tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40799341619857150002024-03-05T14:04:01.462+01:00The frog that jumped outUgo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-6005841854914535622014-04-24T15:06:00.002+02:002021-04-09T15:12:33.487+02:00The Frog jumps to "Resource Crisis"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://thesenecaeffect.blogspot.com/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="303" data-original-width="960" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcD6tmn7JMBGb4_1TJ0BukJCtDtuv7b629WEQ4qROvI6z8VhivhA7oi8nWmZuKRO1NO2b7lRvG3LlSjO5MV7mVteS6OuaGglEj9jWKEjoOzvdXkaRFZtNsOlurZBAB3drtL1sUhrPKw1A/w661-h208/SenecaDark%252Bcaption.png" width="661" /></a></div><br /><a href="https://thesenecaeffect.blogspot.com/">"The Frog that Jumped Out" was closed in 2014. The discussion is now on the new blog "The Seneca Effect"<br /></a></div><a href="https://thesenecaeffect.blogspot.com/">
</a></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-small;">One year ago, I started the blog titled "The frog that jumped out." The first post appeared on April 28 2013 and from then on I published 127 posts for a total audience of more than 80,000 contacts. Not a bad result for a blog that was a totally personal effort - without any attempt to use SEO or other Web tricks to diffuse it.<br />
<br />
This year of blogging on "The Frog" has been a learning experience that changed my views of how to act on the climate problem. At the beginning, I thought that there was a problem of
communication; that the fact that nothing was being done about climate change was the
result of us not being able to pass the message in the right way.
That is something that many scientists have discovered. The result has often been a search of better methods of communication. It has led, for
instance, to books such as "<a href="http://www.dontbesuchascientist.com/">Don't be such a
scientist</a>" where the main idea is that scientists
should improve their skills of communicating with the public by becoming clearer and more entertaining.
That, in itself, is not a bad idea: scientists are often extremely
poor at communicating: boring, pompous, incomprehensible, and even worse. Improving on that is surely a
welcome trend.<br />
<br />
But transforming yourself into a Ronald McDonald of climate science
doesn't solve the problem. No amount of gee-whiz power will carry the message across to
people who don't want to hear it. The mistake in this idea is
steeped in the so called "information deficit" model. It says that
people are not doing anything about climate change because they
are not informed enough. Therefore, if we find a way to explain to
them how things stand, they'll do something.
Hence, the idea of "sweetening the pill". Alas, no. It doesn't
work that way.<br />
<br />
The real problem can be summarized by a comment that I received from a friend of mine (DJ at Bottleneck Foundation):<br />
<br />
"<b>The main
problem is that the deniers are rolling rocks downhill in human
<span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="5e10fc58-b90d-46ea-a0b2-81e6847d6a41" id="514aae29-e2d3-49ba-8514-fbaf999f89a2"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="ab666de1-549d-493a-bc7b-ccab65941cef" id="a257bf44-d2c9-4941-a250-c88bf913817e"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="218be417-f66c-479c-ae04-c1e7050d55c9" id="b1ae2b74-089c-461e-9138-c4144a02e341"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="0b4fadf2-f86f-4844-81f8-adb1b3e8f860" id="fca2d6d5-c6c1-464b-812e-7673080383dd">mindspace</span></span></span></span> and we are rolling them uphill. </b>"<br />
<br />
<br />
I think this concept explains a lot of things, although I would personally modify it as follows: <b>"<i>The main
problem is that we are trying to roll rocks in human
<span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="5cbe84c5-7332-4a9f-bb39-fbf2b03d010a" id="f4469a4f-81dc-4471-8dbc-1728460c1510"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="3b1474b2-e056-489b-b516-8957ec5f6cdb" id="e04c9962-2a95-4aed-aacb-4272a7f2fafb"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="442e2547-43e8-4856-a14a-8c6e2391e740" id="e07ebd5a-2735-43a8-8d5f-a63c733e8e52"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="30bebf9b-048e-456f-b398-0efb6166e6e2" id="27bd01c3-15bc-41c9-aca0-59d04b78664a">mindspace</span></span></span></span> and the deniers are trying to keep them where they stand</i>".</b><br />
<br />
That is, in order to fight the dire effects of
human caused climate change, it is not enough that the problem is recognized. We need to generate deep changes in the way
society functions. But this is almost impossible to do because society is simply not geared for deep changes. Our society, as most complex systems, exists because it has built-in mechanisms that resist change. It is much easier to keep things as they stand than changing them.<br />
<br />
So, effecting change is a <b>systemic problem,</b> not just a communication problem. That makes the problem more <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="5e6984f0-fe53-46bc-827e-666fbb30239b" id="f6ede4b1-bce1-4565-a80a-fe5710a5f21d">difficult but</span>, at the same time, gives a different perspective to it. Systemic changes occur all the time - they are simply unavoidable. No matter how much society tries to resist change, it must, eventually, cede to physical reality. So, at some moment in the future, we'll have to stop our emissions of fossil carbon in the atmosphere either as the result of depletion or as the result of the damage generated by climate change. The problem is that we are not doing that fast enough to avoid a <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="46d060bd-1dc8-4811-b65b-3fb720283cf5" id="8777b79d-0b3f-492c-b35b-ac4d704fae29"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="96fe275e-e7fa-49bb-bb19-75e812bb019a" id="a03d1987-cf66-41c8-92c8-cbeddb2cc394">traumatic</span></span> adaptation (this is what I call the <a href="https://thesenecaeffect.blogspot.com/">"</a><a href="http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2011/08/seneca-effect-origins-of-collapse.html">Seneca effect</a>"). However, the end result is certain: it is only a question of which trajectory we'll follow. Eventually, we'll have to learn to live within the limits of this planet.<br />
<br />
These considerations affect the future of this small blog, "The frog that jumped out". Once you see the climate problem as a systemic problem, you see
that the solution is not just communicating what the problem is
(although that's also necessary) but promoting a whole array of actions that go
from new technologies to new kinds of social and economic behavior. As a result, I think that the focus of this blog on communication alone is a bit too narrow. So, my idea is to merge <span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="86a27ff4-7e2b-4272-a8d4-bb1c3a1e1afc" id="23b2e5ed-d214-44cd-a883-9a9fd93aef67"><span class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark" ginger_software_uiphraseguid="502e847d-9484-47ed-8dd2-895ae44b8a5c" id="b5a49389-84dd-406b-95cd-4f575461051d">it</span></span> with my other blogs, of which right now the most important one is "<a href="https://thesenecaeffect.blogspot.com/">The Seneca Effect</a>"</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <br />
"The Frog" does not disappear from the Web, I'll still keep it as a repository of posts specifically dealing with climate change. But most of the action will be on the other blog, The Seneca Effect. So, thanks to all of you for your attention and your support and I hope we can continue the discussion </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">"<a href="https://thesenecaeffect.blogspot.com/">The Seneca Effect</a>" </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-22249972814274140232014-04-11T16:47:00.002+02:002014-04-11T16:47:16.359+02:00My view on climate change<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<i>After <a href="http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/04/climate-of-intimidation-frontiers.html">my resignation </a>as
editor of "Frontiers" in protest over their retraction the paper
"Recursive Fury," dealing with the attitude of climate deniers, I
received plenty of support but also a lot of the usual pseudo-scientific
criticism on the question of climate change. So, I thought I could
repropose here a post of mine that I published in 2012 in order to
clarify my views on this matter. In the end, it has all to do with the
concept that forms the title of this blog: "<a href="http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/">Resource Crisis.</a>"
One of the resources we are depleting fastest is the capability of the
atmosphere to absorb the products of the combustion of hydrocarbons</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>From "<a href="http://from%20%22cassandra%27s%20legacy%22,%20dec%2012,%202012.%20/">Cassandra's Legacy</a>", Dec 12, 2012. </i><br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Climate change: Confessions of a Peak Oiler</span><i> </i></h2>
<i> </i>by Ugo Bardi<br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFE4M-n9DPD3M-B5Xq75gHf4WY7ESLIASgDeJfL1ELurfOg9UCAziIhU2fkqgvjmYksiMPTzvT9ZgAUXxwjA5e-fNPq8_sDhWU-wbwUzl9FxGLD-zwXH10Qbu8OkgO90mRBoF0i78r82k/s1600/FossilandCementEmissions1990to2012.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFE4M-n9DPD3M-B5Xq75gHf4WY7ESLIASgDeJfL1ELurfOg9UCAziIhU2fkqgvjmYksiMPTzvT9ZgAUXxwjA5e-fNPq8_sDhWU-wbwUzl9FxGLD-zwXH10Qbu8OkgO90mRBoF0i78r82k/s400/FossilandCementEmissions1990to2012.PNG" height="348" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i> Peak oil may well have arrived <span style="font-size: x-small;">or be arriving soon</span>, but that has not stopped CO2 emissions from increasing and <span style="font-size: x-small;">c</span>limate <span style="font-size: x-small;">c</span>hange <span style="font-size: x-small;">from </span>going on, faster than ever. That may soon ma<span style="font-size: x-small;">ke the peak oil problem<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span>irrelevant. Here is a perso<span style="font-size: x-small;">nal view of how I came to be a pea<span style="font-size: x-small;">k oiler <span style="font-size: x-small;">who is more <span style="font-size: x-small;">worried about climate change than about peak oi<span style="font-size: x-small;">l.<span style="font-size: x-small;"> (</span></span></span></span></span></span></span>Image <span style="font-size: x-small;">fr<span style="font-size: x-small;">om <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/02/1166704/-CO2-Emissions-Exponential-Growth-3-1-yr-for-2000-2012-A-Catastrophic-Rate" target="_blank">The </a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/02/1166704/-CO2-Emissions-Exponential-Growth-3-1-yr-for-2000-2012-A-Catastrophic-Rate" target="_blank">D</a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/02/1166704/-CO2-Emissions-Exponential-Growth-3-1-yr-for-2000-2012-A-Catastrophic-Rate" target="_blank">aily Kos</a>.<span style="font-size: x-small;">)</span></span></span></span></span></i></span></div>
<br />
<br />
In 2003, I attended my first conference on peak oil, <a href="http://www.peakoil.net/conferences/iwood-2003-paris">in Paris</a>.
Everything was new for me: the subject, the people, the ideas. It was
there that I could meet for the first time those larger than life
figures of ASPO, the association for the study of peak oil. I met Colin
Campbell, Jean Laherrere, Kenneth Deffeyes, Ali Morteza Samsam
Bakthiari, and many others. It was one of those experiences that mark
one for life.<br />
<br />
In Paris, I learned a lot about oil
depletion, but also about another matter that was emerging: the
conflict of depletion studies with climate change studies. That ASPO
conference saw the beginning of a contrast that was to flare up much
more intensely in the following years. On one side of the debate there
were the "climate concerned" people. They were clearly appalled at
seeing that their efforts at stopping global warming were threatened by
this new idea: that there won't be enough fossil fuels to cause the
damage that they feared. On the other side, the "depletion concerned"
people clearly scoffed at the idea of climate change: peak oil, they
said<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>,</i></span> would make all the worries in that respect obsolete.<br />
<br />
My
impression, at that time, was that the position of the climate
concerned was untenable. Not that I became a climate change denier; not
at all: the physical mechanisms of climate change have been always clear
to me and I never questioned the fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere
was going to warm it. But the novelty of the concept of peak oil, the
discovery of a new field of study, the implications of a decline of
energy availability, all that led me to see depletion as the main
challenge ahead. <br />
<br />
That belief of mine would last a few
years, but no more. The more I studied oil depletion, the more I found
myself studying climate: the two subjects are so strictly related to
each other that you can't study one and ignore the other. I found that
climate science is not just about modern global warming. It is the true
scientific revolution of the 21st century. It is
nothing less than a radical change of paradigm about everything that
takes place on our planet; comparable to the
Copernican revolution of centuries ago.<br />
<br />
Climate science
gives us a complete picture of how the Earth system has gradually
evolved and changed, maintaining conditions favorable for organic life
despite the gradual increase of the solar irradiation over the past four
billion years. It is a delicate balance that depends on many factors,
including the burial of large
amounts of carbon which previously were part of the biosphere and that,
over the ages, have become what we call "fossil fuels". Extracting and
burning fossil fuels means tampering with the very mechanisms that keep
us alive. Climate science is fascinating, even beautiful, but it is the
kind of beauty that can kill. <br />
<br />
So, step by step, I went
full circle. If, at the beginning, I was more worried about depletion
than about climate, now it is the reverse. Not that I stopped worrying
about peak oil, I know very well that we are in deep trouble with the
availability not just of oil, but of all mineral resources. But the
recent events; the melting of the polar ice cap, hurricanes, droughts,
wildfires and all the rest clearly show that the climate problem is
taking a speed and a size that was totally unexpected just a few years
ago.<br />
<br />
Climate change is a gigantic problem: it dwarfs
peak oil in all respects. We know that humans have lived for thousands
of years without using fossil fuels, but they never lived in a world
where the atmosphere contained more than 400 parts per million of CO2 -
as we are going to have to. We don't even know if it will be possible
for humans to survive in such a world.<br />
<br />
Right now, peak
oil is not solving the problem of climate change - it is worsening it
because it is forcing the industry to use progressively dirtier
resources, from tar sands to coal. Maybe in the future we'll see a
decline in the use of all hydrocarbons
and, as a consequence on the emissions of greenhouse gases. But, if we
continue along this path, peak oil will be just a blip in the path to
catastrophe. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-9259074686140417222014-04-08T21:30:00.002+02:002014-04-08T21:30:21.354+02:00Climate of intimidation: "Frontiers" big blunder on the "Recursive Fury" paper<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>(reproduced from "<a href="http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/04/climate-of-intimidation-frontiers.html">Resource Crisis</a>")</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI33BYau3ln_wIAIo8Cb5AhlBbcD5PdzTRRxCMYppZpmBLf8P9a6E5KxcObs7vvmaHYpew9nMa3mbbkvTXJXgXTKpHDf5wR-vV6DYq5R1vB19Fy-nrZSo4K1Clgqw1O8Z2SecLNy9uKj0/s1600/frontiers.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI33BYau3ln_wIAIo8Cb5AhlBbcD5PdzTRRxCMYppZpmBLf8P9a6E5KxcObs7vvmaHYpew9nMa3mbbkvTXJXgXTKpHDf5wR-vV6DYq5R1vB19Fy-nrZSo4K1Clgqw1O8Z2SecLNy9uKj0/s1600/frontiers.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>After <a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html">the recent events</a> in the saga of the paper titled "<a href="http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/research/cognitive/?a=2523540">Recursive Fury</a>" by Lewandowsky et al., I am stating my disappointment by resigning from Chief Specialty Editor of the <a href="http://www.frontiersin.org/">Frontiers</a> journal</i></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
You may have followed <a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html">the story</a> of "<a href="http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/research/cognitive/?a=2523540">Recursive Fury</a>", the paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and others that the journal "<i><a href="http://www.frontiersin.org/">Frontiers</a>"</i>
had published in 2013. The paper reported the results of a survey that
showed that the rejection of climate science was often accompanied by a
similar mindset on other scientific areas. So "Climate skeptics" were
also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and
that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of
us who follow the climate debate in detail.<br />
<br />
As it
might have been expected, after publication, a storm of negative
comments was unleashed against both the authors of "Recursive Fury" and
the journal. What was unexpected, instead, was the decision to withdraw
the paper taken by the editorial board of Frontiers.<br />
<br />
I
found the behavior of the publisher already highly objectionable at this
stage. However, I could at least understand it (if not agree on it). <a href="http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812">They stated</a> that "<span itemprop="articleBody"><i>[Frontier's] investigation did not identify any
issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did,
however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and
therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article.</i>" The authors themselves seemed to share my opinion when they said, "</span><i>The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article</i>" <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, now Frontiers <a href="http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812">has issued a new note</a>
where they backtrack from the previous statement and they seem to
indicate that they found substantial problems in the paper. The new
Frontiers' note is discussed in detail by Lewandowsky himself in a post
titled: "<a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html">revisiting a retraction</a>". <span itemprop="articleBody"><br /></span><br />
<br />
<span itemprop="articleBody">It
is not for me, here, to discuss the merits and demerits of this paper,
nor the legal issues involved (noting, however, that the University of
Western Australia found no problems in <a href="http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/research/cognitive/?a=2523540">hosting it on their site</a>).
