Oh I believe the scholarship is authentic. But, it's the lens.
   It's not just the parts that are included, it's the parts that
   are not included that I look for. I critique scientific articles
   the same way. [just as an amateur]. One can do solid science
   (which is equivalent to sold historical scholarship) and provide
   sufficient and necessary evidence in the conclusion to support
   the hypothesis. So it all works, tied up in a neat box with a
   bow. However: Greater context. There's always a greater context.
   I love this little graphic:
   http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/precision_accuracy.png
   My personal bias is that I strive for high accuracy, low
   precision. I don't need to hit the bullseye, but I like to be
   the vicinity. The reason is that there is a danger when shooting
   for high accuracy, high precision that's VERY difficult to
   avoid: That of being low accuracy, high precision. One can
   produce a lot of evidence that hits the target with high
   precision. All the t's are crossed, all the i's are dotted. It's
   marvelously precise. But... it's missing the general range of
   the target, even if it precisely hits another one. Even in
   proofs that are _about_ the context and about the background,
   they can still suffer from the same issue: Mind you, I haven't
   read the book. I'm giving a really short overview based upon a
   Wikipedia article and a few sentences you wrote. But I wanted to
   give a sense of my approach, a feel for my skepticism. I'm
   likely incorrect: That's one of the reasons why I don't strive
   for precision: whenever i do, I end up missing the bullseye
   completely and hit the wrong target precisely but inaccurately.
   So, I don't know if Jared Diamond fits the criteria I mention.
   But it's the initial bias I approach with. I see history as a
   very complicated thing indeed, whereby there are some
   discernible patterns but I try to be careful of those that tie
   it all together in some way because they could be hitting the
   wrong target while feeling as if they've hit the bullseye.
   Confirmation bias, in short. Very difficult thing to extract
   from one's self. Very very difficult. It's a constant struggle
   of mine. I have to subject my own heros to it constantly so I
   can at least get a more accurate if less precise reading of
   them. == Given the sources you presented (which by the way, I
   _tend_ to agree with generally smile emoticon ) - what would be
   the proper next steps for a citizen that finds themselves within
   a culture that is exhibiting all of the signs of a collapsing
   civilization? == [as a quick PS - I critique my own
   beliefs/assumptions the hardest - and this environmental
   narrative is one that tends to be generally a part of my belief
   structure, so I give it the most poking and prodding smile
   emoticon ]