Misopinionated,

I get mixed up between Foucault and Derrida and Baudrillard, to be honest, and I don't really care. After all, their narratives are as illusory, transitory, and ephemeral as all (or most) other narratives according to their own teachings, and clearly post-modernism collapses under its own inconsistencies and contradictions, so why should anyone bother ?

Still, perhaps you can tell us how Foucault discoursed learnedly on climate change, or what his precepts would advise us now 35 years after his death ? After all, clearly I know Foucault about any of it.

Joe

I want to indulge myself, see on starting the thread I referred to that eleven thousand signatures
And the reports full list of concerns
Loudmouth 3 has agreed change is taking place, a good start
Remember that report spoke about world population? and the standards of living for some?
I propose this, show me a sea or river we have not polluted
Smell the air in some forever smog bound cities
Search out the millions of tons of recycled waste ending up in landfill
If you came opon our planet surely your first thought would be what has man not polluted
Polluting the atmosphere is not an impossibility we do such things every day

Dear Max Green,

We can get the Chinese Communist Party to build and operate nuclear power plants for us. It's their country now so they should be playing a bigger part, especially when Australia is definitely heading towards a Chinese future.

Dear Loudmouth,

The gig is up! You are not a part of the Arts so stop pretending and showing us how smart you are at cutting and pasting snippets off Wikipedia to try and make it look as if you are educated.

Belly,

I suspect that pollution - of the oceans, rivers, etc. - has been developing into as big a problem as human contributions to climate change. i.e. a Pollution Emergency. A separate issue, of course, with different solutions.

Perhaps the Extinction Rebellion kids could get out and get involved in Pollution Extinction clean-ups ? i.e. do something useful ?

Joe

Dear mhaze,

Rubbish mate. You got caught presenting a study from a bloke who is a serial climate change denier and who is very much in bed with one of the most notorious deniers of our age.

And this is incorrect "When you see new data you first evaluate if it supports your prejudices or not"

No, when I see new data I accept that I will not have the skill set (and neither do you) to full assess what is before me. Therefore I tend to first evaluate the authors and source to see if I can confidently deem their work as robust.

You clearly do not.

As to Marcott what is your point?