[p2p-research] Tick, tock, tick, tock? BING

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Tomas Rawlings wrote:
>   "Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society" by Freeman Dyson
>  http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
> "I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated."
> -
> 
> There is a whole swath of denialism posited by Dyson - and all of it 
> (plus other links cited) falls into the creationist 'god of the gaps' 
> argument that goes something like; there are areas of uncertainty in 
> climate science and it's methods/conclusions, therefore they don't know 
> it all, therefore my argument is correct by default.  I've never seen 
> any convincing science (not opinion) that shows that the threat is 
> overestimated.  What is to say the the uncertainty means it is 
> underestimated?  As the research progresses and we find out that carbon 
> sinks are loosing their effectiveness and the impacts are happening 
> faster that anticipated, if anything it looks like it is going to be 
> worse than predicted.

I feel that both you and Ryan miss Freeman Dyson's deeper point.

Global climate change is a slow motion issue. There are many things we can 
spend money on right now that will benefit the world far more in the near 
term (as well as the long term) than reducing CO2 emissions (like investing 
in nanotech research or educational computing or nuclear disarmament or 
getting everyone a basic income or thinking through the implications of 
advanced robotics and AI). And renewables are on track through exponential 
growth anyway for several reasons to replace most fossil fuels in two or 
there decades anyway. And no politically plausible plan to cut emissions is 
anywhere like what we would need to make a serious dent in CO2 anyway; they 
are changes in the rate of annual increase, not the annual increase itself. 
So, I think Freeman Dyson is right that a lot of this is theater and 
misplaced priorities and is all a distraction in that sense.

Yes, climate  change is happening for all sorts of reasons (and it has in 
the past, too), but we have more important issues to worry about as a 
society -- even things as basic as treating vitamin D deficiency or curing 
malaria.

That said, I'm all for a US$500 per barrel equivalent tax on all fossil 
fuels. :-) With the money to be redistributed as a basic income. There are 
also many health issues of burning fossil fuels, like mercury pollution from 
burning coal, that for decades have been pressing reasons to abandon them. A 
"sin" tax to address externalities is much better than "cap and trade".

Similar ideas are suggested here by a prominent climate scientist, 
advocating a tax:
"Top NASA Climate Scientist: Copenhagen Must Fail" 
http://www.ecofactory.com/news/top-nasa-climate-scientist-copenhagen-must-fail-120309

Also, Dyson has, before "Climategate" correctly pointed out how the 
scientific process has become corrupt in this area -- although one may 
extend that to almost all of science (as David Goodstein suggests). What 
Dyson was focused on was not "denialism" so much as the failure of science 
as a social enterprise to work in a fair and aboveboard way. And that links 
in with his longstanding criticism of the PhD system, as well.

So, that's what I think the bigger picture is, and Climategate is just one 
more example. Now, that does not mean the climate is not changing. But how 
people explore that in a scientific society, and also how we prioritize that 
issue relative to other big pressing issues that are being given low 
priority (like millions starving to death or suffering in various ways right 
now), those are big issues that are not on the table for discussion.

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/