[FRIAM] climate change questions

[Prof David West]

Merle wrote:

*" ... the deep dialogue on global warming that I experience (and sometimes facilitate) happening around the world everywhere but here in the U.S ..."*

Echo that

 -- I am now experiencing two kinds of deep personal shame at the moment. One because everybody but me knows and converses in at least three languages; and second everyone except me seems to have well developed, comprehensive, and implemented plans for making a difference vis a vis global warming.

BTW the Dutch Supreme Court just ruled that the Government can be sued for not doing enough to ameliorate climate change - a lawsuit similar to the one in the US that the Obama and Trump administration was and is fighting (and so far losing) brought originally by teenagers as a civil rights case.

The Dutch Court used a section of European Union law that makes all the other countries in the Union vulnerable to similar lawsuits and those lawsuits are promptly being filed.

anecdotal evidence - this is going to be a record warm winter in Amsterdam -- not a drop of snow (there never is much) and only 3 days so far with a high temperature below 0 centigrade, and the worst of those was -2 centigrade and only for about 4 hours.

davew


On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, at 7:06 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> 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. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:45 AM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
> 
> merlelefkoff at gmail.com <mailto:merlelefoff at gmail.com>
> mobile: (303) 859-5609
> skype: merle.lelfkoff2
> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
> ============================================================
> 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/20200102/a6a455a8/attachment.html>