Murdoch and Trump
Locked
123
123
 
|
Trump's channel Fox News is owned by the Australian Murdoch family. Can two families ruin the entire planet? Trump in America and Murdoch in Australia are creating tremendous damage. If Climate Change leads to an uninhabitable world, as David Wallace-Wells describes in his book, these two families certainly contributed to it https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GVPFH5V/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1The Washington Post writes: "When we think of industries that must change to prevent further global warming, we tend to imagine carbon-intensive concerns such as mining, aviation and energy production. But the Murdoch media and the rest of the climate denialist industry will also need a transition plan. They do not have long to implement it." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/16/australias-catastrophic-fires-are-moment-reckoning-murdochs-media-empire/ -Jochen ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Fortunately it seems that the earth is warming much slower than what the models predicted. So just maybe we have hope?
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/ On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 22:36, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Pieter - Thanks for offering up the positive element of hope in this
context. It is easy to project our "worst fears" and "greatest
hopes" onto the natural uncertainty that comes with formal and
informal prognostication. When the "stakes" are as high as "inhabitability of the planet" in our children/grandchildren's lifetime, it is easy to convolve those stakes with even the lowest likelihoods of a given outcome. Conversely, when the "stakes" involve the likely end of a lucrative crap-shoot, those with the highest investment in the game are going to want to downplay the likelihoods and even risks as much as possible while they "sneak out of the game" and try to "game the next system" or even "create the next game". There is a LOT more afoot with our extreme industrial
"competence" or "efficacy" than mere "atmospheric surface
temperature"... dissolved CO2 in the oceans, the attendant
acidification, and the impact on the entire marine ecosystem of
which biogenic calcification is a critical element. The biosphere is a *complex system* which has both
self-regulating mechanisms *and* potential bifurcation points...
while we have (and continue to see) some of the feedback loops
working (more CO2 supports more vigorous plant
growth/photosynthesis) in favor of limiting atmospheric greenhouse
gasses, there are coupled feedback loops (like rapid plant growth
creating *local* O2 enrichment, leading to harsher wildfires based
on post-growing season concentrations of dry biomass and enhanced
O2)... My favorite definition of "hope" is "doing the right thing, no
matter how you think that is going to turn out". Of course, those who we label "climate deniers" are *hoping*... some hoping that there IS no anthropogenic climate change, others hoping that they can amass enough wealth/power to avoid the consequences to themselves and their filial interests. And of course, the rest of us *hoping* that if we just act quickly and significantly enough, that the worst of the effects can be avoided and the worst effects can be ameliorated. One distinction between the "left" and the "right" seems to involve how worried we might be about the consequences to those who are not significantly implicated in "the problem" and are likely least able to endure them. Maybe the likes of Trump and Murdoch really are concerned about "the little people", but I see very little overt evidence of that. - Steve
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pieter Steenekamp
Would be interesting to know what the buffers are, that weren’t in that run of models.
