[FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics

Sun Aug 12 00:36:16 EDT 2007

Yes, that's one of the tightly reasoned paths, but how do you stop growth without wrecking everything??
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: David Breecker <david at breeckerassociates.com>

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:50:35 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics

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 <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 <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 <mailto:droberts at rti.org> 
doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net> 
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net <mailto: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 <http://www.friam.org> 

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

============================================================
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