Merle - 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.
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. - Steve -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 22:06:33 -0800 From: Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com> Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> 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 <profw...@fastmail.fm <mailto:profw...@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 <http://emergentdiplomacy.org> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA merlelefk...@gmail.com <mailto:merlelef...@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
============================================================ 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