The Dragon News - September 15, 2015
I have been absorbed in current events lately, especially the upcoming Canadian Federal Election (October 19, 2015). Along the way, I have gotten a few glimpses of issues that I should deal with in depth at some point. In order not to risk losing them in the helter-skelter of life, I'm making a few notes here.
Climate change seems to be emerging as the ultimate test of human decision making. The UN has convented the IPCC to address the issue which is, at the very least, a serious emerging global problem. At worst, it spells the end of civilization.
It's instructive to look at the climate change issue because it is, at bottom, a matter of actual facts. Physics. The world doesn't care about how we spin it or what we hope will happen. The world is not influenced by political mud wrestling or propaganda. It is what it is.
So how are we doing?
The IPCC has managed to navigate a lot of inherent problems right up to the point where they turn the situation over to the politicians and the general public. In my opinion (assuming we survive at all), the IPCC process will go down as a watershed example of sorting through a mass of information, allowing for (even counting on) the limitations of the human mind to understand reality. Sadly, the IPCC has, so far, not had the impact on politicians or the general public that one might expect. Part of the problem is that politicians, with rare exceptions, have zero background in science. The bedrock assumption of their profession is that it is possible to spin any problem into propaganda supporting their own quest for power. They have a professional allergy to evidence.
The Issue Itself
For the vast majority of humanity, climate change is a "back burner" issue. It has taken decades for a critical mass of concerned scientists to move it to the "front burner", attracting the funding and the warm bodies needed to investigate the issue thoroughly. Climate change is now respectable and is mentioned in almost every article you read on weather and climate. It's very similar to the way that the impact of human activity on the viability of species became a mandatory mention in virtually all nature films made after the publication of "Silent Spring". In passing, it should be remarked that environmental destruction has proceeded unchecked since that time, even though there is a lot of "politically correct" hand wringing and remorse over it.
Most of us would agree that of course climate change should be the #1 issue on everyone's mind. But is that right? What happened to nuclear disarmament? What happened to the UN and its goals of ending aggressive wars and world poverty? What about pollution? What about massive extinctions and habitat destruction? Climate change is not the only issue that threatens to "do us in". Sitting back, it's amazing that it's getting the attention it's getting. We need to forgive others if it's not the issue constantly on everyone's minds.
Data points
There are thousands of different types of data to be considered. Which are important? Tree rings? Satellite images? Ice cap thickness? Selection of what's important is perhaps the most crucial step in the process. Climate change deniers often attack at this point, "cherry picking" certain types of data that seem to contradict the conclusions drawn from data that experts believe to be most reliable and relevant.
Error Bars
Science is about measurement. The first thing you learn as a budding scientist is that all measurements have built-in error. Errors like this "float up" into theories about what is happening now and what will happen next. The whole science of climate change floats in a sea of irreducible, inevitable uncertainty. While scientists are comfortable with uncertainty, the general public is not. In fact, deniers can sweep the entire issue under the carpet because climate change is not "certain". There is no need to hit the breaks until we have certainly left the road and are visibly sailing over the cliff. Uncertainty about the connection between smoking and lung cancer was the backbone of the campaign to keep the world smoking.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty but we live every minute of every day pretending that we are surrounded by certainty. Some "facts" are more certain than others. Some are more relevant than others. Life is always about taking action before all the "facts are in".
Conclusions and Theories
Rising global average temperatures, the man-made influence and rising sea levels are all second or third level theories based on facts and a process of (more or less) reasonable analysis. Not everyone agrees on what the facts "mean". By selecting particular facts and deciding which are relevant and which are most reliable, we arrive at different pictures of what is going on now and what will happen next. The IPCC attempts to deal with this by characterizing "facts" along a "doubtful to certain" spectrum and allowing disagreement about conclusions. All of this is presented using some ground-breaking graphical techniques which will go totally over the heads of the general public who seldom see anything but trivial graphics and don't understand the graphics they do see. Such graphics try to convey the "big picture" in spite of all the uncertainties. The general public (and even the scientific community) is spectacularly ignorant of statistics beyond the idea of an "average".
In my opinion, this is where the general public gets off and politics kicks in.
