Friam

Good climate change skeptics

Classic

List

Threaded

38 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Good climate change skeptics

Dear colleagues,

I will be repatriated to Santa Fe soon and look forward to seeing you in October.

In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following. Clark University is proposing a forum on climate change. I want that forum to be honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose me the names of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not resorted to throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those names to the convening committee. My thought was that in a forum on climate change, which would include, of course, many sessions on consequences and remediation, should be at least one in which the whole consensus is put in doubt.

My note to the committee is appended below, in case you are curious.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

My fear here is that this will be one of those discussions where the choir sings to itself. In Santa Fe, I sit with a group of highly trained engineers and hard scientists among whom are a few who are climate-change doubters. These are folks who seem otherwise rational, so I have to take them seriously. Now, I think it’s fair to say that every conversation amongst the climate change faithful should not be gummed up by a few folks who doubt that it is happening at all. For instance, we need to talk amongst ourselves about justice issues, How to respond so that its consequences will not fall disproportionately upon the weak and poor, However, I also think we should devote at least one session to bridging the gap between doubters and us faithful. I suggest a session title, “Can a rational person doubt human-originated climate change?” and see who you can find that can explore the weaknesses in our consensus with the hope that such testing will make us more rational.

============================================================
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

gepr

Re: Good climate change skeptics

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: Good climate change skeptics

Glen,

It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

I can't help directly. But it seems to me that there's a requirement missing from your request. The missing requirement is the _purpose_ of the forum. Is it scientific, in which case, scientists are allowed to be what they normally are: skeptical of everything? Is it political, in which case, the best participants will be popularizers or public intellectuals? Is it social, in which case, there's a need for science/policy crossovers?

I think filling that missing link will lead to a more effective choice of the "doubter" you seek.

On 09/21/2015 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following. Clark
> University is proposing a forum on climate change. I want that forum
> to be honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose
> me the names of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not
> resorted to throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those
> names to the convening committee. My thought was that in a forum on
> climate change, which would include, of course, many sessions on
> consequences and remediation, should be at least one in which the
> whole consensus is put in doubt.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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

Owen Densmore

Re: Good climate change skeptics

Administrator

Pope Francis.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen,

It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

I can't help directly. But it seems to me that there's a requirement missing from your request. The missing requirement is the _purpose_ of the forum. Is it scientific, in which case, scientists are allowed to be what they normally are: skeptical of everything? Is it political, in which case, the best participants will be popularizers or public intellectuals? Is it social, in which case, there's a need for science/policy crossovers?

I think filling that missing link will lead to a more effective choice of the "doubter" you seek.

On 09/21/2015 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following. Clark
> University is proposing a forum on climate change. I want that forum
> to be honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose
> me the names of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not
> resorted to throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those
> names to the convening committee. My thought was that in a forum on
> climate change, which would include, of course, many sessions on
> consequences and remediation, should be at least one in which the
> whole consensus is put in doubt.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: Good climate change skeptics

He's not a sceptic. In fact, he's all in on climate change.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pope Francis.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Glen,

It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

I can't help directly. But it seems to me that there's a requirement missing from your request. The missing requirement is the _purpose_ of the forum. Is it scientific, in which case, scientists are allowed to be what they normally are: skeptical of everything? Is it political, in which case, the best participants will be popularizers or public intellectuals? Is it social, in which case, there's a need for science/policy crossovers?

I think filling that missing link will lead to a more effective choice of the "doubter" you seek.

On 09/21/2015 10:35 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> In the meantime, could you possibly help me with the following. Clark
> University is proposing a forum on climate change. I want that forum
> to be honest, so I am wondering if anybody in this group can propose
> me the names of some skeptics who are sober, thoughtful, and have not
> resorted to throwing snowballs in the senate, so I could propose those
> names to the convening committee. My thought was that in a forum on
> climate change, which would include, of course, many sessions on
> consequences and remediation, should be at least one in which the
> whole consensus is put in doubt.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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 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

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff

Owen Densmore

Re: Good climate change skeptics

Administrator

Yeah, I know! But the audience is. :)

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

He's not a sceptic. In fact, he's all in on climate change.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pope Francis.

QEF@aol.com

Re: Good climate change skeptics

Nick --

Probably the most prominent skeptics in recent times have been Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus (he suggests that it's important, but perhaps not as important as other matters) and William Nordhaus of Yale (who likewise talks about severity and outcomes). Their writings and speeches may offer some insight.

