On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:39 AM, vpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The bozo optimism, skepticism toward regulation are based on empirical > evidence.
These are two separate topics. Michael Crichton has been proven so wrong, so often, that he is hardly somebody I would like to cite. He's the one that asserted that there was "bias" among climate scientists. Yes,there was bias. The climate scientists been shown to be far too *optimistic*. As for skepticism towards regulation, the anti-regulation crowd preseverates about unintended consequences, as if only regulation was prone to that phenomenon. But the present meltdown in the credit markets shows that non-regulation can have far worse unintended consequences. I call the optimists bozo's because they come up with preposterous notions, like systematic biases among climate scientists, that really have nothing to do with the situation. When the bozo's like Crichton are proven categorically wrong, they don't change their minds, they simply ignore their errors and move on as if nothing had changed. Crichton likes to cite the "alarmist" nature of those who are truly alarmed about climate change. His argument seems to be, the world hasn't collapsed yet, so why worry. This is an utterly bozo proposition, one refuted by essentially all recent climate research. But it's not possible to "speak sense to nonsense". There is nothing one can say to change the opinions of those who *will* deny an emergency. > The 12 leverage points articles actually supports the above > conclusion. What she writes about Point 12, Constants, > parameters,numbers, is especially revealing: "Parameters are the > points of least leverage on my list of interventions. Diddling with > the details, arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Probably 90--no > 95--no 99 percent of our attention goes to parameters, but there's not > a lot of leverage in them." This is an admission that the modelers > cannot control a real complex system. The points of high leverage are > potentially dictatorial: brainwashing, rewriting laws, eliminating > opponents. But this is not controlling the system, it's re- > constituting it. I would agree in essence with these remarks. We do need to reconstitute our system fundamentally. I don't think this can be done by a dictator, but conceivably altering the system of rewards (laws & taxes) could do that. I say "conceivably". The economic system is actually *part of* the political system. It is a matter of *politics* that those who have come close to destroying the world market economy have been allowed to make billions untaxed. This is neither a law of nature nor a law of "the markets". It is pure power, wielded via an almost unbelievably forgiving system of tax law. My present thinking is that the supposed hierarchy amongst leverage points is a dubious proposition. I studied the world3 model in details 30+ years ago when it first came out. It is not a hierarchical model: it is simply a bunch of "bathtubs" linked together. So while the "lowest level" leverage points are in some sense weakest, in some sense they are the strongest because they are always, everywhere in effect. Edward P.S. As for Chernobyl, it is true that the lack of radiation damage is truly surprising. We ought to glory in being "wrong", because information theory tells us that "surprise" (low probability) is the essence of information. So Chernobyl taught us something. But it does *not* teach us that nuclear power is safe, nor does it teach us that the accident did not kill thousands of people. It did. We simply can't say for sure which of the thousands of cancer patients worldwide could, in whatever sense, be directly attributable to Chernobyl. The wikipedia article is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster And of course, Crichton blithely ignores the economic cost of the disaster. Furthermore, it would have been the height of folly to conclude that it was unnecessary to abandon a large part of the Ukraine. Let's be clear, Crichton is saying, in essence, that Chernobyl "wasn't all that bad." EKR --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
