[FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics

[David Breecker]

I am frankly mystified by the conversation. No one I know of who is  
legitimately evaluating the data pretends to have any certainty as to  
the anthropogenic component.  The issues have to do with the  
likelihood of continued warming; the effects that that trend would  
have; the risks and rewards of inaction (supposing that we are a  
primary cause); and the risks and reward of action (same supposition).

And I haven't seen a legitimate analysis within that framework that  
comes out anywhere but here:

Act now, because if it is anthropogenic, the risk/reward profile of  
action is overwhelmingly positive, and that of inaction potentially  
(or even probably) catastrophic.

Surely folks don't think we need certainty before acting, especially  
when we know we won't be certain until it's (probably) too late to  
act, if we are the cause?  That kind of thinking could give  
scientists a bad name ;-)
db


On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:15 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

> Indeed!
>
> BTW: Just as a pointer:
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
> .. has an overview of Paleoclimatology
>
> Note the quote:
>    Changes in the atmosphere may also exert an important influence
> over climate change. The establishment of CO2-consuming (and oxygen-
> producing) photosythesizing organisms in the Precambrian led to the
> production of an atmosphere much like today's, though for most of
> this period it was much higher in CO2 than today.  Similarly, the
> Earth's average temperature was also frequently higher than at
> present, though it has been argued that over very long time scales
> climate is largely decoupled from carbon dioxide variations (Veizer
> et al. 2000).
>
> BTW: I really do hedge my bets .. and I am thinking about various
> means of minimizing my personal impact.  But I sure don't think we
> understand this critter.  The whole damn earth, fer heaven sakes!
> Talk about Gaia!
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> Owen,
>>
>> I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint
>> that we
>> simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global
>> warming.  My
>> left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on
>> their
>> knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up.  Even the smart
>> ones are
>> totally sold on the concept that humans caused the current global
>> warming
>> trend.
>>
>> Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global
>> complex system
>> and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause of
>> the
>> current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad gullible.
>>
>> I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are
>> affecting
>> the global climate.  But we certainly don't understand the global/
>> celestial
>> climate dynamic well enough to prove it.  I mean come on, for
>> crying out
>> loud:  we just discovered that neutrinos have mass.  We think.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> -- 
>> Doug Roberts, RTI International
>> droberts at rti.org
>> doug at parrot-farm.net
>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>
>> On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist
>>> couched the issue:
>>>    There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an
>>> upward trend in temperature.  But when one looks at multi-million
>>> year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/
>>> effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like
>>> meteor impacts and volcanic action.  Thus much of the buzz is likely
>>> very inaccurate and unfounded.  BUT, personally, there is certainly
>>> no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment.
>>>
>>> I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we
>>> simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages  
>>> and
>>> hot ages.  We may get hints if we really honestly try.  But I go
>>> along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious.
>>>
>>> Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice
>>> caps.  Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay?
>>> Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core  
>>> activities
>>> that contribute a great deal to oil.
>>>
>>>      -- Owen
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
www.BreeckerAssociates.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070811/5a330c3e/attachment.html