[FRIAM] climate change initiative open data portal

[uǝlƃ ☣]

http://cci.esa.int/data/#dash

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Merle Lefkoff]

Nick, the "Catalogue" is evolving and welcomes suggestions--although many,
if not most, of the techie fixes are too little too late.  Global warming
is now a Humanities problem.

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 1:02 PM  wrote:

> Merle,
>
>
>
> Do we need a Whole Earth Catalogue of climate change survival?  Or is
> there one, already, and I just don’t know of it?
>
>
>
> I wonder how many people on this list are old enough to remember the WEC.
> It has always seemed to me to have been, in some weird way, a harbinger of
> the internet.  It created the need which the Internet then filled.
>
>
>
> By the way, do we all agree that Miami and New Orleans are doomed, and
> those of us who live there should move?  What about the southwest?  Where
> do we stand and fight, and where do we roll up the teepee, hitch up the
> horses, and move inland, north, or both.
>
>
>
> It would seem to take a LOT of dooming to get people to move.  The data on
> west coast earthquake vulnerability are terrifying, yet nobody moves.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Merle Lefkoff
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:48 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> Well, he's right.  There a rapidly increasing number of "climate refugees"
> and some interesting maps of the next best places in the world to survive
> by building small communities, amending the soil, and growing and storing
> food.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM  wrote:
>
> Merle,
>
>
>
> I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
> *To:* Tom Johnson ; The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> Dave writes:
>
>
>
> < Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail
> to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in
> nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>
>
> Tom writes:
>
>
>
> < So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or
> rational concept? >
>
>
>
> *Side effects* is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't
> have side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do
> its thing.
>
>
>
> Marcus
> --
>
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Tom Johnson <
> t...@jtjohnson.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a
> viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential
> alternative.)
>
> Tom Johnson
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM  wrote:
>
> Well we certainly agree on that.
>
> So should we put it before the Jury?
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
> Nick,
>
> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
> the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
> are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect
> existing
> political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
> the joys it will bring us.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@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

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Gary Schiltz]

empty repetition of
>> others rather than understandings held by oneself of concrete problems that
>> need solving.  We envision the possibilities too much in terms of the
>> habits of people around us because they are stubborn and we don’t see the
>> levers to move them.  Glen is right, too: when everything about the society
>> around you makes waste the available method, it requires a kind of proteus
>> to invent a whole survivable life for himself with new methods.  There are
>> such people, but it consumes all of their effort just to live without
>> harm.  If a society makes more non-damaging ways of doing things available,
>> ordinary people have the option of living with less harm, and the proteuses
>> in one or another domain have some spare energy to try to extend what is
>> possible, rather than just tread water.
>>
>> Anyway,
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>>
>> I think he should say reducing greenhouse gases and
>>
>> Other mitigation strategies include:
>>
>>- Improving the energy efficiency of buildings to reduce emissions
>>from heating/cooling
>>- Planting forests and tree to remove excess carbon dioxide from our
>>atmosphere
>>- Reducing fuel emissions associated with motor vehicles
>>
>> I like the planting approaches.
>> ---
>>
>>
>> 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 Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 10:51 AM  wrote:
>>
>>> Merle,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nicholas Thompson
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>>>
>>> Clark University
>>>
>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>>
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
>>> *To:* Tom Johnson ; The Friday Morning Applied
>>> Complexity Coffee Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> < Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that
>>> fail to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise
>>> in nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>
>>>
>>> Tom writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> < So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or
>>> rational concept? >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Side effects* is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works
>>> doesn't have side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the
>>> treatment do its thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Tom Johnson <
>>> t...@jtjohnson.com>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam@redfish.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a
>>> viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential
>>> alternative.)
>>>
>>> Tom Johnson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM  wrote:
>>>
>>> Well we certainly agree on that.
>>>
>>> So should we put it before the Jury?
>>>
>>> N
>>>
>>> Nicholas Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>>> Clark University
>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
>>> To: friam@redfish.com
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Frank Wimberly]

e or another domain have some spare energy to try to extend what is
> possible, rather than just tread water.
>
> Anyway,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>
> I think he should say reducing greenhouse gases and
>
> Other mitigation strategies include:
>
>- Improving the energy efficiency of buildings to reduce emissions
>from heating/cooling
>- Planting forests and tree to remove excess carbon dioxide from our
>atmosphere
>- Reducing fuel emissions associated with motor vehicles
>
> I like the planting approaches.
> ---
>
>
> 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 Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 10:51 AM  wrote:
>
>> Merle,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
>> *To:* Tom Johnson ; The Friday Morning Applied
>> Complexity Coffee Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> < Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that
>> fail to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise
>> in nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>
>>
>> Tom writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> < So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or
>> rational concept? >
>>
>>
>>
>> *Side effects* is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't
>> have side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do
>> its thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>> --
>>
>> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Tom Johnson <
>> t...@jtjohnson.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>>
>>
>>
>> RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a
>> viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential
>> alternative.)
>>
>> Tom Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM  wrote:
>>
>> Well we certainly agree on that.
>>
>> So should we put it before the Jury?
>>
>> N
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>> Clark University
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
>> To: friam@redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>>
>> Nick,
>>
>> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
>> the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more
>> scary
>> are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect
>> existing
>> political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
>> the joys it will bring us.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@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 

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[thompnickson2]

Merle,

 

Do we need a Whole Earth Catalogue of climate change survival?  Or is there 
one, already, and I just don’t know of it?

 

I wonder how many people on this list are old enough to remember the WEC.  It 
has always seemed to me to have been, in some weird way, a harbinger of the 
internet.  It created the need which the Internet then filled. 

 

By the way, do we all agree that Miami and New Orleans are doomed, and those of 
us who live there should move?  What about the southwest?  Where do we stand 
and fight, and where do we roll up the teepee, hitch up the horses, and move 
inland, north, or both. 

 

It would seem to take a LOT of dooming to get people to move.  The data on west 
coast earthquake vulnerability are terrifying, yet nobody moves.  

 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Well, he's right.  There a rapidly increasing number of "climate refugees" and 
some interesting maps of the next best places in the world to survive by 
building small communities, amending the soil, and growing and storing food.

 

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Merle, 

 

I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Tom Johnson mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com> >; The Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Dave writes:

 

< Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to 
respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in 
nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>

Tom writes:

 

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational 
concept? >

 

Side effects is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't have 
side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.  

 

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Tom Johnson mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com> >
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions 

 

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable 
or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.) 

Tom Johnson 

 

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Well we certainly agree on that.  

So should we put it before the Jury? 

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Nick,

I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect existing
political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
the joys it will bring us.

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
<mailto:thompnicks...@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. 

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[David Eric Smith]

www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2>
> 
> Phone (505) 670-9918
> 
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 10:51 AM  <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Merle,
> 
>  
> 
> I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment. 
> 
>  
> 
> Nick
> 
>  
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> 
> Clark University
> 
> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
> Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
> To: Tom Johnson mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>>; The Friday 
> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
> 
>  
> 
> Dave writes:
> 
>  
> 
> < Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to 
> respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in 
> nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>
> 
> Tom writes:
> 
>  
> 
> < So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or 
> rational concept? >
> 
>  
> 
> Side effects is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't have 
> side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its 
> thing. 
> 
>  
> 
> Marcus
> 
> From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on 
> behalf of Tom Johnson mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
> 
>  
> 
> RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a 
> viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)
> 
> Tom Johnson 
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM  <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Well we certainly agree on that.  
> 
> So should we put it before the Jury? 
> 
> N
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
> Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
> 
> Nick,
> 
> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
> the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
> are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect existing
> political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
> the joys it will bring us.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:thompnicks...@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

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Merle Lefkoff]

Well, he's right.  There a rapidly increasing number of "climate refugees"
and some interesting maps of the next best places in the world to survive
by building small communities, amending the soil, and growing and storing
food.

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM  wrote:

> Merle,
>
>
>
> I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
> *To:* Tom Johnson ; The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> Dave writes:
>
>
>
> < Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail
> to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in
> nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>
>
> Tom writes:
>
>
>
> < So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or
> rational concept? >
>
>
>
> *Side effects* is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't
> have side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do
> its thing.
>
>
>
> Marcus
> --
>
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Tom Johnson <
> t...@jtjohnson.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a
> viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential
> alternative.)
>
> Tom Johnson
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM  wrote:
>
> Well we certainly agree on that.
>
> So should we put it before the Jury?
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
> Nick,
>
> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
> the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
> are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect
> existing
> political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
> the joys it will bring us.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@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:
> > firs

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I really appreciate lists like this. I'd add a few of my own: only fly on 
business and only when necessary, work remotely as much as possible, 
consolidate online orders to reduce the number of deliveries, tap water, etc. I 
fail often, though, e.g. taking 2 extra bodies with me on my last business 
trip, extra trips with my pickup truck during my recent move, eating lots of 
meat while on the cancer drugs, etc.

The trouble, however, is that no amount of individual cutting back by a 
conscientious person will compensate for the behavior of your average American. 
Renee's son, for example, lives in fear of tap water and, therefore, only 
drinks bottled water ... mostly from little plastic bottles ... never mind all 
the plastic in his clothing, which consists mostly of tech-fabrics. My closest 
and oldest friend is, in spite of my attempts to shame him, a committed 
tourist, flying to 2 or more distant lands every year just for *pleasure*. And 
even though he has a decent public transit route to his job, he drives his 
(admittedly efficient) gas-powered scooter ~40 miles every workday  never 
mind all the .75 ton trucks carrying city-cowboys to their desk jobs at 85 mph 
in, say, Dallas, TX.

It seems a little like bvllsh¡t. Their behaviors are easier and more 
"efficient" than the penny-wise behaviors that are more energy efficient, in 
the same way bvllsh¡t spreads/survives more easily than truth. Any solution 
will come in the form of something that severely *resets* all of our behavior, 
be it government or the earth, herself.


On 1/1/20 8:08 PM, Curt McNamara wrote:
> * year round biking, very low auto use; high efficiency home insulation; 
> setback thermostat; no ac; purchase wind energy; eat local food (mostly 
> plants); educate those who are interested.

-- 
☣ 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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Marcus Daniels]

Merle writes:

< And what treatment do you suggest, Marcus? >

The treatment is the necessary physical consequence of past and current actions 
of humans on this planet.   To the extent humans could augment that treatment 
for our own collective benefit, I suppose we could escort nationalists to 
evacuated areas to enjoy the 140 F weather, minus air conditioning.   But 
seriously, I do think that after a tipping point becomes plain as day, that 
coercive approaches will be unavoidable.   There's probably a lot of money to 
be made on real estate before things really get ugly.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of Merle Lefkoff 

Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

And what treatment do you suggest, Marcus?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:46 AM Marcus Daniels 
mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
Dave writes:

< Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to 
respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in 
nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>

Tom writes:

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational 
concept? >

Side effects is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't have 
side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.

Marcus

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on 
behalf of Tom Johnson mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable 
or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)
Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
To: friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Nick,

I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect existing
political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
the joys it will bring us.

