I'm sure y'all have seen this post from NECSI:
http://news.mit.edu/2020/study-physics-democratic-elections-0121
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11489
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0739-6
It's interesting that the arXiv.org submission is 1.25 years old and the
paper's just out in Nature
Nick writes:
"So, in these sorts of situations, people tend to sort themselves out into
Dionysians and Apollonians, the former declaring that we're probably fucked
and we might as well stay warm, run around in our cars, and burn all the coal
we can, and the later declaring that we have a
Nah. I reject the dichotomy. I consider myself both D and an A, but in
different domains. And I think it might be reasonable to time slice between A &
D. My sister's ex used to say "We play hard and we work hard" ... indicating
that they were both D & A, maybe even simultaneously, depending on
Thanks, Glen,
While I am "in", it seems to me that a distinction is beginning to evolve here
between whether a reasonable person CAN doubt Anthropogenic Global Warming
(AGW) and whether such a person SHOULD doubt AGW. I think reasonable people
could argue whether we are in a period of AGW
Ha! Yes, sorry. Anthropogenic Global Warming.
On 1/21/20 11:53 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Could we develop a FRIAM convention? In any first use of an acronym in any
> individual email, the user spell it out.
>
> AGW? I know I should know, but 'should-knowing' something is a long
Could we develop a FRIAM convention? In any first use of an acronym in any
individual email, the user spell it out.
AGW? I know I should know, but 'should-knowing' something is a long way from
knowing it.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark
1. That's why learning how to store food is just as important as learning
how to grow food.
2. You are right to be worried about seed. Seed banks around the world
are at risk.
3. You didn't mention insect extinctions. Big big problem.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:28 PM doug carmichael
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
wrote:
> 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
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 wrote:
>
>
> Thank you, Jochen. Excellent. Pieter: We can't
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,
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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
