Steven Smith and Stephen Guerin were two of the complex systems scientists our organization (The Center for Emergent Diplomacy) invited to join a conference we organized in Stockholm a few weeks ago--combining our guys with our Swedish network of scientists and policy wonks working seriously on climate emergency. My idea was that the deep dialogue on global warming that I experience (and sometimes facilitate) happening around the world everywhere but here in the U.S--could really benefit from a Complexity spin. Steve and Stephen are somewhat up-to-date, and you might get some interesting replies from them.
By the way--all the major government reports, including the UN IPCC reports, are heavily censored because of how the research is funded. There is tremendous pressure to present only best-case scenarios-- for obvious corporate reasons. Also, if any of you think the disaster scenarios are "over-hyped", you really don't have a clue. Yes, the future is unprestateable, but many parts of the world are already experiencing the future of global warming in the present, like a good science fiction story. And there is a rapidly growing scientific consensus about how quickly the window is closing on any attempts to contain the risk to human survival on a much-altered planet. On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:45 AM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> 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 <merlelef...@gmail.com> mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merle.lelfkoff2 twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