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, 
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@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
>

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Frank Wimberly]

I think he should say reducing greenhouse gases and

Other mitigation strategies include:

   - Improving the energy efficiency of buildings to reduce emissions from
   heating/cooling
   - Planting forests and tree to remove excess carbon dioxide from our
   atmosphere
   - Reducing fuel emissions associated with motor vehicles

I like the planting approaches.
---


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 Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 10:51 AM  wrote:

> Merle,
>
>
>
> I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
> *To:* Tom Johnson ; The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> Dave writes:
>
>
>
> < Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail
> to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in
> nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>
>
> Tom writes:
>
>
>
> < So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or
> rational concept? >
>
>
>
> *Side effects* is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't
> have side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do
> its thing.
>
>
>
> Marcus
> --
>
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Tom Johnson <
> t...@jtjohnson.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a
> viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential
> alternative.)
>
> Tom Johnson
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM  wrote:
>
> Well we certainly agree on that.
>
> So should we put it before the Jury?
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
> Nick,
>
> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
> the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
> are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect
> existing
> political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
> the joys it will bring us.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@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 crop

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[thompnickson2]

Merle, 

 

I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Tom Johnson ; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Dave writes:

 

< Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail
to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in
nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>

Tom writes:

 

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or
rational concept? >

 

Side effects is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't have
side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its
thing.  

 

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >
on behalf of Tom Johnson mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com> >
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions 

 

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a
viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential
alternative.) 

Tom Johnson 

 

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Well we certainly agree on that.  

So should we put it before the Jury? 

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >
On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Nick,

I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect existing
political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
the joys it will bring us.

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@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 o

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Merle Lefkoff]

And what treatment do you suggest, Marcus?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:46 AM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> Dave writes:
>
> < Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail
> to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in
> nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>
>
> Tom writes:
>
> < So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or
> rational concept? >
>
> *Side effects* is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't
> have side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do
> its thing.
>
> Marcus
> --
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Tom Johnson <
> t...@jtjohnson.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
> RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a
> viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential
> alternative.)
> Tom Johnson
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM  wrote:
>
> Well we certainly agree on that.
>
> So should we put it before the Jury?
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
> Nick,
>
> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
> the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
> are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect
> existing
> political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
> the joys it will bring us.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@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
>

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:

< Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to 
respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in 
nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.>

Tom writes:

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational 
concept? >

Side effects is a good way to look at it.   No drug that works doesn't have 
side effects.   Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of Tom Johnson 

Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable 
or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)
Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
To: friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Nick,

I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect existing
political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
the joys it will bring us.

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, 
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@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, t

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[thompnickson2]

Dave,

 

No skating on the polders this year!

 

Cold as hell in Santa Fe, if that's any comfort. 

 

It's funny about that shame thing.  It's one of those forces that connects
individual actions with group-level consequences.  

 

Feeds those Armenians. 

 

Nick 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 2:39 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

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 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

Re: [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  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
> 

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Tom Johnson]

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a
viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential
alternative.)
Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM  wrote:

> Well we certainly agree on that.
>
> So should we put it before the Jury?
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
> Nick,
>
> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
> the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
> are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect
> existing
> political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
> the joys it will bring us.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@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
> > Emeri

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[thompnickson2]

Well we certainly agree on that.  

So should we put it before the Jury? 

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Nick,

I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is
the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary
are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect existing
political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all
the joys it will bring us.

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@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 
> thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
> To: friam@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
> F

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Merle Lefkoff]

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  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
merlelefk...@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

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Curt McNamara]

Prof West comments on carbon offsets - "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."

Quite a few years ago i calculated my ecological footprint. Even with all
the cool stuff* :-) i was doing, there was still significant impact. And a
good part of that was flying occasionally. I had also heard that offsets
were sketchy, and that some folks said they would just encourage people to
use more fossil fuels.

After digging into it for a while I found a couple organizations where the
projects are third party certified. The one i use is TerraPass. It costs me
about $15 a month to offset more carbon than i consume. And it goes to good
projects. Perfect? No. Continuously improving? Yes. What would happen if a
few million concerned about climate change signed up? Wow.

One reason I do as much as i can: kids, nieces, nephews, and the nature
that i love so much. And i agree that waiting for government to act is
futile.

I still do a lot of cool stuff and actually manage some land with climate
in mind (which seems like the next step up).

And i continually look for ways (like Project Drawdown) to be more
effective.

 Curt

* year round biking, very low auto use; high efficiency home insulation;
setback thermostat; no ac; purchase wind energy; eat local food (mostly
plants); educate those who are interested.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 4:09 PM Prof David West  wrote:

> 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, thompnicks...@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
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:19 PM
> *To:* friam@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 t

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:

< 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. >

Tax greenhouse gas emissions to keep the research going.  There’s been some 
pushback [1] about that.  The text [2] reads:

“(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by 
restoring

natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon 
storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;”

[1] 
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/first-fight-about-democrats-climate-green-new-deal/580543/


[2] https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf


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

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Stephen Guerin]

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 12:16 PM Douglass Carmichael 
wrote:

> We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that
> we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing
> politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages,
> collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move
> toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.
>

Doug,

I'm intrigued. Can you say more about your last point about the
simultaneous movement toward centralization and decentralization?

Welcome to Friam - I've seen you post a few times over the last 5 years. I
poked around your sites, downloaded Gardenworld and checked out your Bio -
incredible depth!

-Stephen

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

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Carl Tollander]

Saul Griffith interview on energy flows and climate
(mitigation/adaptation).  Recommended by John Baez.
I think "solve" is a little strong, I'd use "address".
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2019/12/28/how-to-solve-climate-change/

As to the issue of climate models being accurate over time...
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

There are a billion or so people who will be affected by melting glaciers
in the Hindu Kush, so there will be a lot of folks on the move relatively
shortly.

Carl



On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Prof David West  wrote:

> 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, thompnicks...@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
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:19 PM
> *To:* friam@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
>

Re: [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, thompnicks...@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

> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

> 

> 

> 


> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:19 PM
> *To:* friam@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 m

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Michael Orshan]

Hi:

Mostly I monitor the group, but today since I'm very much involved in
solving the warming issue, I'll offer my argument.  First, let's avoid the
estimates and look at what is happening.  Most agree that storms,
earthquakes, fires, and other natural disasters are increasing.  Let's just
focus on this and agree this is caused by new weather.  In the past five or
six years we have all seen what has happened in Europe with 2M mostly
Syrian refugees.  Turkey because a policial hot plate, so did Greece, then
France, Germany and Britain saw the rise in rightist anti-immigration
governments.  Even Trump can be seen as an anti-immigration government.
What happens when the rate of these disasters increase?  We are expecting a
huge rise in climate refugees.  In less than ten years we will see 5M to
20M a year.  Whatever that number turns out to be, it is a huge multiple of
the Syrian immigration.  Remember we have lived through this in Santa Fe
with the influx from Katrina and that was maybe 15,000 or so.  Even
California with the Camp Fire victims are living through 20 to 30,000
people who lost homes and it has affected the local communities.  So, what
does the world do?

We need to start looking at solutions fast.  Let's work on limiting carbon
in the atmosphere, it is one of the few options we have.  Right now it is
the warming that is most critical to the world.  I saw the published stats
in the post.  Many problems happen during warming, the last problem happens
at an ocean increase of 6C.  Then rain stops.

Increasing the population of trees, limiting the cattle sizes, and such
solutions need to start soon.  If you look for a tipping point I believe it
is when costs become irrelevant.  Then we are into desperation, like a real
war.  We need to move forward before we reach this stage.

Mike Orshan
GM of Arctech Solar

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 4:45 PM Prof David West  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
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Curt McNamara]

Per Prof West's comments --

In some cases you state degrees F and in others the scale is unspecified.
It is good to keep the scale consistent. The IPCC uses degrees C.

For a good overview of the IPCC (including brief summaries of models) see
the wikipedia page. Since the IPCC is a large group which operates by
consensus their summaries and predictions are conservative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

For what to do, consider Project Drawdown. They interviewed multiple
stakeholders and created models which were then ranked by effectiveness.
https://www.drawdown.org/

>From my understanding, most of the difference between early models and
actual data was due to: oceans warming (i.e. absorbing heat) and global
dimming. If you are interested I can send links. IMHO it is great that the
models are evolving, and that things (so far) are slower than prediction.
Like many others, the current data on tipping points is very concerning to
me.

  Curt

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 10:45 AM Prof David West 
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
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick writes:

< Some comments: as a higher-life-form chauvinist, to join you in your opinion, 
I would have first to assume that human beings didn’t end their existence with 
a nuclear … um … event. >

That's so 20th century.

< Second, I guess I am not a utilitarian, because I keep thinking of my 
grandchildren.  I don’t think anybody with grand children can take your 
rational position to heart. >

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to write them a check to build their technology 
platform.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of thompnicks...@gmail.com 

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions


Marcus,



I haven’t known a Marxist for many years, but I think this corresponds to a 
dictum of Marxist thought: Stop Feeding the Dinosaur!



That may, of course, be the best utilitarian strategy, the strategy with the 
least suffering in the long run.  Some comments: as a higher-life-form 
chauvinist, to join you in your opinion, I would have first to assume that 
human beings didn’t end their existence with a nuclear … um … event.  Second, I 
guess I am not a utilitarian, because I keep thinking of my grandchildren.  I 
don’t think anybody with grand children can take your rational position to 
heart.



Whatever “heart” is.



Nick



Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>

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





From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:45 PM
To: doug carmichael ; The Friday Morning Applied 
Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions



It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to become 
relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be unable or unwilling to 
reproduce, the population will drop, and the earth can heal.



From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on 
behalf of doug carmichael 
mailto:d...@dougcarmichael.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions



Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below 
that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important 
questions:



Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That includes 
installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. The 
energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity with 
oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new 
electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 
million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? 
Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. 
It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics 
that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation 
from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes.



doug



On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West 
mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote:



forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I 
don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the 
consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive 
than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?



If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign 
ourselves to the inevitable?



davew





On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we 
must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo 
it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and 
starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful 
centralization and decentralization at the same time.





doug



On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> 
mailto:thompnicks...@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

thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthom

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Steven A Smith]

See the Medea Hypothesis
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_hypothesis>vs the Gaia
Hypothesis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis> vs the
Fermi Paradox

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_others>
(as another way to avoid/stall responding to the Climate Crisis OR
the Chinese Hoax, depending on your preferred sociopolitical
attractor) .

On 1/1/20 12:50 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> This is the position that humanity is an infection causing the Earth
> to suffer, right?
>
> ---
> 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, 12:45 PM Marcus Daniels  <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>
> It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to
> become relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be
> unable or unwilling to reproduce, the population will drop, and
> the earth can heal. 
> 
> *From:* Friam  <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on behalf of doug carmichael
> mailto:d...@dougcarmichael.com>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>  
>
> Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated
> electricity below that of electricity generated by fossil fuels.
> This leaves several important questions: 
>
>
> Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater?
> That includes installation and remodeling costs  as well as the
> cost for the device. The energy companies will work hard to make
> sure we generate that electricity with oil and gas - and more coal
> than we want to acknowledge. The number of new electric heaters
> that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100
> million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks 
> on open fires? Such manufacturing is going to produce more
> pollution and use even more energy. It requires old  technologies
> of mining the minerals and producing the plastics that go into the
> manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation from
> mine to factory, and from the factory to homes. 
>
>
> doug
>
>> On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West
>> mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other
>> alternative. I don't believe that because I have read myriad ways
>> of remediating the consequences of that use. Those alternatives
>> are expensive, but more expensive than the social and economic
>> consequences of ending fossil fuels?
>>
>> If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we
>> simply resign ourselves to the inevitable?
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:
>>> We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is
>>> clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there
>>> is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs,
>>> failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And
>>> this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful
>>> centralization and decentralization at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>> doug
>>>
>>>> On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, >>> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> >>> <mailto:thompnicks...@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. 
>>>&

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[thompnickson2]

Marcus, 

 

I haven’t known a Marxist for many years, but I think this corresponds to a 
dictum of Marxist thought: Stop Feeding the Dinosaur!