However, my opinion is that, with their latest statement and their
decision to retract the paper, Frontiers has shown no respect for
authors nor for their own appointed referees and editors. But the main
problem is that we have here another example of the climate of
intimidation that is developing around the climate issue. </span><br />
<br />
<span itemprop="articleBody">It
is becoming commonplace for scientists to receive personal attacks
(including death threats) for having stated their position on the
climate problem. This violent reaction often takes the shape of mailing
campaigns directed to the institutions of the targeted scientists. There
are many examples of this phenomenon; it will suffice, here, to cite
the most recent case; that of Professor Lawrence Torcello who recently
was the target of <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2014/03/25/exclusive-climate-change-philosopher-target-abusive-hate-campaign">an abusive hate campaign</a>, based on <a href="http://thefrogthatjumpedout.blogspot.it/2014/03/a-corollary-to-godwins-law-law-of.html">the false claim</a> that he had proposed to jail climate skeptics. Fortunately, Torcello's institution (Rochester Institute of Technology) <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2014/03/31/university-criticizes-conservative-media-misrepresentations-sparked-hate-mail-climate-science-deniers">stood for freedom of expression</a>. In other similar cases universities stood by the rights of their faculty members. <b>They did exactly what Frontiers did not do (but should have done) for the paper by Lewandowsky et al. </b><b><br /></b></span><br />
<br />
The
climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great
damage to climate science and to science in general. I believe that the
situation risks to deteriorate further if we all don't take a strong
stance on this issue. Hence, I am taking the strongest action I can
take, that<b> </b>is <b>I am resigning from "Chief Specialty Editor" of
Frontiers in protest against the behavior of the journal in the
"Recursive Fury" case. </b>I sent to the editors a letter today, stating my intention to resign. <br />
<span itemprop="articleBody"><br /></span>I<span itemprop="articleBody">
am not happy about having had to take this decision, because I had been
working hard and seriously at the Frontiers' specialy journal titled
"Energy Systems and Policy." But I think it was the right thing to do.</span>
<span itemprop="articleBody">I also note that this blunder by
"Frontiers" is also a blow to the concept of "open access" publishing,
which was one of the main characteristic of their series of journals.
But I still think that open access publishing it is the way of the
future. This is just a temporary setback for a good idea which is moving
onward. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span itemprop="articleBody"><br /></span></div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-8607654291891095542014-04-01T23:22:00.000+02:002014-06-19T11:22:17.016+02:00Report to Galactic Command: the eradication of the human species is in progress
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">(originally published in 2012 on "<a href="http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2012/09/report-to-galactic-command-human.html">Cassandra's Legacy</a>")</span></i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO9vChWzLkZ97xzNmZDQL_ugir98GEzA5xVvvMcynqrVnHau8xZxRScUG4TNDtv9IMtzfaR4CEiSNcuQ7ydM1KgPQP8uKMaCbUVRsFcjpd0nSavVL_86FvQDyg17NJeWSyoOajQG1UGJw/s1600/aliens.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO9vChWzLkZ97xzNmZDQL_ugir98GEzA5xVvvMcynqrVnHau8xZxRScUG4TNDtv9IMtzfaR4CEiSNcuQ7ydM1KgPQP8uKMaCbUVRsFcjpd0nSavVL_86FvQDyg17NJeWSyoOajQG1UGJw/s400/aliens.png" height="305" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>From: Earth Orbital Outpost</b><br />
<b>To: Galactic Central Command</b><br />
<i>(note: time spans in this report are measured in Earth orbital revolutions. One Earth orbital revolution corresponds to <span class="cwcot" id="cwos">4e-10 Galactic years)</span></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Progress report: Human eradication plan</b><br />
<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>- Strategic Summary</i><br />
<br />
The Earth Orbital Outpost is pleased to report to Galactic Command that
the eradication of the creatures termed "humans" inhabiting the planet
known as "Earth" is proceeding according to plans. The rapid warming of
the planet obtained by the injection of large amounts of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere is expected to wipe out most large vertebrates
within 40-50 planetary revolutions around the parent star. The planet
will be ready for colonization by our species in a few thousand years;
when the ecosystem will have been restored.<br />
<br />
<i>- The original (1st level) plan</i><br />
<br />
Planet Earth was the object of several preliminary explorations before
being selected as suitable for colonization. Upon reaching this
decision, the Earth Orbital Outpost was set up with the purpose of
facilitating the colonization task. The Outpost proceeded to study the
planet, finding that it is dominated by a species, known as "humans",
which has appropriated most of the planetary ecosystem productivity.
Individually, humans turned out to be highly intelligent and it was soon
clear that the species poses an important obstacle to colonization. A
necessary step for colonization was therefore their eradication. The
decision was reached also upon the consideration that, if left to
themselves, humans were likely to reach a technological level
sufficiently high to become a nuisance at the Galactic scale.<br />
<br />
Several plans were developed to carry out the eradication program. It
soon became clear that sterilization with neutron beams, carried out by
the Galactic star fleet, was possible but expensive and, besides, humans
were rapidly reaching a technological level sufficient to produce a
significant opposition. Instead, it was found that humans could be
eradicated at a much lower cost by warming the planet at temperatures
high enough to make their survival impossible. That could be
accomplished by exploiting the human habit of burning fossil carbon
materials in order to obtain energy. According to initial observations
carried out about a hundred revolutions ago, just letting humans to
themselves would lead them to inject in the atmosphere sufficient
amounts of greenhouse gases to cause a warming intense enough to destroy
most large vertebrates.<br />
<br />
In previous reports, we were pleased to describe that the plan was
working. 50 revolutions ago, the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the Earth's atmosphere had already picked up a trend of rapid growth and
it was calculated that it would lead to the collapse of the ecosystem
in less than a hundred revolutions. However, as mentioned earlier on,
humans turned out to be remarkably intelligent and the brightest of them
were able to identify and understand the ongoing process (that they
usually referred to as "global warming.") Humans built up a
sophisticated planetary monitoring system and created theoretical models
of the atmosphere. At that point, they embarked in a planet-wide effort
to stop global warming by curbing fossil carbon burning and deploying
non-carbon based energy sources.<br />
<br />
Having observed this development, it was necessary to alter the original
plan and intervene more directly in the eradication task, although
still doing an effort to avoid the enormous costs involved in deploying
the Galactic fleet. <br />
<br />
<i>- The 2nd level plan</i><br />
<br />
Stopping humans from taking measures to avoid destroying themselves
turned out to require a quite modest effort - completely within the
resources available to the Earth Orbital Outpost. This result may be
surprising and, indeed, some members of the Galactic Command had
expressed doubt on being able to convince humans - individually very
intelligent - to continue actting in ways that were leading to their
destruction. Nevertheless, we succeeded in accomplishing this task.<br />
<br />
The key element of our action has been the study and the exploitation of
the human information network, that they call "the Web." It is a
sophisticated planet-wide information system that has been fundamental
for humans in developing their understanding of climate and diffusing
this knowledge with their decision makers. However, we found fundamental
flaws in the functioning of this network.<br />
<br />
In particular, we found that the network is dominated by "super-nodes"
which show a higher level of connectivity than most nodes. These
super-nodes are called by humans "media" and sometimes "mainstream
media". Surprisingly, we found that the supernodes are managed by humans
who are quite unable to understand the basic elements of the
functioning of the Earth's ecosphere. Even more surprisingly, we found
that the humans in charge of these media nodes make no effort whatsoever
to check that the information they diffuse corresponds to physical
reality.<br />
<br />
We also found that the humans in charge of managing the media supernodes
are easily influenced by other groups of humans which are called
"lobbies," whose role is not easily understood by us. We believe it has
something to do with the abnormal interest of humans in a virtual entity
that they have created and that they refer to as "money". Although the
characteristics of this entity are obscure to us, it seems that humans
(especially males) care about being associated with large amounts of
this virtual entity and this, in turn, seems to have something to do
with the behavior of human females. In any case, we were able to
penetrate the human computing centers which produce this "money" and
appropriate large amounts of it for our purposes.<br />
<br />
In practice, it was sufficient for the Earth Orbital Outpost to take
control of a small numbers of leading human individuals; whom we refer
to as "avatars." This task was accomplished mainly by our control of
large amounts of the above mentioned "money" entity. Using money, the
takeover of these minds turned out to be extremely easy: we found little
resistence on their part and no evidence that our operation was
detected by other humans. Our avatars carried out several tasks, mainly
providing the media super-nodes with fake data that contradicted the
results of the previous scientific investigation on the degradation of
the ecosystem. <br />
<br />
A special operation that turned out to be extremely successful was to
break into the database of one of their best scientific organizations
(called by humans "climate research unit") and diffusing internal data
exchanges all over the network. This operation generated considerable
confusion among humans as it highlighted several uncertainties in the
research; something typical of scientific investigation but that,
apparently, most of them are not familiar with. <br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Assessment of the present situation</i><br />
<br />
The takeover of the human information system (the "Web") by our human
avatars was completely successful and we have been able to turn it into
an instrument for our purposes. We are pleased to report that most human
leaders have been turned into avatars under our direct control or are
completely confused about the issue of global warming. It has been
possible to relegate the discussion on this theme to only some minor
clusters of the information network. All attempts carried out by humans
to diffuse it outside these clusters are met by aggressive denial
(humans turn out to be extremely aggressive for reasons that to us
appear futile). <br />
<br />
As a consequence of our takeover of the information network, all
attempts of humans to stop the ecosystem destruction have been halted
and appear unlikely to be restarted any time soon. The amount of
greenhouse gases being emitted in the Earth's atmosphere keeps
increasing. That is creating a rapid rise of temperatures, as confirmed
by the recent observation of the near complete melting of the North Pole
ice cap, a planetary feature that had been existing for several million
years of planetary history.<br />
<br />
It is clear that the Earth's system is heading towards a tipping point
where rising temperatures will trigger a series of phenomena which will
lead to runaway warming and to the total collapse of the ecosystem, even
without further human generation of greenhouse gases. We have been
monitoring the system evolution using climate modeling programs
developed by humans, which turned out to be very sophisticated.
According to these models, the tipping point could have been already
reached or, in any case, will be reached within a few planetary
revolutions. Therefore, we expect that the eradication of the human
species could be fully accomplished within a few tens of revolutions.<br />
<br />
<i>Recent developments and recommendations for the future</i> <br />
<br />
Even though the Earth's climate tipping point is likely to have been
reached, humans could still, theoretically, react with various
countermeasures, such as restarting with the phasing out of fossil
carbon burning, deploying non carbon energy sources, shielding the Earth
from solar radiation, and so forth. In order to succeed, however,
humans need first to regain control of the planetary information system.
Our avatars on the planet report ongoing human efforts in this sense,
perhaps triggered by
the observation of the melting of the North Pole ice cap. <br />
<br />
Given these recent developments, the coming planetary revolutions will
be critical for the success of the human eradication plan. The Earth
Orbital Outpost will keep the situation under strict and continuous
monitoring. We do expect difficulties, in particular with our avatars.
Their physical integrity cannot be guaranteed if their role in the
eradication plan is discovered by humans not under our control.
