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 <sasm...@swcp.com> 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 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 > -- 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
