Meteorology, the science of the weather and of its prediction, has always been, both in the past and even more so in the present, the target of criticism and even jibes, the standard of its forecasting leaving much to be desired. In the words of one humorist among many, `Weather forecasting is a science which tells us about the weather we should have had !' (P. Bouvard). We can't really know what the weather will be like more than two or three days ahead, as many forecasters will confirm. But now, all this has been erased in a trice! Now, it is unhesitatingly claimed, we can predict weather and climate (which is the sum of weather) as far ahead as the year 2100, from our viewpoint a century earlier! Astrology or science?

Climate change, to the best of our scientific knowledge, is happening, and much of the recent global warming that we have seen appears caused by human actions. And climate change is a significant problem that threatens heavy economic and social costs. The world that humans are creating—with an increased likelihood of more intense storms, prolonged droughts, and profound changes to ecological systems—is not likely to bring changes that people will want. These are some of the vital insights of environmental scientists like Paul Ehrlich. At the same time, predictions that “billions of us will die” by the end of the century as a result of climate change or that civilization will collapse reenact the least helpful elements of Ehrlich-style environmentalism. What often gets lost in the climate debate are the lessons of the clash between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon. There is a serious and significant discussion to be had over what policy actions to take, and when. How much will the impacts of climate change cost, and how urgent is the need for immediate action?

Sabin, Paul. The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future, 2014.

This is the Blue Dot Effect. The better things get, the more we perceive threats where there are none, and the more upset we become. And it is at the heart of the paradox of progress. In the nineteenth century, Emile Durkheim, the founder of sociology and an early pioneer of the social sciences, ran a thought experiment in one of his books: What if there were no crime? What if there emerged a society where everyone was perfectly respectful and nonviolent and everyone was equal? What if no one lied or hurt each other? What if corruption did not exist? What would happen? Would conflict cease? Would stress evaporate? Would everyone frolic in fields picking daisies and singing the “Hallelujah” chorus from Handel’s Messiah? Durkheim said no, that in fact the opposite would happen. He suggested that the more comfortable and ethical a society became, the more that small indiscretions would become magnified in our minds. If everyone stopped killing each other, we wouldn’t necessarily feel good about it. We’d just get equally upset about the more minor stuff.

Manson, Mark. Everything Is F*cked : A Book about Hope. Unabridged. [New York, NY] : HarperAudio, 2019.