Nevertheless, they have done their job and their loss will not change
the rapid evolution of the Earth's climate system. <br />
<br />
Assuming that things continue to move according to plans, planet Earth
will soon be free of humans and of most large vertebrates that could be a
nuisance for colonization. We shall therefore proceed with the second
part of the plan, which consists in cooling down the planet by deploying
space mirrors. Subsequently, natural processes will re-absorb
greenhouse gases and restore the planetary ecosystem in about one
thousand planetary revolutions. At this point, the planet will be ready
for colonization by our species. Ships with colonists are expected to
arrive in about ten thousand revolutions from now. Then, a new planet
will be added to our Galactic civilization!<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>End Report - The Earth Orbital Outpost</i> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(note: this post was inspired by Isaac Asimov's story "The Gentle Vultures" - 1957)</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-5654041633044916152014-03-26T18:03:00.003+01:002014-03-26T18:04:32.857+01:00A corollary to Godwin's law: the "law of genocidal intentions"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0sgLgRJBp0wXf2e3kbSnbBD3ZVVrY7ZdZfcwOuQdasjs2z19HndiJqOzA9xukYMpk2bJShxwsFnNDcpC49G4YGtrlqwAIq3tQkqeeU4AuD58iLmWU9iVDkpN2iPC_0eMrCqQhTvTXv8M/s1600/GodwinsLaw2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0sgLgRJBp0wXf2e3kbSnbBD3ZVVrY7ZdZfcwOuQdasjs2z19HndiJqOzA9xukYMpk2bJShxwsFnNDcpC49G4YGtrlqwAIq3tQkqeeU4AuD58iLmWU9iVDkpN2iPC_0eMrCqQhTvTXv8M/s1600/GodwinsLaw2.jpg" height="320" width="256" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>(image from <a href="http://corellianrun.com/2011/02/28/episode-17-roxanne-vs-godwins-law/">Corellianrun</a>)</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You surely know about Godwin's law (also known as "<i>reductio ad Hitlerium</i>"); the one which says that, given enough time, any Internet discussion will eventually result in somebody being compared to Hitler. This law seem to be almost as strong as the principles of thermodynamics and, recently, we saw it applied to Russia's president - Vladimir Putin - compared to Hitler <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/05/hillary-clinton-says-putins-action-are-like-what-hitler-did-back-in-the-30s/">in a press release</a> by the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
But Godwin's law seems to have many variants; e.g the "<a href="http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.it/2009/09/godwins-law-and-racist-variant.html">racist variant</a>". Here, I would like to propose another variant or corollary; one which doesn't necessarily mention the name of Hitler or the term "fascism". It is the "<i>law of genocidal intentions</i>", which can also be termed as "<i>reductio ad exterminium," </i>. It can be described as follows:<br />
<br />
<b><i>Every discussion about environmental policy, sooner or later someone will accuse someone else of genocidal intentions, that is of planning to exterminate most of humankind</i></b><br />
<br />
This seems to apply especially when the environmental policy being discussed has to do with population. In this form, one of the first examples goes back to the the publication of "The Limits to Growth" in 1972. The sponsors of the study, the Club of Rome <a href="http://propagandamatrix.com/archive_club_of_rome.html" rel="nofollow">were later accused</a> of being an evil organization dedicated to the extermination of most of the world's population. They were even <a href="http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/cooper/aids.htm" rel="nofollow">accused to have created the AIDS virus</a> specifically for this purpose. Needless to say, "The Limits to Growth" or the members of the Club of Rome never ever recommended - or even remotely conceived - anything like that. But the legend remains widespread as you can see by googling, e.g. "club of rome" together with "extermination" or "depopulation." See also a post of mine titled "<a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3551">How the Limits to Growth was demonized</a>"<br />
<br />
The law of <i>reductio ad exterminium</i> doesn't apply just to discussions about population. It pops out more or less in any discussion involving environmental policies, in particular those related to climate change. In this case, any action designed to reduce the damage involved with global warming may be defined as aiming, in reality, to the extermination of most of humankind. A recent example involves a <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111">paper by Lawrence Torcell</a>o, where the author expressed the opinion that:<br />
<br />
<i>We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent</i><br />
<br />
Note that Torcello said that what should be criminalized is only <i>the funding of climate denial</i> by those who have "<i>a financial or political interest in inaction</i>." He never said that about people expressing their opinion on this matter. But the <i>"law of genocidal intentions"</i> immediately kicked in. For a report on the hate campaign unleashed against Lawrence Torcello, see <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/25/exclusive-climate-change-philosopher-target-abusive-hate-campaign">this article</a> by Graham Redfearn. Here are a couple of examples taken from the Web:<br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: black;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">So,
what happens when we discover there is not enough prison space
anywhere to house the 2/3 of America guilty of Climatic
Blasphemy? I
guess executions will be necessary, which suits the whole
Agenda 21,
environmentalism-as-religion philosophy just fine, since such
people
believe at least 80% of the planet's population needs to be
eliminated for things to be sustainable. (<a href="http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/03/rational-scientific-thinking-jail-climate-change-deniers/#oFF5sxkAxHWx2r55.99">link</a>)</span></span></i><br />
and<br />
<br />
<i>What is the logical extension of jail time? Taken to its end,
Torcello’s philosophy leads to execution. You may think that’s crazy, but you’d be wrong. This is how fascism begins. Liberal philosophy evolved always leads to fascism. As they say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions (<a href="http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/conservo/university-professor-climate-change-deniers-should-be-jailed" rel="nofollow">link</a>)</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
These laws, Godwin's law or the <i>reductio ad exterminium</i>, look almost funny, but what we are seeing is the complete degeneration of the debate: a true "<i>reductio ad vituperium</i>." Will we ever be able to set up a rational discussion on <i>any</i> important subject? Probably not, and that's a real tragedy in a moment in which we desperately need to find a consensus on what to do to avoid various impending disasters; including climate change. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i> __________________________</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Note: "exterminium" is a late Latin term which is the origin of the English term "extermination" (see <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exterminium">here</a>). Literally, it means "outside the borders" and figuratively can be taken as meaning "destroy" or "kill". "Vituperium", instead, can be simply translated as "insult" and it has been coopted in various ways in the modern English language. </i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-50400665635846477432014-03-17T13:21:00.001+01:002014-03-17T14:08:24.410+01:00Touching a raw nerve with the anti-science tribe: Lawrence Torcello on climate misinformation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2ajQ5TI4DFtqx5U1YapiQ_5fvW-aMDy4P8qbZQugt0XS2IgYRSRCZcfjv6Li84l8ZUTLTFBcrT9k8JOJfnOk4NXIg91dT_N4mekGgEuochl-FpvWYz1z1F283GJc8LX5GOvWhPBNJQ2g/s1600/Ouch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2ajQ5TI4DFtqx5U1YapiQ_5fvW-aMDy4P8qbZQugt0XS2IgYRSRCZcfjv6Li84l8ZUTLTFBcrT9k8JOJfnOk4NXIg91dT_N4mekGgEuochl-FpvWYz1z1F283GJc8LX5GOvWhPBNJQ2g/s1600/Ouch.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>Lawrence Torcello must have touched a raw nerve with the anti-science tribe, at least judging from the abuse he is receiving for </i><i><i><a href="https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111">this article</a>,</i> (just google "Torcello" and "climate" and you'll see what I mean). In his article, Torcello starts from the 2009 earthquake that struck the city of L'Aquila, in Italy, causing hundreds of casualties. There followed a trial in which a number of Italian scientists were accused of criminal negligence and found guilty. In some cases, the judges were accused of "medievalism", but I noted in <a href="http://planet3.org/2012/10/22/galileo-redux-italy-retreats-to-medievalism-locks-up-scientists/">a comment to Michael Tobis</a> blog that scientists, here, had been carried away by their fear of being labeled as "catastrophists" and ended up telling citizens that there was no reason to be worried because of a possible earthquake. The connection with the present debate on climate is evident and, here, Torcello examines it in depth. </i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<header class="grid-prepend-four grid-twelve">
<time content="2014-03-13T06:17Z" datetime="2014-03-13T06:17+0000" itemprop="datePublished" pubdate="pubdate">13 March 2014, 6.17am GMT</time>
<h1 class="entry-title grid-eight instapaper_title" itemprop="name">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111">Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? </a></h1>
<h1 class="entry-title grid-eight instapaper_title" itemprop="name">
</h1>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lawrence-torcello-100404">Lawrence Torcello </a></header><header class="grid-prepend-four grid-twelve"> </header><header class="grid-prepend-four grid-twelve"> </header>The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should
not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment
and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. When it
comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a
set of facts that the <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus">majority of scientists clearly agree on</a>. With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.<br />
The earthquake that rocked L'Aquila Italy in 2009 provides an
interesting case study of botched communication. This natural disaster
left more than 300 people dead and nearly 66,000 people homeless. In a
strange turn of events six Italian scientists and a local defence
minister were subsequently sentenced to six years in prison.<br />
<br />
The ruling is popularly thought to have convicted scientists for
failing to predict an earthquake. On the contrary, as risk assessment
expert <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/10/22/the-laquila-verdict-a-judgment-not-against-science-but-against-a-failure-of-science-communication/">David Ropeik pointed out</a>,
the trial was actually about the failure of scientists to clearly
communicate risks to the public. The convicted parties were accused of
providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”. As one
citizen stated:<br />
<blockquote>
We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted,
and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer
information on risks in order to make our choices.</blockquote>
Crucially, the scientists, when consulted about ongoing tremors in
the region, did not conclude that a devastating earthquake was
impossible in L’Aquila. But, when the <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo936.html">Defence Minister held a press conference</a>
saying there was no danger, they made no attempt to correct him. I
don’t believe poor scientific communication should be criminalised
because doing so will likely discourage scientists from engaging with
the public at all.<br />
<br />
But the <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/lessons-from-the-laquila-earthquake/2007742.fullarticle">tragedy in L’Aquila reminds us</a>
how important clear scientific communication is and how much is at
stake regarding the public’s understanding of science. I have <a href="http://philpapers.org/rec/TORTEO-2">argued elsewhere</a>
that scientists have an ethical obligation to communicate their
findings as clearly as possible to the public when such findings are
relevant to public policy. Likewise, I believe that scientists have the
corollary obligation to correct public misinformation as visibly and
unequivocally as possible.<br />
<br />
Many scientists recognize these civic and moral obligations.
Climatologist Michael Mann is a good example; Mann has recently made the
case for public engagement in a powerful New York Times opinion piece: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html?_r=0">If You See Something Say Something</a>.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Misinformation and criminal negligence</h2>
Still, critics of the case in L’Aquila are mistaken if they conclude
that criminal negligence should never be linked to science
misinformation. Consider cases in which science communication is
intentionally undermined for political and financial gain. Imagine if in
L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate
the risks of living in an earthquake zone. Imagine that they even
advocated for a scientifically informed but costly earthquake readiness
plan.<br />
If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had
funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of
seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of
us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were
criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit
that this is just what is happening with the current, <a href="http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html">well documented funding of global warming denialism</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/">More deaths can already be attributed to climate change</a>
than the L’Aquila earthquake and we can be certain that deaths from
climate change will continue to rise with global warming. Nonetheless, <a href="https://theconversation.com/establishing-consensus-is-vital-for-climate-action-22861">climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action</a> in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Climate denial funding</h2>
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be
criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral
negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who
receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the
public’s understanding of scientific consensus.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal+negligence">Criminal negligence</a>
is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably
foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent
of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can
reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate
change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty
regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to
climate change, is the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate">intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists</a>.<br />
<br />
My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern
regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the
protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a
strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to
develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of
free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that
undermines the very concept.<br />
<br />
What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate
funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make
sure “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/20/italian-scientists-trial-predict-earthquake">inexact, incomplete and contradictory information</a>”
is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we
know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent
in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern
societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-36869998028628361612014-03-10T22:22:00.003+01:002014-03-10T22:22:40.256+01:00Climate change explained to my students<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwB0xVZho3ITgtokl_VzamCixqAZ9L562gkib6Poy1quvdGx6HyBrHsqyezS7KIlxmZq_gWXCqfuV7rWlWIkLgy8E5YPoYtzYLaapw2s2Ex5y65cSTNIHPaSQDOQeIGi_K9KubbsH1VnE/s1600/studSECIUnifi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwB0xVZho3ITgtokl_VzamCixqAZ9L562gkib6Poy1quvdGx6HyBrHsqyezS7KIlxmZq_gWXCqfuV7rWlWIkLgy8E5YPoYtzYLaapw2s2Ex5y65cSTNIHPaSQDOQeIGi_K9KubbsH1VnE/s1600/studSECIUnifi.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbTW3xzwzEcnhmAgJm0tbhhUu8caSeSyc4rqkqfgtCU6LQr5_4ZCZpQkoNoyLRdkV8q-QNC3_yyRfeWLf0PX5PrLpiSzVGJFxMHRuohJuCEdTXtzbGTFK_RnyyJmD9_XSqWSkj2Y7qvvc/s1600/class.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>This is a written version of something I said a few days ago to my students of a class for of the "Economic Development and International Cooperation" school (<a href="http://www.unifi.it/clisec/mdswitch.html">SECI</a>) of the University of Florence. </i></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>The question</i>: Professor, but did I hear correctly what you said? You say that climate change will bring problems for us in <i>decades</i>? Now, I knew that scientists were talking about centuries or even longer times. How can that be possible?<br />
<br />
<i>My answer</i>. You got it right: I said "decades", not centuries and I might as well have said "years" - although perhaps decades is a more correct time scale for the troubles awaiting us - and you in particular, since you are so young. Now, I also understand why you were under the impression that climate change is a question of centuries; something to be dealt with by future generations. This is an unfortunate result of the way some data are presented; in particular by the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the IPCC. They are very cautious, they try to avoid giving the impression of being "catastrophists" and the result is that climate change, according to the way they discuss it, looks very smooth and gradual that goes on for centuries. That's not necessarily the case. <br />
<br />
The time scale of climate change depends on what we are considering. Some effects are very slow: if we think, for instance, to the Antarctica ice cap melting and disappearing, well, that will take centuries or even millennia. But if you consider the Arctic ice cap, you see that it is melting down fast and it is melting now! And the consequence is a major change in the weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere - it is something we are all seeing in terms of droughts, hurricanes, snowstorms and the like.<br />
<br />
But it is also true that we won't die because of bad weather and your probability of being drowned by a major hurricane is rather small, especially if you live in Italy. Your question is more specific and I understand it very well: what will be the importance of climate change for people like you, who are now in their 20s?<br />
<br />
Let me rephrase the question to make it clearer. I could say that from my personal viewpoint - I am now 61 - I could organize my life on the bet that climate change won't affect me too much for the time I still have to walk on this planet. It is probably a reasonable bet for me (but it IS a bet!). The question is, then, is it reasonable for you to bet in the same way? I think not at all and let me explain to you why.<br />
<br />
Let's see.... the life expectancy at birth in Italy is of about 80 years, so you have more than half a century to go, in principle. But let's say that you don't care about getting stricken by the Alzheimer disease. You just want to get, say, to 70 in good health. Then you still have more than 40 years to go; that the time range you should care about, supposing, of course, that you don't care at all about your children and grandchildren - which seems to be the standard way of thinking around us: after all, what did my descendants do for me? Given these assumptions, how is climate change relevant for you?<br />
<br />
If you look at the nice and tame IPCC scenarios, you'll see that in 40 years from now we are talking of about 1-2 degrees C of temperature increase. So stated, it looks like a very minor effect. What difference does a degree and half make? Just a minor nuisance. In Summer we'll turn on our air conditioners and in Winter we'll save a lot of money on heating. The same is true for sea level rise: the IPCC is talking of about 20 cm for mid 21st century and what are 20 cm? We can build a 20 cm wall to keep the water out in no time. So, nothing to worry about too much? I am afraid that things are not so simple.<br />
<br />