I hope it's a productive conversation.

All the best,

- Claiborne Booker -

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 3:28 am
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

Yeah, I know! But the audience is. :)

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

He's not a sceptic. In fact, he's all in on climate change.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pope Francis.

============================================================
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

Nick Thompson

Re: Good climate change skeptics

Thanks, Claiborne,

I will look into these.

In a week I will be back in St. Johns marvelous coffee shop. Any chance of seeing you there?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

Nick --

I hope it's a productive conversation.

All the best,

- Claiborne Booker -

Yeah, I know! But the audience is. :)

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

He's not a sceptic. In fact, he's all in on climate change.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pope Francis.

============================================================

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

glen ropella

Re: Good climate change skeptics

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski

being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from another.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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

Nick Thompson

Re: Good climate change skeptics

G

Think of Emerson and Thoreau.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski

being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from another.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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

Gillian Densmore

Re: Good climate change skeptics

Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

G

Think of Emerson and Thoreau.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski

being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from another.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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

Gillian Densmore

Re: Good climate change skeptics

Glen (as typical) raises a good question what the purpose and thrust of this forum is.

If you even know.

A few scientists have even said that one of the truly awesome things about science is they "question everything".

And there's been a theory that weather patterns are influenced somewhat by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0451.pdf

For what it's worth Neil De Grasse Tyson at one time noted on a Bill Myre (however it's spelled) talk He's conflicted if the perceived changes are part of a greater weather pattern,-

Or if it's related to humans doing they're thing.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
G

Think of Emerson and Thoreau.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski

being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from another.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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

Steve Smith

Re: Good climate change skeptics

Gil-

The Saros cycles are fascinating. Of course I always "assumed" there was such periodicity and wondered if anyone had tried to correlate these conjunctions with earthly phenomena. I don't see this undermining the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, only perhaps a few of the attributable "evidence" for it.

I don't think of scientists as "questioning everything" or at least not "everything all of the time" or at least not on an individual by individual basis.   Science is perhaps the earliest form of "crowd sourcing".

The early scientific organizations like the Royal Society founded in 1660 and the complex web of correspondence (mostly) throughout Europe during the age of enlightenment. Their motto is "Nullius in verba" (take nobody's word for it).

The cycle of hypothesis generation and testing has several phases of "question everything".   To get to a new and interesting hypothesis, one must ignore/forget/confront much of current established knowledge...   then once a fairly firm hypothesis is formed, one must deliberately look for counter-examples to undermine one's own hypothesis to avoid confirmation bias and to seek the easiest form of (dis)proof which is "by counter-example".   Once a hypothesis has been wrung out well and advanced to a "tentative" theory, it is time for the larger community to take the same crack at it... do their best to poke holes in it.    Once it has been through "enough" of that kind of scrutiny, we tend to accept the theory as a tentative, conditional, temporary "truth". Unfortunately non-scientists tend to glom onto that kind of "vetting" process as if it leads to a final, irrefutable and irreversible conclusion.   Scientists know that all knowledge is provisional, that it will get overturned, elaborated, or eclipsed somewhere down the line.

Those who realized the earth was spherical, not flat got trumped when someone else eventually pointed out that it was more of an oblate spheroid!   And now, with Gil's Saros cycles we have to remember that complex tidal forces are even wracking it out of shape on a 14 year cycle!

In a century (if there is anyone there to reflect on it) we will laugh at some of our strongest beliefs for (or against) climate change. By then we will know a lot more, this is not a phenomena that is easy to "test", mostly we can only watch it play out like a slow motion 50 car pileup on the freeway!

- Steve

Glen (as typical) raises a good question what the purpose and thrust of this forum is.

If you even know.

A few scientists have even said that one of the truly awesome things about science is they "question everything".

And there's been a theory that weather patterns are influenced somewhat by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0451.pdf

For what it's worth Neil De Grasse Tyson at one time noted on a Bill Myre (however it's spelled) talk He's conflicted if the perceived changes are part of a greater weather pattern,-

Or if it's related to humans doing they're thing.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

G

Think of Emerson and Thoreau.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski

being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from another.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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 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

Gillian Densmore

Re: Good climate change skeptics

@Steve

yeah I don't know that a person can stay sane and constantly question what they do.

