Glen/Cody -
I think it's natural for someone struggling toward an objective to accept
resources from wherever. A useful example is the Templeton Foundation's
funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation They fund
some cool stuff, e.g. https://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/. But the TF's religious
bent is pretty worriesome.
I think there is a natural context-blindness to all of us when we
seek/accept resources... we naturally downplay the differences or cherry
pick our similarities. We are at least "circumspect" when we look a
gift horse in the mouth, but does the allegory also apply that one
should look a *Trojan* gift-horse in the belly?
Regardless, Robinson holds the same political positions as the Heartland
Institute, as far as I can tell. So, it's a good match in many ways.
But I think Cody's question begs a larger point... why is it that so
often self-styled "Mavericks" are as pleased as can be to get in bed
with big industry? I've been watching Homeland" from the beginning and
in their intro trailer there is a clip of Hillary stating "you can't
keep snakes in your back yard and expect them to only bite your
neighbors!". Maybe they just have a lot in common with fundamentalist
"serpent handlers"?
Re: speculation -- It's an equivocation to claim that we're speculating on the
effects of AGW.
But the type of speculation Cody is referencing (I think) IS
equivocal. Not the shift in the general climatalogical envelope that
is Anthropogenic, but the more specific *impact* on humans.
I think it comes down to a simple dichotomy:
A) Change is threatening;
B) Change offers opportunity.
To the extent that those with significant access to resources can
"control" their environment (extract more fossil fuels, make more
electricity, turn up the AC, move to a
drier/wetter/less-windy/flood/fire/pestilence prone are, etc.), they can
*afford* to embrace B). To those who have *less* access to resources,
many will experience change primarily as a *threat*.
This might be one of the key divides in our modern polarity... and one
which I find myself ambi(multi?)valent about: The 1% (or maybe the
whole first world) can adopt a much more cavalier attitude about AGW
than the remainder, knowing that they have the resources (and track
record?) to adapt to the changes in a timely manner so as not to suffer
and possibly to thrive under the impending changes. The remainder are
more likely to see the threat, the downside as their small island (think
Tuvalu) gets inundated by rising sea levels, or as their shared
Oasis/Wadi in the desert dries up, or the forests they used to harvest
timber from burn off faster than they can regrow, or the dryland farm
they could already barely eke out a living from will be covered in sand.
In between, or shared by both sides are all sorts of
unintended/unexpected consequences. There will surely be ONE dirt-poor
farmer in South America or Asia or Africa who finds that the changing
conditions make his life better... the rain comes further or sooner or
more often for him, or in some cases, his fields dry earlier and he can
plant earlier, and the distribution of sunlight through his growing
season improves his crops or allows him to grow higher-profit crops...
but I think there might be statistical truisms at play that suggest
these folks will be on one tail of a distribution. By the same token,
maybe one (or more) of the rich and powerful
nations/industries/corporations/oligarchs will be laid flat by
unexpected consequences of the AGW they are most implicated in
causing... big Irony, but little solace for the "little guy" who got
flattened along the way.
If there had been enough perspective/communication shared by the
neolithic humans as the last ice age waned, many might have noticed the
changes and been terribly threatened (maybe whence came all the oral
myths of droughts and floods and pestilence?). Certainly those living
in the land-bridge between the British Isles and mainland Europe didn't
find glacier melt and rising sea-levels a boon for them... THEY had to
go find a new place to live and probably compete with those already
there to find a new living. Those downstream from the various
inundation events of the time would argue against the "benefits" of that
Global Warming phase. Those living in the Saharan Savannah (cum
desert), same-same. But those who followed the glaciers north and
thrived amongst the expanding range for reindeer and other herds of
animals might well have found their "global warming" a boon! If anyone
had the technology (or magick or in with the gods) to prevent the end of
the ice age, I can imagine that they WOULD HAVE opted for *no
change*... even if their descendent ended up thriving under the changes?
Since that was not Anthropogenic, people's reactions to and
suffering/thriving under such change is relatively academic, but this
round, it is NOT academic... and I think very arrogant to say "oops, I
spilled the kettle... oh well, the dogs needed a good hot meal and the
floor a good deep cleaning!" If we *wanted* to change the climate as
it appears to be changing, and had *planned it* and *understood the
consequences*, that would be a different matter, perhaps. Musk's ideas
to terraform Mars for humans is at least direct and intentional (if not
misguided by my estimate).
My technophilic, Libertarian leanings (homunculii as Glen uses it?) get
all excited at the prospects of "what a clever guy can do in times of
change!", but my neoLuddite, Bleeding Heart side balks and says "yeh,
but this much change this fast is going to cause a LOT of suffering!".
Being ambivalent means I CAN hope for the best while preparing for the
worst. Some AGW apologists have my sympathy in the "hope for the best"
mode and most of the AGW alarmists have my ear because many of them ARE
alarming with the goal of "prepare for the worst". I have enough
resources that I probably won't drown, freeze, starve, or dehydrate unto
death personally, but enough of a social conscience to note that that is
a coincidence of my circumstance and I might "owe" it to the other ??%
of the world's population to take an interest in the consequences to
THEM, as well.
- Steve
On 10/13/2017 08:59 AM, cody dooderson wrote:
Good Article. It portrays Robinson as a maverick but still a scientist who is
ultimately interested in the truth. I respect that. My question is how does
someone who respects truth get along with the Heartland institute, which I have
always thought of as a well funded machine for corporate propaganda? I mean,
don't his views on nuclear energy stand to ruin the fossil fuel industry that
heavily funds it. He even acknowledges climate change but views it as a good
thing for humanity. Aren't we all just speculating on the effects of
anthropogenic climate change anyway. It's not like it's happened before.
The Grandfather Of Alt-Science
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/
<https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-grandfather-of-alt-science/>
============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