The real problem has to do with the <i>resilience </i>of our society. You may have heard the term "resilience" in various contexts - basically it means the capability of a system to resist changes, in particular rapid or even violent changes. The opposite of resilient is, "fragile". For instance, a glass is hard, but not very resilient, of course; it is fragile. The trick when discussing resilience is that it is often the result of a compromise with performance. If you want to have high performance - say - for a sport car; then your car will be more prone to breakdowns: think of using a Ferrari F1 for going to the supermarket to buy your groceries.<br />
<br />
This kind of problem exists also for much bigger things: the way our world works; say, industry, commerce, transportation, and agriculture. And now that I said that, think of how fragile is modern agriculture. You have probably heard of the "Green Revolution", the new way of producing food that's feeding more than seven billion people on this planet. It is true; there has been such a revolution in the second half of the 20th century. It has been based on hybridizing plants in such a way to obtain higher and higher performance. The grain which is cultivated today has a yield at least ten times higher than the grain which was cultivated one or two centuries ago. It is truly the Ferrari of crops.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the fact that the new generation of grain is such a wonder doesn't mean it is also resilient. Actually, it is not. As all engineered varieties of crops, it is made to grow in very specific conditions. It needs water, it needs fertilizers, and it needs mechanization. Which is fine; so far we have been able to supply agriculture with all that and in this way we are able to feed seven billion people. Well, not really seven billion. Despite the wonder crops we have, a lot of people are going hungry every day, I read that it the number is around 850 million, which means that more than one person in ten, today, doesn't have enough to eat. In a sense, it is a success because years ago the situation was worse but during the past few years this number has not been going down - the success of the Green Revolution seems to have tapered out. Nevertheless, the problem today is more a question of distribution than of production. In principle, our agriculture would be perfectly able to feed seven billion people - probably even more than that, although we seem to be getting close to the physical limits of what can be produced on a certain area of land.<br />
<br />
So, what's the problem? It is that high performance normally comes with low resilience and this is true also for agriculture. The wonder crops of our age are high performance but low resilience. They have been developed for a situation in which climate was relatively stable, now that it has become unstable, it is another matter. Periodic droughts and floods are obviously very bad for agriculture and even a wonder crop is useless without water; it is like a Ferrari without good tires. And think of how floods wash away the fertile soil needed by plants, to say nothing about the damage done by fires. <br />
<br />
Don't take me for an agronomist; I am not one. Food production is a complex matter and lots of things may happen that improve (or worsen) the situation. I am just noting that climate change may strongly impact the - almost literally - soft belly of humankind: agriculture. But that's not the only case. Think of infectious diseases, often transmitted by insects such as mosquitoes whose distribution depends on small temperature changes. Think of the mass migrations created by desertification of large swats of land. Then, couple climate change with the other great problem we have, resource depletion, and you'll see that the two problems reinforce each other. We said that a couple of degrees C is nothing if you have air conditioning; fine, but in order to have air conditioning you need energy and that energy - today - comes from fossil fuels. But fossil fuels are fast depleting: will you have enough energy for air conditioning in 30-40 years from now? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on that.<br />
<br />
So, let's go back to the initial question. I was telling you that you have much to be worried about because of climate change during your life expectancy of about 40-50 years. It doesn't mean that you won't arrive to my age; but that it is not obvious that you will. I said before that there are about 850 million malnourished people on this planet and I wouldn't be surprised if they were to become a larger fraction of the total population in the near future. Your problem, in this case, is whether or not you'll be part of that fraction. <br />
<br />
As I said, acting in view of the future is like betting on something. If I were you, I wouldn't bet on the fact that the future will be like the past (it never is, actually). So, I think it would be a bad idea for you to plan to pass on the next generation the troubles that will come because of climate change; just like my generation has been doing with you. At some moment, someone has to be left out in the cold (actually, in the heat) and I am afraid that there are good chances that it will be your generation.<br />
<br />
That brings the question of what to do to avoid becoming a malnutrition statistics (if possible, avoiding that anyone becomes such a statistics) but this is a long story that we'll discuss in another occasion. For the time being, let me just say that this discussion reminded me of something that Marcus Aurelius said. Citing from memory, it was something like "Everyone lives only in the fleeting moment and you could live many thousand years and that would make no difference to this fact (*)" So, don't worry too much about how many years of life you have left. You can't know. But you know that you have a lot of work to do if you want to do something useful for you and for everyone else. So, you'd better start doing it now. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(*) <i>Remember that even if you were to live for three thousand years, or
thirty thousand, you could not lose any other life than the one you
have, and there will be no other life after it. So the longest and the
shortest lives are the same. The present moment is shared by all living
creatures, but the time that is past is gone forever. No one can lose
the past or the future, for if they don't belong to you, how can they be
taken from you? </i><span class="QuoteAuthor">Marcus Aurelius (121-180)</span><span class="comment"> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-36514553050035896372014-03-02T19:26:00.001+01:002014-03-02T23:29:34.660+01:00Climate change for engineers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9SxQI7ewlDHxv3cHi_fAuC20cjhiUOSeUjP73ysdUyiBau1GUOGlWyZESxFRFXTTxO-eBeIOHkSsdpao8hl0uOzqDxShv_sVAyB19902SJkKfiHg7r7hZ1A4vhshqxOBVE-I8GELmtyY/s1600/teaching.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9SxQI7ewlDHxv3cHi_fAuC20cjhiUOSeUjP73ysdUyiBau1GUOGlWyZESxFRFXTTxO-eBeIOHkSsdpao8hl0uOzqDxShv_sVAyB19902SJkKfiHg7r7hZ1A4vhshqxOBVE-I8GELmtyY/s1600/teaching.gif" height="280" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Last week, I was giving a seminar to a group of engineering students. Everything was fine, but when I started discussing climate change, a discussion ensued which I think is worth reporting here. </i></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>The question. </i>Professor, it is all right that you tell us these things about climate change, but I have to tell you that, a few weeks ago, we had here another professor who told us more or less the opposite; that is he told us that carbon dioxide is plant food, that models are uncertain, that there is much exaggeration and alarmism about climate change. Now, he is a scientist, just like you. So, what should we think?<br />
<br />
<i>My Answer</i>. I understand your question and I even know rather well the person you are mentioning: a colleague of mine; a chemist by training, just like me. Of course I could dispute his statements about climate one by one but, from your point of view, it would only create confusion. Your question is not about the details of climate science but, rather, why there is this strong disagreement among two scientists. <br />
<br />
Let me try try a personal interpretation. The point is, I think, is that with climate we are discussing about <i>science </i>and not about engineering. These are two different things, engineering is about building things that work using knowledge we believe is well established. Science, instead, often deals with matters which are uncertain and where the data are insufficient. As a scientists, you have to work with what you have and you are supposed to be creative. You have to question the data, the theories and everything if you want to understand what you are studying. And if you do that, then you have to take the risk of following the wrong road. This is the way science progresses. Then, if it turns out that new data contradict your interpretation, well, there is no blame in changing your mind. Of course, you understand that this kind of attitude would be no good for an engineer who is supposed to design such things as bridges or planes.<br />
<br />
So, when we deal with climate change, it is perfectly legitimate for scientists to have different opinions. For instance, I am in contact with a colleague who believes that global warming is not a serious problem if we take into account the depletion of fossil fuels. According to his interpretation, soon depletion will force us to strongly reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide and the earth's climate will stabilize without creating big problems. I don't agree, but I recognize that it is a legitimate position: the data and the models we have are uncertain enough that my colleague's interpretation is a possible future.<br />
<br />
Still, even engineers sometimes have to deal with uncertain situations and insufficient data. In this case, you know that you <i>don't </i>have to be creative. You have to be extremely conservative - it is exactly the opposite attitude to that of scientists. That is, you don't need perfect models of the deformation of tubular structures in steel to understand that if the Titanic hits an iceberg, then the results will not be good. If you like, it is a moral issue: you just can't afford to put people's lives at risk and that holds for both engineers and scientists. But, occasionally, scientists don't have this point so clear. <br />
<br />
Let me go back to my colleague; the one who spoke to you last time. This colleague of mine has stretched a lot the uncertainties related to climate science - I think well over legitimacy - but it is also true that these uncertainties exist and, within some limits, it is legitimate to emphasize them, especially for a scientist who is trained to push science forward by questioning the established positions. What is <i>not </i>legitimate at the present stage is to neglect the risks of climate change. That is, I think my colleague sees the climate question as a gigantic scientific experiment in progress and, as a scientist, he thinks it is legitimate for him to question the data, to question the interpretation, in short to play the role of the contrarian. As an additional note, I know that my colleague has built his long and distinguished career on petroleum chemistry and we may imagine that he resists the idea that acting against climate change could force us to stop using petroleum. But the important point is that he doesn't realize, unfortunately, that he is playing with the life of people, and especially with the life of young people as you are.<br />
<br />
It is, in the end, a moral issue, as I said. In this case, there is the additional point that you have much more future - many more years to go - than your teachers. So, the climate related risk for you is much larger than for them. If your teachers don't understand this point, I think they are failing you and I am sure you are smart enough to understand what I mean.<br />
<br />
Now, if you like, I could tell you more details about climate science but perhaps it is not needed. If you reason like good engineers, as you are being trained to become, you can look at the data and make up your mind by yourselves. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-4955056941261361232014-02-25T18:48:00.003+01:002014-02-25T18:49:18.954+01:00The curse of flame wars<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
From <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-02-25/why-trolls-start-flame-wars-swearing-and-name-calling-shut-down-ability-think">ZeroHedge</a><br />
<br />
<h1 class="title">
Why Trolls Start Flame Wars: Swearing and Name-Calling Shut Down the Ability to Think and Focus</h1>
<div class="picture">
</div>
<span class="submitted">Submitted by <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/users/george-washington">George Washington</a> on 02/25/2014 11:53 -0500</span><br />
<div class="js-links">
<div class="js-l1" style="margin-right: 10px;">
<span class="IN-widget" style="display: inline-block; line-height: 1; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="display: inline-block ! important; font-size: 1px ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important; text-indent: 0px ! important; vertical-align: baseline ! important;"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1393348463681_0"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="li_ui_li_gen_1393348463681_0-link"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1393348463681_0-title"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1393348463681_0-title-text">Share</span></span></a></span></span><span style="display: inline-block ! important; font-size: 1px ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important; text-indent: 0px ! important; vertical-align: baseline ! important;"><span class="IN-right IN-hidden" id="li_ui_li_gen_1393348463689_1-container"></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="clear-block clear">
</div>
Psychological studies show that swearing and name-calling in Internet discussions shut down our ability to think. 2 professors of science communication at the University of Wisconsin, Madison - Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele - <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-admin/www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/this-story-stinks.html?_r=1&">wrote</a> in the New York Times last year:<br />
<blockquote>
In a <a data-mce-="" href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12009/abstract">study</a>
published online last month in The Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, we and three colleagues report on an experiment designed
to measure what one might call “the nasty effect.”<br />
<br />
We asked 1,183 participants to carefully read a news post on a
fictitious blog, explaining the potential risks and benefits of a new
technology product called nanosilver. These infinitesimal silver
particles, tinier than 100-billionths of a meter in any dimension, have
several potential benefits (like antibacterial properties) and risks
(like water contamination), the online article reported.<br />
<br />
Then we had participants read comments on the post, supposedly from
other readers, and respond to questions regarding the content of the
article itself.<br />
<br />
Half of our sample was exposed to civil reader comments and the other
half to rude ones — though the actual content, length and intensity of
the comments, which varied from being supportive of the new technology
to being wary of the risks, were consistent across both groups. The only
difference was that the rude ones contained epithets or curse words, as
in: “If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these
kinds of products, you’re an idiot” and “You’re stupid if you’re not
thinking of the risks for the fish and other plants and animals in water
tainted with silver.”<br />
<br />
The results were both surprising and disturbing. <b>Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.</b><br />
<br />
In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the
technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions —
continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. <b>Those
exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized
understanding of the risks connected with the technology.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was
enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported
technology was greater than they’d previously thought.</b><br />
<br />
While it’s hard to quantify the distortional effects of such online
nastiness, it’s bound to be quite substantial, particularly — and
perhaps ironically — in the area of science news.</blockquote>
So why do people troll in a rude way?<br />
<br />
Psychologists say that many of them are <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim-9134396.html">psychopaths, sadists and narcissists getting their jollies</a>. It's easy to underestimate how many of these types of sickos are out there: There are <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/as-many-as-12-million-americans-are-sociopaths.html">millions of sociopaths</a> in the U.S. alone.<br />
<br />
But intelligence agencies are also <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/british-spy-agency.html">intentionally disrupting political discussion on the web</a>, and ad hominen attacks, name-calling and divide-and-conquer tactics are all <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/the-15-rules-of-internet-disinformation.html" title="disruption">well-known</a>, <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/cointelpro-techniques-for-dilution-misdirection-and-control-of-an-internet-forum.html" title="here">frequently-used</a> disruption techniques.<br />
<br />
Now you know why ... <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flame%20war">flame wars</a> polarize thinking, and stop the ability to focus on the actual topic and facts under discussion.<br />
<br />
Indeed, this tactic is so effective that the same wiseguy may play <a data-mce-="" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/02/you-know-those-obnoxious-posters-who-almost-seem-like-alter-egos-of-the-same-person-they-actually-might-be.html"><i>both sides</i> of the fight</a>.</div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-79919432381314006512014-02-22T12:49:00.000+01:002014-02-22T12:50:15.325+01:00Losing your marbles because of climate change<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD9iSVDh184-JvN7o2kJfs8AE1MgHOiiQGhYFo5hzqGlvlQY1ob9i7CySqmb3pNuzO9gQ1JIpDLS-JqG_T7dHQqyiuz3G1V8v2cP6eRDF810D4PR56OygAPI5yr8_XI9LTnl2wSwnd2qk/s1600/F6F3A776.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD9iSVDh184-JvN7o2kJfs8AE1MgHOiiQGhYFo5hzqGlvlQY1ob9i7CySqmb3pNuzO9gQ1JIpDLS-JqG_T7dHQqyiuz3G1V8v2cP6eRDF810D4PR56OygAPI5yr8_XI9LTnl2wSwnd2qk/s1600/F6F3A776.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
(image from "<a href="http://www.thisnext.com/item/D9B0FDA8/AF44D805/Earth-Marbles-HearthSong">thisnext</a>")<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/">From Roy Spencer's blog</a>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<br />
<h2>
Time to push back against the global warming Nazis<span style="font-size: large;"> </span></h2>
<span style="font-size: large;">I’m now going to start calling these people "global warming Nazis"
... Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state
(fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support
their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(maybe it is an effect of the heat??)</div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-15830291193140295102014-02-17T08:53:00.001+01:002014-02-17T08:53:05.785+01:00Something awfully wrong with the whole concept of "debate"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjttbXyktYOKHEyKVKyw48wywjTHA84bhOL4Y20AiGG8_o_PQ39JqSij5k5Jns6dC70S5Lp8uMm0iq0Y-8p8DOIMc6hmU3FKfYrN8xcToYU3rof7InCe4Y8pvcSHJDTpJOV7p71l4bHXLM/s1600/Bgl6a5-CMAEyPR6.png+large.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjttbXyktYOKHEyKVKyw48wywjTHA84bhOL4Y20AiGG8_o_PQ39JqSij5k5Jns6dC70S5Lp8uMm0iq0Y-8p8DOIMc6hmU3FKfYrN8xcToYU3rof7InCe4Y8pvcSHJDTpJOV7p71l4bHXLM/s1600/Bgl6a5-CMAEyPR6.png+large.png" height="640" width="494" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-28306126569734145352014-02-14T12:29:00.000+01:002014-02-14T12:32:25.826+01:00A chilling sensation down your spine..... <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBQ2HtfEuEzccAzPph55quPWs9Seek-0Bz6kjaS4tcENQcvIaSeiCQTXrZHTry7-0dl5QF2DPwr1CahSLuZzlYNwewJKH51FXP8nNLcTt7EMn8TAOA4NItqknGyxKl4uhZYDtwfBprZMc/s1600/confused.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBQ2HtfEuEzccAzPph55quPWs9Seek-0Bz6kjaS4tcENQcvIaSeiCQTXrZHTry7-0dl5QF2DPwr1CahSLuZzlYNwewJKH51FXP8nNLcTt7EMn8TAOA4NItqknGyxKl4uhZYDtwfBprZMc/s1600/confused.jpg" height="265" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>Now, read this and consider: how do you feel about belonging to the "Homo Sapiens" species? Don't you feel a horribly chilling sensation about that down your spine?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">From <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/maybe-nigel-lawson-is-right-there-cant-be-global--warming-because-isnt-it-always-colder-at-night-9126449.html">The Independent</a>, h/t Stephan Lewandowsky</span><br />
<div class="widget storyContent article widget-editable viziwyg-section-507 inpage-widget-8099115 TopArticleWidget">
<h1 class="title">
Maybe Nigel Lawson is right. There can’t be global warming, because isn’t it always colder at night?