 

That may, of course, be the best utilitarian strategy, the strategy with the 
least suffering in the long run.  Some comments: as a higher-life-form 
chauvinist, to join you in your opinion, I would have first to assume that 
human beings didn’t end their existence with a nuclear … um … event.  Second, I 
guess I am not a utilitarian, because I keep thinking of my grandchildren.  I 
don’t think anybody with grand children can take your rational position to 
heart. 

 

Whatever “heart” is. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:45 PM
To: doug carmichael ; The Friday Morning Applied 
Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to become 
relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be unable or unwilling to 
reproduce, the population will drop, and the earth can heal.  

  _  

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of doug carmichael mailto:d...@dougcarmichael.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions 

 

Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below 
that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important 
questions: 

 

Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That includes 
installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. The 
energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity with 
oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new 
electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 
million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? 
Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. 
It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics 
that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation 
from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes. 

 

doug





On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> > wrote:

 

forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I 
don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the 
consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive 
than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

 

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign 
ourselves to the inevitable?

 

davew

 

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we 
must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo 
it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and 
starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful 
centralization and decentralization at the same time.

 

 

doug

 

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > mailto:thompnicks...@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

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

 

From: Friam < <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com> On 
Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

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

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < 
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> friam@redfish.com>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

>From NASA:

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

 

---

Frank Wimberly

 

My memoir:

 <https://www.amazon.com/a

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Frank Wimberly]

This is the position that humanity is an infection causing the Earth to
suffer, right?

---
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, 12:45 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to become
> relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be unable or unwilling
> to reproduce, the population will drop, and the earth can heal.
> --
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of doug carmichael <
> d...@dougcarmichael.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
> Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity
> below that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several
> important questions:
>
>
> Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That
> includes installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the
> device. The energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that
> electricity with oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge.
> The number of new electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is
> on the order of 50-100 million for the US, and what of half the world that
> still cooks  on open fires? Such manufacturing is going to produce more
> pollution and use even more energy. It requires old  technologies of mining
> the minerals and producing the plastics that go into the manufacturing
> these units, as  well as their transportation from mine to factory, and
> from the factory to homes.
>
> doug
>
> On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West  wrote:
>
> 
> forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative.
> I don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the
> consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more
> expensive than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?
>
> If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign
> ourselves to the inevitable?
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:
>
> We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that
> we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing
> politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages,
> collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move
> toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.
>
>
> doug
>
> On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM,  <
> thompnicks...@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
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@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  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  wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
> chal

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Marcus Daniels]

It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to become 
relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be unable or unwilling to 
reproduce, the population will drop, and the earth can heal.

From: Friam  on behalf of doug carmichael 

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions


Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below 
that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important 
questions:


Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That includes 
installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. The 
energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity with 
oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new 
electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 
million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? 
Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. 
It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics 
that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation 
from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes.

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West  wrote:


forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I 
don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the 
consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive 
than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign 
ourselves to the inevitable?

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:
We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we 
must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo 
it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and 
starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful 
centralization and decentralization at the same time.


doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> 
mailto:thompnicks...@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
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@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 
mailto:wimber...@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 
mailto:thompnicks...@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 you

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[thompnickson2]

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

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:19 PM
To: friam@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, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
<mailto:thompnicks...@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

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

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

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@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:

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[doug carmichael]

Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below 
that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important 
questions: 

Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That 
includes installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. 
The energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity 
with oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new 
electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 
million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? 
Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. 
It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics 
that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation 
from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes. 

doug

> On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West  wrote:
> 
> 
> forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I 
> don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the 
> consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more 
> expensive than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?
> 
> If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign 
> ourselves to the inevitable?
> 
> davew
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:
>> We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that 
>> we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics 
>> todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of 
>> banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward 
>> powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.
>> 
>> 
>> doug
>> 
>>> On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM,  
>>>  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
>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>>> 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  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  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 wha

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Prof David West]

Nick,

I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is the 
variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary are all 
the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect existing political 
boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all the joys it 
will bring us.

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@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
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
> To: friam@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 pr

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Prof David West]

forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I 
don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the 
consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive 
than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign 
ourselves to the inevitable?

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:
> We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2, it is clear that we 
> must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics 
> todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of 
> banks - and starvation. And this is Implies that we must move toward powerful 
> centralization and decentralization at the same time.
> 
> 
> doug
> 
>> On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM,  
>>  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
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>> *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  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  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 on

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[thompnickson2]

Doug, 

 

I happen to agree with your opinion.  That’s two.  But what can we all agree on.

 

According to mythology, people should reason with respect to impending 
catastrophe as follows:

 

If a catastrophe impends, I must do x.

A catastrophe impends,

I must do x. 

 

In fact, humans tend to reason as follows.

 

I don’t want to do X

If a catastrophe impends, then I would do X.

Therefore no catastrophe impends.  

 

 

So the facts must be absolutely irrefutable before we see any political change. 
 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Douglass Carmichael
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we 
must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo 
it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and 
starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful 
centralization and decentralization at the same time.

 

 

doug





On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > mailto:thompnicks...@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

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam < <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com> On 
Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < 
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

>From NASA:

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

 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
 <https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly> 
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
 <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2> 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly < <mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> 
wimber...@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> 
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
 <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2> 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM < <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
thompnicks...@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 

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Prof David West]

convict of what?
premeditated Gaia murder?
voluntary climate slaughter?
involuntary climate slaughter?
reckless endangerment?
conspiracy to commit climate change?
accessory after the fact?

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. 

The following is stipulated:

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

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?

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:55 PM, thompnicks...@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

> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

> 

> 

> 


> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> *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  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  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 enti

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Douglass Carmichael]

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we 
must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo 
it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and 
starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful 
centralization and decentralization at the same time.


doug

> On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM,  
>  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
> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>  
>  
> From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
> Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>  
> From NASA:
> https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/ 
> <https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/>
>  
> 
> ---
> Frank Wimberly
> 
> My memoir:
> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly 
> <https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly>
> 
> My scientific publications:
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2>
> 
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>  
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly  <mailto:wimber...@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 
>> <https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly>
>> 
>> My scientific publications:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2>
>> 
>> Phone (505) 670-9918
>>  
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM > <mailto:thompnicks...@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 av

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Frank Wimberly]

See the third "Read More" item on the NASA page cited above.

---
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, 11:56 AM  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
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@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  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  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 stu

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[thompnickson2]

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

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
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 mailto:wimber...@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 mailto:thompnicks...@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 Univers

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Frank Wimberly]

>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  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  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
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David Wes

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[Frank Wimberly]

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  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
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
> To: friam@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 

Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

[thompnickson2]

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
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
To: friam@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 (elimina

[FRIAM] climate change questions

[Prof David West]

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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Hi Nick,

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

I want to take it somewhat further than merely seeking for objective facts
that do not depend whether anyone believes it. My question is what are the
properties of the processes that lead to good GroupThought. And then also
the properties of bad GroupThought so that one can actively take
precautions against it. What can we do to ensure that we can see the
emperor has no clothes before the little boy tells us that.

When good GroupThought prevails the collective's thoughts are much better
than any individuals' whilst with bad GroupThought it's much worse.

I'm no expert in this field and am open to being corrected, but as I see it
Philip Tetlock's work can give us concrete practical advice how to
achieve Peirce's
good GroupThought.

Pieter

On 31 December 2017 at 19:03, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Hi, Pieter,
>
>
>
> Thanks for this thoughtful post.
>
>
>
> *What are the properties of good GroupThought:  i.e., Group Thought that
> is likely to survive experience into the deep future?*
>
>
>
> The italicized bit is actually a definition both of “good” and
> “objective”.  Peirce asserts that this is what we MEAN when we say that
> thought is good and results are objective.  We MEAN that they are likely to
> survive future experience: ie,  that the experiences we have (experiments
> that we do) in the future are unlikely to dislodge them.  Or as Peirce puts
> it, an objective fact is proposition that does not depend on whether you,
> or I, or any other particular individual or groups believe it.  His is a
> statistical model.  The coin that is flipped a thousand times and comes up
> roughly 50 percent is more likely to be drawn from a population of fair
> coins than from a population of unfair coins, and one’s confidence rises as
> the size of the sample increases. Similarly, the coin that comes up fair
> when it is flipped under a variety of circumstances – replications in
> different labs.  And yes, statements made about a coin which, when flipped,
> we have no idea whether it came up heads or tails are unlikely to endure.
>
>
>
> The Congregation has heard all of this from me before and are beginning to
> roll their eyes as we speak.  I am an alert vampire, and I sense that you
> are new blood.   Thanks for listening, if, indeed, you are still with me.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Pieter
> Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 31, 2017 12:39 AM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Referring to your *What are the properties of good GroupThought:  i.e.,
> Group Thought that is likely to survive experience into the deep future?*
>
>
>
> How does one define the "good" in "good GroupThought"?  It obviously
> depends on the context.
>
>
>
> I want to refrain, for now, it could be part of another discussion, from
> commenting on cases where the "good" in "good thought" involves moral
> judgment.
>
>
>
> For now, I want to restrict the context where it involves measurable
> judgments or falsifiable hypotheses. If the result of the group's thinking
> is measured against objective criteria the "goodness" can be measured.
>
>
>
> An example of where groupthink went spectacularly wrong is in the
> groupthink of the quantum mechanics' experts in the 1920's rejecting the
> guiding wave theory. Especially after John von Neumann "proved" that hidden
> variables are inconsistent with the mathematics. The guiding wave theory
> requires hidden variables. The unknown Grete Hermann showed the wrong
> assumptions of von Neumann's proof, but the groupthink of the time rejected
> her findings and accepted the expert von Newman's proof. In the 1960's John
> Bell showed that Hermann was right and von Neumann wrong. Although the
> guiding wave theorem is considered incomplete today (as opposed to
> "wrong"), rejecting the groupthink of the 1920's up to 1960's, and
> accepting Grete's criticism of von Newmann's work, lead to today's accepted
> standard model of particle physics. One could argue that almost half a
> century of progress in particle physics was lost to groupthink and
> accepting an expert's judgment?
>
>
>
> There ar

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Although the sophist- ... icated tangent into groupthink and goodness of 
thought might be interesting, it's politically bankrupt, as is any sort of 
philosophical skepticism.

The problem is what to *do*, if anything.  I think Carl's post targets this 
most directly.  It seems to me our policy options are: 1) do nothing, 2) do 
something, 2a) treat the symptoms, and 2b) *attempt* to treat causes.  Doing 
nothing is just as much an action as doing something.  And if we choose to do 
nothing, then the we are still responsible for the consequences of missed 
opportunities to act.

Most people who agree that the climate is changing, regardless of the causes, 
also agree that it is the *poor* who will suffer.  Even in cities like Miami, 
the wealthy will be able to lose their homes, businesses, and local economy and 
simply move or retrain or retire, or whatever.  Similarly, in places like 
Syria, what's left of the privileged will be able to further exploit or move.  
The rest will risk their lives trying to migrate.  It seems rather obvious that 
we have already agreed to actions of type (2a), even if the choice of actions 
(idiot Trump egging on Pakistan vs. many local churches in the US still willing 
to take in more refugees) isn't a consensus.