The maxim can probably be taken many different ways. Personally I take it in a playfull, happy-go-lucky kind of way of

Kind of like OOH I wonder how (Coffe for example) works? OOOH it's black and with a pinch of suger tastey, And OOOh that's how it works.

As to the Saros system, I mentioned because supposedly at one time it was thought it might be one piece of why the weather and climate do what they do. From what I gather the idea is then that if this system somehow leads to weather and climate patterns it'd be why the weather and climate are generally cold or warm

Just tossing it out there for Nicks forum as it was one of the Bazzilian ways to (possibly) explain why the weather and climate might be doing what ever it is they do.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gil-

The Saros cycles are fascinating. Of course I always "assumed" there was such periodicity and wondered if anyone had tried to correlate these conjunctions with earthly phenomena. I don't see this undermining the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, only perhaps a few of the attributable "evidence" for it.

I don't think of scientists as "questioning everything" or at least not "everything all of the time" or at least not on an individual by individual basis.   Science is perhaps the earliest form of "crowd sourcing".

The early scientific organizations like the Royal Society founded in 1660 and the complex web of correspondence (mostly) throughout Europe during the age of enlightenment. Their motto is "Nullius in verba" (take nobody's word for it).

The cycle of hypothesis generation and testing has several phases of "question everything".   To get to a new and interesting hypothesis, one must ignore/forget/confront much of current established knowledge...   then once a fairly firm hypothesis is formed, one must deliberately look for counter-examples to undermine one's own hypothesis to avoid confirmation bias and to seek the easiest form of (dis)proof which is "by counter-example".   Once a hypothesis has been wrung out well and advanced to a "tentative" theory, it is time for the larger community to take the same crack at it... do their best to poke holes in it.    Once it has been through "enough" of that kind of scrutiny, we tend to accept the theory as a tentative, conditional, temporary "truth". Unfortunately non-scientists tend to glom onto that kind of "vetting" process as if it leads to a final, irrefutable and irreversible conclusion.   Scientists know that all knowledge is provisional, that it will get overturned, elaborated, or eclipsed somewhere down the line.

Those who realized the earth was spherical, not flat got trumped when someone else eventually pointed out that it was more of an oblate spheroid!   And now, with Gil's Saros cycles we have to remember that complex tidal forces are even wracking it out of shape on a 14 year cycle!

In a century (if there is anyone there to reflect on it) we will laugh at some of our strongest beliefs for (or against) climate change. By then we will know a lot more, this is not a phenomena that is easy to "test", mostly we can only watch it play out like a slow motion 50 car pileup on the freeway!

- Steve
Glen (as typical) raises a good question what the purpose and thrust of this forum is.

If you even know.

A few scientists have even said that one of the truly awesome things about science is they "question everything".

And there's been a theory that weather patterns are influenced somewhat by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0451.pdf

For what it's worth Neil De Grasse Tyson at one time noted on a Bill Myre (however it's spelled) talk He's conflicted if the perceived changes are part of a greater weather pattern,-

Or if it's related to humans doing they're thing.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email][hidden email]> wrote:

Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email][hidden email]> wrote:

G

Think of Emerson and Thoreau.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski

being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from another.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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 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 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

Steve Smith

Re: Good climate change skeptics

Gil -

I think it takes a certain perspective and maybe training to be a proper "Skeptic".

I think as far as the Saros thing goes, I can imagine it having an effect on annual weather patterns with periods relevant to the periods of the sun/moon/earth alignments but those are on the scale of years and decades. Climate change is on the scale of decades and centuries and millenia. Saros-effect weather/climate should be detectible in the historical record... I don't think most of the current artifacts of climate change fit that pattern. But I could be wrong, I don't study it closely.

I *am* skeptical of many of the details of anthropogenic climate change (pro and con), but around 2000 I used *another* rule of thumb that governs my every day life. If the stakes are high enough, err on the "safe" side and establish "failsafes" wherever possible. When walking along a narrow ridge with sheer drops on both sides, I am *very* careful and try always to have a contingency plan such that if I trip, I fall in a stable configuration on top of the ridge. Climate deniers, in my opinion, are not only ignoring the precipice nearby but all but trying to shove others (third world, poverty, etc.) over that edge because in their mind, *they* can use their wealth/privilege to avoid the worst of the consequences. *they* (we) are walking the highwire with a net while 90% of the world does not have that net.