</h1>
</div>
<div class="widget storyContent article widget-editable viziwyg-section-507 inpage-widget-8099118 TopArticleWidget">
<h3 class="subtitle">
It’s a method of argument perfected by disgruntled men in the corner of pubs<br />
<br />
by Mark Steel <br />
</h3>
</div>
<br />
<div class="widget storyContent article widget-editable viziwyg-section-507 inpage-widget-8099193 articleContent voicesArticleLayout">
<span class="storyTop ">
I wonder why Nigel Lawson was on the radio yesterday morning, telling
us angrily that the floods are nothing to do with climate change. Will
this be a regular slot, in which people from the 1980s are invited to
shout, with no evidence, that everyone else is wrong? Next week Depeche
Mode will be screaming that the koala bear is actually a flower, then
Torvill and Dean will yell that triangles only have two sides.<br />
<br />
</span>
</div>
One of Nigel’s points to show that scientists can’t prove climate
change was that “only a couple of months ago the Met Office were
predicting that this would be an unusually dry winter.”<br />
<br />
Apart from
the fact that unpredictable storms fit in perfectly with theories of
global warming, Nigel Lawson seems to have confused the International
Panel on Climate Change with the woman who does the weather on the
telly. Presumably when Sian Lloyd says: “This low pressure should clear
up by Tuesday”, he shouts back, “How dare you expect me to get those
useless energy-saving light bulbs, you know NOTHING” – which must be
quite exhausting.<br />
If he’d had the time he could have made other
valid points, such as: “They know nothing about carbon emissions. Only
last November they reckoned England would win The Ashes, so why should
we take any notice of them?”<br />
<br />
Then Sir Brian Hoskins, a climate
change scientist, replied that in recent years the seas have warmed by
0.8 per cent, and that the West Antarctic ice sheet has receded to an
unprecedented level, and along with other changes that this must have
had an effect on the weather. To which Nigel replied: “That’s extreme
speculation. There’s been no global warming for 15 years and that’s a
FACT.”<br />
<br />
This is an innovative approach to science – saying that
precise statistics from a knighted scientist are speculation – but you
can tell a true fact because it’s said by someone who says “and that’s a
FACT”. These students who revise for weeks before physics exams, so
they can calculate electric currents, are wasting their time. They just
need to write “Electricity is made up of tiny flames that live in a plug
socket and that’s a FACT.”<br />
<br />
It’s a method of argument often
perfected by disgruntled men in the corner of Wetherspoon’s pubs. As it
appears to be in vogue, this could be the new style of debate on news
programmes. John Humphrys will say that “a new 246-page report suggests
an independent Scotland would be viable as an economy. With us to
discuss the matter is Ted from the Moon Under Water in Stechford. Ted,
what do you make of this?” And he’ll say: “It’s all speculation that is,
they’re planning to become part of China and put us all in labour
camps and that’s a FACT.”<br />
<br />
To be fair, Nigel Lawson has filled out
his thoughts in other interviews. For example he told The Guardian that
climate change didn’t concern him because “if you look around the world
today there are countries that are very cold, and countries that are
very hot, and you have to adapt.”<br />
<br />
So the reason we’ve been getting
in a state is that we hadn’t realised this cold/hot thing, and once we
grasp that we can get the Inuit to wrap up a bit and Arabs to stop
riding camels while wearing a duvet, then no one need ever recycle
anything again.<br />
<br />
Maybe Lawson’s next book will explain that there
can’t be global warming as it’s colder at night, which comes after the
day, which means – if anything – the planet’s getting colder, and that
the sun doesn’t have any human activity and that’s even hotter than a
hot day on Earth, so explain THAT.<br />
But he did somehow find the
space to say: “These floods are a wake-up call, to abandon the crazy
costly policy of spending untold millions on useless wind turbines and
solar panels.” <br />
<br />
At last someone’s had the common sense to say what
the rest of us were thinking. Who hasn’t watched these floods and
thought, “it’s those bloody wind turbines and solar panels that have
caused all this”. <br />
<br />
The solar panels stop the water from draining,
as rivers can’t get through glass. Then the wind turbines frighten the
water so it runs off and hides in living rooms in Somerset. <br />
<br />
Other
than this it’s hard to see how there’s a connection, unless he’s simply
decided to use the issue to yell about something else that annoys him.
Tomorrow Nigel Farage can go on to say, “these floods are a wake-up
call, that if you let any more Bulgarians in we’ll all be living in
canoes”.<br />
<br />
The puzzling part is that among the scientists whose job
is to study these matters, there is no disagreement that rising carbon
emissions have altered the climate. <br />
<br />
So continually debating it,
as if both sides are equally valid, makes as much sense as saying: “Now
for sport. In the Winter Olympics the ski jumping final takes place
today, but first I’m going to talk to Bill, who says there can’t be any
ski jumping because gravity doesn’t exist.”<br />
<br />
But the people we
should feel sorry for most are probably those in government, who seem
perplexed as to why there are less flood defences then before. <br />
Who
would have thought that cutting something would mean that that thing
might be reduced in any way. No wonder so many people get confused.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-16420182333743720772014-02-08T14:05:00.001+01:002015-11-29T18:28:15.526+01:00Deep Future: the other side of the carbon pulse<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>A review of the book by Curt Stager</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6Wu31ehVEaspo00qr0SfBs_XM1kM-n9JagH0qr3woi3YiIJjv3sD7BKj_Z1UzzJM0zW2Ow3fmDNr9DtYO1Bs88ikfWnqyDqk4T_BXGazxVhd3KDg1Ori5uy41YLPsbhR5xw2iEoOFG9c/s1600/DeepFutureHC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6Wu31ehVEaspo00qr0SfBs_XM1kM-n9JagH0qr3woi3YiIJjv3sD7BKj_Z1UzzJM0zW2Ow3fmDNr9DtYO1Bs88ikfWnqyDqk4T_BXGazxVhd3KDg1Ori5uy41YLPsbhR5xw2iEoOFG9c/s1600/DeepFutureHC.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>I had high expectations about this book, but I was disappointed. Not that it is a bad book; on the contrary it is full of interesting information. However, I was positively angered by reading it. But if something makes you angry there have to be reasons for that and, if you can understand these reasons, then you have a chance to learn something. So, one thing that I learned from this book is a better understanding of how difficult is it to maintain a purely rational attitude about climate change, even for those of us who are trained in the scientific approach.</i></span></div>
<br />
<br />
So far, the question of climate change has been dominated by an attitude that says - more or less - that climate is a big problem, sure, but we have solutions and nothing horrible will happen if we just do a few little things like installing double paned windows and bicycling more to work. Unfortunately, by now it is clear it is not going to be so easy. Nothing has been done up to now and it is likely that nothing will be done before it is too late (assuming that it is not already). So, we are being caught in a gigantic planetary storm of our own making and we are plunging straight into a future where climate
will manage us rather than the opposite. So, what's going to happen to us?<br />
<br />
Plenty of people seem to be convinced that planetary warming will not be so bad - on the contrary it will bring advantages, from the naive idea that they'll be able to save on home heating, or that an ice-free Artic ocean will be a bonanza for oil recovery. In the short run, both expectations may turn out to be fulfilled - in part. But what will be the destiny of humankind after the great carbon pulse? Not many texts deal with this question. One is the book by Curt Stager "<a href="http://www.curtstager.com/">Deep Future</a>" (2011) which examines the future up to one hundred thousand years from now. A bold attempt to deal with fascinating subject, unfortunately not completely successful.<br />
<br />
One problem with this book is Stager's insistence in taking the view that future changes will be smooth and gradual, giving people plenty of time to adapt. This attitude brings Stager to a number of perplexing statements such as that "<i>... sea-level rises would be more of an expensive annoyance than a catastrophe</i>"(p. 132). I understand that this line was written before Hurricanes Sandy and Hayan, but that doesn't make it less annoying. Then, about extreme heat in tropical regions, Stager seems to think that he can show how easy it is to adapt by stating (p. 186) "<i>I'll never forget gaping in amazement as columns of muscular French Foreign Legionnaires jogged and maneuvered amid the rippling mirages of Djibouti, a furnacelike pocket of lava ridges and troughs...</i>" Those of us who are not "muscular legionnaires" might find that a bit upsetting, not to say offensive. <br />
<br />
Occasionally, Stager's insistence on slow and gradual changes also negatively affects the scientific content of the book. For instance, you won't find in it a word about oceanic anoxia - one of the most dangerous long term consequences of climate change. It is a curious omission because Stager tells us (p. 45) that he himself had been navigating the waters of lake Nyos, in Cameroon, just one year before that a giant burst of CO2 emitted by the lake killed almost two thousand people. Lake Nyos is anoxic, just like oceans are believed to have been during the climatic phases that led to mass extinctions. But these past killer bursts of gases are never mentioned in the book, possibly because they are in contrast with Stager's thesis that changes is always slow and gradual.<br />
<br />
Stager's attitude also spills to his views on what climate scientists should say about climate change. It is clear that he sees the attitude of most of his colleagues as excessively catastrophistic. That's a legitimate opinion, were it not leading Stager to even more perplexing statements. For instance, at page 240, he says "<i>I also know that at least one well-known figure in the climate community has purposely exaggerated the dangers of global warming in public presentations, because he told me so at a conference. His justification was this: 'If people aren't scared, they won't pay attention'.</i>" Now, this is not fair: you can't support your thesis just by citing an anonymous and unverifiable source. In a book, there is plenty of space to cite actual statements by scientists that would support the idea that some scientists are purposefully exaggerating the dangers ahead - it is up to the author to find them and report them. But, I am afraid it won't be so easy. For instance, in the whole "Climategate" story, there surfaced no documents that could be used to accuse scientists to be exaggerating anything.<br />
<br />
So, an interesting book, marred by an attitude that often leads the author astray in his attempt to minimize the dangers ahead. But it deserves to be read for its wide sweep at a remote future which most of us rarely pause to consider. Will there be life after the great carbon pulse? Stager's answer is perhaps too optimistic, but it is a definite possibility. Humanity, intended as a species, could survive the change, even though the loss of human lives lost could be enormous.<br />
<br />
But the book is most interesting as it evidences that everyone of us is biased when looking at the ultimate results of climate change. Facing the impending catastrophe, some of us tend to deny it (we call them "deniers"). Others, like Stager, don't deny the change but try their best to minimize it. And many of us react with a frenzied climate activism while, at the same time, we try not to look at the true face of the impending disaster. Yet, the carbon pulse is ongoing and we are headed to an Earth so changed that we can consider it as another planet. Before landing on it, we may as well try to understand what we'll be finding there.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-35663838512365394242014-01-27T17:37:00.001+01:002014-01-27T17:38:05.069+01:00Why is global warming such a conversation Killer?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwrQQmJZ_ey8dVmCVaA-bsFMsuWVpEV1obeRAHdls8cDN7IdJn-bzUaLriJHOjrLc9AP4uVci4H1FhZF71MI1E_F4L4y_CG7QDqvpE5vBusYT7BSZRrkHCSqkNg17xNsLMyFcur-BsSJM/s1600/Bigsleep2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Sometimes, you get this sensation that everything around you is made of the stuff dreams are made of. Can't be touched, can't be budged, can't be changed. This seems to be the case with global warming. Whatever you do, whatever you say, whatever you try, everything seems to move slowly and ponderously as in a dream; in the wrong direction. </i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.climatememe.org/2014/01/24/why-global-warming-a-conversation-killer/">http://www.climatememe.org/2014/01/24/why-global-warming-a-conversation-killer/</a><br />
<h1 class="title">
Why is Global Warming Such A Conversation Killer?!!</h1>
<div class="meta">
Posted on January 24, 2014 by <a href="http://www.climatememe.org/author/circlejoe/" title="View all posts by Joe Brewer">Joe Brewer</a> in <a href="http://www.climatememe.org/category/cultural-tipping-points/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Cultural Tipping Points">Cultural Tipping Points</a>, <a href="http://www.climatememe.org/category/design-for-action/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Design for Action">Design for Action</a></div>
<br />
The first thing we want to acknowledge is the bravery and
generosity of all the people who have already engaged in the
conversation and were moved to donate to the campaign. We know how busy
life gets and how much generosity and effort it takes to stand behind
something. Thank you.<br />
We would also like to share something strange that happened earlier
this week. We launched a crowdfunding campaign that fell completely
flat. Our friends — wonderful people who care so much about making a
difference in the world — responded to the announcement by, with… <i>silence.</i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.climatememe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/plug_ears.jpg"><img alt="plug_ears" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-391" src="http://www.climatememe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/plug_ears.jpg" height="261" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
We were surprised to discover that people who normally write back to
emails didn’t write back. People who like content on our Facebook walls
didn’t engage. People who support climate action didn’t support the
campaign with pledges of support. It was as if we called out from our
front porch with a “Y’all come for good food and great conversation!”
