[FRIAM] Climate Change

Sun Dec 31 00:30:19 EST 2017

Hi, Dave, 

Hey, thanks for taking the question seriously. 

Please see “larding”.  

I am still hoping to see you before you leave.  I might do coffee early Tuesday afternoon. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:36 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

In my most humble opinion:

1) it evolves in real-time, not only when new data is received but when new perspectives are offered. No more of this waiting for the old generation to die before we can change our minds crap.

2) It privileges no perspective(s), tool(s), or mode(s) of thinking. No more, "it isn't real unless it is mathematical, logical, formal, grammatical, or model-able."

[NST==>Now, hang on, big fella!  It must privilege SOMETHING, else how does it know what “good” is.  And somebody might ask us what we meant by “real, here.  I guess I would prefer to say, ‘No more, “We can ignore it if it isn’t ….” ‘  <==nst] 

3) It recognizes that, "it is always more complicated than that."

[NST==>Is this the pragmatist assertion that all certainties are provisional?  There is no sequence of head-flips of a coin  long as to guarantee that that coin is not fair.  <==nst] 

By the way, every time I try to teach myself the periodic table I think, this isn’t a very “good” theory.  It’s got this crazy strangulated hernia and stuff kind of hanging off the end.  It just cries out to be tidied up.  I guess “tidiness” is one of the principles you think we are free to ignore?  

davewest

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Pieter,

Seeing my question, out in the open, away from the underbrush of my other words, I am inclined to edit it:

What are the properties of good GroupThought:  i.e., Group Thought that is likely to survive experience into the deep future?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 1:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

Nick,

What are the properties of GroupThought that is likely to survive experience into the deep future?

Philip Tetlock has done excellent work answering exactly that question. His view is simply that you can test and develop the ability of individuals and groups to increase the quality of their judgments. (His focus is on forecasting).

Pieter

On 30 December 2017 at 19:20, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net <mailto:nickthompson at earthlink.net> > wrote:

Pieter, 

Some months back, at the Friday Meeting of the FRIAM Mother Church at St. Johns, we had a long discussion about the degree to which ANY of us ever made judgements in such matters on the basis of EVIDENCE.  I think, just for fun, we spent some time trying to PROVE to one another, on the basis of raw experience, that New Mexico is not flat.  Harder going than one might suppose.   So, I think we concluded that most of our judgements are based on circles of trust.  So then, the question becomes, what sorts of circles of trust are evidency.  The point is that, whatever one takes to be raw evidence always comes baled with a set of inferences and assumptions that are themselves not evidenced but which come by authority and seem trustworthy. 

Your pointing to historical climate anomalies seemed evidency to me in that it was plausible,  I had vaguely heard of those things and it seemed logically plausible to me that we should be able to POSTDICT these anomalies from present conditions, if our models are strong.  Thus, in the context of that particular network of trusted (plausible) propositions, I momentarily joined you in your skepticism.  But none of that is EVIDENCE in the sense that we all like to use that term. 

In short, what is the relation between evidence and trust?  Aren’t we all guilty of group think?  Isn’t all science (following Peirce) a kind of organized groupthink?  Isn’t the point NOT that some of us think independently and some of us are victims of Groupthink, but rather that some groups think better than others?  And if so, why?  What are the properties of GroupThought that is likely to survive experience into the deep future?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 5:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> >

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

Glen, 

I'd like to comment on your comment a few posts earlier:

"*That* is why I think focusing on the workflows (modeling) is important.  Those of us who distrust the experts bear the burden of proof.  Hence, we have to really dig in and find the flaw in the experts' thinking.  To do otherwise is irrational.

Those of us who can delegate and tend to trust experts only need to dig in when/if a skeptic produces a defensible counter-argument.  If all a skeptic has to offer are blanket generalizations about human error or whatnot, then it seems rational to ignore that doubt and go with the conclusions of the experts.

If Pieter knows of a specific flaw in the way the experts do their work, then it would be a valuable contribution."

My first reply is that I consider evidence to be much more valuable than expert's opinions. The IPCC is rich in expert's opinions and very light on evidence. 

The second reply is that I certainly do not claim any explicit fraud in climate science. But there is evidence of bias in climate science and "soft punishment" of scientists who disagree with the main narrative. For example, refer to Judith Curry's experience when she started to challenge the main climate science narrative. She is a former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and blogs at www.judithcurry.com <http://www.judithcurry.com> .

