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 <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 <mailto: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 >
============================================================ 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