So, the question boils down to whether or not we engage (2b).  If a skeptical 
claim is that we simply don't know enough to act at all, then it's a reasonable 
point and that ignorance can be remedied by (2b) actions like education and 
research.  If, however, we admit that we *do* know some things that *might* 
help, then we have to engage in the RoI analysis to decide which (2b) actions 
to take.  I.e. regardless of the other option, (2b) ensues.  Option (1) begins 
to look pretty silly.

If the skeptical claim is used as sleight-of-hand to game the system into doing 
nothing, then it's no longer merely skepticism.  It's an existential threat to 
be dealt with as soon as possible and as harshly as possible.  And *that* is 
why most believers treat skeptics like narcissistic, exploitative, gamers ... 
because the reasoning seems to lead inexorably to the 2 options: a skeptic is 
either an advocate for more research and education *or* a scheming profiteer, 
regardless of whether climate change is human-caused or not.

Therefore, it seems reasonable for the (authentic) skeptic to apply herself to 
(2b).  Here is another resource that might be useful:

   https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/


> On 30 December 2017 at 07:25, Carl Tollander  > 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
> 


-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Prof David West]

Nick,

forgot a point. "good," as you use it, does not follow from "privilege"
as I use it. 'Good' as in good theory does come from other aspects of
thought like "siimplicity" and "elegance" which are not "scientific,"
"mathematical," "logical," etc.
Pieter's comments brought to mind a "problem" with contemporary physics
- none of the cutting edge theories, e.g. string theory, quantum loop
gravity, cannot possible be "good group think' because they do not
generate falsifiable hypotheses, nor empirical tests. Self consistency
and maybe the aforementioned elegance / simplicity are the, to date,
only ways to evaluate their goodness.
davew


On Sat, Dec 30, 2017, at 10:30 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> 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/


>  


> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof
> David West *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:36 PM *To:*
> friam@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/


>>  


>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Pieter Steenekamp *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 1:32 PM *To:*
>> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> <friam@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
>> <nickthomp...@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 

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Pieter, 

 

Thanks for this thoughtful post. 

 

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

 

The italicized bit is actually a definition both of “good” and “objective”.  
Peirce asserts that this is what we MEAN when we say that thought is good and 
results are objective.  We MEAN that they are likely to survive future 
experience: ie,  that the experiences we have (experiments that we do) in the 
future are unlikely to dislodge them.  Or as Peirce puts it, an objective fact 
is proposition that does not depend on whether you, or I, or any other 
particular individual or groups believe it.  His is a statistical model.  The 
coin that is flipped a thousand times and comes up roughly 50 percent is more 
likely to be drawn from a population of fair coins than from a population of 
unfair coins, and one’s confidence rises as the size of the sample increases. 
Similarly, the coin that comes up fair when it is flipped under a variety of 
circumstances – replications in different labs.  And yes, statements made about 
a coin which, when flipped, we have no idea whether it came up heads or tails 
are unlikely to endure.  

 

The Congregation has heard all of this from me before and are beginning to roll 
their eyes as we speak.  I am an alert vampire, and I sense that you are new 
blood.   Thanks for listening, if, indeed, you are still with me.  

 

All the best, 

 

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-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2017 12:39 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

 

Nick,

 

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

 

How does one define the "good" in "good GroupThought"?  It obviously depends on 
the context.

 

I want to refrain, for now, it could be part of another discussion, from 
commenting on cases where the "good" in "good thought" involves moral judgment.

 

For now, I want to restrict the context where it involves measurable judgments 
or falsifiable hypotheses. If the result of the group's thinking is measured 
against objective criteria the "goodness" can be measured.

 

An example of where groupthink went spectacularly wrong is in the groupthink of 
the quantum mechanics' experts in the 1920's rejecting the guiding wave theory. 
Especially after John von Neumann "proved" that hidden variables are 
inconsistent with the mathematics. The guiding wave theory requires hidden 
variables. The unknown Grete Hermann showed the wrong assumptions of von 
Neumann's proof, but the groupthink of the time rejected her findings and 
accepted the expert von Newman's proof. In the 1960's John Bell showed that 
Hermann was right and von Neumann wrong. Although the guiding wave theorem is 
considered incomplete today (as opposed to "wrong"), rejecting the groupthink 
of the 1920's up to 1960's, and accepting Grete's criticism of von Newmann's 
work, lead to today's accepted standard model of particle physics. One could 
argue that almost half a century of progress in particle physics was lost to 
groupthink and accepting an expert's judgment? 

 

There are simple principles to guide against groupthink and nurture 
constructive interaction that leads to wisdom of the crowd.

 

a) One is to never soft punish people that reject conventional thinking, even 
if the conventional thinking is supported by the views of experts. 

 

b) Emphasize objective tests and insist on falsifiable hypotheses.

 

I referred to Philp Tetlock in a previous post, and want to that again. He has 
achieved amazing success in establishing what to do to get good judgment. I 
want to recommend to those that are interested in this topic to read up on his 
work. 

 

As a final point of this post, I want to mention that I experienced the replies 
to me challenging the accepted scientific views on climate change as 
contributing to the wisdom of the crowds and not groupthink. I was not punished 
for rejecting the conventional thinking. 

 

Pieter

 

On 31 December 2017 at 01:29, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net 
<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > 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 a

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Marcus Daniels]

"An example of where groupthink went spectacularly wrong is in the groupthink 
of the quantum mechanics' experts in the 1920's rejecting the guiding wave 
theory."


Did it go spectacularly wrong?   Sure I have a `weakness' for preferring 
theories that have a simple physical intuition behind them, but has the field 
really been significantly damaged by `bias' against hidden variable theory?


Here again, there's a political dimension:  What kind of work gets funded or 
not funded.   Besides that, a researcher can believe whatever interpretation 
they want, provided they can make their models predict the real world.   Also 
there can be the situation in which the intellectual consensus of the community 
is that what is needed is more depth, and not more breadth.   (And that kind of 
bias can be more than self-serving.)


Someone once told me that their research in quantum mechanics was, for the near 
term, limited to "shut up and calculate" topics that were `safe'.   The 
foundational questions of what the hell is going on would have to wait for 
tenure.

This kind of thinking seems to me to be a competency trap.



Marcus


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp 
<piet...@randcontrols.co.za>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2017 12:39:29 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

Nick,

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

How does one define the "good" in "good GroupThought"?  It obviously depends on 
the context.

I want to refrain, for now, it could be part of another discussion, from 
commenting on cases where the "good" in "good thought" involves moral judgment.

For now, I want to restrict the context where it involves measurable judgments 
or falsifiable hypotheses. If the result of the group's thinking is measured 
against objective criteria the "goodness" can be measured.

An example of where groupthink went spectacularly wrong is in the groupthink of 
the quantum mechanics' experts in the 1920's rejecting the guiding wave theory. 
Especially after John von Neumann "proved" that hidden variables are 
inconsistent with the mathematics. The guiding wave theory requires hidden 
variables. The unknown Grete Hermann showed the wrong assumptions of von 
Neumann's proof, but the groupthink of the time rejected her findings and 
accepted the expert von Newman's proof. In the 1960's John Bell showed that 
Hermann was right and von Neumann wrong. Although the guiding wave theorem is 
considered incomplete today (as opposed to "wrong"), rejecting the groupthink 
of the 1920's up to 1960's, and accepting Grete's criticism of von Newmann's 
work, lead to today's accepted standard model of particle physics. One could 
argue that almost half a century of progress in particle physics was lost to 
groupthink and accepting an expert's judgment?

There are simple principles to guide against groupthink and nurture 
constructive interaction that leads to wisdom of the crowd.

a) One is to never soft punish people that reject conventional thinking, even 
if the conventional thinking is supported by the views of experts.

b) Emphasize objective tests and insist on falsifiable hypotheses.

I referred to Philp Tetlock in a previous post, and want to that again. He has 
achieved amazing success in establishing what to do to get good judgment. I 
want to recommend to those that are interested in this topic to read up on his 
work.

As a final point of this post, I want to mention that I experienced the replies 
to me challenging the accepted scientific views on climate change as 
contributing to the wisdom of the crowds and not groupthink. I was not punished 
for rejecting the conventional thinking.

Pieter

On 31 December 2017 at 01:29, Nick Thompson 
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> 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/



From: Friam 
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] On Behalf 
Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 1:32 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
<friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@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 a

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Marcus Daniels]

< 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." >


How might one anticipate material properties at MBar and thousands of Kelvin, 
such as in the deep Earth?  There are lots of situations in which even the most 
advanced diagnostic techniques cannot measure without destroying a sample, or 
measure with sufficient resolution/frequency.   In these situations, ab initio 
calculations are needed.


Now, hypothetically, that might involve using models learned by machines, and 
not directly comprehensible by human analysts, but if patterns are learned that 
can be validated, then I'd say that falls into the category of "model-able".


I am skeptical there is any value in GroupThought outside of politics.

There can be useful syntheses of the works of individuals, but for it to be 
coherent it needs to be made readable and writable in ways that are not 
completely lossy.


Marcus



From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West 
<profw...@fastmail.fm>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:35 PM
To: friam@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."

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

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/



From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 1:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@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 
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@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/



From: Friam 
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] On Behalf 
Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 5:27 AM
To: T

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Prof David West]

Hi Nick,

I always take you and your questions seriously.

RE: comments

I must insist on the absence of privileged means of knowing. If you
privilege, math for example, you are saying that no idea, knowledge,
insight, "truth" (if you must), or thinking, can be "good" (your term)
unless it is expressible in mathematics. You are raising form above
substance. You are also allowing perpetration of all kinds of mischief
as long as it is hidden behind the veneer of your 'privileged means'.
For example, since the questions arose in the context of a climate
change discussion; it has been asserted that those advancing climate
change must be believed because they are "scientific" (the scientific
approach being privileged above all others). The only way to challenge
them is with alternative models, ideas, etc. that are  equally
"scientific." If you simply doubt or refuse to fully accept the
scientific thought on the matter you must be ignorant, stupid, and/or
willfully evil. Then the mischief piles on - as interpretations,
conclusions, calls for action, and public policy are promoted and
justified on the grounds that since the "science" is right, then so to
must be the consequents.
As to, "more complicated," - yes, in part it is an acceptance of the
pragmatic provisional but it is also more than that, i.e. a red flag
warning against use of the verb 'to be'. The issue is subtle and "more
complicated" than current space and time afford an opportunity to
discuss fully.
davewest


On Sat, Dec 30, 2017, at 10:30 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> 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/


>  


> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof
> David West *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:36 PM *To:*
> friam@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/


>>  


>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Pieter Steenekamp *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 1:32 PM *To:*
>> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> <friam@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 gr

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Nick,

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

How does one define the "good" in "good GroupThought"?  It obviously
depends on the context.

I want to refrain, for now, it could be part of another discussion, from
commenting on cases where the "good" in "good thought" involves moral
judgment.

For now, I want to restrict the context where it involves measurable
judgments or falsifiable hypotheses. If the result of the group's thinking
is measured against objective criteria the "goodness" can be measured.

An example of where groupthink went spectacularly wrong is in the
groupthink of the quantum mechanics' experts in the 1920's rejecting the
guiding wave theory. Especially after John von Neumann "proved" that hidden
variables are inconsistent with the mathematics. The guiding wave theory
requires hidden variables. The unknown Grete Hermann showed the wrong
assumptions of von Neumann's proof, but the groupthink of the time rejected
her findings and accepted the expert von Newman's proof. In the 1960's John
Bell showed that Hermann was right and von Neumann wrong. Although the
guiding wave theorem is considered incomplete today (as opposed to
"wrong"), rejecting the groupthink of the 1920's up to 1960's, and
accepting Grete's criticism of von Newmann's work, lead to today's accepted
standard model of particle physics. One could argue that almost half a
century of progress in particle physics was lost to groupthink and
accepting an expert's judgment?

