[FRIAM] climate change questions

[Prof David West]

Nick,

The last sentence simply stated that human activities contribute, almost certainly critically, to the problem. And the only causal factors that we might be able to change are those same human activities.

What is being stipulated is that humans, individually and collectively, must be the change agents. Other contributory causes like solar cycles, natural climate cycles, etc. cannot change or be changed.

Sorry if the terseness of the original expression led to ambiguity.

As to trust - yes, I am arrogant enough to believe I can follow an argument and understand the premises / assumptions / and conclusions of the models and reports produced by the experts. No, I do not understand the math or the specialized science. But, if the experts cannot express themselves clearly enough to meet me half-way then they are no better than witch doctors explaining how voudun works.

The other dimension of trust mentioned involves avoiding being manipulated (politicians, rent-seekers, ecological cultists - and they do exist) or defrauded.

Two examples, I am very leery of purchasing carbon offsets for the only way I have to go home once in a while - jet travel. A couple of reasons: I can't see exactly how my money actually does something other than line someone's pockets; and it feels a whole lot like spitting on a forest fire. There must be a better way to spend my funds.

I don't see the point in supporting politicians like Ocasio-Cortez or even Warren and trying to convince people to give up their cars or quit eating meat in order to reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere, simply because I have zero belief that it will happen. I do see a greater likelihood that money contributed to research on carbon scrubbers will result in something that will help and will be actually put into play.

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:44 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> Please see larding below. 

> 

> My larder is still broken, but it should work well enough.

> 

> Nicholas Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

> Clark University

> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

> 

> 

> 


> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:19 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

> 

> convict of what?

> premeditated Gaia murder?

> voluntary climate slaughter?

> involuntary climate slaughter?

> reckless endangerment?

> conspiracy to commit climate change?

> accessory after the fact?

> **[NST===>] All of the above. **

> 

> Not trying to be either specious or difficult. I would be ready to vote in favor of human activity contributing the "tipping point factor" but not the cause.

> **[NST===>] As a philosophy camp-follower, I am curious about the distinction, but right now we have a planet to save.**

> 

> 

> The following is stipulated:

> 

>  - Dr. Kwok, et. al. are correctly reporting phenomena and consequences.

> **[NST===>] Is the whole jury prepared to “convict” on these counts? I am sorry, I should probably stop punning on “convict”, here. I guess the real question is, are these proposition upon which we are all prepared to act?**

>  - The planet is getting warmer.

>  - Human activities are a critical component of the cause, and the only factors that might be altered to partially ameliorate the situation.

> **[NST===>] Sorry, but the last part of the above was unclear to me. Is there a missing word?**

> 

> But,

> How to I analyze the models (I am unwilling to just take 'The Experts" word on the matter) and evaluate the importance of the various factors such that I can start to plan a course, mostly personal, of action.

> 

> What options are available to remediate the problem. What options might I adopt as an individual? What options must I try to convince the masses to adopt?

> 

> 

> How to I avoid being exploited - by politicians seeking power, by opportunists seeking an income, from fraud like green washing?

> **[NST===>] Dave, it seems there are two threads here. One concerns trust. An expert is just somebody whom we trust to evaluate the data for us when we are incompetent to do so. I sense in what you write here an assumption that you are going to be able to make your personal decisions without having to avail yourself of trust. But surely that’s a dream, right? So the question is, “How are we to deploy trust?**

> ** **

> **The second thread is the relation of personal responsibility to group action. Now I think that we can stipulate that group action is the only way we are ever going to have a solution to the climate. It’s like what your mom told you about those Poor Starving Armenians. If every mom served to her kid only the amount of spinach that that kid would eat, and shipped all the rest to Armenia, the Armenians would not have starved. But no rational connection exists between my eating my spinach, and any Armenian child being fed. So, in fact, if we actually cared about Poor Starving Armenians, we would have paid to send a boat load of spinach over there, and eaten whatever spinach was left over. In fact, perhaps we should have Federalized the Guard, confiscated all the spinach, and sent it to Armenia. Because even if every kid ate all the spinach on his plate, and every, mom served her kid only what he would eat, still, and all, ***THAT WOULD NOT GET THE SPINACE TO ARMENIA. *

> ** **

> **Yet the quakers had a point, and Gandhi had a point, and there is a point to voting. If no individual takes action, then no action will be taken. **

> 

> 

> davew

> 

> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:55 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:

>> Friammers:

>> 

>> Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”. The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree. Otherwise we remain a hung jury. 

>> 

>> So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

>> 

>> If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

>> 

>> I am polling the jury.

>> 

>> Nick

>> 

>> Nicholas Thompson

>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

>> Clark University

>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly

>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>

>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

>> 

>> From NASA:

>> https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

>> 

>> -----------------------------------

>> Frank Wimberly

>> 

>> My memoir:

>> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

>> 

>> My scientific publications:

>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

>> 

>> Phone (505) 670-9918

>> 

>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it. I have no references.

>>> 

>>> Frank

>>> -----------------------------------

>>> Frank Wimberly

>>> 

>>> My memoir:

>>> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

>>> 

>>> My scientific publications:

>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

>>> 

>>> Phone (505) 670-9918

>>> 

>>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Dave,

>>>> 

>>>> I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

>>>> challenge.

>>>> 

>>>> What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

>>>> somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

>>>> and human activity? By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

>>>> engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter. Because,

>>>> if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

>>>> human reach.

>>>> 

>>>> So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

>>>> stated. They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

>>>> bad as they were predicted to be. Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

>>>> that in fact Things are worse. The only specific data I feel I have been

>>>> exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting. But even

>>>> there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

>>>> my own. So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

>>>> am talking about. Ugh!

>>>> 

>>>> I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern: what

>>>> we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

>>>> is increases in year-to-year climate variability. You can grow rape seed in

>>>> Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

>>>> supporting these two crops will move north. But what happens if one year

>>>> the climate demands one crop and the next the other? And the switch from

>>>> one to the other is entirely unpredictable. Anybody who plants a garden

>>>> knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

>>>> your garden: first frost and last frost. The average frost free period in

>>>> my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

>>>> 90. And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

>>>> dates in June and first frost dates in early September. It would take a

>>>> very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

>>>> something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

>>>> wasteplot. 

>>>> 

>>>> I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

>>>> a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

>>>> I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

>>>> ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent on that

>>>> anomalous stability. The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

>>>> agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it. The whole

>>>> idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

>>>> same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

>>>> or less the same thing. A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

>>>> would obliterate that possibility. 

>>>> 

>>>> If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

>>>> are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

>>>> scare the Living Crap out of you. 

>>>> 

>>>> The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

>>>> and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

>>>> harvested for the long run.

>>>> 

>>>> Happy New Year!

>>>> 

>>>> Nick

>>>> 

>>>> Nicholas Thompson

>>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

>>>> Clark University

>>>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> -----Original Message-----

>>>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West

>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

>>>> To: friam at redfish.com

>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

>>>> 

>>>> Questions, that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

>>>> change.

>>>> 

>>>> 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.

>>>> 

>>>> 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.

>>>> 

>>>> The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

>>>> 

>>>> The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

>>>> domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

>>>> 

>>>> The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

>>>> 

>>>> 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.

>>>> 

>>>> 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?

>>>> 

>>>> Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

>>>> "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

>>>> 

>>>> 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?

>>>> 

>>>> 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?

>>>> 

>>>> davew

>>>> 

>>>> ============================================================

>>>> 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

>>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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

>>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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

>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/20200101/88f637ca/attachment-0001.html>