tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post825168506215385507..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Childhood's EndMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-67812849792361270842010-02-24T13:31:26.438-08:002010-02-24T13:31:26.438-08:00It is worth noting that the UK press get a kicking...It is worth noting that the UK press get a kicking from another parliamentary committee regarding their lack of standards and willingness to lie, prevaricate and the total uselessness of the IPCC. <br />eg:<br />http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/36208.htm#a36guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13075496782217421522010-02-23T18:17:25.914-08:002010-02-23T18:17:25.914-08:00"Sagan and Dawkins would have tremendous diff..."Sagan and Dawkins would have tremendous difficulty selling climate change to the public."<br /><br />Aldo Leopold's insight is worth restating here:<br /><br />"One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land [and climate] is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise."<br /><br /><i>Round River</i>, 1949Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-91389940092770068882010-02-22T21:04:03.241-08:002010-02-22T21:04:03.241-08:00@ John
Or if the end of the world isn't comin...@ John<br /><br />Or if the end of the world isn't coming.<br /><br />Off topic, don't know if Michael will post it, but your last point reminded me of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CECBnRfUsmM" rel="nofollow">this commercial</a>. And it's about scientists!King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69664491778618088642010-02-22T15:33:31.922-08:002010-02-22T15:33:31.922-08:00Keith, It was a study by a consultant group to adv...Keith, It was a study by a consultant group to advertisers who wanted to know what was wrong with their sales pitch. IIRC, the UK government had them do a study as to why Kyoto was a hard sell, why climate change did not seem to making good inroads. In it there were two things not to do. One was trivialize, as in we can save the planet by putting in more air in our tires, and replacing incandescent bulbs. The thought process to avoid is "if that is all it takes, why are you trying to tax us so much." A second one was the ever increasing scare or cataclysmic approach. The thought process to avoid is "if we are going to die anyway, we might as well enjoy ourselves now." If I were better at web searching I could find it. There were other do's and don'ts.John F. Pittmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07084322274034650225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71473561448194510802010-02-22T15:11:46.987-08:002010-02-22T15:11:46.987-08:00guthrie,
The problem is, that is a story for the ...guthrie,<br /><br />The problem is, that is a story for the future. And who is the villain that we are overcoming? Us.<br /><br />To build a strong, positive myth around the science of global warming with humans as champions now is very difficult.<br /><br />To do so with cosmology and evolution is relatively easy.<br /><br />Maybe the focus of the story should be on the scientists struggling against almost impossible odds to solve the physics of the climate system?<br /><br />I do not know how it can be done. At this point, I am willing to say: we have lost, at least in the short term.The Evil Reductionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01460536534766330626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77903280113414628612010-02-22T07:47:42.586-08:002010-02-22T07:47:42.586-08:00For some reason the essay reminded me of some of t...For some reason the essay reminded me of some of the words and music of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Henley" rel="nofollow">another good ol' Texan</a>:<br /><br />O beautiful, for spacious skies<br />But now those skies are threatening<br />They're beating plowshares into swords<br />For these tired old men that we elected king<br />Armchair warriors often fail<br />And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales<br />The lawyers clean up all details<br />Since daddy had to lie <br /><br />Offer up your best defense<br />But this is the end<br />This is the end of the innocence <br /><br />Who knows how long this will last<br />Now we've come so far, so fast<br />But, somewhere back there in the dust<br />That same small town in each of us<br />I need to remember this<br /><br />Offer up your best defense<br />But this is the end<br />This is the end of the innocence <br /><br />(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FPEBWZ1EOY" rel="nofollow">Video.</a>)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-31961861903329027332010-02-22T05:34:08.208-08:002010-02-22T05:34:08.208-08:00Evil Reductionist - I thought that those of us who...Evil Reductionist - I thought that those of us who are aware of the problems of AGW have already written stories with ourselves as hero's, the problem being how do we include the current don't knows and denialists in it?<br /><br />I think one way forwards is localising things, because people are quite conservative about change, but when you can explain how things will change due to AGW, for the worse, but we can stop these changes by these actions, there is a better chance of getting things across to them. On the other hand the delayers have put out so much propaganda that the average person doesn't know who to believe, thinks its being hyped up by smug greenies or has given up in disgust.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66560924678110707732010-02-21T22:45:04.750-08:002010-02-21T22:45:04.750-08:00TimChase,