There are simple principles to guide against groupthink and nurture
constructive interaction that leads to wisdom of the crowd.

a) One is to never soft punish people that reject conventional thinking,
even if the conventional thinking is supported by the views of experts.

b) Emphasize objective tests and insist on falsifiable hypotheses.

I referred to Philp Tetlock in a previous post, and want to that again. He
has achieved amazing success in establishing what to do to get good
judgment. I want to recommend to those that are interested in this topic to
read up on his work.

As a final point of this post, I want to mention that I experienced the
replies to me challenging the accepted scientific views on climate change
as contributing to the wisdom of the crowds and not groupthink. I was not
punished for rejecting the conventional thinking.

Pieter

On 31 December 2017 at 01:29, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
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/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Pieter
> Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 1:32 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@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 <nickthomp...@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 see

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Nick Thompson]

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-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:36 PM
To: friam@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-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 1:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam@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 <nickthomp...@earthlink.net 
<mailto:nickthomp...@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 Universi

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Prof David West]

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

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/


>  


> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Pieter
> Steenekamp *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 1:32 PM *To:* The
> Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@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
> <nickthomp...@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/


>>  


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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Nick Thompson]

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-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 1:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@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 <nickthomp...@earthlink.net 
<mailto:nickthomp...@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-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 5:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam@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 
e

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Marcus Daniels]

 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?>


Like some groups advance goals like prudence and others, avarice.


Marcus


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson 
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 10:20:15 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change


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/



From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 5:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@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 
<piet...@randcontrols.co.za<mailto:piet...@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/3

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

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 <nickthomp...@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/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Pieter
> Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 5:27 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@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.
>
> 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 <
> piet...@randcontrol

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Nick Thompson]

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-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 5:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@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 <piet...@randcontrols.co.za 
<mailto:piet...@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 <c...@plektyx.com 
<mailto:c...@ple

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

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.
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 <piet...@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). 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 <c...@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 <mar...@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
>>> ---

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

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).
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 <c...@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 <mar...@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-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@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-boun...@redfish.com <friam-boun...@redfish.com>]
>> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM
>> To: FriAM <friam@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 p

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Carl Tollander]

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 <mar...@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-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson <
> nickthomp...@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-boun...@redfish.com <friam-boun...@redfish.com>]
> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM
> To: FriAM <friam@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 contribut

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Marcus Daniels]

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-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson 
<nickthomp...@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-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM
To: FriAM <friam@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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Merle Lefkoff]

Steve, I had hoped for awhile that climate change studies would yield the
possibility of a truly transdisciplinary breakthrough in complex systems
modeling, rather than the interdisciplinary effort you recall that provided
"useful checks and balances" on academic honestly.  I take it from the
thread that my hope has not yet been realized.  Big sigh.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Steven A Smith  wrote:

> Pieter -
>
> I think Eric responded extremely well to the actual gist of the (bent)
> thread on Climate Change as it was elaborating.
>
> The (thread's subject) question of whether there is significant
> anthropogenic climate changes underway, the extent of them, how bad the
> consequences are likely to be (or already are) to the biosphere, humans,
> more vulnerable (coastal,  limited access to technology, etc.)
> populations, and whether "we" care are not are all somewhat different
> (if related) questions.
>
> It doesn't surprise me at all that a very low order (linear) model
> (average global (surface?) temperatures) might be this far off... the
> fact that the sense (if not the magnitude) bore out is not insignificant.
>
> When I worked with LANL scientists (oceonographers, atmospheric
> scientists, biologists) in the mid 90's who were trying to build,
> couple, resolve disparate models from these domains to the data (and one
> another), there was very little willingness among them to make any
> strong statement suggesting climate change (much less warming in
> particular).   It was simply too new of a discipline and the data and
> models still seemed way too scant to say as much as *most* of them.
> The inflection (see Marcus' post) in greenhouse gas concentrations began
> about WWII, just 50 years after internal combustion engines were
> invented and had only just begun to have widespread use (especially
> outside of the first world) and i 1990, that trend was a mere 40 years
> old... it is now 70 quite a bit more data to work with?
> Computational science was not new in 1990, but computing power/scale and
> the general science of predictive modeling has made some very
> significant advances in this last 30 years.
>
> Since you work in predictive modeling, you know how hard it is to get
> meaningful results.   In Engineering, we have a *LOT* more control over
> the variables...  so are more able to make meaningful/useful
> predictions.   The evolving global scale biosphere is about as open and
> difficult to establish controlled experiments with as I can imagine...
>
> I worked with another (multi-institutional)group of Scientists who were
> studying Climate Change around 2009.   There was no longer much
> (expressed) doubt among them or their colleagues as to whether data
> supported a strong positive correlation between climate change and
> greenhouse gas concentrations.  If anything, they seemed to have much
> more sophisticated notions of *where* all that might take the climate,
> which included the possibility of tipping into another (mini?) ice age.
> We were studying THIS group to try to understand how new fields emerged
> in Science (NSF grant) and in this case, the opportunities for synergy
> where scientists from one subdomain had useful understandings that
> scientists in other domains could use.   As since each domain had to
> *explain itself* to the others to be effective, they provided a certain
> kind of peer review that is often criticized in canalized, possibly
> insular fields.   While the group was not in any way antagonist with one
> another, they (for their own understanding reasons) questioned one
> another's data, models and assumptions to a strong degree.   This
> interdisciplinary nature of Climate Studies is not a guarantee of
> academic honesty but as (I suspect) with SFI and other Complex Systems
> groups, it does provide some useful checks and balances.
>
> Until the mid 2000s I wanted strongly to believe that a change as
> significant as throwing the entire biosphere/climate into a new dynamic
> balance was beyond human scale... but I came to believe otherwise
> through any number of personal explorations and experiences.  If my
> career or ego-identity depended more on climate change being a hoax or a
> conspiracy, I might still be resisting myself.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
>
> On 12/29/17 12:18 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > By all means.  I do not intend either aggression or even disrespect
> toward anybody who will argue any position honestly and in good faith.
> >
> > The thing that I was attacking below, and which I think needs to be
> regarded as an existential threat, is what I interpret as coordinated
> acting in bad faith.  By that I mean a sort of dishonesty of motive, where
> the real motive is not at all the wellbeing of anybody on the receiving
> end.  Many tactics go into that: deception, bullying, impoverishment, and
> more overt things.
> >
> > We have a crisis of bad faith in many dimensions, certainly in this
> country 

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Nick Thompson]

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-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM
To: FriAM <friam@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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Steven A Smith]

Pieter -

I think Eric responded extremely well to the actual gist of the (bent)
thread on Climate Change as it was elaborating.  

The (thread's subject) question of whether there is significant
anthropogenic climate changes underway, the extent of them, how bad the
consequences are likely to be (or already are) to the biosphere, humans,
more vulnerable (coastal,  limited access to technology, etc.)
populations, and whether "we" care are not are all somewhat different
(if related) questions.  

It doesn't surprise me at all that a very low order (linear) model
(average global (surface?) temperatures) might be this far off... the
fact that the sense (if not the magnitude) bore out is not insignificant. 

When I worked with LANL scientists (oceonographers, atmospheric
scientists, biologists) in the mid 90's who were trying to build,
couple, resolve disparate models from these domains to the data (and one
another), there was very little willingness among them to make any
strong statement suggesting climate change (much less warming in
particular).   It was simply too new of a discipline and the data and
models still seemed way too scant to say as much as *most* of them.  
The inflection (see Marcus' post) in greenhouse gas concentrations began
about WWII, just 50 years after internal combustion engines were
invented and had only just begun to have widespread use (especially
outside of the first world) and i 1990, that trend was a mere 40 years
old... it is now 70 quite a bit more data to work with?  
Computational science was not new in 1990, but computing power/scale and
the general science of predictive modeling has made some very
significant advances in this last 30 years.  

Since you work in predictive modeling, you know how hard it is to get
meaningful results.   In Engineering, we have a *LOT* more control over
the variables...  so are more able to make meaningful/useful
predictions.   The evolving global scale biosphere is about as open and
difficult to establish controlled experiments with as I can imagine...  

I worked with another (multi-institutional)group of Scientists who were
studying Climate Change around 2009.   There was no longer much
(expressed) doubt among them or their colleagues as to whether data
supported a strong positive correlation between climate change and
greenhouse gas concentrations.  If anything, they seemed to have much
more sophisticated notions of *where* all that might take the climate,
which included the possibility of tipping into another (mini?) ice age. 
We were studying THIS group to try to understand how new fields emerged
in Science (NSF grant) and in this case, the opportunities for synergy
where scientists from one subdomain had useful understandings that
scientists in other domains could use.   As since each domain had to
*explain itself* to the others to be effective, they provided a certain
kind of peer review that is often criticized in canalized, possibly
insular fields.   While the group was not in any way antagonist with one
another, they (for their own understanding reasons) questioned one
another's data, models and assumptions to a strong degree.   This
interdisciplinary nature of Climate Studies is not a guarantee of
academic honesty but as (I suspect) with SFI and other Complex Systems
groups, it does provide some useful checks and balances.

Until the mid 2000s I wanted strongly to believe that a change as
significant as throwing the entire biosphere/climate into a new dynamic
balance was beyond human scale... but I came to believe otherwise
through any number of personal explorations and experiences.  If my
career or ego-identity depended more on climate change being a hoax or a
conspiracy, I might still be resisting myself.

- Steve




On 12/29/17 12:18 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> By all means.  I do not intend either aggression or even disrespect toward 
> anybody who will argue any position honestly and in good faith.
>
> The thing that I was attacking below, and which I think needs to be regarded 
> as an existential threat, is what I interpret as coordinated acting in bad 
> faith.  By that I mean a sort of dishonesty of motive, where the real motive 
> is not at all the wellbeing of anybody on the receiving end.  Many tactics go 
> into that: deception, bullying, impoverishment, and more overt things.
>
> We have a crisis of bad faith in many dimensions, certainly in this country 
> with which I am most familiar, but perhaps more widely.  There is no 
> statement that only means what it claims to be about.  Any statement, with a 
> dishonest motive, can be used for a purpose that isn’t what it claims to be 
> about.  That is on the sending end.  On the receiving end, when there is a 
> belief that all senders act in bad faith (whether or not that blame is 
> earned), the receiver can choose to reject any statement, no matter how good 
> its content is capable of being.  
>
> We are in a bad downward spiral in that exchange.  

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Jochen Fromm]

Hippos in Cologne? Well... Some countries like Russia may think climate change 
is good because it is too cold there anyway. But the effects would be 
devastating on a global scale. 
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.
-J.

 Original message From: Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> 
Date: 12/29/17  21:11  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity 
Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change 


"My problem is that I fear that we have passed the point of no possible remedy. 
 There was a meme which was a graph of global mean temperature for the last 
several centuries.  There was a sharp transient to the
 high side in recent decades."



Hippopatumus in Cologne could be fun.






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian




From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly 
<wimber...@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:04:39 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change
 


My problem is that I fear that we have passed the point of no possible remedy.  
There was a meme which was a graph of global mean temperature for the last 
several centuries.  There was a sharp transient to the high side in recent 
decades.