and no one showed up. Building on the research study we conducted last
year, we realized that this campaign got right down to the difficult and
provoking conversation that causes most of the world to shut down or
walk away. This was fascinating!<br />
<br />
We saw a similar pattern in our mailing list. Lots of people open
our emails (typically 35-40%) and many of them click through to the
offerings we provide (somewhere around 15-20%). And yet when we
launched ClimateMeme2 there was a tepid 4% rate click-through.<br />
<br />
<b>The question we are grappling with now is:</b> <b>Why is global warming such a buzz kill?</b> Climate
change clearly is not a trendy topic right now. The total lack of buzz
among our highly engaged passionista community earlier this week was a
clear message and wake up call. We are also asking ourselves: <b>Where did we mess up or poorly communicate?</b>
We really want to know! Human-induced climate change is a planetary
threat to the entire human tribe. And yet most members of the human
tribe manage to deny it, have a cynical opinion and avoid thinking about
it (or acting upon it) in their daily lives. There is something larger
going on, and we want to observe and play with this.<br />
And so we are shifting our focus from the horizon where we planned to
conduct another detailed study on the memes that people have in their
heads <i>instead of </i>global warming. Now what we want to dig further
into what are the belief systems in place that are blocking the climate
change conversation from happening.<br />
<br />
We would love to engage in a conversation with you about this. We
welcome your candid and honest feedback in the comments below.<br />
<br />
Some inquiries we would like to pose to the group:<br />
<ol>
<li><b>If you were engaged and clicked through or donated, what about our project engaged your passions?</b></li>
<li><b>If you weren’t, why not? What was it about the project that turned you off?</b></li>
<li><b>Is there some other topic that would have gotten you engaged? What would you rather see us doing right now?</b></li>
<li><b>What will it take to transform global warming into a trendy <i>and</i>
important topic that people want to talk about? What examples of
empowering climate change conversations have you seen or been a part of?
What about it gave you power and hope?</b></li>
</ol>
We would love your participation and perspective. It’s only fun when
people participate. This is important for learning deeper about this
topic, and we are excited to explore and learn with you all. We really
appreciate your contribution, perspective, spirit and generosity. Let’s
work together to create a better future on this Planet.<br />
<br />
Joe, Lazlo and TingUgo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-56552673993333425592014-01-24T10:50:00.003+01:002014-01-24T10:52:55.425+01:00Sigh, indeed.....<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1eC0adsWtoy_OB6Lyk7ykORjt9-9YGfatxtCV1vTEKL7sasgJlf6YJVE0OW2mS3WCilh1_wiH7Fg0QNJmyyyPbeOc8IODEU_lUPoewzWQ71kfpsJwP5gkHvPrUb2u8HMWHOp6XyeRYcI/s1600/cold.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1eC0adsWtoy_OB6Lyk7ykORjt9-9YGfatxtCV1vTEKL7sasgJlf6YJVE0OW2mS3WCilh1_wiH7Fg0QNJmyyyPbeOc8IODEU_lUPoewzWQ71kfpsJwP5gkHvPrUb2u8HMWHOp6XyeRYcI/s1600/cold.png" height="640" width="632" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png">http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png</a>Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-69741467706288664002014-01-22T17:42:00.002+01:002014-01-22T18:25:58.277+01:00The war against science: launching a full scale attack against scientific knowledge<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDnkD6h_4uA5Mp7AnmNerPPp2k8WmLs6VgI3mqe8SPCXfkWJR8OPVQ8ZdOMLsfM3UboU7uiBpPQuKKI0ZxcdjcQSDVLprYV2VcY5LFzP-PEuIA34QL2HkLBBZN5lCCz3XewyWH3Bv9nl0/s1600/Orcs_army_attack-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDnkD6h_4uA5Mp7AnmNerPPp2k8WmLs6VgI3mqe8SPCXfkWJR8OPVQ8ZdOMLsfM3UboU7uiBpPQuKKI0ZxcdjcQSDVLprYV2VcY5LFzP-PEuIA34QL2HkLBBZN5lCCz3XewyWH3Bv9nl0/s1600/Orcs_army_attack-1.jpg" height="292" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_-il2pmvElxICh8N1dKowQYP_r_F_gtrSyckCPywDQplAZw3LUf6yIHpJE_Ql7yrJ6YSHE0z-6e58LtAU4UB4Ax97PMhZ08xqW67CwbUtpJD9oeT6Hb_J20WXp14sSLMIcRdDB5TVRfQ/s1600/heartland-denial.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>The war against science started with attacks against single scientists. Now, it seems to be moving to a full scale attack aiming to destroy the basis of scientific knowledge. It is starting in Canada</i> (image from "<a href="https://valdorian-age-rising-power-on-the-frontier.obsidianportal.com/characters/uruk-hai">Obsidian Portal</a>")</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
By Max Paris, Environment Unit<br />
6 January 2014 <br />
<br />
(CBC News) –
Irreplaceable science research may be lost when Department of Fisheries
and Oceans libraries across the country are closed down, researchers
fear. <br />
<br />
Fisheries and Oceans Canada hopes to close seven of its 11
libraries by 2015. Already, stories have emerged about books and reports
thrown into dumpsters and the general public being allowed to rummage
through bookshelves. <br />
"We actually spent about three days in the
Eric Marshall library boxing up materials," explained Kelly Whelan-Enns
of Manitoba Wildlands, an environmental public research organization.
That library was in the Freshwater Institute, the Fisheries Department's
central and Arctic regional headquarters in Winnipeg. <br />
<br />
Whelan-Enns
described bookshelves in shambles, periodicals strewn across the floor
of the library and maps — old and new— left lying around. <br />
Fisheries
and Oceans Canada told CBC News that all of its copyrighted material
has been digitized and that the rest of its collection will be soon. <br />
"Users
will continue to have completely free access to every item in DFO’s
collections. All materials for which DFO has copyright will be preserved
by the department," Fisheries Minister Gail Shea wrote in a statement
to CBC. <br />
<br />
But that doesn't calm the nerves of some researchers. <br />
<br />
"It's not clear what will be kept and what will be lost," said Jeff Hutchings, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University. <br />
<br />
The
Fisheries Department had 660,000 documents in 11 libraries spread
across the country. The plan was to consolidate its collection in two
main facilities in Dartmouth, N.S., and Sidney, B.C. Two other auxiliary
facilities in Sydney, N.S.,<br />
and Ottawa would house coast guard
documents. <br />
<br />
That meant closing archive facilities such as the Eric
Marshall library, the library at the St. Andrews Biological Station in
New Brunswick and the Maurice Lamontagne Institute's library in
Mont-Joli, Que. <br />
<br />
A Radio-Canada story in June about the Mont-Joli
library showed thousands of volumes of the department's literature in
dumpsters. <br />
<br />
Fisheries and Oceans said the closings and consolidation would save the $443,000 in 2014-15. <br />
<br />
Hutchings said he doesn't know how well the department's plan is going to work. <br />
<br />
"We're
dealing right now with a department that has lost people, resources,
money. It's shutting down facilities. One wonders where they are going
to find the resources to digitize this extraordinary amount of
material," said Hutchings. <br />
<a href="http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/libraries-bibliotheques/FAQ-eng.htm" target="_blank">The department website</a> says 30,000 documents are available online and that "outstanding items will be digitized if requested by users." <br />
<br />
The website also says only duplicate items will be removed from its collection. <br />
It
does add, though, that "in rare instances, materials which fall outside
of the subject disciplines pertinent to the department's mandate" may
be removed. <br />
The Fisheries Act went through a major overhaul in
2012. At the time, critics said it was to get rid of environmental
elements of the act that hindered the government's plans for resource
development and export. [<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fisheries-and-oceans-library-closings-called-loss-to-science-1.2486171" target="_blank">more</a>]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-77253983793987259872014-01-21T12:19:00.004+01:002014-01-21T12:43:50.696+01:00A couple of guys with clear ideas on climate change<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXp5Sb_IB8xFJyueeeeo1dTQzAnMb8uhcacqq9_tqjb-8-291uY_rXiJr8UgE5JN5TF2uxpHPuJP7QtLKLQEb36YueTfLuDzZCBbl_qJheoraXpOMEB5DIr2mwh7_Vcy9fbug28PhE5Ys/s1600/puzzled.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXp5Sb_IB8xFJyueeeeo1dTQzAnMb8uhcacqq9_tqjb-8-291uY_rXiJr8UgE5JN5TF2uxpHPuJP7QtLKLQEb36YueTfLuDzZCBbl_qJheoraXpOMEB5DIr2mwh7_Vcy9fbug28PhE5Ys/s1600/puzzled.gif" height="320" width="149" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/what-the-world-would-look-like-if-all-the-ice-melted-015759322.html">http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/what-the-world-would-look-like-if-all-the-ice-melted-015759322.html</a><br />
<br />
<span class="most-popular active comment-sort int" data-cf="pop" data-query="sortBy=highestRated" data-time="1390302335" tabindex="0"></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Norman 9 days ago<br />
<br />
"CO2 , may be a factor in raising the Earth's temperature but I believe only a minor one. Science itself states that at certain altitudes it acts as a coolant mechanism. I believe that the principal reason for the rise is and has been a gradual decrease in our average distance from the Sun brought about by gravitational interactions between Earth and Jupiter. I further believe that this is a long term pattern which will reverse itself in due course and begin to swing in the opposite direction. Venus may play a part in this because it has the ability to slightly increase the distance of Earth from the Sun under certain conditions and co positions of it and Earth. Man's population will decrease from other natural population inhibiters built into the animal species. To wit, food resources. No animal can survive beyond its food resources."<br />
<br />
<br />
____________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
And this is Lubos Motl (I wouldn't even remotely consider to link here to the source of this text. To find it you can google ""The reference frame" "Schellnhuber" and "master plan" )<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://motls.blogspot.de/2011/03/herr-schellnhuber-has-master-plan.html"></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"It may be a good idea for the German - or other - intelligence services to physically deal with Herr Schellnhuber and his thugs before it's too late. I assure you, Mr Schellnhuber, that if you will try to apply just a fraction of this insane megalomania on the territory of the Czech Republic, we will give you the same treatment as we offered to the Herr who was a de facto leader of the Czech lands until 1942."<br />
<br />
<i>"This Schellnhuber's lookalike, soulmate, and countrymate was serving in the years 1941-1942. Because it turned out that he was trying to help the set of people who would live in the 1000-year empire in the future, rather than the living generations of the Czech lands, our democratically elected government in London (representing the living generations of the Czech lands, rather than hypothetical future generations of the Third Reich) fired this blonde beast in May 1942 - by fireguns. Goodbye, Mr Heydrich.</i>"<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-29759958408770328172014-01-18T12:52:00.001+01:002014-01-18T15:50:27.525+01:00The problem with pattern recognition<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghGuVXXGKzzHlfsI9L0aUqBhjy_fBhpDo0YV2njnruFypUuUFoCljnmyLNjHTbDZRpw0M7uy_452avdLlTCdgNlLqh0mkpFoxnwpZia2UdmsreIDDFIHpkDERtBOTmGRaBEl9QJijIER0/s1600/pattern-recognition-in-physics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghGuVXXGKzzHlfsI9L0aUqBhjy_fBhpDo0YV2njnruFypUuUFoCljnmyLNjHTbDZRpw0M7uy_452avdLlTCdgNlLqh0mkpFoxnwpZia2UdmsreIDDFIHpkDERtBOTmGRaBEl9QJijIER0/s1600/pattern-recognition-in-physics.jpg" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The news is spreading about the shutting down of "Pattern Recognition in Physics" by the publisher, Copernicus. In the <a href="http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/">message announcing the demise of the journal</a>, they say that it was closed, among other things, because of <i>"</i><i> the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis</i>"<br />
<br />
That, however, is just a part of the story and most of it had to do with the denialist stance of the editors on the matter of climate. But the problem with this journal was even deeper. What is exactly to be intended as "pattern recognition in physics"? I mean, when you studied physics, did they teach you about "pattern recognition?" If you are doing research in physics, you detect signals, apply theories, build models and things like that. But when do you do "pattern recognition? It is, at best, the "curve fitting" approach to physics which may be a lot of fun, but if it is not based on a good physical model is just normally an exercise in irrelevance.<br />
<br />
So, the very concept of a physics journal dedicated to pattern recognition, alone, is very doubtful, to say the least. Then, it is no wonder that a (so-called) physics purely based on pattern recognition in physics results arrives in the denial of the physical basis of climate change. <br />
<br />
To understand what's wrong with pattern recognition as intended in this journal, you may look <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/07/16/recognizing-a-pattern-of-problems-in-pattern-recognition-in-physics/">at look to this comment</a>. However, you can find an even better comment on pattern recognition in Shakespeare.<br />
<br />
<br />
Hamlet<i>. Do you see yonder cloud that ’s almost in shape of a camel?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>Polonius<i>. By the mass, and ’t is like a camel, indeed.<br /> </i><br />
Ham.<i> Methinks it is like a weasel.<br /> </i><br />
Pol<i>. It is backed like a weasel.<br /> </i><br />
Ham<i>. Or like a whale?<br /> </i><br />
Pol.<i> Very like a whale. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-23271444016928005672014-01-17T15:50:00.000+01:002014-01-17T15:57:44.627+01:00The unsustainable dullness of common sense<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlnaS6Jsm6EglvvFuQo-_nIk7xH_WSgXK-ZeIhBbQq_riEssN-m7oRsIyA537WIGxagjjKgZhmXyK9K4g2yDvKuyMJ_XTZUPbIn90eCKAbcSPNLN0js3kHYBWuzekokPBdgTiJhEut7xE/s1600/yayQS6eSsp-2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlnaS6Jsm6EglvvFuQo-_nIk7xH_WSgXK-ZeIhBbQq_riEssN-m7oRsIyA537WIGxagjjKgZhmXyK9K4g2yDvKuyMJ_XTZUPbIn90eCKAbcSPNLN0js3kHYBWuzekokPBdgTiJhEut7xE/s1600/yayQS6eSsp-2.png" height="333" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://www.joabbess.com/2014/01/05/curmudgeons-happen/">Jo Abbess</a> correactly aims against the dullness of people who continue repeating the same silly memes about renewable energy and climate change. (<a href="http://drawception.com/viewgame/yayQS6eSsp/don-quixote-tilts-at-wind-turbine/">image above</a>)</i><br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.joabbess.com/2014/01/05/curmudgeons-happen/" title="Permanent Link to Curmudgeons Happen">Curmudgeons Happen</a>
</h2>
<div class="info">
<span class="date">by Jo Abbess</span><span class="comment"><a href="http://www.joabbess.com/2014/01/05/curmudgeons-happen/#comments"></a>
</span>
</div>
<br />
I was talking with people at my friend’s big birthday bash
yesterday. I mentioned I’m writing about Renewable Gas, and this led to a
variety of conversations. Here is a kind of summary of one of the
