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. 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 <piet...@randcontrols.co.za> >> 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 <desm...@santafe.edu> 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 ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> 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 > > ============================================================ > 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