Impact
Given that, for example, we will see a 1 m rise in sea level by 2100, what would be the impact of that? There is lots of room for disagreement here, but it's not totally a matter of opinion. The same goes for things like average temperatures in certain regions rising beyond what rice or corn can tolerate or ecosystems vanishing, along with the species that depend on them, as temperatures rise or climate changes in some other way (such as drying).
From what I have seen of the discussions among the general public, there is general ignorance of predicted impact. The talk is all about "2 degrees". The IPCC has devoted a great deal of energy to detailed predictions of impact, especially on agriculture, but these are not part of the general discussion.
Enter the Dragon
Dragons "assimilate" people. Things that humans do all the time, like making judgments, listening to each other, weighing the facts, are pushed into the background as the assimilated humans "get with the program" and learn the "talking points". Seamless assimilation demands homogeneity of opinion on a wide range of issues that bear no obvious relationship to each other. For example, if you "are" a Republican, you will likely be against abortion, against the nuclear deal with Iran and skeptical on climate change. You will believe that the "middle class" is under attack on all sides by godless communists. Virtually all Republican candidates for the US Presidency are climate change skeptics or outright deniers. In passing, I note that many of them are un-assimilated Catholics. When forced to chose between the clearly articulated call to action from the Pope versus Republican dogma, they chose Republicanism and their own slim hope of political advancement.
Political leaders who acknowledge the problem but don't want to "get ahead" of the public. That would involve acknowledging the urgent need for radical and painful adjustments, including "downgrading" lifestyle and massive job losses in the fossil fuel industry and related industries. Obama and Harper offer the same talking points about the need for action on climate change but, in fact, support what the IPCC calls the "business as usual" scenario. According to the best evidence we have, "business as usual" is the royal road to doom. Based on Canada's track record, even commitment to "business as usual" is unlikely. On the international scale, real action on climate change will be "business as usual" at best. Massive new investments in fossil fuel projects are being backed by governments all over the world. While reason would dictate that we leave all remaining fossil fuel in the ground, the fact is we are on track to burn it all, find more and burn that until there is no more left.
So it's the dragons, not the scientists or the informed general public, who will determine our reaction to the problem.
I'm tempted to throw up my hands and give up at this point, but immersion in the Canadian election has given me a glimmer insight as to how all this might be turned around. Call it "Evidence based public policy". Is such a thing possible? We'll see.
Climate change seems to be emerging as the ultimate test of human decision making. The UN has convented the IPCC to address the issue which is, at the very least, a serious emerging global problem. At worst, it spells the end of civilization.
It's instructive to look at the climate change issue because it is, at bottom, a matter of actual facts. Physics. The world doesn't care about how we spin it or what we hope will happen. The world is not influenced by political mud wrestling or propaganda. It is what it is.
So how are we doing?
The IPCC has managed to navigate a lot of inherent problems right up to the point where they turn the situation over to the politicians and the general public. In my opinion (assuming we survive at all), the IPCC process will go down as a watershed example of sorting through a mass of information, allowing for (even counting on) the limitations of the human mind to understand reality. Sadly, the IPCC has, so far, not had the impact on politicians or the general public that one might expect. Part of the problem is that politicians, with rare exceptions, have zero background in science. The bedrock assumption of their profession is that it is possible to spin any problem into propaganda supporting their own quest for power. They have a professional allergy to evidence.
The Issue Itself
For the vast majority of humanity, climate change is a "back burner" issue. It has taken decades for a critical mass of concerned scientists to move it to the "front burner", attracting the funding and the warm bodies needed to investigate the issue thoroughly. Climate change is now respectable and is mentioned in almost every article you read on weather and climate. It's very similar to the way that the impact of human activity on the viability of species became a mandatory mention in virtually all nature films made after the publication of "Silent Spring". In passing, it should be remarked that environmental destruction has proceeded unchecked since that time, even though there is a lot of "politically correct" hand wringing and remorse over it.
Most of us would agree that of course climate change should be the #1 issue on everyone's mind. But is that right? What happened to nuclear disarmament? What happened to the UN and its goals of ending aggressive wars and world poverty? What about pollution? What about massive extinctions and habitat destruction? Climate change is not the only issue that threatens to "do us in". Sitting back, it's amazing that it's getting the attention it's getting. We need to forgive others if it's not the issue constantly on everyone's minds.
