[FRIAM] AGW

[Steven A Smith]

Glen/Cody -
> I think it's natural for someone struggling toward an objective to accept resources from wherever.  A useful example is the Templeton Foundation's funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation  They fund some cool stuff, e.g. https://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/.  But the TF's religious bent is pretty worriesome.
I think there is a natural context-blindness to all of us when we 
seek/accept resources... we naturally downplay the differences or cherry 
pick our similarities.  We are at least "circumspect" when we look a 
gift horse in the mouth, but does the allegory also apply that one 
should look a *Trojan* gift-horse in the belly?
> Regardless, Robinson holds the same political positions as the Heartland Institute, as far as I can tell.  So, it's a good match in many ways.
But I think Cody's question begs a larger point...  why is it that so 
often self-styled "Mavericks" are as pleased as can be to get in bed 
with big industry?   I've been watching Homeland" from the beginning and 
in their intro trailer there is a clip of Hillary stating "you can't 
keep snakes in your back yard and expect them to only bite your 
neighbors!".   Maybe they just have a lot in common with fundamentalist 
"serpent handlers"?
> Re: speculation -- It's an equivocation to claim that we're speculating on the effects of AGW.
But the type of speculation Cody is referencing (I think) IS 
equivocal.   Not the shift in the general climatalogical envelope that 
is Anthropogenic, but the more specific *impact* on humans.

I think it comes down to a simple dichotomy:
     A) Change is threatening;
     B) Change offers opportunity.

To the extent that those with significant access to resources can 
"control" their environment (extract more fossil fuels, make more 
electricity, turn up the AC, move to a 
drier/wetter/less-windy/flood/fire/pestilence prone are, etc.), they can 
*afford* to embrace B).  To those who have *less* access to resources, 
many will experience change primarily as a *threat*.

This might be one of the key divides in our modern polarity... and one 
which I find myself ambi(multi?)valent about:   The 1% (or maybe the 
whole first world) can adopt a much more cavalier attitude about AGW 
than the remainder, knowing that they have the resources (and track 
record?) to adapt to the changes in a timely manner so as not to suffer 
and possibly to thrive under the impending changes.   The remainder are 
more likely to see the threat, the downside as their small island (think 
Tuvalu) gets inundated by rising sea levels, or as their shared 
Oasis/Wadi in the desert dries up, or the forests they used to harvest 
timber from burn off faster than they can regrow, or the dryland farm 
they could already barely eke out a living from will be covered in sand.

In between, or shared by both sides are all sorts of 
unintended/unexpected consequences.   There will surely be ONE dirt-poor 
farmer in South America or Asia or Africa who finds that the changing 
conditions make his life better...  the rain comes further or sooner or 
more often for him, or in some cases, his fields dry earlier and he can 
plant earlier, and the distribution of sunlight through his growing 
season improves his crops or allows him to grow higher-profit crops...  
but I think there might be statistical truisms at play that suggest 
these folks will be on one tail of a distribution.  By the same token, 
maybe one (or more) of the rich and powerful 
nations/industries/corporations/oligarchs will be laid flat by 
unexpected consequences of the AGW they are most implicated in 
causing...   big Irony, but little solace for the "little guy" who got 
flattened along the way.

If there had been enough perspective/communication shared by the 
neolithic humans as the last ice age waned, many might have noticed the 
changes and been terribly threatened (maybe whence came all the oral 
myths of droughts and floods and pestilence?).  Certainly those living 
in the land-bridge between the British Isles and mainland Europe didn't 
find glacier melt and rising sea-levels a boon for them... THEY had to 
go find a new place to live and probably compete with those already 
there to find a new living.    Those downstream from the various 
inundation events of the time would argue against the "benefits" of that 
Global Warming phase.   Those living in the Saharan Savannah (cum 
desert), same-same.  But those who followed the glaciers north and 
thrived amongst the expanding range for reindeer and other herds of 
animals might well have found their "global warming" a boon!   If anyone 
had the technology (or magick or in with the gods) to prevent the end of 
the ice age, I can imagine that they WOULD HAVE opted for *no 
change*...  even if their descendent ended up thriving under the changes?

Since that was not Anthropogenic, people's reactions to and 
suffering/thriving under such change is relatively academic, but this 
round, it is NOT academic... and I think very arrogant to say "oops, I 
spilled the kettle... oh well, the dogs needed a good hot meal and the 
floor a good deep cleaning!"   If we *wanted* to change the climate as 
it appears to be changing, and had *planned it* and *understood the 
consequences*, that would be a different matter, perhaps.   Musk's ideas 
to terraform Mars for humans is at least direct and intentional (if not 
misguided by my estimate).

My technophilic, Libertarian leanings (homunculii as Glen uses it?) get 
all excited at the prospects of "what a clever guy can do in times of 
change!", but my neoLuddite, Bleeding Heart side balks and says "yeh, 
but this much change this fast is going to cause a LOT of suffering!".

Being ambivalent means I CAN hope for the best while preparing for the 
worst.   Some AGW apologists have my sympathy in the "hope for the best" 
mode and most of the AGW alarmists have my ear because many of them ARE 
alarming with the goal of "prepare for the worst".   I have enough 
resources that I probably won't drown, freeze, starve, or dehydrate unto 
death personally, but enough of a social conscience to note that that is 
a coincidence of my circumstance and I might "owe" it to the other ??% 
of the world's population to take an interest in the consequences to 
THEM, as well.

- Steve


> On 10/13/2017 08:59 AM, cody dooderson wrote:
>> Good Article. It portrays Robinson as a maverick but still a scientist who is ultimately interested in the truth. I respect that. My question is how does someone who respects truth get along with the Heartland institute, which I have always thought of as a well funded machine for corporate propaganda?  I mean, don't his views on nuclear energy stand to ruin the fossil fuel industry that heavily funds it. He even acknowledges climate change but views it as a good thing for humanity. Aren't we all just speculating on the effects of anthropogenic climate change anyway. It's not like it's happened before.
>>             The Grandfather Of Alt-Science
>>             https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/ <https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/>