and you've provided no alternative data, just claiming that he's wrong, look into it, or you have "suspicion" (something I agree we should all have). In doing so, you have answered your own question: to expand on every little detail would be overly verbose and a distraction from the premise. Clearly, a balance is needed, and given how many data points he actually sources throughout the book, I think he did a pretty good job.

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com