My point is that although there is no evidence of explicit fraud, there is evidence of an environment that promotes groupthink. 

Combining the two points, with evidence of less temperature increase than what the models predict and evidence of an environment in climate science promoting "fitting in" and the absence of healthy challenging of climate science, my conclusion is to be skeptical towards main climate science and the IPCC's conclusions. 

On 30 December 2017 at 10:30, Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za <mailto:pieters at randcontrols.co.za> > wrote:

I'm also a big fan of James Lovelock. Interesting that he changed his views on climate change dramatically. I refer to an interview The Guardian newspaper had with him recently (www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over> ). I quote:

"What has changed dramatically, however, is his position on climate change. He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” "

On 30 December 2017 at 07:25, Carl Tollander <carl at plektyx.com <mailto:carl at plektyx.com> > wrote:

I would rather,

 than worry directly about the predictability of the climate models we currently have vs the population/variety/intitial conclusions of researchers from decades ago, 

 that we instead consider a range of climate risks, their consequences,  our responses/adaptations, and their consequences.

The latter may prepare us, and it moves that portion of the science along in any case, and may yet eventually show up any deficiencies in the former, but let's get underway.

Personally, I'm with Lovelock on the large grain future: the window of action gets progressively smaller the longer we delay, and that the world will likely experience

a "massive reduction in carrying capacity" (that's a euphemism) over the next century.    Looking at older cultures and how they survive, mutate, die or flourish in analogous upheavals (e.g. mid-8th-century China or black-death eras in  Europe) might be worthwhile at this point. Start by assuming the fan/speed/blades and what/who hits it; what can/should we DO?  We should at least perhaps understand when we are waiting too long to begin adaptations that are cheap, safe, economic or politically acceptable, for Nature bats last.

Hope y'all like mosquitoes. 

カール

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

Nick writes:

< IF climate models cannot "predict" past anomalies, why should we trust them now? >

The European weather model assimilates 50+ types of measurements in space and time, including satellite data.   Obviously, these measurements were not possible except in the last few decades, never mind in the middle ages or before humans.   So whether or not there were even particular kinds of climate anomalies is a subject of some debate.    For example, were those periods wet or were they warm?  Were they uniform across the global or localized to certain regions?

Marcus

  _____  

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> > on behalf of Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net <mailto:nickthompson at earthlink.net> >
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 8:27:21 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

I dunno, I thought Pietr's point was kind of interesting.  IF (and I don't know if the condition is met) ... IF climate models cannot "predict" past anomalies, why should we trust them now?   Or did somebody already answer that.  

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

Well, I mean "models" writ large.  Even when gathering and reducing observational data, there's a workflow for doing that. That workflow relies on a model of a sort.  And integrating different data sets so that they're commensurate also requires models.  E.g. correlating tree ring based with other climate data.

But you're ultimately right.  It's not so much about the models as it is the whole inferential apparatus one *might* use to drive policy decisions, including huge populations of expert climatologists.  There's probably a correlation to be drawn between people who distrust government and those who distrust the "scientific establishment" and/or the "deep state".  People tend to obey/trust whoever they regard as authority figures (e.g. greater shocks to another if a person in a lab coat tells you to do it).  Those of us who inherently distrust authority figures have a particular psychological bent and our impulse can go the other way.  It could be because we know how groups can succumb to bias, or how errors get propagated (e.g. peer review), or whatever.

*That* is why I think focusing on the workflows (modeling) is important.  Those of us who distrust the experts bear the burden of proof.  Hence, we have to really dig in and find the flaw in the experts' thinking.  To do otherwise is irrational.

Those of us who can delegate and tend to trust experts only need to dig in when/if a skeptic produces a defensible counter-argument.  If all a skeptic has to offer are blanket generalizations about human error or whatnot, then it seems rational to ignore that doubt and go with the conclusions of the experts.

If Pieter knows of a specific flaw in the way the experts do their work, then it would be a valuable contribution.

On 12/29/2017 12:41 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> IMO it is not about models. Models are complicated and controversial. Climate change in the artic is a fact, melting arctic ice is a fact, melting glaciers is a fact. In the arctic regions we can oberve the rising temperatures most clearly.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171230/778e1d70/attachment.html>