- Steve

@Steve
yeah I don't know that a person can stay sane and constantly question what they do.

The maxim can probably be taken many different ways. Personally I take it in a playfull, happy-go-lucky kind of way of

Kind of like OOH I wonder how (Coffe for example) works? OOOH it's black and with a pinch of suger tastey, And OOOh that's how it works.

As to the Saros system, I mentioned because supposedly at one time it was thought it might be one piece of why the weather and climate do what they do. From what I gather the idea is then that if this system somehow leads to weather and climate patterns it'd be why the weather and climate are generally cold or warm

Just tossing it out there for Nicks forum as it was one of the Bazzilian ways to (possibly) explain why the weather and climate might be doing what ever it is they do.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Gil-

The Saros cycles are fascinating. Of course I always "assumed" there was such periodicity and wondered if anyone had tried to correlate these conjunctions with earthly phenomena. I don't see this undermining the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, only perhaps a few of the attributable "evidence" for it.

I don't think of scientists as "questioning everything" or at least not "everything all of the time" or at least not on an individual by individual basis.   Science is perhaps the earliest form of "crowd sourcing".

The early scientific organizations like the Royal Society founded in 1660 and the complex web of correspondence (mostly) throughout Europe during the age of enlightenment. Their motto is "Nullius in verba" (take nobody's word for it).

The cycle of hypothesis generation and testing has several phases of "question everything".   To get to a new and interesting hypothesis, one must ignore/forget/confront much of current established knowledge...   then once a fairly firm hypothesis is formed, one must deliberately look for counter-examples to undermine one's own hypothesis to avoid confirmation bias and to seek the easiest form of (dis)proof which is "by counter-example".   Once a hypothesis has been wrung out well and advanced to a "tentative" theory, it is time for the larger community to take the same crack at it... do their best to poke holes in it.    Once it has been through "enough" of that kind of scrutiny, we tend to accept the theory as a tentative, conditional, temporary "truth". Unfortunately non-scientists tend to glom onto that kind of "vetting" process as if it leads to a final, irrefutable and irreversible conclusion.   Scientists know that all knowledge is provisional, that it will get overturned, elaborated, or eclipsed somewhere down the line.

Those who realized the earth was spherical, not flat got trumped when someone else eventually pointed out that it was more of an oblate spheroid!   And now, with Gil's Saros cycles we have to remember that complex tidal forces are even wracking it out of shape on a 14 year cycle!

In a century (if there is anyone there to reflect on it) we will laugh at some of our strongest beliefs for (or against) climate change. By then we will know a lot more, this is not a phenomena that is easy to "test", mostly we can only watch it play out like a slow motion 50 car pileup on the freeway!

- Steve
Glen (as typical) raises a good question what the purpose and thrust of this forum is.

If you even know.

A few scientists have even said that one of the truly awesome things about science is they "question everything".

And there's been a theory that weather patterns are influenced somewhat by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0451.pdf

For what it's worth Neil De Grasse Tyson at one time noted on a Bill Myre (however it's spelled) talk He's conflicted if the perceived changes are part of a greater weather pattern,-

Or if it's related to humans doing they're thing.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wikipedia has a article about climate change skeptics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

G

Think of Emerson and Thoreau.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/21/2015 02:42 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It's Earnest New Englanders Getting Together. Is that a recognizable category, or do I need to say more.

Heh, I suppose Illinois is too far away:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/21/pope-francis-is-on-the-path-to-paganism/
https://www.heartland.org/gene-koprowski

being from Texas, I'm incapable of distinguishing one yankee from another.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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 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 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 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

glen ropella

Re: Good climate change skeptics

In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore

Y'all do a good job of highlighting the importance of the context for such a forum. Here's another time-wasting anecdote:

I spend way too much time trying to make peace with the local atheists. When I go to their meetings and the topics of faith or the supernatural or mystical come up, I have to be very careful about the sheer pleasure I get out of stories about occult beliefs, conspiracy theories, and alternatives to accepted scientific theories. I have to be careful, I think, because most of these people (atheists who need the social support of other atheists) are ex-theists. It's like a support group for alcoholics or cancer caregivers. I kinda have to treat it like a "sacred space". That means _not_ defending concepts like faith, either in the Kierkegaard conception or Nick's (faith the floor is there when I get out of bed), the former of which I've tried and failed miserably. Defending a subtle concept of faith to this crowd is like arguing for moderation instead of abstinence at an AA meeting. //*

So, if I were a climate scientist, regardless of what I believed about AGW, I would avoid this forum. By contrast, if I were a climate activist, I'd want to be there.