Frank









Frank Wimberly

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

Phone (505) 670-9918









On Dec 29, 2017 12:59 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote:




And of course, the errors can be in either direction.  Large organizations tend 
to avoid controversy, not seek it out.
Other alternative views can be quite terrifying...





http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf



How about boulders like below being tossed around in storms near Miami, 
Shanghai, etc.






http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589497919268





From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus
 Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com>

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:46:13 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change
 



"In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees centigrade 
per decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of 0.05 degrees centigrade 
for the previous 15 years."



The second plot gives an idea of how these estimates, based on observation, 
could go wrong.  However, the first plot in the first image shows a trend over 
a larger interval, which is consistent with matching the observational
 & simulation outputs for longer periods. 














From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Pieter
 Steenekamp <piet...@randcontrols.co.za>

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:16:38 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change
 


Thank you, I do appreciate.



Let me start with my background. I have done modeling for predictions in 
engineering applications as a major part of my professional career of 40 years. 
I am now doing deep learning for making predictions. (Not necessarily relevant 
to this discussion,
 but I do combine ABM to get the emerging properties of the system as part of 
the deep learning exercise - a very exciting endeavor).



In my career, I have made many technical mistakes. I guess this is part of 
making predictions based on models. I do not have any climate modeling 
expertise, but I do measure their success in the accuracy of the model's 
predictions.



In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees centigrade per 
decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of 0.05 degrees centigrade for 
the previous 15 years. 



Maybe they are right in their new disaster predictions? IMO it would give them 
some credibility if they admit the uncertainties.



On 29 December 2017 at 20:44, uǝlƃ ☣
<geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:


Yes, I think so.  The trick, I think, is to demonstrate respect for those with 
whom we disagree.  If someone posts, without rancor, an argument (preferably 
with data) arguing that the models are wrong in a crucial way, I know *I* would 
be interested.



I've posted tons of contrarian and stubborn, perhaps even stupid, opinions and 
have been treated with respect.





On 12/29/2017 10:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

> Is it possible to have, in this group, a civil discussion where the accepted 
> view of the IPCC that unless we reduce CO2 emissions we are heading for 
> disaster is challenged?







--

☣ uǝlƃ





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe 
htt

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

No.  I was truly asking.  Sorry if I came off like I know something you don't.  
I did try to keep up with the open sourced climate models I knew about, but 
never managed to do it.  This might be a good resource:

  https://climate.apache.org/

On 12/29/2017 11:45 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> Maybe I do not appreciate fully how the models have evolved since 1990. I 
> have studied the reports and even for me it's it'd very complicated. Do you 
> mind giving me a simple explanation of what you are referring to?

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Maybe I do not appreciate fully how the models have evolved since 1990. I
have studied the reports and even for me it's it'd very complicated. Do you
mind giving me a simple explanation of what you are referring to?


On 29 December 2017 at 21:28, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> I agree that admitting one's mistakes and specifying (honest) uncertainty
> lends credibility.  But, as Eric says in his recent post, expressions of
> uncertainty can be abused, as well.  In this regard, scientists face a very
> difficult dilemma.
>
> It's interesting to consider a topic just as controversial to scientists,
> but opaque to the laity: the big bang and inflation.  I think it's pretty
> clear there was no big bang, at least not as naively conceived.  When one
> cosmologist talks to another, they probably freely admit that.  But when a
> cosmologist talks to a regular person, of course there was a big bang.
>
> So, it's easy to see why the IPCC would hesitate to proclaim their
> uncertainty very loudly.  Their conclusions could easily be lost.
>
> But more to your point, yes, their predictions from 1990 were bound to be
> wrong to some extent (as are all predictions).  Their new predictions will
> be wrong, too.  And it's good for everyone to know the full dimension of
> the predictions.  However, what you didn't mention was the extent to which
> the models have *evolved* from 1990 to 2014 (and 2014 to today).  What we
> need is a fuller understanding of the modeling workflow.  All models are
> iteratively constructed.  Do you know how the models have evolved from 1990
> to today?
>
>
> On 12/29/2017 11:16 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> > In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3
> degrees centigrade per decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of
> 0.05 degrees centigrade for the previous 15 years.
> >
> > Maybe they are right in their new disaster predictions? IMO it would
> give them some credibility if they admit the uncertainties.
>
>
> --
> ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I agree that admitting one's mistakes and specifying (honest) uncertainty lends 
credibility.  But, as Eric says in his recent post, expressions of uncertainty 
can be abused, as well.  In this regard, scientists face a very difficult 
dilemma.

It's interesting to consider a topic just as controversial to scientists, but 
opaque to the laity: the big bang and inflation.  I think it's pretty clear 
there was no big bang, at least not as naively conceived.  When one cosmologist 
talks to another, they probably freely admit that.  But when a cosmologist 
talks to a regular person, of course there was a big bang.

So, it's easy to see why the IPCC would hesitate to proclaim their uncertainty 
very loudly.  Their conclusions could easily be lost.

But more to your point, yes, their predictions from 1990 were bound to be wrong 
to some extent (as are all predictions).  Their new predictions will be wrong, 
too.  And it's good for everyone to know the full dimension of the predictions. 
 However, what you didn't mention was the extent to which the models have 
*evolved* from 1990 to 2014 (and 2014 to today).  What we need is a fuller 
understanding of the modeling workflow.  All models are iteratively 
constructed.  Do you know how the models have evolved from 1990 to today?


On 12/29/2017 11:16 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees centigrade 
> per decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of 0.05 degrees 
> centigrade for the previous 15 years. 
> 
> Maybe they are right in their new disaster predictions? IMO it would give 
> them some credibility if they admit the uncertainties.


-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Eric Smith]

Sorry; it would have helped if I had spelled your name correctly the first time.

Hurry is not of God,

Eric

> On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Eric Smith  wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> By all means.  I do not intend either aggression or even disrespect toward 
> anybody who will argue any position honestly and in good faith.
> 
> The thing that I was attacking below, and which I think needs to be regarded 
> as an existential threat, is what I interpret as coordinated acting in bad 
> faith.  By that I mean a sort of dishonesty of motive, where the real motive 
> is not at all the wellbeing of anybody on the receiving end.  Many tactics go 
> into that: deception, bullying, impoverishment, and more overt things.
> 
> We have a crisis of bad faith in many dimensions, certainly in this country 
> with which I am most familiar, but perhaps more widely.  There is no 
> statement that only means what it claims to be about.  Any statement, with a 
> dishonest motive, can be used for a purpose that isn’t what it claims to be 
> about.  That is on the sending end.  On the receiving end, when there is a 
> belief that all senders act in bad faith (whether or not that blame is 
> earned), the receiver can choose to reject any statement, no matter how good 
> its content is capable of being.  
> 
> We are in a bad downward spiral in that exchange.  There is enough usage in 
> bad faith that in some cases it justifies the cynicism of listeners, and in 
> many more cases, it gives their cynicism a convenient rationalization.  On 
> the other side, when people give up thinking they have agency, but remain 
> alive, cynicism and rejection and a general destructiveness can be a recourse 
> to sinking just into frustration.  I think those choices are mistakes, but I 
> don’t think they necessarily deserve blame, and they certainly warrant an 
> attitude of helpfulness and committed caring.
> 
> Anybody who picks up a tool with the intention of genuinely helping others, 
> and having the humility to understand that it is hard to know how to do that, 
> but necessary to keep trying, is eligible to be a comrade of mine.
> 
> All best,
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Is it possible to have, in this group, a civil discussion where the accepted 
>> view of the IPCC that unless we reduce CO2 emissions we are heading for 
>> disaster is challenged?
>> 
>> On 29 December 2017 at 20:25, Eric Smith  wrote:
>> I agree with both Glen and Jillian,
>> 
>> this is more on the right tack.  It’s not about stupidity.  It’s about a 
>> kind of character degeneracy further down, and a certain kind of vileness 
>> that becomes possible at that level.
>> 
>> I would add one thing to Jill’s and Glen’s emphasis (attention trolling), 
>> which is that this is about thugs.  That goes beyond the executive to an 
>> increasingly purified right wing since Gingrich’s tactics in (the 80s?).  It 
>> is not that they don’t know “the truth” of a matter; it is an active war on 
>> the existence of truth as a public good, or of anything else that impedes 
>> the exercise of thug power.  Nick has articulated this cleanly in several 
>> emails, over the past months.
>> 
>> But again, anger and outrage are for people.  Or for something close enough 
>> to people that there is anything redeemable about it.  Disinfectants and 
>> vaccines are for public health problems.  No less commitment, but a 
>> different kind, and hopefully a more focused mind.
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 10:49 AM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
>>> 
>>> You called it, Gillian.  Trump and his ilk (Milo, Spencer, etc.) thrive on 
>>> their ability to invoke.  Beliefs and knowledge take a back seat, which is 
>>> why they are so capable of munging the facts and changing their tune when 
>>> confronted.
>>> 
>>> So I have to disagree fundamentally with Nick, Merle, Tom, Frank, and 
>>> Pamela.  He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He 
>>> simply knows how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned 
>>> people who care about beliefs and knowledge.
>>> 
>>> On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
 He is one of these:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ☣ 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
>> 
>> 

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Eric Smith]

Hi Peter,

By all means.  I do not intend either aggression or even disrespect toward 
anybody who will argue any position honestly and in good faith.

The thing that I was attacking below, and which I think needs to be regarded as 
an existential threat, is what I interpret as coordinated acting in bad faith.  
By that I mean a sort of dishonesty of motive, where the real motive is not at 
all the wellbeing of anybody on the receiving end.  Many tactics go into that: 
deception, bullying, impoverishment, and more overt things.

We have a crisis of bad faith in many dimensions, certainly in this country 
with which I am most familiar, but perhaps more widely.  There is no statement 
that only means what it claims to be about.  Any statement, with a dishonest 
motive, can be used for a purpose that isn’t what it claims to be about.  That 
is on the sending end.  On the receiving end, when there is a belief that all 
senders act in bad faith (whether or not that blame is earned), the receiver 
can choose to reject any statement, no matter how good its content is capable 
of being.  

We are in a bad downward spiral in that exchange.  There is enough usage in bad 
faith that in some cases it justifies the cynicism of listeners, and in many 
more cases, it gives their cynicism a convenient rationalization.  On the other 
side, when people give up thinking they have agency, but remain alive, cynicism 
and rejection and a general destructiveness can be a recourse to sinking just 
into frustration.  I think those choices are mistakes, but I don’t think they 
necessarily deserve blame, and they certainly warrant an attitude of 
helpfulness and committed caring.

Anybody who picks up a tool with the intention of genuinely helping others, and 
having the humility to understand that it is hard to know how to do that, but 
necessary to keep trying, is eligible to be a comrade of mine.

All best,

Eric


> On Dec 29, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp  
> wrote:
> 
> Is it possible to have, in this group, a civil discussion where the accepted 
> view of the IPCC that unless we reduce CO2 emissions we are heading for 
> disaster is challenged?
> 
> On 29 December 2017 at 20:25, Eric Smith  wrote:
> I agree with both Glen and Jillian,
> 
> this is more on the right tack.  It’s not about stupidity.  It’s about a kind 
> of character degeneracy further down, and a certain kind of vileness that 
> becomes possible at that level.
> 
> I would add one thing to Jill’s and Glen’s emphasis (attention trolling), 
> which is that this is about thugs.  That goes beyond the executive to an 
> increasingly purified right wing since Gingrich’s tactics in (the 80s?).  It 
> is not that they don’t know “the truth” of a matter; it is an active war on 
> the existence of truth as a public good, or of anything else that impedes the 
> exercise of thug power.  Nick has articulated this cleanly in several emails, 
> over the past months.
> 
> But again, anger and outrage are for people.  Or for something close enough 
> to people that there is anything redeemable about it.  Disinfectants and 
> vaccines are for public health problems.  No less commitment, but a different 
> kind, and hopefully a more focused mind.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> > On Dec 29, 2017, at 10:49 AM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
> >
> > You called it, Gillian.  Trump and his ilk (Milo, Spencer, etc.) thrive on 
> > their ability to invoke.  Beliefs and knowledge take a back seat, which is 
> > why they are so capable of munging the facts and changing their tune when 
> > confronted.
> >
> > So I have to disagree fundamentally with Nick, Merle, Tom, Frank, and 
> > Pamela.  He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He 
> > simply knows how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned 
> > people who care about beliefs and knowledge.
> >
> > On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> >> He is one of these:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> >
> > --
> > ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Thank you, I do appreciate.