One of the traps of conspiracy theory t...TimChase,<br /><br />One of the traps of conspiracy theory thinking is that it drives people to the belief that there are some vast intelligences that can predict the outcome of their actions - and the actions of others - to a superhuman level of accuracy.<br /><br />As you point out, this would require those funding science to know what is going to be discovered.<br /><br />Besides making scientific research superfluous, it poses some interesting philosophical questions about the very nature of the universe. Chaos? Not so much. Quantum randomness? Impossible. Determinism? Looks like ...The Evil Reductionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01460536534766330626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56005666992704656602010-02-21T22:21:13.250-08:002010-02-21T22:21:13.250-08:00I have sometimes heard people bemoaning that we do...I have sometimes heard people bemoaning that we do not have a Sagan or a Dawkins in the field of climate change. However, I think that this misses something very important, and that is that Sagan and Dawkins would have tremendous difficulty selling climate change to the public.<br /><br />Both cosmology and evolution have the status of true myths. They are inspiring; they speak to the very heart of what it means to be human. Whether we are star stuff or the end product of billions of years of natural selection, we are at the very heart of these myths.<br /><br />It is vastly more difficult to build climate change into something with mythological status.<br /><br />Further, even if we could do so, humans would play the part of the villains, not something that is designed to set fire to the imagination and inspire us.<br /><br />Further, the stories of cosmology and evolution are not intended to inspire us to take specific types of action, other than to generally expand our minds and extend our curiosity to everything around us.<br /><br />So a few good communicators are not the answer here, although of course they could not hurt. Rather, we need to create a climate change myth in which we are the champions of the tale.The Evil Reductionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01460536534766330626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-61010610809875363392010-02-21T21:27:18.778-08:002010-02-21T21:27:18.778-08:00He Called Himself Cricklewood, Part II of II
I po...He Called Himself Cricklewood, Part II of II<br /><br />I pointed out that I had also <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/michaels-new-graph/comment-page-4/#comment-116805" rel="nofollow">stated (171)</a>, "However, I would argue that another (albeit related) key problem is the decentralized nature of the process of scientific discovery. Those who determine what funding gets done won't know beforehand what will be discovered — and they wouldn’t be able to keep track of all of the interconnections which will be discovered by the vast number of independent and highly intelligent minds that are involved in this process. To do so would greatly exceed the intelligence of any central authority, whether it be an individual or committee."<br /><br />Continuing my response to Cricklewood, I <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/michaels-new-graph/comment-page-5/#comment-117816" rel="nofollow">wrote (222)</a>,<br /><br />"You see, the trouble is you can't separate science in that fashion.<br /><br />The basis in physics for explaining the greenhouse effect is essentially the same as that for describing photovoltaic devices, or that which Einstein used to suggest the possibility of lasers. The same principles form the basis for our ability to perform calculations in chemistry and biochemistry at the quantum level. It is how we are able to understand and predict the behavior of tunnel diodes.<br /><br />It is the same as what goes into infrared detection used in the military by fighter jets..."<br /><br />I then <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/michaels-new-graph/comment-page-5/#comment-117816" rel="nofollow">concluded (222)</a>,<br /><br />"Now since you have helped me illustrate this principle, clearly you are deeply involved in the conspiracy, and as such there are only <b>two</b> questions that still remain to be answered.<br /><br />"<b>First</b>, as one of the conspirators, are you using your real name or a pseudonym?<br /><br />"<b>Second</b>, if it is the latter, what name should I write the check out to?"Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-87371995680012098982010-02-21T21:25:30.513-08:002010-02-21T21:25:30.513-08:00He Called Himself Cricklewood, Part I of II
With ...He Called Himself Cricklewood, Part I of II<br /><br />With regard to the attitude market libertarians have regarding the necessity of responding to the threat of global climate change, you stated,<br /><br />"Such collective action is anathema to market libertarians, so when presented with evidence that such action is necessary, they immediately look for reasons to distrust it.<br /><br />"That approach is delusional. Whether CO2 accumulation is or is not dangerous is a fact of physics, not of economic philosophy. If their position were really consistent, they would have some mechanism for dealing with problems of this sort, independent of whether the problem is actually realistically described. Many of them, instead, become so attached to the conspiracy theory that they believe things that make no sense."<br /><br />Reminds me of a discussion that took place around the end of March of last year. The story is a little long, but I will give the short, short version. It has a good punchline.<br /><br />The fellow who instigated the discussion went by the name Cricklewood and was a libertarian, and naturally enough he gravitated towards a conspiratorial theory of the consensus regarding global warming. At one point regarding his views (and those of his associates) I <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/michaels-new-graph/comment-page-4/#comment-116788" rel="nofollow">remarked</a>, "What is it with all these tin-foil hats anyway? Are we being flash-mobbed by a convention of schizophrenics?"<br /><br />A little later -- after summarizing the analyses of several people, I <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/michaels-new-graph/comment-page-4/#comment-116805" rel="nofollow">concluded (171)</a> at one point, "So basically one of the key problems with Cricklewood's 'theory' is that the decision-making that determines which studies get funded and which do not is itself highly decentralized," and that he had <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/michaels-new-graph/comment-page-5/#comment-117765" rel="nofollow">responded (216)</a>, "Within the narrow confines of politics though."Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-83518424398068568472010-02-21T19:29:33.311-08:002010-02-21T19:29:33.311-08:00First, I don't think the adolescence/adulthood...First, I don't think the adolescence/adulthood metaphor is helpful, even if there is some truth to it: categorizing people whose attitudes you want to change as spoiled brats won't be very effective; especially when their current anger derives from their feelings of being patronized.