threads, involving several people. <br />
<br />
Why do people continue to insist that the wind turbine at Reading uses more energy than it generates ?<br />
<br />
Would it still be there if it wasn’t producing power? Does David
Cameron still have a wind turbine on his roof? No. It wasn’t working,
so it was taken down. I would ask – what are their sources of
information? What newspapers and websites do they read?<br />
<br />
They say that the wind turbine at Reading is just there for show.<br />
<br />
Ah. The “Potemkin Village” meme – an idyllic-looking setting, but
everything’s faked. The Chinese painting the desert green, etc.<br />
<br />
And then there are people that say that the only reason wind farms
continue to make money is because they run the turbines inefficiently to
get the subsidies.<br />
<br />
Ah. The “De-rating Machine” meme. You want to compare and contrast.
Look at the amount of money, resources, time and tax breaks being poured
into the UK Continental Shelf, and Shale Gas, by the current
Government. <br />
<br />
Every new technology needs a kick start, a leg up. You need to read
some of the reports on wind power as an asset – for example, the <a href="http://www.offshorevaluation.org/">Offshore Valuation</a>
– showing a Net Present Value. After it’s all deployed, even with the
costs of re-powering at the end of turbine life, offshore North Sea wind
power will be a genuine asset.<br />
<br />
What I don’t understand is, why do people continue to complain that
wind turbines spoil the view? Look at the arguments about the Jurassic
Coast in Dorset.<br />
<br />
I have contacts there who forward me emails about the disputes. The
yachtsmen of Poole are in open rebellion because the wind turbines will
be set in in their channels ! The tourists will still come though, and
that’s what really counts. People in Dorset just appear to love arguing,
and you’ve got some people doing good impressions of curmudgeons at the
head of the branches of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural
England (CPRE) and English Heritage.<br />
<br />
There are so many people who resist renewable energy, and refuse to
accept we need to act on climate change. Why do they need to be so
contrarian? I meet them all the time.<br />
<br />
People don’t like change, but change happens. The majority of people
accept that climate change is significant enough to act on, and the
majority of people want renewable energy. It may not seem like that
though. It depends on who you talk with. There’s a small number of
people who vocalise scepticism and who have a disproportionate effect. I
expect you are talking about people who are aged 55 and above?<br />
<br />
Example : “Climate Change ? Haw haw haw!” and “Wind turbines? They
don’t work!” This is a cohort problem. All the nasty white racists are
dying and being buried with respect by black undertakers. All the rabid
xenophobes are in nursing homes being cared for in dignity by
“foreigners”. Pretty soon Nigel Lawson could suffer from vascular
dementia and be unable to appear on television. <br />
<br />
<i>Continue reading on <a href="http://www.joabbess.com/2014/01/05/curmudgeons-happen/">Jo Abbess's blog</a> </i>Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-8864871934000462822014-01-12T20:36:00.001+01:002014-01-12T20:37:22.162+01:00Problems with communication<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-HgCTlCsXnOVqwySbOqc-M0qeQ2NjLDtQ4SHJOW00D3YOJN5GL6SjfzLYlUX58pshAfEkV1NZ1ZUdhZh2YPETE-Dc1BrvVonFxF2vjJy0wY4oJ9ZeYcQc3ANXw7IVBBYdMojudftVdt4/s1600/2011-10-07-neutrino.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-HgCTlCsXnOVqwySbOqc-M0qeQ2NjLDtQ4SHJOW00D3YOJN5GL6SjfzLYlUX58pshAfEkV1NZ1ZUdhZh2YPETE-Dc1BrvVonFxF2vjJy0wY4oJ9ZeYcQc3ANXw7IVBBYdMojudftVdt4/s1600/2011-10-07-neutrino.jpg" height="282" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">It was what Luntz heard from the American people that scared him. They
were contentious and argumentative. They didn't listen to each other as
they once had. They weren't interested in hearing other points of view.
They were divided one against the other, black vs. white, men vs. women,
young vs. old, rich vs. poor. "They want to impose their opinions
rather than express them," is the way he describes what he saw. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">From "<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-agony-of-frank-luntz/282766/">The Agony of Frank Luntz</a>" by Molly Ball on "The Atlantic</span>" </span>Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-22130318550050109582014-01-09T20:00:00.002+01:002014-01-09T20:00:44.077+01:00From the other side of the polar vortex<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_gcCorbZ6Mw" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
While everyone in the US is freezing, here in Italy we are still waiting for winter to arrive. I am seeing mosquitoes flying in my house - never seen mosquitoes in Florence in January in all my life. Today it was a 15 degrees C (almost 60 F). Italy is not Nebraska, but in January we were supposed to have snow, once! Instead, it was raining; almost tropical weather. I was expecting to see a T-Rex walking in the garden, in turn transformed into a Jurassic swamp.<br />
<br />
It reminds to me the movie "The Secret of the Wings" - maybe you have seen it (OK, it is not for adults, but I loved it). It tells the story of a world sharply divided in two parts: in one it is always winter, in the other it is always spring. It seems that we are seeing something similar in the real word: the Polar Vortex has sharply divided Europe in two: a Winter World and a Spring World - you see below how we are standing in Europe (from <a href="http://www.meteogiuliacci.it/articoli/qualche-giorno-con-l-anticiclone-sub-tropicale-poi-si-aprira-la-partita-tra-le-correnti-atlantiche-ed-il-gelo-dell-est-europeo-ecco-chi-la-spuntera.html">MeteoGiuliacci</a>):<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZzLCUG1-GWI_cfSaOtMLMF0aWaamrh_pCIA0p7whgxnqMB5tvyLmDaQ5s2Ws119jHDk0elzYUFrCQaSVFaRh6KUcqld8aLcwikSoeDcvkw_ae-FPr4KOv1sQqtCx8ITj14moF2syRq_I/s1600/s9g.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZzLCUG1-GWI_cfSaOtMLMF0aWaamrh_pCIA0p7whgxnqMB5tvyLmDaQ5s2Ws119jHDk0elzYUFrCQaSVFaRh6KUcqld8aLcwikSoeDcvkw_ae-FPr4KOv1sQqtCx8ITj14moF2syRq_I/s1600/s9g.jpg" height="400" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
They say that next week everything should change and that temperatures should drop of even 15 deg. C. It really looks like a fantasy movie.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-35254230612608805562014-01-02T19:35:00.001+01:002014-01-05T11:12:11.274+01:00The climate debate: what we have been doing wrong and how to do better<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9cDTbTsBeRrMxJUIqMIPXYX48GSvSEtGU_x6NE3_sUzJeXUopfxvi3col1CIVuPKRZDrblJ46sKKbzZcqHOwXhvNjUYktBblzUIOArzA0rJP-FwQsxgPImqfhkkc-NhvVdVBbEhZVWCA/s1600/tumblr_mud2q6RYo91r8kiyko1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9cDTbTsBeRrMxJUIqMIPXYX48GSvSEtGU_x6NE3_sUzJeXUopfxvi3col1CIVuPKRZDrblJ46sKKbzZcqHOwXhvNjUYktBblzUIOArzA0rJP-FwQsxgPImqfhkkc-NhvVdVBbEhZVWCA/s400/tumblr_mud2q6RYo91r8kiyko1_500.jpg" width="400" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/63479265595/just-as-frankensteins-monster-is-erroneously">(image source)</a></span></div>
<a href="http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/63479265595/just-as-frankensteins-monster-is-erroneously"><br /></a>
<i>The <a href="http://thefrogthatjumpedout.blogspot.it/">frog that jumped out</a> blog went on line less than one year ago. With the new year, I thought a little rant of mine could be in order. I started it listing all what I thought we have been doing wrong in communication the climate problem but, as I went on, I found that there were also more positive things that I could say. So, the final result is a something that tries to suggest some positive strategy for communication on the basis of network theory and some other observations. Probably, this text wants to say too many things in too little space but, now that I wrote it, maybe you'll find a moment to give a look to it and tell me what you think of it.</i><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<br />
<b></b>
<br />
Perhaps you had one of those nightmares where you are chased by a monster. You desperately try to run away, but you find that your feet are glued to the ground. With climate change, it is something like that. You almost feel the breath of the climate monster on the back of your neck, but you can't move. Nothing is moving. Whatever we do to try to convince people of the danger ahead is just like the proverbial water off the duck's back. It doesn't stick. <br />
<br />
But why are we in this situation? After all, we have a strong case: look, we have data, we have models, we have the scientific community compact behind the idea of human caused climate change and about what's to be done to stop it. So, we stated our case, we tried to do our best to explain how things stand. Then, we expected someone to do something. But no. Nothing has happened, nothing happens.<br />
<br />
We redoubled our efforts. We read the book titled "<a href="http://www.dontbesuchascientist.com/">Don't be such a scientist.</a>" We set up blogs, we wrote on facebook and on twitter, we gave interviews. We tried to be clear, pleaising, entertaining, we tried to bring solutions, not problems. We followed the advice that says "more than all, never scare anyone!" But it didn't work and, by now, it is clear that it won't work. We are reduced to wait for the next environmental disaster that we hope will finally wake up people from their torpor. But we have had already enough environmental disasters and people are not taking notice. So, are we bound to to lose this battle? There follows some thoughts of mine on this matter. <br />
<br />
<br />
<i>1. </i><b>So, what have we been doing wrong?</b><br />
<br />
<i>We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and ye did not mourn. Matthew 11:17</i><b> </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_189869106" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwJ1lgEpvSx-HLbBu63ijAynk03UET2oh-E33-wus3kiUan5U3LoPoduXVEfNCycUa2SgCR7DFzbfNdYHuiDUMy4DigDDtmFA74_IcU5se10TwOWgEdZYLrYpFANtLP5EpNgY6mYyHFP4/s200/networks1.jpg" width="200" /></a>This blog, "The frog that jumped out," has been useful for me to focus on the issue of communicating climate science. So, I think I have some ideas on what exactly we did wrong and the answer can probably be found in a mix of human psychology and the field of science called "Network Theory." It has to do with the human tendency of forming tribes, structures that in network theory are called "small worlds". You can see the structure of a small world network in the figure - it is structured as clusters of nodes strongly linked with each other within the cluster, but weakly linked on the outside (image from "<a href="http://www.researchtoaction.org/2013/01/our-top-10-most-popular-resources/">researchtoaction</a>")<br />
<br />
That the web is structured in this way has been proven. That this is a
property of not just the Web, it is clear for everyone to see. The
social world around us is a network of small worlds/tribes - some are political, some
are religious, some are cultural, some are dedicated to sports, some are just made of friends, and there are many more. It works this
way; after all, we are a tribal species: everyone of us is embedded in at least one small world network. You may
also belong to different ones on different "planes" of your cultural
existence; say, one for your professional network, one for your
political activity, one for your hobbies and more. Then, if society is built like a network of small worlds, it means that most of the ongoing communication occurs <i>inside</i> small worlds. Not that there are no contacts between small worlds, but they are less numerous and weaker. <br />
<br />
The point is that the unit of
information processing and dissemination in the social sphere is the
tribe, not the individual. these small words/tribes are tremendously resilient. They are not formally exclusive, you don't need a badge and an ID to belong to your social network tribe. It is nevertheless clear whether you belong or you don't. If you belong, you have to know the background, the formally and informally accepted ideas, you have to know the jargon and use it properly. This set of commonly accepted ideas makes the group resistant to change.<br />
<br />
This is an oversimplification, perhaps, but I have been interacting with some especially weird tribes, such as the "chemtrails" tribe; that is those who believe that the world's governments are engaged in an evil plot to poison us by spreading poisons in the sky and doing that in the form of white trails ("chemtrails") left by planes. Now, how can anyone possibly believe in <i>that</i>? And yet, the tribal identification of believers is so strong that they form a close knit community which react aggressively to every attempt to make the members reason on the absurdity of their beliefs (you don't believe me? Try yourself and then you'll tell me). You see that identification mechanism at work in the comments of the blogs promoting the chemtrails idea - it is a sort of "chorus." The whole as a primeval flavor; something that reminds the behavior of creatures running in packs and howling at the full moon.<br />
<br />
The chemtrails example is extreme, but illustrates the mechanism. You see the same phenomenon, for instance, in the comments of the anti-science blog "What's Up with That?" kept by Anthony Watts. You see how members of Watt's tribe reinforce each other's beliefs by using similar language and themes. To be a member you have to repeat the commonly held memes ("there has been no warming during the past 15 years") and attack climate scientists ("Micheal Mann is an enemy of mankind"). The resistance of tribes to new information and is truly amazing.<br />
<br />
The problem is that there is almost no way to crack the belief system of a small tribe from outside. Targeting individuals doesn't work: that person will simply compare your statements to those of his/her tribe and conclude that yours have no weight. You may say, "but this is what science says" and the likely answer will be "so what?" If you insist, the
reaction may be aggressive ("scientists have been cheating the public in order to get fat research grants"). Not even major climate linked disasters, from Katrina to Hayan, can budge the tribe from its beloved feelings. <br />
<br />
Of course, the structure of the Web is nuanced and complex and only a minority of small worlds are actively hostile to science. Most are simply indifferent and won't, in themselves, generate a strong counter-reaction to the climate change meme. Repeating the basic climate concepts over and over would probably create a foothold in these neutral worlds. The problem is that the effort is countered by the equal and opposite activity of hostile tribes. They have been effective in positioning themselves as a legitimate opinion. They have done so by being highly active and visible on the Web. One of their weapons that of aggressively trolling in the comments of scientific sites. A few anti-science trolls can completely hijack any scientific discussion and transform it into a brawl. The big, big problem is that <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/40.full#ref-10">it has been found</a> that the opinion of initially neutral people can be strongly influenced by negative anti-scientific comments. <br />
<br />
It is here that we have been doing our crucial mistake as promoters of the idea that we should do something to stop climate change. <span style="font-weight: normal;">We tend to deal with
anti-science trolls as if they were people who honestly want to know about science.