Let me start with my background. I have done modeling for predictions in
engineering applications as a major part of my professional career of 40
years. I am now doing deep learning for making predictions. (Not
necessarily relevant to this discussion, but I do combine ABM to get the
emerging properties of the system as part of the deep learning exercise - a
very exciting endeavor).

In my career, I have made many technical mistakes. I guess this is part of
making predictions based on models. I do not have any climate modeling
expertise, but I do measure their success in the accuracy of the model's
predictions.

In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees centigrade
per decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of 0.05 degrees
centigrade for the previous 15 years.

Maybe they are right in their new disaster predictions? IMO it would give
them some credibility if they admit the uncertainties.

On 29 December 2017 at 20:44, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> Yes, I think so.  The trick, I think, is to demonstrate respect for those
> with whom we disagree.  If someone posts, without rancor, an argument
> (preferably with data) arguing that the models are wrong in a crucial way,
> I know *I* would be interested.
>
> I've posted tons of contrarian and stubborn, perhaps even stupid, opinions
> and have been treated with respect.
>
>
> On 12/29/2017 10:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> > Is it possible to have, in this group, a civil discussion where the
> accepted view of the IPCC that unless we reduce CO2 emissions we are
> heading for disaster is challenged?
>
>
> --
> ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Yes, I think so.  The trick, I think, is to demonstrate respect for those with 
whom we disagree.  If someone posts, without rancor, an argument (preferably 
with data) arguing that the models are wrong in a crucial way, I know *I* would 
be interested.

I've posted tons of contrarian and stubborn, perhaps even stupid, opinions and 
have been treated with respect.


On 12/29/2017 10:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> Is it possible to have, in this group, a civil discussion where the accepted 
> view of the IPCC that unless we reduce CO2 emissions we are heading for 
> disaster is challenged?


-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Is it possible to have, in this group, a civil discussion where the
accepted view of the IPCC that unless we reduce CO2 emissions we are
heading for disaster is challenged?

On 29 December 2017 at 20:25, Eric Smith  wrote:

> I agree with both Glen and Jillian,
>
> this is more on the right tack.  It’s not about stupidity.  It’s about a
> kind of character degeneracy further down, and a certain kind of vileness
> that becomes possible at that level.
>
> I would add one thing to Jill’s and Glen’s emphasis (attention trolling),
> which is that this is about thugs.  That goes beyond the executive to an
> increasingly purified right wing since Gingrich’s tactics in (the 80s?).
> It is not that they don’t know “the truth” of a matter; it is an active war
> on the existence of truth as a public good, or of anything else that
> impedes the exercise of thug power.  Nick has articulated this cleanly in
> several emails, over the past months.
>
> But again, anger and outrage are for people.  Or for something close
> enough to people that there is anything redeemable about it.  Disinfectants
> and vaccines are for public health problems.  No less commitment, but a
> different kind, and hopefully a more focused mind.
>
> Eric
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 2017, at 10:49 AM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
> >
> > You called it, Gillian.  Trump and his ilk (Milo, Spencer, etc.) thrive
> on their ability to invoke.  Beliefs and knowledge take a back seat, which
> is why they are so capable of munging the facts and changing their tune
> when confronted.
> >
> > So I have to disagree fundamentally with Nick, Merle, Tom, Frank, and
> Pamela.  He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He
> simply knows how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned
> people who care about beliefs and knowledge.
> >
> > On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> >> He is one of these:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> >
> > --
> > ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Eric Smith]

I agree with both Glen and Jillian, 

this is more on the right tack.  It’s not about stupidity.  It’s about a kind 
of character degeneracy further down, and a certain kind of vileness that 
becomes possible at that level.

I would add one thing to Jill’s and Glen’s emphasis (attention trolling), which 
is that this is about thugs.  That goes beyond the executive to an increasingly 
purified right wing since Gingrich’s tactics in (the 80s?).  It is not that 
they don’t know “the truth” of a matter; it is an active war on the existence 
of truth as a public good, or of anything else that impedes the exercise of 
thug power.  Nick has articulated this cleanly in several emails, over the past 
months.

But again, anger and outrage are for people.  Or for something close enough to 
people that there is anything redeemable about it.  Disinfectants and vaccines 
are for public health problems.  No less commitment, but a different kind, and 
hopefully a more focused mind.

Eric


> On Dec 29, 2017, at 10:49 AM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
> 
> You called it, Gillian.  Trump and his ilk (Milo, Spencer, etc.) thrive on 
> their ability to invoke.  Beliefs and knowledge take a back seat, which is 
> why they are so capable of munging the facts and changing their tune when 
> confronted.
> 
> So I have to disagree fundamentally with Nick, Merle, Tom, Frank, and Pamela. 
>  He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He simply 
> knows how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned people who 
> care about beliefs and knowledge.
> 
> On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
>> He is one of these: 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> 
> -- 
> ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Alfredo Covaleda Vélez]

Sorry. A draft has gone.

On Friday, December 29, 2017, Alfredo Covaleda Vélez 
wrote:
> A couple of years ago was published that about simulations predicting
permanent freezing un Europeos and North America because of global warming.
>
> On Friday, December 29, 2017, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
>> "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps
we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country,
but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect
against. Bundle up!"
>> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
god..
>> -J.

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] Climate Change

[Alfredo Covaleda Vélez]

A couple of years ago was published that about simulations predicting
permanent freezing un Europeos and North America because of global warming.

On Friday, December 29, 2017, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
> "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps
we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country,
but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect
against. Bundle up!"
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
god..
> -J.

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] Climate Change

[Alfredo Covaleda Vélez]

A couple of years ago It was published about simulations predicting
permanent freezing in Europe and North America because of global warming.
So, maybe Trump is right.You are welcome here but we are already too much
people un the third world.

On Friday, December 29, 2017, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
> "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps
we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country,
but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect
against. Bundle up!"
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
god..
> -J.

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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

You called it, Gillian.  Trump and his ilk (Milo, Spencer, etc.) thrive on 
their ability to invoke.  Beliefs and knowledge take a back seat, which is why 
they are so capable of munging the facts and changing their tune when 
confronted.

So I have to disagree fundamentally with Nick, Merle, Tom, Frank, and Pamela.  
He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He simply knows 
how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned people who care 
about beliefs and knowledge.

On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> He is one of these: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Marcus Daniels]

Tom writes:

"I think, too, it is a fundamental issue of education, or lack of it, in the 
U.S."

Over the holidays, I ran into an individual who had the benefit of educated 
relatives all through their childhood and nonetheless has persisted with the 
same reactionary views for the last 30 years.  An argument with him, observed 
with another party this time, goes about how it would have when he was 15.  (It 
is not an argument.)  He did not go to college, but it would have been wasted 
on him anyway.  Remarkably, his son has figured out how to get accepted at a 
university and how to pay for it all while the father has pooh-poohed the whole 
thing.   I knew a lot of people like the father growing up.   It is not just 
that they are uneducated, it is that they are incurious, kind of mean, and 
stupid.  Get a group of them together and they reinforce each other.   But I 
also know individuals who have had modest means their entire life and are not 
this way at all.   The best thing to do IMO is to put the incurious ones on an 
exhausting physical job like coal mining or construction so they can't cause 
trouble, then augmented by easy access to their worst vice at the end of the 
day.   I think what we have here is a personality disorder shared by some 
especially dull individuals.   It must be a universal problem, but perhaps the 
relative wealth of the U.S. midwest vs. its population density has enabled it 
to proliferate more than in other countries.

Marcus


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Tom Johnson 
<t...@jtjohnson.com>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 9:50:30 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

I think, too, it is a fundamental issue of education, or lack of it, in the 
U.S.  For example, scientists say, "Well, yes, the global or ocean temperatures 
are expected to increase 1.8 degrees Centigrade."  First, Americas don't 
understand this centigrade stuff.  Second, they think, " Well, if the 
weatherman says the low tonight will be 46 degrees and it goes up 1.8 degrees 
and is close to 48, that's no big deal.  I can just wear the same sweater or 
jacket. So what's the problem?"

We need to communicate the holistic understanding of the planet and ecosystem.  
Pictures from space are not, in themselves, sufficient.

TJ



Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists<http://www.spj.org>
Check out It's The People's 
Data<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>
http://www.jtjohnson.com<http://www.jtjohnson.com/>   
t...@jtjohnson.com<mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>


On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Merle Lefkoff 
<merlelefk...@gmail.com<mailto:merlelefk...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Nick is right.  The uneducated (who also vote) do not understand, for example, 
that climate events will continue to be more intense, if not more frequent.  
And the ambiguity necessary to nonlinear models causes great confusion.  People 
need certainly and prediction and have been led to believe science will get 
them there.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Nick Thompson 
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote:

This is “our” fault.  We have failed to articulate and distribute a language 
that adequately relates changes in probabilities of events with changes in 
particular events.  We say that “harvey” was caused by global warming, but then 
we bridle when senators carry snowballs into congress.  Yes, this is “our” 
fault.



Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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



From: Friam 
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] On Behalf 
Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
<friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: [FRIAM] Climate Change



This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:

"In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we 
could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but 
not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. 
Bundle up!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120



Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god..



-J.


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
FRI

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Jochen Fromm]

Maybe it is the effect of a "confirmation bias". He sees somewhere on Fox News 
that the weather will be really cold, and thinks this confirms his theory that 
global warming is a hoax - although we all know that climate and weather are 
different, and that climate change is real. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
-J.


 Original message From: Nick Thompson 
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net> Date: 12/29/17  16:13  (GMT+01:00) To: 'The Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: 
[FRIAM] Climate Change 
This is “our” fault.  We have failed to articulate and distribute a language 
that adequately relates changes in probabilities of events with changes in 
particular events.  We say that “harvey” was caused by global warming, but then 
we bridle when senators carry snowballs into congress.  Yes, this is “our” 
fault.   Nick  Nicholas S. ThompsonEmeritus Professor of Psychology and 
BiologyClark Universityhttp://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Climate Change This is what Donald wrote on Twitter 
tonight:"In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps 
we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but 
not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. 
Bundle up!"https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120 Only 
an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god.. -J.
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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Gillian Densmore]

He is one of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

The games I enjoy have a zero tollerance pollicy for trolls. The giant jerk
kind that just want attention. Generally the community ignores them. Then a
Game Assistant bans them. Then that company shows other companies about the
problem...etc.
So yes. Drumpf is just that slow and a Troll.  Stop giving that dude
attention! The faster he goes without it, the faster the problems he has
caused might be fixed. Trolls feed on attention they get a buzz from it.
And that he keeps getting it because people still act surpirsed at the crap
that person says or does is a problem. It doesn't matter if it's good or
bad. He's a pouty jack ass, troll plain and simple.
The sooner he goes as gamers say on perma ignore server wide. Or in this
case people on this list, the news etc stop covering  every brain fart that
does. The faster things might get fixed.