Temperatures are lower than forecast, but Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting rates are higher. They seem like small land areas, and the ice volume small, but specific heat of melting is large per volume compared to specific heat of air, and the atmosphere, while thick compared to ice, is only 10-20 km high (to the top of the troposphere; stratosphere up to maybe 50km at much-reduced density and much increased transparency because it is dry). So troposphere maybe 20-40 times the depth of the west antarctic ice sheet, though only a lowermost layer of that is melting, and I don’t know the thickness per unit time lost. Specific heat of dry air is about 1 J/gK, while heat of melting of clean water is 334 J/g. Ice is about 1000 times as dense as air, so one has a volume ratio of about 3x10^5 to play with, per degree Kelvin. Greenland plus Antarctica (wikipedia-level area estimates) are about 3% of earth surface area. So if one divided by a column density ratio of 30:1 and multiplied by an area ratio of 0.03, one has about 1/1000. So a full melt of Greenland and Antarctic ice could buffer about 300K of atmospheric temperature change at a dimensional-analysis-level estimate. If the full rate of melting were mis-estimated by a factor that extends the ice sheet lifetimes by 600 years, that would give about 1/2 degree per year buffering capacity. I don’t know what is or isn’t in the models up to 2014, because I haven’t followed these things closely, but unless what I wrote above is nonsense, it seems that a mis-estimate of just continental ice sheet melting is not wildly out of scale to account for unmodeled buffers. One also wants to take into account arctic se ice, which if I really is on a faster melting schedule then some models predicted, though I don’t have even a good impressionistic memory of what I have heard on that. And of course there is the heat-transport rate of cyclonic storms, from sea surface to the top of the troposphere, where radiative transfer through the stratosphere will be much faster than that from the interior of the troposphere or the surface. My understanding is that predicting frequency and intensity of typhoons etc. is still something of a challenge area, but I don’t know if that affects parameters used in GCM and heat-transfer models enough to count as an un-modeled buffer. Would be great if there is somebody on this list who has a comprehensive enough knowledge of the state of this literature to give the kind of survey of the state of the art in response to questions, that is hard to get from broadcast. Good as it is, broadcast just contains whatever it contains, and doesn’t have the responsiveness of a person who can hear a question in context and then recruit knowledge for a matched reply. Eric
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Sorry…
My own typos are bad enough, but usually comprehensible. But when the damned computer helpfully comes in and substitutes the word it thinks I must have meant, the result is a true obscurity: > One also wants to take into account arctic se ice, which if I really is on a faster melting schedule then some models predicted, though I don’t have even a good impressionistic memory of what I have heard on that. One also wants to take into account arctic _sea_ ice, which if I _remember_ is on …. Eric ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eric Smith
Eric - Great back-of-envelop summary/speculation and I second your
desire for someone well-steeped in these modeling/assessment
issues. We (speaking out of school for Merle, Stephen, and the team that
went to and met with the Stockholm Team last month) would love to
find someone with that depth/breadth of knowledge in this group
(or one degree away). I am remiss/slow in following up with the
*one* member of the Stockholm Resilience Center I met there who
*might* either have this level of depth/breadth or know someone
who does. I am trying hard to come up to speed, but the number of models
and types of approaches and hidden agendas/constraints/assumptions
are still overwhelming. The IPCC seems to be the *best* official
source that is most broadly accepted, etc. but tends to be one or
two levels of detail above the kinds of questions I have (and you
are asking here). I am interested in something much broader than just the
geo/bio/cryo/hydro/aero-science of it all, though THAT is huge and
complicated enough as it is. The Integrated Assessment Models
that join this *physical* domain with the socio(political)economic
domain seems most well discussed by the work of the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project (CMIP) lead by LLNL and tied into the
World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) who are providing some of
the "heavy lifting" for the IPCC's next (VI) report due in 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupled_Model_Intercomparison_Project - Steve On 1/19/20 2:00 PM, David Eric Smith
wrote:
Would be interesting to know what the buffers are, that weren’t in that run of models. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Oh... also an interesting report on the
Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) as canonical scenarios to be
used with these models.
