For #1, in relation to climate change, could there be a "Tragedy of the Commons" aspect here? That is, it doesn't pay for industries to change their behavior individually over economically relevant shorter time scales, even though the longer time-scale effects on society as a whole might be large. This would seem to be especially the case if they perceive that others are getting by without changing their behavior (i.e., why should WE pay for climate change abatement if others are not?). I would think where you would see private industry changing their behavior might be more in the way of climate change adaptation (rather than mitigation), figuring out how to deal with the reality of climate change in ways that affect their bottom line.
Anyway, maybe this is all blatantly obvious, but I thought I'd throw in my $0.02. Mark D. ________________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Gerlach [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 10:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change - EOS Forum There appears to be a couple new topics here: 1) Why individuals or organizations don't change their behavior based on scientific data. 2) Risk assessment and action in the face of uncertainty which is an applied subgroup of topic 1. Neither of these are science per say but they are relevant to how science gets used and the role of a scientist as an advocate. I know this issue has been discussed before and it seems to seep into every discussion about applied science. Perhaps we need specific training on these topics? John Sent from my iPhone On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:11 PM, "Warren W. Aney" <[email protected]> wrote: > As a resource manager who depended on applied science, I frequently had to > help make decisions based on science that was much weaker than the current > climate change scientific findings. So I adopted the practice of comparing > costs, benefits and risks: What is the cost or risk of taking a wrong > action compared to the cost or risk of not acting? > For example, if we've had a dry summer and fall, an early winter, and > reports of low fat reserves in our deer, should we have an emergency hunt to > reduce deer numbers? If we take this action we might reduce winter kill and > reduce range damage. If we are wrong, we've at least provided a little more > recreation but we end up with a smaller population and reduced recreation > next season. > But if we decide to take no action and this is a wrong decision, we could > end up with a bad outcome -- a large winter die-off, damaged range > conditions that will slow population recovery, reduced future recreation and > a sullied reputation as managers. > I learned later that this decision making tool is called the precautionary > approach. In the case of climate change, taking action will have costs and > risks (and even some benefits such as reduced air pollution and reduced > reliance on non-sustainable energy sources). But the costs and risks of not > taking action and being wrong will probably be catastrophic, maybe in the > short term and certainly in the long term. So the precautionary approach > directs us to take action. > Is that difficult to understand and accept, even by the skeptics? > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > Tigard, OR > (503) 539-1009 > (503) 246-2605 fax > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum > Sent: Wednesday, 04 July, 2012 20:25 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change - EOS Forum > > Its hard to interpret all that. > > Its amazing how any one of us can make a mistake, or a bad > judgement....but it would be nice if once in a while each of us > actually listened to others more knowledgeable than we are, and > recognize that our judgement may be again flawed. > > No admissions necessary. > > :) > > Can you imagine having a moment of bad judgement leading to your > setting up an automatic sprayer in someone's property w/o obtaining > permission, and then setting the time w/o the owner's knowledge so > that the sprayer sets off the burgler alarm, leading to the arrival of > police officers who check out the scene only to get sprayed with > pesticides??? > > None of us is beyond reproach, all of us make mistakes. > I wish more of us were born with perfect judgement in all > things,...pesticide application, climate change, whatever. > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Schneider <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hello all, >> We have seen considerable diversity in how to respond, as >> scientists, on the topic of climate change. Clearly one >> size does not fit all. For those friends and acquaintances >> who ask, I like to start with simple statements based on >> evidence, which I value highly as a scientist - evidence >> assembled by IPCC and accessible explanation of what happens >> in a greenhouse and why it applies to CO2 (methane etc) >> in the atmosphere. >> >> For policy makers, I start with evidence (IPCC) and >> then to risks if no action (much less clear!). >> >> For those who respond with arguments we recognize >> (ad hominem attacks, cherry picked data, etc) I describe the >> fallacy, being careful not to stray to the ad hominem. >> >> For those who venture into a public forum (e.g. talk on >> College campus) I like debate, not surprise. In the >> debates about evolution, Stephen J. Gould mastered the >> arguments, and so was prepared to debate the topic. >> >> For those who go political ('warmist' or 'climate alarmist' as >> below) I like Don Stong's response - call them on going political. >> >> Finally, it helps to do some research on the person to whom you >> are responding, to find out motivation ($$$ ? or something else?). >> Search >> Paul Cherubini El dorado >> >> You might be surprised. >> >> David Schneider >> http://www.mun.ca/osc/dschneider/bio.php >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Paul Cherubini <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 2, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Corbin, Jeffrey D. wrote: >>> >>> 1) but I made the specific point at our counter-presentation that >>>> we have a great deal to discuss as to HOW society should >>>> confront climate change - Cap&Trade, Carbon tax, mitigation, >>>> etc. But such a discussion must begin with an acceptance of >>>> the understood science. >>>> >>> >>> The notion of anthropogenic global warming is not hardly >>> settled. There is a large body of anthropogenic doubters, >>> especially because global mean temps have stabilized >>> since 1998 http://tinyurl.com/6ca5gzt That flattening of >>> warming was not predicted by the anthropogenic warmists. >>> >>> 2) the general public who does have difficulty filtering >>>> out the conflicting sides of the "debate". >>>> >>> >>> The public and industry pay alot of attention to websites >>> such as http://wattsupwiththat.com/ that examine the >>> claims and track records of the anthropogenic climate >>> alarmists in great depth and provide evidence suggesting >>> global mean temps may continue to be relatively >>> stable for another 20 years or so. >>> >>> The public also listens to industry leaders who says things like: >>> "fears about climate change, drilling, and energy dependence >>> are overblown" - http://tinyurl.com/6wezuce >>> >>> Paul Cherubini >>> El Dorado, Calif. >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >>> Wealth w/o work >>> Pleasure w/o conscience >>> Knowledge w/o character >>> Commerce w/o morality >>> Science w/o humanity >>> Worship w/o sacrifice >>> Politics w/o principle >>> >>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >>> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >>> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >>> destroy all copies of the original message. >>> >> >> >> This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at >> > http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry > School of Biological Sciences > University of Missouri at Kansas City > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message.