On 09/23/2015 07:52 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> yeah I don't know that a person can stay sane and constantly question what they do.

I think it's easier than we might think. I think the key doesn't lie in questioning (everything) one does. The key lies (as you point out) in how seriously you take things, especially your own actions. Actually, "seriousness" is the wrong concept. The right concept is "commitment", how committed you are to your actions, including your beliefs. If you're committed (convinced, convicted, with conviction), then you're doomed. Skepticism depends on the ability to retract previous (tentative) commitments when it's appropriate to do so. And that includes physical actions as well as thoughts. A good fighter can tweak her strike at any point along its path. Competent strikes, like assertions of belief, should never be "fire and forget". As you bring your foot to the floor in the morning, if the floor doesn't push back as expected, _don't_ get out of bed, just yet. 8^)

> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> In a century (if there is anyone there to reflect on it) we will laugh at some of our strongest beliefs

I strongly hold that laughability and strongly held beliefs are correlated.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Good climate change skeptics

"Defending a subtle concept of faith to this crowd is like arguing for moderation instead of abstinence at an AA meeting."

As long as they can be held in solitary confinement, and prevented from organizing, they can have all of the "moderation" they want! But if as they have organized, then those who have seen the consequences of that organization and don't much like it, must also organize. Such is the way of power and politics.

Marcus
============================================================
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

gepr

Re: Good climate change skeptics

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Good climate change skeptics

In practice, the tactic of creating doubt tends to be more about creating fear, and decreasing the resolve of the opponent, than it is about increasing the prevalence of skeptical thinking. I think flip-flopping is not that hard of a skill to master, it's whether one wants to devote the needed attention to segue between today's lie and tomorrow's in a sufficiently smooth way. At some level, any competence can be self-reinforcing and even enjoyable.

Marcus

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Good climate change skeptics

On 09/23/2015 11:38 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> As long as they can be held in solitary confinement, and prevented from organizing, they can have all of the "moderation" they want! But if as they have organized, then those who have seen the consequences of that organization and don't much like it, must also organize. Such is the way of power and politics.

Several groups are organizing in response: the moderation management groups (http://www.moderation.org/), an apparent minority of addiction researchers working to overturn the "disease model", Sam Harris and fans clustering around the horrible concept of spirituality without religion, methodological ritualists (e.g. yoga or meditation), etc.

And as much as I agree with your dialectical position of opposite organizing, I maintain that the deeper problem is the inherent commitment involved. Power and politics are not really about organizing opposites. It's about steadily punching (small) holes in the convictions of the arlready organized. We see this practically in someone like Bernie Sanders, a career politician if there ever was such a thing. But he can self-consistently deny that he's a "career politician" by citing his anti-authoritarian hole-punching. Another example might be the hidden powerful in the beltway... the people who would rule us completely if we installed term limits on all elected offices. Those people don't organize, at least not dialectically, so much as they navigate whatever constellation of agents and objects exist at any given time ... the skill is to flip-flop (abandon commitments) when the landscape suggests it's right to flip-flop. (thank Ct hulhu).

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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 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

glen ropella

Re: Good climate change skeptics

I completely disagree. It seems to me that fear causes people to dig themselves further into their convictions ... or even to create convictions that were, up to that point, just tendencies. It's relatively easy to imagine that's the case with modern racists. Up to the point of being challenged, they may not think anything explicitly racist, just have a general tendency to associate with those that look/talk like themselves. But when faced with some pressure like fear, their implicit racism may snap into an explicit one.

The way _out_ of such fear-induced convictions is to weasel your way into their world and poke a bunch of little holes in it, then step back and watch them slowly evolve out of their commitment.

It's very difficult for people to learn how to change their mind (aka flip-flopping), even when faced with contradictory evidence. And I'll take that opinion to my grave. //*

On 09/23/2015 12:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> In practice, the tactic of creating doubt tends to be more about creating fear, and decreasing the resolve of the opponent, than it is about increasing the prevalence of skeptical thinking. I think flip-flopping is not that hard of a skill to master, it's whether one wants to devote the needed attention to segue between today's lie and tomorrow's in a sufficiently smooth way. At some level, any competence can be self-reinforcing and even enjoyable.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
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