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
When I was working at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (1990-1996), one of our prominent users was Kelvin Droegemeier. He was a professor at the University of Oklahoma and director of the center for the analysis and prediction of storms he was an expert on tornadoes. I'm not sure about his knowledge of climate dynamics over the millennia but he wrote very mathematical papers about weather. A Google search tells me that he is now an advisor to President Trump so I don't know what his ideological biases but he's a very advanced meteorologist. ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 2:53 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eric Smith
Eric asked for someone with a comprehensive knowledge of climate science and I do not put my name in the hat. But I do have some comprehension of the basic science and the big picture. But like all humans I have biases and very far from having a comprehensive knowledge of the literature nor the science. In my professional career as an engineer I have done a lot of engineering modeling and in my private time I am enthusiastic about emergence and have played with agent based models to simulate complex systems. So, on the topic under discussion, there are issues that I reckon should not be questioned (“the science is settled”): a) On decades time scales the earth has warmed, the average sea level has increased and the average CO2 in the atmosphere increased b) There are direct and indirect causal links between CO2 and temperature c) The direct causal link is not sufficiently strong to be worried about d) It’s the indirect link that’s the source of the concerns. CO2 causes the temperature to rise a little. This causes more evaporation and subsequently more clouds. Some clouds cause cooling (negative feedback) and some warming (positive feedback). e) There are other factors than CO2 also affecting the temperature. Then there are issues that IMO are not settled.: I argue an issue that cuts to the very heart of the current climate change debate is the strength of feedbacks. If the positive feedback is strong and the negative feedback weak then Houston we have a problem we should listen to Greta. If not, Trump was probably right in withdrawing from Paris. Pieter On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 23:13, David Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Sorry… ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
10 years ago we had 10 degrees below zero in Berlin and several days of snow. This winter we had not a single day of snow. Not a single one. The arctic is melting, Australia and California are burning like never before and Brasil is destroying the last pieces of its precious rain forest. And the worst thing is that it will be every year like this one, only worse. Billions of people are burning in a few decades the fossil fuels produced over millions of years. You don't need to be an expert to see that this really can not be reversed in a few months. I could even imagine that we burn so much fossil fuels that there will be regions where we have a lack of Oxygen. Earth was like this many million years ago. And the most powerful country of the world has a president who ignores all of it and considers himself a very stable genius. Sean Hannity gets 36 Million Dollar (!) a year from Fox News to praise him. Isn't it depressing? -Jochen -------- Original message -------- From: Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> Date: 1/20/20 22:59 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Murdoch and Trump Eric asked for someone with a comprehensive knowledge of climate science and I do not put my name in the hat. But I do have some comprehension of the basic science and the big picture. But like all humans I have biases and very far from having a comprehensive knowledge of the literature nor the science. In my professional career as an engineer I have done a lot of engineering modeling and in my private time I am enthusiastic about emergence and have played with agent based models to simulate complex systems. So, on the topic under discussion, there are issues that I reckon should not be questioned (“the science is settled”): a) On decades time scales the earth has warmed, the average sea level has increased and the average CO2 in the atmosphere increased b) There are direct and indirect causal links between CO2 and temperature c) The direct causal link is not sufficiently strong to be worried about d) It’s the indirect link that’s the source of the concerns. CO2 causes the temperature to rise a little. This causes more evaporation and subsequently more clouds. Some clouds cause cooling (negative feedback) and some warming (positive feedback). e) There are other factors than CO2 also affecting the temperature. Then there are issues that IMO are not settled.: I argue an issue that cuts to the very heart of the current climate change debate is the strength of feedbacks. If the positive feedback is strong and the negative feedback weak then Houston we have a problem we should listen to Greta. If not, Trump was probably right in withdrawing from Paris. Pieter On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 23:13, David Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Sorry… ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:22:42AM +0100, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> > I could even imagine that we burn so much fossil fuels that there will be > regions where we have a lack of Oxygen. Earth was like this many million years > ago. > That might take a few centuries. There's several hundred years of known coal reserves at current rates of consumption. It is sobering to think that all Oxygen in the air is of biogenic origin (some 22% of the air) and that at some point in the past, that oxygen was bound up in carbon dioxide. If we burnt all the carbon buried in the ground, we'd have no oxygen left. Clearly, we have to leave most of the fossil fuel in the ground. And we have good reasons to start moving away from using it today. Opening up new mega-coal mines like our current Australian Government is keen on doing, is simply madness. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders [hidden email] http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Should I sell my BHP Billiton shares? I don't have that much. ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 9:06 PM Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:22:42AM +0100, Jochen Fromm wrote: ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 09:18:25PM -0700, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Should I sell my BHP Billiton shares? I don't have that much. I don't know - are they involved in the fossil fuel industry? The big litmus test right now is Adani, an Indian coal mining company planning to open a huge coal mine in Queensland. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they throw in the towel soon, what with the public opposition, and the fact that the Indian economy is starting to decarbonise. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders [hidden email] http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
Jochen, How confident are you about the predictions the climate scientists make? When I delve into the details of the IPCC reports I find that there are significant uncertainties. But when popular media report the facts I get the impression that "the science is settled" . Sure, I agree that there are aspects of the science that I would argue "is settled", but there are very crucial aspects with significant uncertainties. For example, the latest available figures from the IPCC reports give the climate sensitivity as within the range of 1.5 to 4.5 (that is the expected increase in global temperatures per doubling of CO2. This is according to the models. Empirical data studies show it to be close to the lower end. If this is true, then the IPCC figures are correct and we don't have to be concerned about CO2 causing serious harm. Is it good enough to say that because CO2 causes the temperature to increase, the temperature has increased the last 100 years or so, the CO2 is increasing because of humans burning fossil fuels, therefore if we don't stop burning fossil fuels we are going to have huge disasters? Is it not good practice to ask how much and what other factors contribute? By the way, I also don't have a high opinion of Trump. Pieter On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 01:21, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
You're laying out a fragile chain of reasoning here: 1) Estimates: [1.5,4.5], 2) Data: [1.5, 1.5+ε], 3) No serious harm.