Data points
There are thousands of different types of data to be considered. Which are important? Tree rings? Satellite images? Ice cap thickness? Selection of what's important is perhaps the most crucial step in the process. Climate change deniers often attack at this point, "cherry picking" certain types of data that seem to contradict the conclusions drawn from data that experts believe to be most reliable and relevant.
Error Bars
Science is about measurement. The first thing you learn as a budding scientist is that all measurements have built-in error. Errors like this "float up" into theories about what is happening now and what will happen next. The whole science of climate change floats in a sea of irreducible, inevitable uncertainty. While scientists are comfortable with uncertainty, the general public is not. In fact, deniers can sweep the entire issue under the carpet because climate change is not "certain". There is no need to hit the breaks until we have certainly left the road and are visibly sailing over the cliff. Uncertainty about the connection between smoking and lung cancer was the backbone of the campaign to keep the world smoking.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty but we live every minute of every day pretending that we are surrounded by certainty. Some "facts" are more certain than others. Some are more relevant than others. Life is always about taking action before all the "facts are in".
Conclusions and Theories
Rising global average temperatures, the man-made influence and rising sea levels are all second or third level theories based on facts and a process of (more or less) reasonable analysis. Not everyone agrees on what the facts "mean". By selecting particular facts and deciding which are relevant and which are most reliable, we arrive at different pictures of what is going on now and what will happen next. The IPCC attempts to deal with this by characterizing "facts" along a "doubtful to certain" spectrum and allowing disagreement about conclusions. All of this is presented using some ground-breaking graphical techniques which will go totally over the heads of the general public who seldom see anything but trivial graphics and don't understand the graphics they do see. Such graphics try to convey the "big picture" in spite of all the uncertainties. The general public (and even the scientific community) is spectacularly ignorant of statistics beyond the idea of an "average".
In my opinion, this is where the general public gets off and politics kicks in.
Impact
Given that, for example, we will see a 1 m rise in sea level by 2100, what would be the impact of that? There is lots of room for disagreement here, but it's not totally a matter of opinion. The same goes for things like average temperatures in certain regions rising beyond what rice or corn can tolerate or ecosystems vanishing, along with the species that depend on them, as temperatures rise or climate changes in some other way (such as drying).
From what I have seen of the discussions among the general public, there is general ignorance of predicted impact. The talk is all about "2 degrees". The IPCC has devoted a great deal of energy to detailed predictions of impact, especially on agriculture, but these are not part of the general discussion.
Enter the Dragon
Dragons "assimilate" people. Things that humans do all the time, like making judgments, listening to each other, weighing the facts, are pushed into the background as the assimilated humans "get with the program" and learn the "talking points". Seamless assimilation demands homogeneity of opinion on a wide range of issues that bear no obvious relationship to each other. For example, if you "are" a Republican, you will likely be against abortion, against the nuclear deal with Iran and skeptical on climate change. You will believe that the "middle class" is under attack on all sides by godless communists. Virtually all Republican candidates for the US Presidency are climate change skeptics or outright deniers. In passing, I note that many of them are un-assimilated Catholics. When forced to chose between the clearly articulated call to action from the Pope versus Republican dogma, they chose Republicanism and their own slim hope of political advancement.
Political leaders who acknowledge the problem but don't want to "get ahead" of the public. That would involve acknowledging the urgent need for radical and painful adjustments, including "downgrading" lifestyle and massive job losses in the fossil fuel industry and related industries. Obama and Harper offer the same talking points about the need for action on climate change but, in fact, support what the IPCC calls the "business as usual" scenario. According to the best evidence we have, "business as usual" is the royal road to doom. Based on Canada's track record, even commitment to "business as usual" is unlikely. On the international scale, real action on climate change will be "business as usual" at best. Massive new investments in fossil fuel projects are being backed by governments all over the world. While reason would dictate that we leave all remaining fossil fuel in the ground, the fact is we are on track to burn it all, find more and burn that until there is no more left.
So it's the dragons, not the scientists or the informed general public, who will determine our reaction to the problem.
I'm tempted to throw up my hands and give up at this point, but immersion in the Canadian election has given me a glimmer insight as to how all this might be turned around. Call it "Evidence based public policy". Is such a thing possible? We'll see.
Comments
Post a Comment