That and yes many people deny climate change is a thing.  I siimply don't
know why.
LOL like i've said to many times: I dont like having a gas powered car. I
(think) i'd like one that's a mix of solar+electric (for example) as those
rock!. I suspect for the most part the Das Uuber Geeken und Der Wendtag
Mailen  list "get it" lol infact I have seen long wonderfully enthusiastic
debates about climate issues, not only did we have some kick ass debates
but many of them brought up some bad ass theories! I thought at the time:
that is tooo coool!
That's because we are geeks, and love to learn all the cool shit this
wondefully awesome world has to offer.

That Alien robot speeks their language wich is: Geeks bad. Guts are gud,
/ignore GeeKDude/Woman  meen while the average folk the rest of us Das Uber
Geek think: (; ..-_-  sudo --reboot /user/brain
--now [kernel thread panic conditions encountered!]  /usr/brain brain
rebooting initiating int/sed /user/brain kill thread process id0... a
process that takes surpirisingly little time for something with such
advaced firmware and frequent updates.I am astounded it doesn't crash more
or take longer to defrag than 10-12hours. Alas it's harddrive has frequent
errors and, the user is a oft a smart ass.) and wonder if we heard right or
read right and  in my case sometime after the verbal commands bypass the
mouth+brain firewall I think from a bad ipf  configuration. And sometime
something like : What the ? comes out of the audiodevice well within
microphone range of other users.


I don't know whhy  Drumpf+ the 10-15% that follow Drumpf  ignore everything
including looking outside their fucking door and saying
that's...not...normal to have 55-60F/ rughly 16C  heat at 1030A in the
morning of a certain Dismber then  look down and note how stupdenously
pretty the sky is breath in... I can only conclude because that turdflower
is simply a troll. Then move on and ignore. That or just a bot.

They are welcome to ignore the facts such as they are. The rest of us will
move on. IBesides do you reely want to work yourself up over this stuff?




On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
> "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we
> could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country,
> but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect
> against. Bundle up!"
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
> god..
>
> -J.
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Tom Johnson]

I think, too, it is a fundamental issue of education, or lack of it, in the
U.S.  For example, scientists say, "Well, yes, the global or ocean
temperatures are expected to increase 1.8 degrees Centigrade."  First,
Americas don't understand this centigrade stuff.  Second, they think, "
Well, if the weatherman says the low tonight will be 46 degrees and it goes
up 1.8 degrees and is close to 48, that's no big deal.  I can just wear the
same sweater or jacket. So what's the problem?"

We need to communicate the holistic understanding of the planet and
ecosystem.  Pictures from space are not, in themselves, sufficient.

TJ



Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>
*Check out It's The People's Data
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*
http://www.jtjohnson.com   t...@jtjohnson.com


On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nick is right.  The uneducated (who also vote) do not understand, for
> example, that climate events will continue to be more intense, if not more
> frequent.  And the ambiguity necessary to nonlinear models causes great
> confusion.  People need certainly and prediction and have been led to
> believe science will get them there.
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net
> > wrote:
>
>> This is “our” fault.  We have failed to articulate and distribute a
>> language that adequately relates changes in probabilities of events with
>> changes in particular events.  We say that “harvey” was caused by global
>> warming, but then we bridle when senators carry snowballs into congress.
>> Yes, this is “our” fault.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Jochen
>> Fromm
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Climate Change
>>
>>
>>
>> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
>>
>> "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps
>> we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country,
>> but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect
>> against. Bundle up!"
>>
>> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>>
>>
>>
>> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
>> god..
>>
>>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>> 
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
> merlelefk...@gmail.com <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
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Merle Lefkoff]

Nick is right.  The uneducated (who also vote) do not understand, for
example, that climate events will continue to be more intense, if not more
frequent.  And the ambiguity necessary to nonlinear models causes great
confusion.  People need certainly and prediction and have been led to
believe science will get them there.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> This is “our” fault.  We have failed to articulate and distribute a
> language that adequately relates changes in probabilities of events with
> changes in particular events.  We say that “harvey” was caused by global
> warming, but then we bridle when senators carry snowballs into congress.
> Yes, this is “our” fault.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Jochen
> Fromm
> *Sent:* Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Climate Change
>
>
>
> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
>
> "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we
> could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country,
> but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect
> against. Bundle up!"
>
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>
>
>
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
> god..
>
>
>
> -J.
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
merlelefk...@gmail.com <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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Nick Thompson]

This is “our” fault.  We have failed to articulate and distribute a language 
that adequately relates changes in probabilities of events with changes in 
particular events.  We say that “harvey” was caused by global warming, but then 
we bridle when senators carry snowballs into congress.  Yes, this is “our” 
fault.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Climate Change

 

This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:

"In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we 
could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but 
not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. 
Bundle up!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120

 

Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god..

 

-J.


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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pamela McCorduck]

Yes, he’s really that stupid. And is manipulated by people who know better, but 
whose short-term interests are best served by pretending global climate change 
is a fiction.


> On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:23 AM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
> 
> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
> "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we 
> could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but 
> not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect 
> against. Bundle up!"
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
> 
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god..
> 
> -J.
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Frank Wimberly]

Yes.

I suspect that climate change, including global warming, would require that
locally, in some locations, colder than normal conditions would occur.

Frank



Frank Wimberly
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Dec 29, 2017 1:23 AM, "Jochen Fromm"  wrote:

> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
> "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we
> could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country,
> but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect
> against. Bundle up!"
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
> god..
>
> -J.
>
> 
> 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] Climate Change

[Jochen Fromm]

This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:"In the East, it could be the 
COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that 
good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to 
pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle 
up!"https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god..
-J.
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] Climate Change Report

[Nick Thompson]

Dear All, 

 

Sometime this spring, I thought, we discussed a recent consensus document on
Climate Change issued by some scientific panel.  I assume I learned about it
in email, but I have gone through all my emails and not found it.  Can
anybody remember what that report was and who issued it?  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 


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] climate change article

[Julie Rehmeyer]

Given the recent discussion of climate change and the connection with  
complexity, I thought you all might enjoy this article I recently  
wrote: http://blog.sciencenews.org/mathtrek/2007/08/ 
cloudy_crystal_balls.html.

More generally, I'd like to plug MathTrek, my weekly math column for  
Science News. You can check out all the articles at http:// 
blog.sciencenews.org/mathtrek/. I'd be very interested in anyone's  
thoughts on the column. Also, feel free to send story ideas my way.  
My interpretation of math in this context is very broad: pretty  
much any kind of quantitative or logical analysis of most anything.  
I've been having a ball writing the column -- hopefully some of the  
pleasure I've taken in writing them is reflected in the articles  
themselves.

Julie



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[FRIAM] climate change science

[PPARYSKI]

FYI  Paul  
Science 10 August 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5839,  pp. 746 - 747
DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5839.746  

News Focus
 
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Humans and  Nature Duel Over the Next Decade's Climate
Richard A. Kerr   
Rising greenhouse gases are changing global climate, but during the next few  
decades natural climate variations will have a say as well, so researchers 
are  scrambling to factor them in

 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5839/746/F1)  CREDIT: JASON 
EDWARDS/NATIONAL  GEOGRAPHIC
For a century or more, meteorologists have  known the secret to weather 
forecasting: To glimpse tomorrow's weather, one must  know today's. And lately 
they 
have realized that the same precept applies to  predicting climate years or 
decades ahead. Stirrings in the North Atlantic Ocean  today that have nothing 
to do with the strengthening greenhouse--just natural  jostlings of the climate 
system--could lead to drought in Africa's Sahel in a  decade or two, they 
recognized. Ignore today's ocean conditions, and your 2020  global-warming 
forecast could be a bust. And such natural variability can be  far-reaching. In 
a 
recent study, researchers found that when the Atlantic Ocean  swung from one 
state to another, it apparently helped trigger a decade-long  climate shift in 
the late 1960s that sprang from the Atlantic and reached as far  as Australia.  
But until now, climate forecasters who worry about what greenhouse gases  
could be doing to climate have ignored what's happening naturally. Most looked  
100 years ahead, far enough so that they could safely ignore what's happening  
now. No more. In this week's issue, researchers take their first stab at  
forecasting climate a decade ahead with current conditions in mind. The result  
is 
a bit disquieting. Natural climate variability driven by the ocean appears to 
 have held greenhouse warming at bay the past few years, but the warming,  
according to the forecast, should come roaring back before the end of the  
decade.  
This is a very valuable step forward, says meteorologist Rowan Sutton of  
the University of Reading, U.K. It's precisely on the decadal time scale and 
on  regional scales that natural variability and anthropogenic effects have  
comparable magnitudes. So improved climate forecasting of the next few decades 
 
could help decision-makers focus on where and when the most severe climate  
change will be happening. Or, conversely, they could recognize when the looming 
 threat of global warming will be masked--temporarily--by natural 
variability.  
Jiggly climate
No one ever said Earth's atmosphere was a  boring place. Air is in 
continually shifting motion, from the wafting of  innumerable summer breezes to 
a few 
roaring jet streams. But forecasters have  long recognized that certain parts 
of 
the chaotic atmosphere are better behaved  than others. Over the North 
Atlantic, for example, atmospheric pressure over  Iceland and Portugal tends to 
seesaw over the weeks and months, rising at one  site while it falls at 
another. 
This North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) in turn  switches winds to and fro 
across the Atlantic, guiding storms into or away from  western Europe. Other 
modes 
of natural variability--atmospheric jigglings that  lack an external cause 
such as added greenhouse gases--tend to cause atmospheric  reorganizations over 
the North Pacific and the high latitudes of both  hemispheres. The tropical 
warmings and coolings of the El Niño-La Niña cycle can  also hold sway in 
various regions around the globe.  

 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5839/746/F2) Better. A model 
starting from  current conditions (white) came closer to reality (black) than 
one  without (blue).  
SOURCE: D. M. SMITH ET  AL./SCIENCE

Once  meteorologists recognized that natural variability offered hope of 
predicting  out a few months, climate researchers began to see that the same or 
similar  modes might improve forecasting a decade or more ahead. On a regional 
scale, the  NAO seesaws over the decades as well. Its dramatic strengthening in 
winter  between the 1960s and 1990s pumped extra heat into Northern Europe on 
top of  greenhouse warming, according to a new analysis in press at the 
Journal of  Geophysical Research by climate researcher David Parker of the 
Hadley  
Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, U.K., and his 
colleagues.  On a broader scale, natural variability over decades is clearly 
rooted in 
the  oceans. A warm-cool cycle that spans the Pacific, both North and South, 
has  lately swung back and forth on a time scale of 30 to 50 years. By Parker 
and his  colleagues' data and model analysis, this so-called Interdecadal 
Pacific  Oscillation seems to be driven by interactions between the tropical 
ocean 
and  atmosphere much like those that drive El Niño; the IPO could be the 
multidecadal  expression of the El Niño cycle, they say.  
Over in the Atlantic, there's the Atlantic 

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change Adaptive Strategies

[PPARYSKI]

 
 
Some of you may be interested in the specific interventions suggested by  the 
United Nations Development Programme (my former employer) to adapt to  
climate change: ABMs might be useful for some of these strategies. 
 
_http://www.undp.org/gef/adaptation/climate_change/02d.htm_ 
(http://www.undp.org/gef/adaptation/climate_change/02d.htm) 
 
cheers Paul





** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org