Reviews for Seaspeak Reference Manual

The average rating for Seaspeak Reference Manual based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-04-22 00:00:00 Steve Doe This book is confused, and heavily relies on fallacious logic to argue for adaption to climate change rather than attempt to modify the climate (describing it as modifying human’s impact on it would be more accurate but would undermine the key arguments of the book making many of the theses empirically hard to defend). A key theme running through the book is throwing doubt on the level of human impact on the climate before arguing that society and systems should be modified to accommodate it rather than change human behaviour towards it. This seems to come from an ideological position with few of the authors seeking to challenge or justify their understanding of global systems while using straw men arguments to suggest weak or illogical arguments from a strangely imagined homogenous environmental movement. The constant doubting of science or underestimation of the scientific consensus on issues and the failure to consistently provide references for the counter arguments presented by the books authors is infuriating. The authors also ascribe various positions either to their opponents or giving voices to the poor to support their arguments. However, the continual failure to cite these perspectives means they offer little to the empirical basis of the arguments in the book other than as a rhetorical device. They leave a particularly bad taste where the authors, largely white and western, attempt to claim alternative perspectives on issues are anti-global poor. In one case a writer comically attempt to cast commonly used terms such as ‘the global south’ as patronising. Another example is the comparison between modern environmentalists and missionaries in the past which is offensive, especially to the many environmentalists from the global south (whoops), such as Vandana Shiva (who I am sure the authors of the book hate). I began trying to note down the examples of hyperbole, unsubstantiated claims and fallacious logic in the book but had to stop because it was making it almost impossible to go a page without having to stop to write something down. It became frustrating as each author made so many poorly backed up claims I wanted to call them out but the book, I think it is fair to describe, is a project rooted deeply in an attempt to justify a particular ideological position with little empirical evidence of academic discourse to back it up outside of the circle of think tanks funded by large corporations. A particularly pernicious myth that runs through the book is that rich people are cleaner consumers than poorer people. While this may be true in the unit-by-unit comparison of what people consume it does not take into account a direct comparison of the amount of units consumed. This ties into thinking (from neo-classical economists the authors would be pleased to learn despite it contradicting their arguments) similar to the Jevons Paradox, where increased efficiency in energy leads to increased consumption often rendering the positive impacts of increased efficiency mute due to the externalities of increased consumption. Without tendering a valid critique of this commonly accepted rule to consumption, which is oft criticised by many with ideological grievances, their arguments are weak and fail to test their theses against the academic discourse in those areas. Certain authors in the book use a version of Godwin’s Law to smear opposition arguments. The suggestion of African development or protection of African culture is tied to Apartheid by Andrew Kenny (In what is arguably the worst researched and most offensive essay in the book, titled Energy for the Poor? The Clean Development Mechanism) and Martin Livermore draws a comparison between environmental regulations and the policies of the failed eastern bloc countries in his essay How Europe’s Risk Regulations Affect Business. These childish rhetorical devices leave a bad taste and further remove any credibility that the book could have hoped to aspire to. The blurb of the book claims that it argues that ‘global and European climate policies ar e driven by vested interests.’ The book fails to demonstrate who these vested interests represent apart from an unsubstantiated straw man of a primitivist environmental movement who wants everyone to stay poor or become poorer. My dad once got called a ‘twig munching reactionary’ and I get the feeling many of the authors in this book would love to call people this apart from the fact it would expose them as not being researchers and instead angry ideologues. This book was written a long time ago and I would like to think new evidence that has emerged over the past 17 years has changed some of the authors perspectives. However, looking at some of their projects since I doubt this has happened in many cases. The book is very out of date with many of the things the authors argue may happen (emphasis on being may) happening and many of the things they suggest might happen a long time in the future happening earlier than thought.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-04-28 00:00:00 Gerson Enamorado Perhaps tunnel vision and lack of rounded life experience is the reason we are so limited in our knowledge. Haven't most of our successes and advancements come from someone who has the ability to see and apply all they have encountered, didn't Fibonacci come to realize the concepts of infinity from looking at a map, Nietzsche from long walks, Curie from love. So when students say "why do I need to learn to write in an IFSM computer class" I tell them all the ideas you have all the wonderful things you will learn and experience as you grow professionally, perhaps new discoveries all mean nothing if you cannot put it to paper for others to read. If you have developed a security plan, all beautiful pictures in your head but to get it approved or money for your proposal; your project, you will need to submit your work in writing. So learn the APA inside and out. The following day class was half full. So tell me who will get the promotion, the money, the positions, the attention, the ______ for all they desire. To imagine they are paying to get the knowledge I have to offer and they want to do less. Have a doctor who did less, a pilot who did less, ask yourself do you want to do less?