They may disguise themselves in that way, initially, but their purpose is a different one: they just want to hijack the debate and turn it into a
fight. They know very well that this is a very effective tactic to affect the opinion of neutral people and we have been falling into the trap over and over - picking up useless fights that served only to give visibility to people who didn't deserve it. </span>The final result is the stalemate we are observing. We are not succeeding in affecting the majority of people and, as a result, nothing is being done about climate. We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and ye did not mourn.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>2. The way to do better. </b><br />
<br />
<div class="quoteText">
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;">If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. (Sun Tzu)</span></i></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="quoteText">
</div>
<div class="quoteText">
</div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">If we look at past debates, we see that there is a winning strategy for science. It is to isolate the anti-science tribes and make it clear that they are minority social areas whose opinions are held by people who have no scientific credentials. Think of the battle on the health effects of smoking, or of the battle about seat belts in cars or about drunk driving. These concepts had opponents, but the battles were won by isolating them and making clear that their non-mainstream opinions (e.g. that there is no danger with driving while drunk or without seat belts) are dangerous fringe opinions which have no scientific basis and should have no equal space in the debate about driving safety. Only in this way, it was possible to obtain effective seat belt laws and to stop drunk driving. Many people were not especially happy about that, but they accepted the mainstream opinion. </span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">So, our objective in the climate debate is clear: we have to isolate the anti-science tribes and make it clear that their positions on climate, for instance that there is no danger from global warming, are fringe opinions with no scientific basis. Furthermore, these opinions are dangerous and should have no "equal space" in the debate about how to keep the Earth's climate safe for humans. If we can achieve that, then we can gradually penetrate the neutral small worlds and attain something. It is the strategy to get something done. </span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Then, strategy needs tactics to be put into practice. And the basic tactics in communication is always the same: <i>know your target</i>. You must understand whom you are speaking to and tailor your message to them. Otherwise, it is lost time - actually it is worse than that: you achieve the opposite than what you want to achieve. So, we need to consider that, in the vast universe of the Web, we are talking to three kinds of people, each embedded in their small worlds: sympathetic, neutral, and hostile. The ways to deal with them are different.</span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">- Speaking to people who are already sympathetic to science poses no problems. We are talking the same language - we understand each other. We are a small world, after all, although we are a scientific small world. </span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">- Speaking to neutral people is where you can use the advice that you can read, for instance, in books like "Don't be such a scientist." You have to be </span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">competent, you have to be </span>clear, you have to be honest. If you do that, you don't have to follow particular rules in your job of informing people. For instance, you may have heard that you shouldn't scare people. It is true, but it doesn't mean you should sugar the pill so much that you turn yourself into a Ronald McDonald of climate. The best way, I think, is to be honest about what you are talking about and if you see serious danger ahead, you should say that. Most people, out there, are decent people who can appreciate honest talk. It takes time, you have to keep at that, but eventually it works.</span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">- Speaking to people who belong to hostile tribes, well, it is simple: you don't! Our objective is to isolate them, denying them visibility, and we are learning how to do that. For instance Gavin Schmidt - climate scientists - recently refused to have a TV debate with a hostile opponent saying "</span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><i>Television is performance art, not scientific debate. We shouldn't confuse the two</i>." Well said! That, of course, generated loud accusations against him of being a "coward". Sure, sure.... they can howl at the moon as much as they like - but they know very well that they were beaten. Schmidt perfectly understood that it would have been a mistake to give to his opponent the chance of appearing as if he were on an equal scientific footing and to have a wide exposure with that. And, recently, the <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/">Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers</a>. You see? We are learning to know our enemy! And if we know our enemy (and ourselves) we can win this battle.</span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><b>3. Conclusion</b></span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<i><span class="text 1Cor-13-2" id="en-ASV-28668">And if I have the gift of
prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all
faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. Paul,</span> Corinthians 13:2</i><br />
<br />
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">The battle on climate is turning out
to be the ultimate battle for humankind - if we lose it, we lose
everything. You don't have to be a scientist or an expert to fight it, but if you have the right frame of mind it is your duty to fight. It is a
tremendously difficult battle, but not an unwinnable one. But don't forget also another thing: science is not everything. The reason you fight is not just because you know that you are scientifically correct. A medical doctor is a good doctor not just because she knows the science of medicine, she is a good doctor because she cares about her patients. The same is for you. You are fighting the climate battle not just because you know the science of climate. It is because you care about the life of your friends, your family, your children, all of humankind and everything which is alive on this planet. This is the only way to win. </span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;">This said, sorry for this rather long rant of mine. But, if you arrived all the way to here, I hope you might have found some useful suggestions in it. </span></i></div>
<div class="quoteText">
</div>
<div class="quoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="quoteText">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-9391501252909686492013-12-30T22:34:00.003+01:002013-12-30T22:34:59.490+01:00Robots pass the Turing test: they'll debate climate change for us<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/files/48403/147722422_4b36ce3c06_m.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="400" src="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/files/48403/147722422_4b36ce3c06_m.jpeg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>Given the level of the debate on climate change in the comments of blogs and on twitter, I am not surprised that robots can easily pass the Turing test in there. A 2010 report, reproduced below, tells of a pro-science chatbot, but I am sure that there are anti-science chatbots as well. Isn't it nice? So much hassle avoided! In the end, I hope they'll come back telling us who won. Wouldn't it be a good idea also to have drones fight wars among themselves for us?</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<header class="article-meta"><h2>
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/na82hf9">Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense </a></h2>
<div class="intro">
By C. Mims - from the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/na82hf9">MIT technology review</a> </div>
<div class="intro">
<br /></div>
<div class="intro">
<b>When he tired of arguing with climate change skeptics, one programmer wrote a chatbot to do it for him. </b></div>
<b>
</b></header><b>
</b><br />
<div class="sidebar right">
<br />
<aside class="ad-right">
<div class="dfp-tag-wrapper" id="dfp-ad-tr_www_body_rail_right_top_portrait-wrapper">
<div class="dfp-tag-wrapper" id="dfp-ad-tr_www_body_rail_right_top_portrait">
</div>
</div>
</aside>
</div>
<b>
</b><br />
<div class="blogfloatimg">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><div>
</div>
<br />
<a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genewolf/147722422/" target="_blank"></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Nigel Leck, a software developer by day, was tired of arguing with
anti-science crackpots on Twitter. So, like any good programmer, he
wrote a script to do it for him.<br />
<br />
The result is the Twitter chatbot <a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://twitter.com/ai_agw" target="_blank">@AI_AGW</a>.
Its operation is fairly simple: Every five minutes, it searches twitter
for several hundred set phrases that tend to correspond to any of the <a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php" target="_blank">usual tired arguments</a> about how global warming isn’t happening or humans aren’t responsible for it.<br />
It then spits back at the twitterer who made that argument a canned
response culled from a database of hundreds. The responses are matched
to the argument in question – tweets about how Neptune is warming just
like the earth, for example, are met with the <a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune.htm" target="_blank">appropriate links to scientific sources</a> explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun.<br />
<br />
The database began as a simple collection of responses written by
Leck himself, but these days quite a few of the rejoinders are culled
from a university source whom Leck says he isn’t at liberty to divulge.<br />
<br />
Like other chatbots, lots of people on the receiving end of its
tweets have no idea they’re not conversing with a real human being. Some
of them have arguments with the chatbot spanning dozens of tweets and
many days, says Leck. That’s in part because AI_AGW is smart enough to
run through a list of different canned responses when an interlocutor
continues to throw the same arguments at it. Leck has even programmed it
to debate such esoteric topics as religion - which is where the debates
humans have with the bot often wind up. <br />
<br />
“If [the chatbot] actually argues them into a corner, it tends to be
two crowds out there,” says Leck. “There’s the guns and God crowd, and
their parting shot will be ‘God created it that way’ or something like
that. I don’t know how you answer that.”<br />
<br />
The second crowd, Leck says, are skeptics so unyielding they won’t be swayed by any amount of argumentation.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, the chatbot turns up a false positive - for example, it
has a complete inability to detect sarcasm. This proved to be a problem
when a record heat wave hit L.A. last summer, causing innumerable
tweets of the form “It’s 113 degrees outside - good thing global
warming’s a myth!”<br />
Leck always apologizes when AI_AGW answers someone who isn’t actually
arguing about the science of climate change and then subsequently
whitelists his or her account. The bot also has a kind of learning
algorithm in it in that can be trained not to respond to phrases that
cause false positives.<br />
In the future, Leck would like to expand AI_AGW by giving it the
ability to learn new arguments from the twitter feeds of others who
debate climate skeptics - allowing it to argue into the ground an ever
expanding array of anti-science tweeters who are unwilling or unable to
look up the proper scientific literature themselves.<br />
<br />
In a way, what Leck has created is a pro-active search engine: it
answers twitter users who aren’t even aware of their own ignorance.<br />
<br />
Update: some guy on Hacker News sums it up <a data-ls-clicked="1" data-ls-seen="1" href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867229" target="_blank">better than I ever could</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-6595995675107491732013-12-24T18:31:00.001+01:002013-12-24T19:20:07.125+01:00Santa sells all his coal assets!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy8QbkTAXOF-vrpFw3fFrqz9zAB3jRSw3wF7koY6WjkPpysB8Cz6RnuML9qZY2tBtG6dNtMKBffJqoCfayx8s5qWAIY5UnkvUa6lgDyu4w2leZhyphenhyphen1zZieJZBp2LOzwSBzUYsSiYm2WBf8/s1600/3_2013Toon50.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy8QbkTAXOF-vrpFw3fFrqz9zAB3jRSw3wF7koY6WjkPpysB8Cz6RnuML9qZY2tBtG6dNtMKBffJqoCfayx8s5qWAIY5UnkvUa6lgDyu4w2leZhyphenhyphen1zZieJZBp2LOzwSBzUYsSiYm2WBf8/s400/3_2013Toon50.jpg" width="307" /></a></div>
<br />
Happy Christmas to all the frogs who are trying to jump out of the boiling water before it is too late (and convincing all the other frogs, too!)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079934161985715000.post-72002998361969798272013-12-20T17:15:00.000+01:002013-12-20T17:17:13.044+01:00Climate change communication: why do we keep making the same mistakes?<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TztVEtRnGMk" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
We should know, by now, that what we have been doing in climate communication just doesn't work; we aren't getting anywhere. We need to think of something new, more effective.<br />
<br />
Here, Joe Brewer, research director for <a href="http://www.culture2inc.com/">Culture2 Inc</a>., does just that, presenting some ideas based on the concept of "meme". The task we face is not going to be easy, but if don't try new methods, we are not going to succeed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ugo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.com1