<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Merle -
<p>Thanks for introducing the Complexity and Climate meeting you
organized last month to the Friam contingent. The meeting was a
transformative experience for me. While I was already highly
attuned to the challenges addressed at the meeting both personally
and professionally, meeting our European (and specifically the
Swedish core of the contingent) and seeing how positively and
progressively they (and the broader culture of northern Europe or
at least Scandinavia) are approaching these problems was very
heartening. Most of those we met were already systems thinkers
and many were already familiar with some of the more esoteric
aspects of Complexity Science such as scale free networks and
bifurcation points in dynamical systems and seemed highly
receptive to new and potentially more subtle/complex ways of
thinking about the problems they are grappling with.<br>
</p>
<p>The most notable takeaway for me perhaps, was realizing how much
more "humanist" the Scandinavian Scientists (Europeans in
general?) are and how much our current problems are fundamentally
ONLY addressable through significant and sweeping paradigm changes
at many levels, from the individual to the global, across
politics, economics, and socio-cultural domains. Stephen and I
have been discussing these observations and following up with some
of the folks we met there on more specific ideas and possible
projects to advance this thoughtfully but without delay. <br>
</p>
<p> - Steve<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Wed, 1 Jan 2020 22:06:33 -0800</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Merle Lefkoff <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:merlelefkoff@gmail.com"><merlelefkoff@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Reply-To:
</th>
<td>The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Steven Smith and
Stephen Guerin were two of the complex systems scientists
our organization (The Center for Emergent Diplomacy) invited
to join a conference we organized in Stockholm a few weeks
ago--combining our guys with our Swedish network of
scientists and policy wonks working seriously on climate
emergency. My idea was that the deep dialogue on global
warming that I experience (and sometimes facilitate)
happening around the world everywhere but here in the
U.S--could really benefit from a Complexity spin. Steve and
Stephen are somewhat up-to-date, and you might get some
interesting replies from them. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">By the way--all the
major government reports, including the UN IPCC reports, are
heavily censored because of how the research is funded.
There is tremendous pressure to present only best-case
scenarios-- for obvious corporate reasons. Also, if any of
you think the disaster scenarios are "over-hyped", you
really don't have a clue. Yes, the future is
unprestateable, but many parts of the world are already
experiencing the future of global warming in the present,
like a good science fiction story. And there is a rapidly
growing scientific consensus about how quickly the window is
closing on any attempts to contain the risk to human
survival on a much-altered planet.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:45
AM Prof David West <<a href="mailto:profwest@fastmail.fm"
moz-do-not-send="true">profwest@fastmail.fm</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Questions,
that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of
climate change.<br>
<br>
In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available"
stated that because of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth
would warm by an average of 3 degrees Fahrenheit and the
U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2020.<br>
<br>
The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of
temperature increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the
most likely expectations being 3-5 by the year 2020.<br>
<br>
The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.<br>
<br>
The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA
predicted the end of domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.<br>
<br>
The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020
is 1 degree.<br>
<br>
Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and
accurate, argument for the need to address climate change in
the context of badly incorrect predictions, grounded in the
best available scientific models, and over-hyped "disaster
scenarios" promulgated by those with political or simply
"circulation" motives.<br>
<br>
In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair
to tar everyone expressing questions or doubts with the same
"deny-er" brush?<br>
<br>
Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models
or the proposed "solutions" without being dismissed as a
troglodyte "deny-er?"<br>
<br>
Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating
coal to carbon scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of
cost/benefit ratios, human socio-economic impact, etc. and
compare them?<br>
<br>
Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this
mess; and if so, how do we decide (and/or construct a blend)
on one that will optimize our chances?<br>
<br>
davew<br>
<br>
============================================================<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br>
to unsubscribe <a
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives back to 2003: <a
href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
by Dr. Strangelove<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.<br>
Center for Emergent Diplomacy<br>
<a href="http://emergentdiplomacy.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">emergentdiplomacy.org</a></div>
<div>Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA</div>
<div><a href="mailto:merlelefoff@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">merlelefkoff@gmail.com</a><br>
mobile: (303) 859-5609<br>
skype: merle.lelfkoff2<br>
</div>
<div>twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>