<br /><br />Second, the problem, I think, lies deep in our psychology: why are we afraid of sharks but not bees; more afraid of flying than driving; cancer but diabetes not so much; small volumes of containable nuclear waste but not vast quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? We also have very strong time preferences for certain investments: I recall reading somewhere in one of Amory Lovins's publications that people look for a payout in three or four years for energy saving investments. Convincing people to make sacrifices now to avert an invisible menace a generation away is no easy task, when many don't save for their own retirement and can't help spending more than they earn. And it's no wonder that people grasp at any small anomaly as an excuse for inaction. <br /><br />That said, coming up with an effective strategy to change minds is rather more difficult than analysing where we have gone wrong. But we have no choice but to start from where we are.Andy Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16313161977123410684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-76263864648102429242010-02-21T17:40:05.213-08:002010-02-21T17:40:05.213-08:00on your 'creating jobs' point - I've o...on your 'creating jobs' point - I've often thought something along those lines. Once renewables are actually cost competitive, their direct employ will be smaller, not larger, than for fossil fuels. Of course by enabling less expensive energy that magnifies the opportunities for doing other things, creating employment elsewhere. Which requires a whole economic model to better understand (I wish I knew of at least a simple one that clarified this sort of paradox).Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-76362328971094524082010-02-21T17:13:12.569-08:002010-02-21T17:13:12.569-08:00John,
What UK climate study are you referring to--...John,<br />What UK climate study are you referring to--the one that pointed out the pitfalls of selling climate change?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05818642659325983463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-34532695203632708092010-02-21T14:03:16.302-08:002010-02-21T14:03:16.302-08:00Michael, you present several interesting ideas. Ra...Michael, you present several interesting ideas. Rather than trot out differences we may have on evidence, I would like to expand or comment on some of your statements. One that I think will help illuminate the others is the thought of adolescent. The data we humans have gathered on ourselves indicate in terms of population, the energy intensive wealthy nations are best at self regulation of population. China due to its government was able to effect control but at great cost. One of the most dramatic films, simply because its purpose was not to be dramatic, was the film the Chinese made for explaining why they were doing it. They understood quite well the costs. One of the reasons that Kyoto did NOT work is that China needs to go to the type of reporductive strategy that the West has. This economic boom for China should be seen as a payoff to their people for their success. I do not see the numbers indicate that slowing China has any benefits unless your next statement of gettting out of the fossil fuel trap can be accomplished. With either China or India implementing economic success, Kyoto was doomed. The 95 (8?) to 0 vote in a relatively friendly US Senate and good economy should have been a wake up calll to reasoned approaches. The real tradegy was that there was a study paid by the UK that pointed out pitfalls for selling climate change. The tragedy is that almost everything that was pointed out as being self destructive has been employed in an effort to convince the public and as opined in the study, it has backfired. The reason it is illuminating, is can any insurance be good enough without us getting out of the fossil fuel trap? What would that insurance pay for? Mandatory strelization? Water World? My point is that CO2 in the trial analogy is not good. The essential question is energy. This was accepted in the 1960's with the Odum brothers culmunating work Energy Basis for Man and Nature. If energy is not addressed with its economic consequences, rather than CO2, policies will fail. In terms of risk management, a solution without energy whether collective or not will be difficult if not impossible to implement or stay enforced.John F. Pittmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07084322274034650225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-65259724698505748912010-02-21T13:45:47.734-08:002010-02-21T13:45:47.734-08:00Funny, writing parallel piece at the moment, with ...Funny, writing parallel piece at the moment, with Avatar as a reference. (It's instructive even as a comicbook fable, because the irony of Avatar is we don't have space travel.) Sidenote: you might enjoy Douglas Rushkoff's new book, "Life, Inc."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888223087774725299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66814915872506540632010-02-21T13:34:25.177-08:002010-02-21T13:34:25.177-08:00An unworthy species perishes, a worthy species liv...An unworthy species perishes, a worthy species lives. A universe without a green planet featuring pretty tigers, busy bees and humans hugging is just as good as a universe with the kind of world we have now.<br /><br />The only unfairness in any of this is that the poor in third-world countries will die first.<br /><br />But there is no horror in most of humanity perishing or the ecosystems being destroyed. the only reason I actually care about the climate is that I see a correlation between intelligence and supporting taxation of the CO2 externality and other greening activities, and I hate stupid people and want them to feel powerless and irrelevant.<br /><br />But nihilism has always been easy for me. I think it's all good and if we see nine-digit casualties at the end of this century because of anthropogenic climate change, I will not feel so horrified. I agree with Nietzsche - it's all a flux and it's all good. The only reason we learn and study is so that we can make something decent out of what we have if we want to.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09244741223452143902noreply@blogger.com