We know that people aren't swayed by data. Even when contradictory data is staring someone in the face, they tend to reinforce their prior held belief. So, the question I ask is more about opportunity cost. What's the lost opportunity if we *stop* burning fossils? (lost plastics in medicine, higher cost for agricultural pest control, lost convenience, single parents having trouble getting to work, 3rd world economies' quality of life, etc.) And what is the opportunity cost if we continue burning fossils? (less innovation in diverse energy supplies, risk of global warming > 1.5+ε and all that entails, toxic air, etc.) The ethical question is which set of costs are worse than the other? And it seems pretty clear to me (were I an engineer who wanted to foster innovation or a humanist who wanted to limit suffering) the costs for *continuing* to burn fossils is higher than the costs for stopping burning fossils ... at LEAST for the wealthy countries. There's simply no excuse for a healthy person in a developed economy to argue for burning more fossils. There *is* good cause for the poor in undeveloped countries to continue burning fossils ... to which it's a bit of an ethical burden for the wealthy to mitigate that, as well as stop burning fossils ourselves. Given this, your fragile chain of reasoning becomes irrelevant, even *if* it stays intact after all's said and done. On 1/21/20 12:23 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > For example, the latest available figures from the IPCC reports give the climate sensitivity as within the range of 1.5 to 4.5 (that is the expected increase in global temperatures per doubling of CO2. This is according to the models. Empirical data studies show it to be close to the lower end. If this is true, then the IPCC figures are correct and we don't have to be concerned about CO2 causing serious harm. -- ☣ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
I plead guilty as charged. My reasoning is fragile because the way I see it there are significant uncertainties. My (granted fragile) point is that there are empirical data that casts serious doubt on the accuracy of the climate models. It seems to me that in the real world, as opposed to in the modelling world, we are not heading towards a climate disaster. In concept I agree with your second point. Rather safe than sorrow. But, I'd like to extend it to other global risks as well, not only climate change. So, rather than just "buying insurance" for climate change, why not do a study of other global risks and solutions and analyse how we can get the most bang for our "do good for the world"-buck? Like the work done by https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/ I quote from their website "The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank that researches and publishes the smartest solutions to the world's biggest problems. Our studies are conducted by more than 300 economists from internationally renowned institutions, including seven Nobel Laureates, to advise policymakers and philanthropists how to achieve the best results with their limited resources." Just a last point. I'm all in favour of moving away from fossil fuels. But, if you make it such a huge political play-ball, you run the risk of doing stupid things in the name of doing good. An example: I live in Mossel Bay in South Africa and from my house I have a view of the bay. One evening a month or so ago we saw what looked like a small island in the bay. We inquired and it turned out to be an oil platform that was manufactured in China and is being towed for use in the North Sea and there was bad weather in the open sea and they took temporary refuge in the bay. Just think about this - Iron and steel is produces huge amounts of CO2. Europe, as a proud sponsor of the Paris agreement, are serious about reducing their CO2 emissions. So they let China do the dirty work, pay them for it and just buy the manufactured oil platform. My point is - I just don't join in the fearmongering. I say recognize the uncertainties and be realistic about the actions. On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 18:13, uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: You're laying out a fragile chain of reasoning here: 1) Estimates: [1.5,4.5], 2) Data: [1.5, 1.5+ε], 3) No serious harm. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
While your argument *seems* reasonable, I've often found that soft influence fails to meet any well-specified objectives [†]. So by pursuing your larger (AGW + other global risks) system of issues, you run into a problem definition issue. Good engineering is said to be 1/2 good problem formulation. If your target system (AGW + other global risks) is too large, then you will most likely produce vaguely formulated problems. And soft influence toward vague solutions to vaguely stated problems is not good engineering.
It would be better to identify the "edge cases" ... which conditions, if they obtain, will catastrophically destroy everything we know ... and mitigate those. You can be specific and well-formulate the problems for the edge cases. Those making AGW a huge political play-ball are doing that. That is good engineering. And the side effects of solutions for that edge case are, yay!, a boon even if the edge case never would have obtained in the first place. One need NOT have to agree with everything in an organization to contribute and reap benefits. You don't want to contribute because you don't think the edge case will obtain. Fine. But why try to convince those who *do* want to contribute *not* to contribute? E.g. I wouldn't hang around the Apple campus trying to argue Apple employees into quitting their jobs. Why do those who don't believe AGW is a risk keep trying to argue AGW workers to quit their work? [†] And I say that as a person whose been specifically hired because of my "soft skills", for whatever that's worth. On 1/21/20 9:57 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > I plead guilty as charged. My reasoning is fragile because the way I see it there are significant uncertainties. My (granted fragile) point is that there are empirical data that casts serious doubt on the accuracy of the climate models. It seems to me that in the real world, as opposed to in the modelling world, we are not heading towards a climate disaster. > > In concept I agree with your second point. Rather safe than sorrow. But, I'd like to extend it to other global risks as well, not only climate change. So, rather than just "buying insurance" for climate change, why not do a study of other global risks and solutions and analyse how we can get the most bang for our "do good for the world"-buck? Like the work done by https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/ I quote from their website "The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank that researches and publishes the smartest solutions to the world's biggest problems. Our studies are conducted by more than 300 economists from internationally renowned institutions, including seven Nobel Laureates, to advise policymakers and philanthropists how to achieve the best results with their limited resources." > > Just a last point. I'm all in favour of moving away from fossil fuels. But, if you make it such a huge political play-ball, you run the risk of doing stupid things in the name of doing good. An example: > I live in Mossel Bay in South Africa and from my house I have a view of the bay. One evening a month or so ago we saw what looked like a small island in the bay. We inquired and it turned out to be an oil platform that was manufactured in China and is being towed for use in the North Sea and there was bad weather in the open sea and they took temporary refuge in the bay. Just think about this - Iron and steel is produces huge amounts of CO2. Europe, as a proud sponsor of the Paris agreement, are serious about reducing their CO2 emissions. So they let China do the dirty work, pay them for it and just buy the manufactured oil platform. My point is - I just don't join in the fearmongering. I say recognize the uncertainties and be realistic about the actions. -- ☣ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Pieter Steenekamp
Thank you, Jochen. Excellent. Pieter: We can't predict what will happen or when or how fast. We only have probability analysis. But it's happening now. The future is here. My advice when I give talks on climate emergency is make sure you have a small piece of empty land, fix the topsoil, learn how to grow food, learn how to store food, meditate, and try to enjoy an altered planet. On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:23 AM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA 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 |
|
|
the problem with the small plot of land approach
1. what to do in the winter? 2. given the number Of people who will try it, what about the supplier seeds? Are there enough? doug On Jan 21, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Winter? What's that? (uttered from 2000 meters elevation in the Andes, 3 miles from the equator) On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:28 PM doug carmichael <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |