nice post, it reminded me generally of heuristics, and this paper, "Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting the Judgement of Global Risks"

(PDF) http://www.singinst.org/upload/cognitive-biases.pdf

personally i've got no idea either about this, i'm just dealing with it on a personal level

Chris Mooney asks some of the right questions in today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR200903...

"Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic, how to recognize the real conclusions of science and how to distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation?"

and finishes with:

"Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists -- following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence. That, in the end, is all that good science really is. It's also what good journalism and commentary alike must strive to be -- now more than ever."

he also found a strong negative correlation between intelligence and the ability to consider other alternatives.

That is something that I am realy good at for a large number technical and other systems.
And I have done enough usefull stuff to prove that I got a reasonable ammount of intelligence.

Anybody want to hire me?

Nate -

This is a fascinating subject, and one which gets at why I am not overly impressed with the concept of 'peer review' when it comes to scientific research.

While peer review of scientific papers is of course necessary to weed out clearly incompetent research and erroneous conclusions, the downside of it is that it can also serve to suppress inconvenient anomalous evidence, reinforce prevailing dogma, and to discourage exploration into areas outside the current scientific mainstream. The scientific establishment is like a big flywheel and does not change its position easily, which is perhaps as it should be.

However, there is a somewhat unwholesome feedback mechanism at work here: areas of research that get favorable peer review tend to more easily receive further funding, thus generating more published research in that area and so on. Areas of research running counter to such, tend to become orphans. I think nowhere is this more apparent than in the area of medical research, particularly those areas involving the efficacy of pharmaceuticals.

On the subject of not wanting to accept what is right before one's very nose, I got a good taste of that several years ago at Christmastime. We were visiting some friends, and our host was wearing a nice new sweater he got as a Christmas gift. The fireplace was going, Christmas candles were lit on the coffee table, and everything was nice and cozy. Then I suddenly observe a dull blue flame dancing up and down the arm of our host's sweater as he's serving drinks and pleasantly chatting, totally oblivious to what is going on. For an uncomfortable few seconds no one, including myself, seemed to be capable processing the information that this guy's sweater is actually on fire, even though our eyes are clearly receiving the raw data. It was totally out of context with the situation, particularly since everything was so pleasant. Finally, the unavoidable fact that our host's clothes were on fire sank in, and he quickly brushed it out with no injury whatsoever. I guess the lesson here for me was that physically seeing something and actually perceiving it are two very different things.

Hi Nate

This is a great provocative post. I have always wondered why people who I know have a very high IQ and a strong ability to argue are the most difficult to convince of things in the light of new data.

In my last place of work, asking clarifying questions and admitting that you don't know the details of a subject were seen as a sigh of weakness. It's a regressive cultural habit at the moment and one which is holding us back from assessing new ways of dealing with the problems we have.

I have just finished an old book on thinking laterally by Edward De Bono called "I am right, you are wrong" which, while being a little bit didactic, shows some techniques for testing arguments to see if important possibilities have been discounted by the thinker's existing bias and assumptions.

Carbon - Coventry UK

Great essay, Nate. More and more, I find myself wondering about how we react to the world around us. And more and more I think that our hardwired and acquired systems for processing information will lead us away from any kind of convergence in the belief systems of scientists, politicians, civic leaders, etc. Solutions that require cooperation and agreement seem more and more like fantasies--and those where agreement or some degree of consensus is achievable (e.g. we can all agree on "hope" or that yes, we in fact "can") seem increasingly meaningless. I think that, for precisely the reasons you highlight about our belief systems, and because those people who can admit "I don't know" are (generally) prevented from attaining positions of power through structural vetting, efforts that depend on achieving consensus are a bit like world peace--something we "can" achieve tomorrow if we just all agree to stop fighting, but that we will quite likely never, in fact, achieve.

So where does that leave us? What the hell are we doing here if we accept that we won't be able to convince everyone (let alone those in power) that 1) there's a problem, 2) what that problem is, and 3) what specifically to do about it?

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that we will NEVER achieve a workable consensus on energy, or on climate change, or on the basic structure of our civilization, does that mean that we cannot do anything of value? Does it demand either fatalism or selfish action? I don't necessarily think so, but this troubles me. Maybe the most relevant question to ask ourselves right now is this: what is our most effective course of action if we accept that the large majority of people will never agree with us or cooperate with our efforts?

Is any action under that assumption either 1) fundamentally selfishly motivated or 2) doomed to failure? Is there some set of actions that we can take that will propagate among those who disagree with us and lead to coordinated action by default? Or can we have the greatest altruistic effect by pioneering a path that is both self-interested and in the greater-good and thereby demonstrate to others how they can do the same? I tend to think the latter is our best path, but I'm not convinced--for example, showing that we can be happier, healthier, and more secure by reducing total consumption, increasing localized self-sufficiency, and building a network of interaction that is more closely aligned with our ontogeny?

Good post, and good question.

How will the belief systems of scientists, politicians, civic leaders, average citizens, etc. converge on a 'best path' forward that integrates energy, economics, equity and the environment?

Ans: They won't.

At least by any reasonable definition of a "best path". We've become spoiled, since huge amounts of free "net energy" have not only put off the immediate consequences of boneheaded decisions and belief systems, but spared us the effort of reconciling one with another. The cold equations of the physical world will ultimately bend our path away from this disconnect.

Paths are interesting thing. In hiking, rather a zen question whether one makes a path or whether it makes itself, whether the intersection of the landscape and the organism create an optimum path that in a sense pre-existed. Path-dependency establishes the subset of remaining options, and we have each foreclosed options this morning. I recommend the nice little book Ubiquity by Buchanan for a wide-ranging discussion of the interconnection of different kinds of systems, but I digress...

There will, in retrospect have been a path forged of attrition and default, but our ways of thinking don't really allow us to get outside the system and optimize it very well in advance for ourselves, as an intelligent alien advisor might. And if that intelligent alien showed up with logical advice, we'd nail her to a tree as our only point of majority agreement.

Still, I'd say there are some paths that are much better and some that are much worse. I expect that our individual senses of entitlement, of egalitarian ideals, may doom us to ignore the best paths while assuring ourselves of the fairness of the process of achieving the worst ones through compromise.

Guess we'll see.

Command and control. The best way. The one truth.

or

Laissez-faire. Let people choose their own truth and way.

The human pattern which appears unbroken in history is the need to maintain large, paradigmatic beliefs. (Early 20th C Existentialism will probably go down as a brief experiment in non-meaning that simply couldn't last.) In addition, there is also a crisis cycle in human civilization in which peaceful complacency devolves into conflicts and scarcities--thus reviving the need for belief systems. As one modern psychologist put it "life lacks any obvious meaning" thus we're propelled into an inescapable quest for meaning. Oh sure, we may travel through a number of these in a single lifetime. Belief in Love, then belief in Art, then belief in Capital, then back to Love. Then a 2-3 year nihlist period, before resumption of the belief trend. "I believe in my garden." "I believe in the redemptive experience of having and raising children." And so on.

The current Crisis (which I have started calling the Comprehensive Crisis for its brilliant fusion of so many problems into a single, monolithic jack-hammer) will no doubt trigger a starburst of new beliefs. Of course, it has to dislocate a ton of belief in the process. And that's surely underway.

I could give a different answer on a different day, but the dislocation that interests me the most right now is how this crisis will eventually tear down the pathways in which we created and maintained Experts and Expertise. This will come a little later - after the crisis chews its way further through the material world, dislocating wealth, ownership, and denominators of such. (my take is that a crisis in the material world is generally the most effective way to get society to change its paradigms)

G

In my last mgmt job before retirement we taught "critical thinking" as well as both de Bono's "lateral thinking" and Joel Barker's "paradigm paralysis", and took people through exercises in all 3. This was in the microelectronics business where you tend to find highly intelligent and opinionated engineers and scientists. When people were made inescapably aware of their own "paralysis", often through peer pressure and/or management reenforcement, they usually became quite open-minded and able to consider conflicting inputs openly and critically. My experience is that resistance to new thinking and blind clinging to cherished paradigms can be largely overcome with effective training. It is quite gratifying how much less contentious and more productive "knowledge" work becomes when this kind of success is achieved. Unfortunately, I have never experienced any such success on the internet.
I believe time and inescapable evidence will be the only way to get convergence, and that probably only through crisis. Peak oil and NG will become inescapable quite soon, and global cooling not too long thereafter. Murray

A question and a comment:

Q: What is your IQ?

Comment: Geologists are nearly always wrong, but know so.

€

PS - u need to get a new thesis supervisor

I'm sure we're all guilty of dismissing, without consideration, ideas that conflict with our own, especially if our opinion has be painfully arrived at, in an apparently rational manner. It's probably even more likely, if our current opinion has actually reversed a previously held position.

I try to cut through the conflicting arguments (climate change is a classic example of the kinds of arguments that go round and round with both sides feeling, and believing, that they have thoroughly countered, or debunked, the other) and focus on realities.

All species affect their environment, in some way. This leads to new local, or even wider, balances and a new mix of species or relative proportions of species. So it's highly unlikely that humans (a science mag article, a couple of years ago, reported on some analysis suggesting that there is very little of the earth that humans have not left their mark on) don't affect the environment. Also, it's highly unlikely that the earth has infinite resources or that renewable resources can be harnessed at whatever rate we would like (either because that rate is beyond the renewal rate or the harnessing and use is having a detrimental impact on our habitat).

So, for me, it comes down to the fact (surely incontrovertible) that the earth is finite and that we rely on the biosphere for our survival. Our ability to expand our reach for resources beyond earth is open to question and, so, a matter of belief. Am I confident that the society I live in can survive, more or less intact, for the rest of my life? No. But, if I were, would that be enough for me? No. I have kids and may later have grandchildren; will some limit bite them after I'm gone? That is very possible. If I was confident that any grandchildren I may have would see out their lives without too much disruption to what has become regarded as normal functioning for their society, would that be enough? It might, but I'm not sure I would be happy feeling that the current generations had known about limits but either decided to lump the problem on a future generation (possibly including descendants of mine) or to cling to the belief that "someone will think of something" that will push the problem so far out (let's say a thousand years) that it is not worth doing something about now.

I would love it if those who analyse to death possible solutions to isolated problems (like how do we generate our existing power requirements from some long term energy source) looked at the bigger picture and considered what we know to be true - that the earth, and it's biosphere, is finite. What should be our strategy for dealing with limits, or should we just act like any other species and let nature take its course for ensuring a long term stable population size?

I hit one of those "I don't know" things the other day.
I read an article in the local newspaper about building a(nother) interchange on US Hwy 14 going through North Mankato MN. See:
http://www.mankatofreepress.com/archivesearch/local_story_077221320.html

North Mankato may still have a long road ahead when it comes to accumulating nearly $30 million to construct a new interchange on Highway 14, along with related road work.

But city officials are sensing some momentum in the multi-year effort to build the infrastructure they say they need for economic and residential growth.

After reading the full article I found myself asking:"What about all the other bridges in North Mankato (3 more over Hwy 14) and in Nicollet County? How many of them are already listed a deficient or worse? Are any of the 3 other bridges over US 14 listed as deficient or worse? How the hell can we keep building more bridges when we can not maintain those we already have?
So I called the newspaper and asked about this. The writer of the story admitted he had not thought about that.
How do you start to get newspaper people interested in doing investigative reporting instead of just publishing quotes from someone. How do you get them to come up with the "I don't know" so I will dig into it and find out mode?
Or are they so financially stressed that they will never have/be given the time for such deep reporting?

Great posting as always, Nate.

Recently I had a thought that goes in line with your conclusion:
Most people prefer "popular" statements, which are catchy and simple - even if they are wrong. (Otherwise intellectuals like Al Gore should have been much more successfull than guys like the Bushs).
But I have also the impression that this mindeset is changing as soon as people realize that they have run into a crisis - and that these populists were responsible for it.
Take for example the 180° U-turn of Germany in 1945. Before it was a "perfect" totalitarian state. And I also have the impression that in the overall mainstream mentality among the people (BTW: also in large parts of the world) ideas like nationalism, racism etc. were socially very acceptable. However with the desastrous outcome of WWII and the exchange of the major leaders this mindset changed completely: People strived for a completely different world, which lead, among other things, to a constitution that puts equality and human rights at a paramount position. I am hoping that with this crisis people again will strive for some new sorts of fundamental change.

Another thing I am rather optimistic meanwhise refers to the cognitive bias issue:
More and more I am reading about this or similar topics (empirical finance, the black swan...). So I do have some hope that these new ideas won't stay limited to a small bunch of intellectuals but that it will eventually become mainstream. In fact I hope that one day even our kids will learn to become aware of the limits of their brain at school.

Maybe right now we are experiencing an intellectual revolution similar to what happened in 1968. When the protests of students spread over the world many people of all sorts lost their respect of the old establishment, no matter if these had a PhD, were university professors or whatever - so even much of the university personnel got a thorough overhaul.
Recently I heard Taleb complain about the masses of overrated PhDs on Wall Street. Just the same thing - but now in 2009.

How could this be? Two VERY smart people, not willing (or not able) to incorporate new data into their belief systems.

"In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane."
~George Orwell, Ignorance is Strength

These so called smart people are just like the rest of us but have more at stake. They erect around themselves some sort of self maintaining delusion to give their life meaning and direction. The more time and energy spent building the illusion the more one has to lose so it is crucial that it never be exposed for what it is. These "VERY smart people" have to erect very thick walls of denial so their life's work isn't exposed as meaningless. Could you imagine spending the majority of your life laboring to prove something like anthropogenic global warming only to wake up and find out one day everything you did was worthless and has been proven wrong by some nobody with internet access and a laptop? That would yank the rug right out from under the little world one created to ward off the existential dread that rumbles beneath the surface of us self conscious creatures.

A great example of this was in the movie "Good Will Hunting". They took Will to some professor that had spent most of his adult life laboring over the solution of some mathematical theorem. Will walked up to the blackboard and worked out the solution in five minutes. The professor just slouched and began to weep. His entire life was exposed right in front of him for what it was, a fraud. He spent so much time and energy building his illusion that after it was exposed all that was left for him is to find somewhere quite to lay down and wait for sickness death and decay to return him to nothingness.

Freud clearly felt this when he confessed to the Reverend Oskar Pfister:

"I can imagine that several million years ago in the Triassic age all the great -odons and -therias were very proud of the development of the Saurian race and looked forward to heaven knows what magnificent future for themselves. And then, with the exception of the wretched crocodile, they all died out. You will object that...man is equipped with mind, which gives him the right to think about and believe in his future. Now there is certainly something special about mind, so little is known about it and its relation to nature. I personally have a vast respect for mind, but has nature? Mind is only a little bit of nature, the rest of which seems to be able to get along very well without it. Will it really allow itself to be influenced to any great extent by regard for mind?

Enviable he who can feel more confident about that than I."

Ernest Becker commented on Freud's confession:

"It is hard for a man to work steadfastly when his work can mean no more than the digestive noises, wind-breakings, and cries of dinosaurs—noises now silenced forever. Or perhaps one works all the harder to defy the callous unconcern of nature; in that way one might even compel her to defer to the products of mysterious mind, by making words and thoughts an unshakable monument to man's honesty about his condition. This is what makes man strong and true—that he defies the illusory comforts of religion. Human illusions prove that men do not deserve any better than oblivion."

There is much at stake for these "VERY smart people". We deserve better than oblivion....

==AC

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

Good post. Whether things are worse now than earlier is not clear. We continue to give credence, clout and high positions to those that ignored all the signals of the coming debacle, Summers, Bernanke etc, and continue to ignore those that predicted it... Roubini, case-schiller, maybe Krugman, Mish , etc. BUt, much the same happened back in the thirties, maybe even worse then (we hope.) Could be just herd behavior in the absence of those older and wiser that died off.

"How will the belief systems of scientists, politicians, civic leaders, average citizens, etc. converge on a 'best path' forward that integrates energy, economics, equity and the environment?"

I don't know, but I will get back to you in about ten years and tell you how it is going so far IMHO.

Sometimes I think I am a goose and wake up in a new world each morning (maybe I am a black swan). One thing I have figured out over the years is that the typical impression of IQ has nothing to do with wisdom or much of anything else.

One time I took an IQ test at Squadron Officer's School. I scored 99 percentile (for those into testing, this is high beyond belief). Now if you want someone who can turn a complex multi-colored figure inside out and tell you what it will look like, I'm your man.

Another part of the test was about what I knew of AF regulations and I scored very low. My instructor who was from one of the academes was excited and said, "You are just the kind of student we want because you will be able to learn so much quicker than the other students." What he didn't know or even think about is that I just wanted to fly airplanes and didn't give a good Goddamn about AF regulations, paperwork or making four-star rank. I was just at Squadron Officer’s School because the Colonel said I couldn’t make Major without it.

So I believe that often people will overlay their own goals to other people’s actions or lack thereof. This is in addition to rationalizing actions of people based on their beauty, wealth or possessions.

I’m working on wisdom. Some of the wisest people I have found to date believe reality is only here and now. My new motto: “Hope for the best … prepare for the worst … love when you can.” Is that wise … I don’t know.

Nate, by the information you supplied, the proximate problem was cognitive load due to time constraints, and the underlying problem was lack of knowledge due to time constraints. In both cases the time constraints are effects of complexity.

Over the last four years myself, I've spent at least two hours a day reading up on the interrelated material and reviewing forgotten subjects. Systems theory, physics, complexity, the history of law, fluid dynamics, psychology ... but who besides freaks like me have the time to acquire that level of understanding?

If I break this down from my own experience, intelligence is only one component. I have a high IQ.

There is also a time component. I have ample free time for research, reflection, and experiments.

There is an existing infrastructure component. I have computer expertise, access to the Internet, access to a library, and a reasonable education.

There is an available energy component. I have electricity and food.

There is a motivation component, driven (or impeded) by emotional components. After having exited denial, which took some time and during which I accomplished very little learning, I found that fear can be a motivator if used properly. And I also find this material interesting. And I'm also no longer afraid to say to myself, "I don't know, but I'll go figure it out." Even more powerful, but much harder to do at the beginning, was saying, "I was wrong with what I thought before, now I'll go find a better way or more accurate model."

The trick lies in being able to ask yourself the hard questions and being able answer them yourself, before someone else asks you.

In the end, though, your campfire question can be re-phrased as, "What does Utopia look like?" Because if we are capable of addressing and reconciling the difference in belief systems, why would we waste time with scientists and politicians without first reconciling faith-based systems?

As far as the methodologies and ideas concerned, though, dynamical systems theory, chaos theory, and complexity theory are inherently cross-disciplinary. They could be the framework. How would it be implemented given the actual humans and resources we have to work with? I don't know. If I have the time, resources, and inclination to figure it out, I'll bring back a solution.

Hey hey Nate,

I think I may have a solution to this problem, it's a little out there though.

You correctly identified the root of the problem here:

I am a global warming agnostic - a) primarily because I haven't the necessary time to become adequately fluent in the complex issues involved in climate science

When a person is confronted with new arguments, theories, philosophies, etc there are only two responses: 1) To spend the time to get to the bottom of it. 2) To defer to either your preconceived notions or an outside authority. This is an inescapable problem as spending time to look at one problem necessarily prevents you from spending time on other problems. Consequently, one must defer to another who does have the time, an authority or expert, which seems reasonable except that it introduces a further problem. How to pick the expert? If you pick an astrophysicist and I pick a meteorologist then we could end up in a situation where we both have it 'on good authority' that the other is wrong.

To state it concisely how do you choose the authority to appeal to without biasing the decision? There exists in our present society a mechanism for addressing just such a problem that many of us participate in and believe strongly. In fact we consider it to be a fundamental principle upon which a free country depends: Trial by jury.

A pool of jurors is randomly selected. Some are disqualified for preexisting bias and some for conflicts of interest. The remaining jurors are relieved of their present time constraints and commissioned to get to the bottom of it. They listen to the arguments then sit down to talk it over until they reach a consensus. There is an appeals process to allow for errors and oversights and a retrial can be held if new evidence comes to light.

There are of course problems with this arrangement and it would need to be modified from it's present form to be suitable for scientific problems. Innocent until proven guilty obviously fails for peak oil and climate change because definitive proof won't be available until after the point is moot, some other standard will need to be developed. In fact innocent and guilty are unsuitable terms for such trials and a spectrum of outcomes from conclusive to erroneous would need to be crafted.

I believe that even though 'trials' of 'science' by jury feels unpalatable it's benefits are great enough to merit consideration as a viable method for dealing with otherwise intractable disagreements in a society. First, unlike a committee it settles a dispute in a binding fashion; the results are conclusive and actionable. Second, it frees the debate from powerful influences and political meddling; no lobbyists, campaign contributions, PR campaigns or backroom dealings. Lastly, the exact same trial would be conducted in numerous different countries giving a broad sampling of the state of the issue at hand; if there is a great divergence of conclusions exists between nations then more research is needed if there is substantial agreement then it is clearly time to forge international policies.

I wrote this up as a persuasive argument. It makes sense to me and seems like a rational solution, but to be honest it doesn't quite feel right. Aditionally, the boundaries of what topics are acceptable and unacceptable for trial would need to be clearly defined, religion for example is a bad candidate for trial whereas climate change is a good candidate.
What do you think?
-Tim

Thirty years ago I found a book called the 'Encyclopaedia of Ignorance'. Each chapter was written by someone emminent in their field, it was British and most authors had FRS after their name, they each wrote about the profoundest mysteries in their field, everything from cosmology to diet and blood transfusion, and postulated what might lie just over the horizon of their ignorance.

The introduction was by an American philosopher on the nature of knowledge.

In a nutshell what he said was 'One should never totally believe or totally disbelieve anything'.

He said that one should imagine a short wire rod in one's skull that ran from zero, represesenting total disbelief, to one, representing total belief. One's integrity and credibility are represented by a bead that slides along this wire. Should it ever get all the way to either end it will fall off into the pit of pride and prejudice from which it can never be retrieved!

One should always maintain some shred of disbelief in one's most cherished ideas and some shred of belief in those of one's arch enemy.

There are a lot of people around whose beads are totally off the wire.

I try to keep my bead on the wire by thinking lots of little thoughts rather than just a few big ones, I get just a much thinking done but it keeps me flexible.

One aspect of this problem is specialist vs. generalists. The trend and bias in our society has been toward increasing specialization. That is where the job opportunities are, and society seems to attach more prestige and respect to those who are more specialized than the average person, in all fields and at all levels.

Everyone pretty much knows - consciously or unconsciously - that it is impossible to know everything. Thus, the implicit assumption is that it is better to know everything that there is to be known about some small specialized subset of knowledge - or at least to think that you do, and appear to do so. The problem with this assumption is that the world and our lives in it do not fit as nice and neatly into our specialized cubbyhole mental constructs as we think that they do. Everything is connected to everything else, which means that there are no real hard boundaries defining knowledge. At the artificial boundaries that we construct around our specialist fields, we cultivate a practice of deliberately ignoring the interconnections and interactions between that which resides within our specialized realm and that which resides outside of it.

What this means is that specialists -- ALL specialists -- inevitably end up knowing less about their subject than they think they do.

Generalists tend to be more immune to this problem. For those very few of us who have deliberately turned our back on the specialist career pathway and have taken the hard road of being generalists, we KNOW that we DO NOT know it all. But we do tend to be very much more aware and sensitive to the interconnections between distinct fields of intellectual specialization; we are much more likely to see or at least be open minded to things to which specialists are blind or closed minded. Unfortunately, society usually pays us very little attention. Interestingly, though, in times of crisis, turmoil, and drastic transition, being a generalist rather than a specialist can be much more advantageous; generalists have less invested in BAU and the status quo, and are thus better equipped to adapt to a changing world. This pattern mimics what we see in the natural world; highly adapted specialist species thrive as long as an ecosystem is undisturbed, but when an ecosystem is greatly disturbed, opportunistic generalist species tend to be the ones that survive and thrive.

One final, and somewhat related thought, is wrt Kuhn's "Strucutre of Scientific Revolutions" and the idea of "Paradigm Shift". I'm not a very "ideological" person, but this is one of the very few things that constitutes something close to a basic, unalterable ideology for me. I operate on the assumption that knowledge isn't complete, that we don't know it all, that theories are subject to revision as new data becomes available. As a generalist, it is very easy to see the truth of Kuhn's thesis; I am aware that it has played out over and over again in the past, and will certainly do so again in the future. One of the things that Kuhn points out is that the older specialists have a lifetime investment in the old paradigm; it is very difficult and "costly" in many different ways to abandon the old paradigm, or even to countenance its being questioned. It is the younger ones coming up the ranks that have less investment in the old paradigm, and who also have the opportunity to make a name for themselves by pioneering the new paradigm, that thus usually end up being its champions. I would just add to this that generalists also have less invested in old paradigms, and thus are naturally more open minded toward new paradigms early on.

Once you have this all figured out could you write something whether nuclear power is a good thing or not?

Hi Nate,
Knowing that I was just 1 of your 1000 emails this week to process...are we "on" for the Wednesday 3/25 Campfire slot (Pacific NW update?). Thanks :-)

Thanks for the interesting article.

I've often thought it would save a lot of argument and time if there was some easier way of determining clashing presuppositions for an argument. I often find myself at odds with somebody, and after a good deal of rational debate, we manage to pinpoint where we differ on some axiomatic principle. I think the gradual formation of these axioms over time predispose us to other axioms and memes, and thus our very development is guided down what often proves a one-way route.

(I'm referring to subjective axioms here, if they can be said to exist)

In this process, some people seem to develop in a depth first way, capable of learning quickly and specialising in an area of expertise (and typically being socioeconomically successful), and some develop in more of a breadth first way, taking longer to overcome doubts but acquiring knowledge over a broader horizon (and generally meeting with less socioeconomic success).

(The last bit isn't a fully formed thought, but there may be something to it)

Love your work Nate - always thought provoking and worth the time to read. I think you hit a lot of nails on the head by drawing on an unusually wide range of professional and personal experience, even if it makes your brain hurt at times.

You are not alone musing about the force of prior beliefs. Here is a recent article from the Sydney Morning Herald by Ross Gittins, one of the few popular economists I bother with because he has a great way with words and actually understands the big issues at play.

http://business.smh.com.au/business/clashing-ideologies-behind-the-globa...

Cheers, Mark

And let us not forget that what we do know is first an imperfect abstraction of reality, filtered through incomplete perceptions.

We perceive a sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, have limited tolerances to pressure, temperature, and environmental content, and thus most of the Universe is physically imperceptible to us without immediate death. Without aid and understanding, we can't experience the microscopic or the galactic. And while these things are all around us and affecting us on a constant basis, our awareness of them is in bits and pieces.

The knowledge that results from these perceptions of bits and pieces of reality is encoded in our memory, another abstraction, and then abstracted again through communication in gestures, language, and pictures.

And the foundations of how our limited experiences are processed in our brains, they are laid down without our input or choice during the first few years of life.

It's almost a wonder any of us "knows" his or her own name. Maybe nobody really knows anything at all.

I happen to be re-reading Diamond's Collapse. Frankly, there is too much psycho-theory here and not enough historicisity (no such word but it sounds nice - or else I don't know how to spell it). Coupling Diamond and Tainter, few simple societies could pull it off survival, much less complex ones like today. There are simply too many issues for people to grasp what needs to be done to cope with them all simultaneously. I also would like to add that people today have few real-life, useful skill-sets.

So, Todd's view of the future is that most countries devolve into areas of shared interest/resources and any central government ispretty impotent.

The IQ thing is funny to me. I didn't know until years later that I was suppose to have an IQ of 160. It sure as hell didn't help me in college when I took calculus without even having advanced algebra in HS. :-). I did get a high D however.

Todd

How will the belief systems of scientists, politicians, civic leaders, average citizens, etc. converge on a 'best path' forward that integrates energy, economics, equity and the environment?

That's a trick question and the correct answer is: I don't know and neither does anybody else ;-)

The admission that "we don't know" and that the universe contains a "maybe" might perhaps be the best option we have for finding a way through this mess.

Is there a problem with language?

Quantum Psychology: E and E-Prime

In 1933, in Science and Sanity, Alfred Korzybski proposed that we should abolish the "is of identity" from the English language. (The "is of identity" takes the form X is a Y. e.g., "Joe is a Communist," "Mary is a dumb file-clerk," "The universe is a giant machine," etc.) In 1949, D. David Bourland Jr. proposed the abolition of all forms of the words "is" or "to be" and the Bourland proposal (English without "isness") he called E-Prime, or English-Prime.

...Since the brain does not receive raw data, but edits data as we receive it, we need to understand the software the brain uses. The case for using E-Prime rests on the simple proposition that "isness" sets the brain into a medieval Aristotelian framework and makes it impossible to understand modern problems and opportunities. A classic case of GIGO, in short. Removing "isness" and writing/thinking only and always in operational/existential language sets us, conversely, in a modern universe where we can successfully deal with modern issues.

Nate's campfire question:

How will the belief systems of scientists, politicians, civic leaders, average citizens, etc. converge on a 'best path' forward that integrates energy, economics, equity and the environment?

is too broad. Sure scientists suffer from the Planck Problem like everyone else, but under different parameters than politicians and the general public. Scientists have to subject their actual work to scientific review through the peer process. Every article submission is another thesis exercise, where a committee works over your logic, your evidence, your theories, your spelling, whatever. Then, if published, your work gets attacked or imitated by other scientists, subject to the same process. The result is "science," a process of discovery we can often rely upon, at least when we're talking about the "hard" sciencies -- physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

The Planck Problem is much more severe for those of us not subject to such rigorous challenges. It is worst of all, in my experience, for the inside-the-beltway crowd and the politicians they depend upon. Here the smart response is carefully nurtured and shaped, not in a process of scientific discovery, but through varieties of "groupthink" enforced by sarcasm, arrogance, and shutting out (and ocassionally shutting up) contrary voices. So it is assumed that Iran is a threat, though the intelligence agencies keep saying it ain't. It is assumed that single-payer health care is a non-starter, even though sizable majorities in poll after poll say they would prefer it. You can't mention the name Chomsky without evoking a sneer, or an angry response. And you can't criticize Israel, no matter how much dissent appears in Israel's own press. This is Washington. Some social settings are just as bad, none more influential. It's an entirely different world from the scientific world, which has it's own burdens; and it requires radically different solutions.

I think there's a difference between someone saying, "I've seen this before, and don't have time to deal with it again," and someone saying, "it's all politics! I won't look at it!"

That is, there's a difference between someone who's already contended with a particular point of view, treated it seriously and after consideration rejected it, and someone who never treats it seriously or considers it in the first place.

As for people testifying before Congress, it's actually quite common for them to say, "I don't know, but I'll get back to you on that." But these sorts of people are not the sort who bombard your email inbox with strong opinions. Those with doubt are silent, those without doubt are noisy. So you get the impression no-one has any doubt.

Now we come to Planck. His perception came from a revolution within physics - quantum uncertainty and the like, which gave us the atomic bomb. Most science is not so revolutionary, and so it's easier for old scientists to accept. For example, when Meitner found atoms splitting, people doubted her; but when Crick discovered DNA, no-one doubted him. That is, when the new discovery turns everything else on its head, people doubt it, and we get the Planck Problem. But if the new discovery simply adds to the existing understanding, there's no such problem.

Lastly, sometimes the dissonance comes not from the science itself, but from the conclusions it leads to. Darwin and evolution are a good example: if creatures evolve, then it's not necessary for the world to have been created in one go six thousand years ago, it could happen over millions or even billions of years. So people's problems with Darwin's work weren't really with the science itself, but with the conclusions it lead to.

Likewise with your example of global warming and whether humans have caused it, the dissonance comes not from the science itself. The President's National Science Committee predicted global warming becoming a serious problem by 2000... in 1965. The science is complex, but not really controversial.

The dissonance comes from the lifestyle changes - use public transport, eat less meat, generally burn less stuff - which would be needed to avoid the problem. We see a similar resistance to people believing in peak fossil fuels, and for the same reasons. The basic science is not in any doubt: fossil fuels are finite, and must run out some day, and long before they run out, they must run short. This would apply even if the entire planet were made of coal, oil and gas. But the conclusions is leads to - "we need to burn less stuff" - are shocking to Westerners.

Before you can analyse people's defence of something, you have to realise what they're defending. The climate change and peak fossil fuels deniers are not really defending "natural processes" or "abiotic oil" or whatever; they're defending our wasteful Western lifestyles. Once you realise that it becomes easier to talk to them.

Could I communicate with someone who gets 1,000 emails a week? Could I answer 1,000 emails a week? Could I even read 1,000 emails a week. I don't think I could survive 1,000 emails a week. Maybe this is why people are so scatter brained these days.

Super thread folks, all you clever folks can(not) think after all. Cool.

Nate, re catching fish or cutting bait. I'm wondering where you will be most usefull and self fulfilled, you are most certainly appreciated here.

Ever thought of punching your thesis supervisors on the nose. If not perhaps learning about Hypnotherapy or Neurolinguistic Programming may give you a few more tools to successfully navigate your way to eternity (the grave).

How will the belief systems of scientists, politicians, civic leaders, average citizens, etc. converge on a 'best path' forward that integrates energy, economics, equity and the environment?

Sorry, we won't find best path. All entities in this universe are born, exist and then die (and perhaps reborn cyclically).

And the entity known as "Piscean Humanity" is getting very geriatric. So the question becomes one of palliative care.

It should all be over very soon, RIP.

Another vector:

"With our thoughts we make the world", a buddhist thing. Often interpreted as "How we experience the world is dictated by our perceptions and cogitations about the world".

I would suggest that is an incorrect interpretation and would give the following;

"By the carefull construction of thought models of what we desire in the world and the exercise of spiritual will we create the physical universe".

My wife's observation; "(Laughing) Oh my I'm so naughty. I was looking at that lady crossing the road and wondering whether those silly shoes are safe to walk in, and just at that exact moment she tripped and smacked her face on the pavement. I must guard my thoughts more carefully in future"

Fortunately, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING: true liberation.

I don't know...

I've been pondering things like these for some time.

Obviously, if you are a sincere seeker after truth, you must not fool yourself... and, as Feynman famously noted, you are the easiest person to fool.

Science - in Feynmans' sense, and as opposed to 'Cargo Cult science' - is a set of behavioral rules for overcoming these biases, selective perception, overconfidence, etc. It developed by trial and error, before pschycologists could explain why these precautions were necessary; and it works.

It works - as long as all the requirements are met.

Which, sadly, often isn't the case.

Which again has fostered the (IMNSHO) dangerous conviction of many intellectuals that there is no possibility of true understanding of anything... even so far as to believe that even physics is just another postmodernistic plot to advance the physicists' personal careers... Einstein said everything is relative, didn't he???

Anyway, at least in intellectual/social science circles here in Norway, doubt is something of a religion... and I can't help thinking about Daniel Dennett's words about the "belief in belief" that's common among intellectuals.

(And of course, that's my "fundamental paradigm" that'll not change until I die: There is such a thing as truth. I don't think we'll ever know all truth... By Gödel: there are true but unprovable proposals, and there are unfalsifiable false ones... but that does NOT entail that there are no provable true proposals).

I think there is a polarization process going on. In mainstream culture, doubt and its cousin reflection are increasingly unknowns, I agree... but there are subcultures, intellectuals, scientists, truthseekers... and these subcultures, I think, in many respects are larger and more prosperous than ever. But maybe also increasingly cut off from the mainstream...

I am currently not posting on the DBs. Partly due to the reason you state here. Most will dispute and totally dismiss something that doesn't fit in their mental framework.

One told me on a DB "this is not a place for your 'beliefs' , this is a place for verifiable 'facts'".

So goes the constant drone on the DBs. Reason why I just quit in disgust. The level of ridicule and actual threats there was just too much too stomach.

So then to the question and answer of "I don't know".

Neither do I know but I do know this..it really doesn't matter to me.
I seek not the "scientific" solutions to our dilemma. I care not too awful much just what does destroy this country.

I just hope it occurs before the whole landscape of this nation is completely destroyed by man's total and utter stupidity. I see the trees here are all about gone. What nature didn't destroy recently now man is cutting them all down with a passion. Huge trucks have been moving over the roads for weeks now cutting way back all the trees that line the roads. Cutting them off at the stumps. Live one. Ones not even damaged. Farmers are cutting all around the fields and money is given them to do such by the gummint. To continue the wreckage upon nature. To ensure perhaps that most animal life will suffer tremendously just so more acres can be planted.To completely denude our landscape. Each huge grandfather tree I see destroyed is like a dagger thrust between my ribs. Each ride down the once tree lined roads is damaging to my soul and reverence for the land that once was.

Its a pity. A sad ugly stupid occurrence. Men don't care. They just simply do not care. We are doomed and I really really do not give one shit either. With destruction everywhere I really don't care. Burn it all down. Kill it off. Saw them down....Then man ,,scream as you die your miserable lives. Wasted stupid lives. Good.

So what do I then do and think of as it all falls to pieces?

I look outside the box. I seek spiritual peace. I look to the time when I can leave this dead and dying planet.

I read lately Adam Frank 'The Constant Fire'. I read that as an astrophysicist he believes in the 'believers' encounter with the unknown and the sacred. I have found someone in the realm of science who has finally agreed with my views and what I have been expressing for some years to those around me.

Dogmatic religion is dead and dying. The believer who has an individual experience with 'something' is the only real mark of spirituality.

This then is the path I tread. The only one that makes sense to me, and even more so of late.

But on all sides no one really listens when I speak of this and no one here will listen or care either. Thats perhaps the way it should be.

So 'I don't care' except for what I personally experience and how by that I am lead.

There is no doubt that our 'science' has allowed us to rise up to great heights and also has allowed us to burn through millions of years of stored energy in this earth in just a very very short number of years. Perhaps less than 100 years.

So as someone else puts it:"So what else do we know?" This is where I try to pierce the spirituality phenomenon. Something that has been with us for eons yet does not yield a definite answer other perhaps than "I have showed you the way and the truth is within you, go that way and do no harm. Do not destroy what I have created for you."

In closing I will leave here a few quotes from the material I spoke of.The follow.

William James was not interested in a person who has "his religion made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition,determined to him by fixed forms by imitation and retained by habit"..

Its only the personal one-on-one experience that some have and alters the rest of their life's, can be spoken of but can never be defined and does not yield to scientific endeavors to understand it. You take it for what it is and go with it or not. It usually does not occur unless sought.

So what is Airdale doing now? Still searching but in between regressing to the past. Means trading my Harley for a good horse right now. Going back to my past and how I was once that young boy living on my grandfathers farm. Just 2 miles down the road from where I am typing this on my ThinkPad. Back to the past. My wife is gone for good. My children never call. Most of my farm is gone. The loghouse is not mine anymore. Its just me and two Jack Russels and soon to be my horse as well. Note: I have most always owned horses and motorcycles and kept a 'constant fire' in my heart as well but sometimes on a very low flame.

Here is a URL of some of what I spoke of. If your interested that is in what a few scientists think in this area.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/realitybase/

http://www.constantfire.com/about.html

As for me. I am not sure of anything except what works for me. Otherwise I too 'don't know'.

Airdale-I posted this as perhaps my last ever post on TOD,,unless I once more see something that speaks to me personally. Such as this Essay Post did. Thanks Nate. Peace.

PS. I will surely no longer post on the DBs. Too much debris.Too much of too much. ..and hello Don in Maine and some of you others who think about all this as us olden geezers are prone to do.
Class of '57 rules! and to those who are silent yet know the score. Out there working in your gardens,same as me to get some food put by for what is surely coming down.

Richard Nisbett's The Geography of Thought has some observations that are relevant to this post. Though I do not agree with him on certain generalizations, one of his claims is that the entire Western edifice of thought has been founded on the idea that there "is" an answer to everything and this answer can be delineated on the basis of axioms or principles, and that from the Greeks we all developed the idea that we can and must take a stand and defend it against all comers, and either be defeated (in debate) or "win" on the basis of the law of excluded middle--that either I am right and you are wrong and vice versa.

In the Eastern (specifically Chinese) paradigm, on the other hand, the "ALL" is not susceptible to axiomatic treatment, but is, in the words of William James, "a buzzing, blooming confusion." As a result, in the East there is a rejection of the law of excluded middle in favor of a dialectical mechanism of trivalent logic, where anyone can see that yes, you are right, but so is he, and so partial truths are possible, and a goal in social situations is the maintenance of "harmony" (hence harmonious society as President Hu's goal in China) between opposing forces.

This is just a sketch of the argument, but from it I would infer that your own views and your paradigms (fundamental epistemological presuppositions) are strictly Western and not global, and that your conclusion that there is just too much knowledge and too many facts and we're all just stuck in our ideological prisons, while it has some merit, misses the point, which is that our models of thought, our logics determine the formulation of our problems and the solutions we develop.

A dyadic or bivalent logic, like the excluded middle, is bound to result in antagonism, polarity, and the search to destroy the "other." A trivalent or polyvalent logic is going to accept and seek reconciliation and harmony and synthesis.

If we were to reformulate the so-called global warming controversy in polyvalent terms, I am positive that we would be able to reconcile the views of many people who in the Western paradigm appear antagonistic. Surely we can all admit to climate change over long periods of time. Surely we can all admit that climate has changed numerous times prior to and without any input from humans, though other life forms may have had a lot to do with it. Surely we can admit that there are many "causes," both natural and human--and the point is not the cause, but the extent of the cause. And surely we can admit that trying to mitigate assumed anthropogenic warming is a waste of time if the warming is not primarily anthropogenic. And surely we can admit that if mitigation does not succeed, then we're all going to have to adapt anyway. And surely we can all admit that whether or not human activities cause GW, the oil-based economy has created a gigantic cesspool on Earth, has poisoned our entire environment, and that we should, regardless of GW, make every effort to move to a non-carbon-based economy.

Nate, interesting post. And interesting comments. We (not just Nate and I) are probably birds of a feather. I liked bicycleDave's comments the best.

I think one of the problems is our very real need for cognitive efficiency. One of the components of good problem solving is the ability to filer out the irrelevant. We also need the ability to estimate some very losely defined error bars, on the various sources of information, opinion, thought, and theory that we are presented with. We all have our crank detectors on. For instance your first example, once he percieved yet another "it's the sun (only) crank" the intellectual exchange was over, he chucks out the rest of the report. He can't waste limited mental time and energy on cranks. Of course the filtering process is imperfect, we all throw out some relevant data/opinion, because we too quickly percieve signs that the source is untrustworthy. But, without this filtering function, we would be unable to make any progress, we would simply be overwhelmed with data, much of it of low or zero value.

Then, we have a similar secondary problem. Each of us only has the time, knowledge, or motivation to seriously research most subjects. We have to pick a small group of "experts" whose reputation and thinking processes we think give them the best odds of being right. So, if we are going to be able to discuss the subjects that we are not formal experts in (not just say I don't know), we have no choice but to place (provisional) confidence in their results.

Salomon, wow, I had almost completely forgotten that they existed.
Whenever I hear Salomon now I think about the ski equipment, roller blades, and trail shoes. To most folks, I don't think they considered "Salomon Brothers" a brand. So when they got eaten up, there was really nothing to miss. Is that the problem? That these guys really never made a product, and neither do all the people like Madoff and the financial skimmers. The path forward surely won't include those people again....maybe.

Interesting collage. I assume the profundity is intentional.

How will the belief systems of scientists, politicians, civic leaders, average citizens, etc. converge on a 'best path' forward that integrates energy, economics, equity and the environment?

O. K., let's see if I can B. S. my way through this . . . : - )

I read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about 40 years ago and was very impressed. However, I do not think that Planck's problem applies to our situation here in the way that this question implies. The reason is that "peak oil" is not merely a scientific issue. It is a social and political issue. A political crisis is not like a scientific crisis. A political crisis is forced by external events.

If we had to wait until neoclassical economics was transplanted by ecological economics, then yes indeed, Planck's problem would apply. But this crisis extends across multiple disciplines and will manifest in a social and cultural breakdown. At some point it will be transparent to a critical mass in one or another country in the world that we face a real crisis and have to rethink our assumptions. This is actually a fairly stable pattern in U. S. history: Americans go through long periods of not much change at all (e. g. 1800 - 1860, 1870 - 1925, 1950 - 2000) and short periods of convulsive change (the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression / Second World War). I think you could easily argue that other modern countries have the same general pattern. So, we're entering a period of short, convulsive change.

The problem of peak oil will become palpable at some point -- the Pearl Harbor moment. When it comes, there will be no holding back some sort of revolutionary change, for better or worse, any more than people could argue on Dec. 8, 1941, that we did not need any sort of fundamental change in our foreign policy, or on April 14, 1861, that we could work out some sort of compromise on slavery.

We probably cannot force this moment -- we'd probably like to speed it up, but won't be able to. So the literal answer to your question is "I don't know," because "you do not know the hour or the day," but you do know that it's coming and that we need a plan. One of the key problems in getting people to recognize "peak oil" is that there is no plan to deal with it. To make an analogy with Kuhn, it is not the mere presence of anomalies that creates a scientific crisis (you always have those), but a plausible explanation of those anomalies. Analogously, it is not the presence of social issues that creates a social crisis, but a plausible way of dealing with them. If there had been no anti-slavery agitators in 1860, or internationalists in 1941, history would have taken a very different turn. My suggestion for a plan: ecological economics.

I would stop worrying quite so much about how to raise awareness (though we do need to pay attention to this), and instead worry more about what to say when the country is in chaos, when everything is being swept aside, and the microphone is handed to us.

Keith

Imagine you are flying a really, really good Helicopter simulation.

You fly and fly and then you are over the Ocean.
It turns out to be a trick used by programmers to stop you flying right out of the program.

Next you become curious about the detail on the screen. It looks real enough but as you zoom in you see it is made out of pixels.

The same can be said of "real life". Apparently there is a limit to how far out we can look because light has travelled a finite distance since the Big Bang.

At the plank length space-time becomes frothy. Another limit to what we can know.

I read that the universe does not have enough information storage capacity to know everything about itself.

I will bet that there are lots of these limits. All designed to keep you in the game.

This is where my God lives. My God is the God of the yawning chasms.

Still.. Not knowing the truth is not an excuse. You have to go with the evidence. Roll the Dice Sam.

This whole post is a complete COP-OUT!
It's your duty to do the work and figure 'it' out.
You can't abstain.
Saying your 'agnostic' on a scientific fact like GW or even Peak Oil, which is real isn't the same as saying your agnostic on whether God exists which is a metaphysical, unprovable assertion.

If TOD is about proving things and presenting facts, 'no opinion' makes no sense.

Back in the Iraq invasion in 2003 a friend of mine trying to be frugal didn't have cable or satellite tv. He splurged and bought a subscription to satellite radio. I was trying to be frugal too and only had broadcast tv and radio so I thought I would hit him up for updates on the situation. His radio had batteries which enabled him to keep it with him most of the day, unfortunately. He listened to it non-stop but could tell me nothing. He claimed information overload and retained little of what he listened to though he listened attentively.

How will the belief systems converge? Not without spiritual progress - for that is what you're discussing. I wrote about this in my 'The Holiness of Stuart Staniford' article about 18 months ago: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/35355

"The spiritual tradition moves forward by the development of virtues, ie particular habits which form a specific attitude of mind and heart, which then bears fruit in right conduct. This is why the cultivation of virtues is what religious traditions tend to look like on the outside, ie lots of emphasis upon obedience and discipline, and lots of what might look like utterly boring and pointless exercises - like zazen. What is at stake is quietening down and eventual submission of the will, ie the seat of desires of our ego - and the fruit of that quietening is the right understanding of the world. One of the foremost virtues in the Christian sphere is that of humility, and it's worth spending a moment considering what humility actually means. It's often misinterpreted to mean self-abasement, which often ends up being intensely self-destructive, but really it is about being properly earthed in the truth (ie in the humus). So it is about having a correct appreciation of one's own merits and faults; a settled assessment of one's true station in life. Humility is really about ego-abasement, where the ego is understood as that craving for celebrity and social recognition or affirmation; it is the ego that cannot admit to mistakes, and which is therefore heavily embedded in the games of certainty that so often get played out in internet fora..."

At least since the advent of agriculture we have operated under the assumption that more is better. More land, more production, more energy have always served the community or individual well as we have attempted to escape the problem of scarcity. We have been so successful with the advent of our use of fossil fuels that we have been able to expand the level of social complexity to an extent unimaginable just a couple of generations ago.

The task before us is to scale back the presumption that more and bigger are better in the direction of sustainable is better; even if it means a short-term (perhaps measured in years, decades or centuries) disadvantage. I don't know that we, as a species, are well equipped for such changes.

A community with a dogmatic cultural commitment, perhaps combined with a nice fundamentalist religion, that requires actions which are otherwise a short-term (decades or centuries) disadvantage but insure long-term survival of the culture.

The essence of one of issues with the smart guys is here

First, I sent a one hour video presentation given by an astrophysicist on the natural drivers of climate change to an IPCC friend. Later that day we spoke. His reply "I watched 5 minutes of it and it mentioned Maunder Minimum so the rest was likely irrelevant too - I get 50 of these a week Nate I just don't have time for such crap - please stop sending it".

You have a case where a BS detector can go off. In this case there is a push to have an uneducated public think that "It is the sun" even though that theory has been put in a coffin with so many nails in it that they can't find a place to put another one. I am sure he constantly gets tons of rehashed BS about the sun, hence the "Jeez, not this crap again" response. So if you want to give a "smart guy" some new information make sure it is up front rather that mixed in with a bunch of already debunked information, it is a question of packaging the information so the interesting stuff is noticed so as not to be ignored. If someone posted a Jerome Corsi video here about how oil was abiotic, and the earth had a smooth and creamy nuget center of oily goodness that the Illuminati was preventing us from getting how many of us would make it more than five minutes into that video. So I think you need to balance the I don't want more information, with the normal crap/not crap triage that people do when deciding how to spend their time.

You KNOW all of those three big things, Bikedave? Blimey, that's a lot more than Descartes was confident about knowing. Evidently (but not evidentially, clearly) you've outgone the great sceptic.

how will the belief systems of scientists, politicians, civic leaders, average citizens, etc. converge on a 'best path' forward that integrates energy, economics, equity and the environment

bit glib but here goes

by accident...

are we going to get on the best path?

or a path that just survives the truncation of all the other options?

ideas on a more proactive method...?????????

If you want some designed future the problem here is getting some political package that represents this best path and sell it

step uno....

define the path

zwei....

package it in a manner that allows the broadest possible constituency to accept it into their belief systems... in other words talk a lot of BS like politicians do....

perhaps build different packages approaching the problem from different perspectives depending on the target audience..so if you want a program of conservation its sold to military as a strategic resource management lest we weaken our defenses" .. but the same program is sold to the youts from SF as save the polar bear....

we call this lying

YMMV but lying has a history of successful implementation. thou ultimately it tends to have unforeseen adverse effects

if you don't like that then hope for some mass epiphany that results from straight talking... somehow?

ie "i don't know"

"We were often purposefully asked a series of questions - the first couple answerable if one had done their homework, but the third or fourth question being very difficult, and most times unanswerable."

Hi Nate - These questions should not have hit you guys in your first job - it should be part of the school/educational curriculum from junior school up. If we were reminded of the limits of our own knowledge and understanding on so many points and taught to question for constructive gain then we'd have a much better chance of finding the "best path" you refer to. Might give a couple of generations of mums and dads and teachers a hard time till they get the idea though ...

From
On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not by Robert Burton

"There is a problem basic to the science-religion controversy. Although the sense of purpose is a necessary and involuntary mental sensation, it isn’t easily comprehensible solely as a sensation. It doesn’t feel right to say “I have a sense of purpose but I don’t know what it is.” In order to think about purpose and meaning, we need labels. We attach words to spontaneously occurring feelings in order to incorporate them into a larger worldview. If we didn’t use such language, the expression of purpose would be difficult to impossible. If you doubt this, try to state your purpose or the meaning of life without expressing thanks, obligation, moral imperative, or a need for greater understanding of the unknown. Whatever the explanation there is an underlying implication of something beyond us that needs to be acknowledged or pursued – from an all-knowing God to the awe-inspiring physical laws of the universe. Religious purpose might be described as a movement toward the understanding or embracing of a higher power. Scientific purpose might be described as a movement toward understanding the nature of the mystery of the universe.

"Few believe that individual perceptions represent an exact correspondence to the outer world. We know better than to believe that observations arise out of a neutral dispassionate mind. We accept that the unconscious is loaded with unrecognized agendas, motivations, and complex ill-defines innate propositions. ….Good Science requires distinguishing between felt knowledge and knowledge arising from testable observations. “I am sure” is a mental sensation, not a testable conclusion."

Nate I appreciate your balance on issues and what appears to be leadership of this site now.

Here is a little "I DON"T KNOW" and perhaps the brains on here can tell me and many others what happened on Jan 21/21 2009.

Notice the little extension of very cold weather in Europe, the brief warm up in the US and then continued well into spring snowstorms and the very cold weather in Alaska that spills down to bring the snow and cold.

Answer: Stratospheric Warming Event. NADA in the US news, and only a brief statement by the Met office in Britain as to the reason for the first snowstorm in London that brought 12 inches. Those that live in Europe know that winter seems extended with snow in Devonshire on March 17, and an interesting story to go along with that ;). I checked the Alaskan temps a couple days ago and they were very very cold, more like Jan, than March.

NOW Stratospheric Warming Events are NOT uncommon. This last one for the North Pole was quite an impact, if I recall correctly the upper atmosphere warmed by 50 degrees C.

Our protective shield is well below norm and appears to be falling if not failing. We have been blasted regularly and today there is a good deal of energy hitting us.

NOW here is the question.

WHAT caused the event in Jan. If its the sun which is the culprit 99.9999999% of the time. What caused this event. Also note that since then the hits on our shield has happened several more times, but there are coronal holes to explain "some" of the strength, but some of the hits are off the scale and the coronal holes don't seem to be able to produce such events. Note Feb 4/5 of this year. Solar flares can also cause this, but AHEmmm.., we haven't been having any SUNSPOTS, and NASA has been very quite on this. Their last statement was they were sure by APRIL we would start to see the increase. And we are still seeing sunspots (of the very few that have formed) of the last cycle and their polarity.

Here is a link to a brief animation I found to illustrate the hits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqWNNhsYrdI&

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaaM64PVHmc

Please ignore the comments. The second one is very unusual, I haven't seen anything like this and the second link the upper left graph is very interesing. Is it the new neutron star just discovered by Nasa. And if so what does this mean for the planet, weather, and our shield.

And today we seem to be taking a pounding continuing from yesterday.

So my point is, what happens if Stratospheric warming events become more of a norm. Is this one of the reasons that ice ages happen quickly. Is this energy also causing the volcano's to become more active. If you haven't noticed, volcano's are all in the news lately. Even Yellowstone caused quite a stir a few months back.

Oh, and can you tell me. Do the models have the effects of these events in their projections.

This is an excellent Essay Post(key post?) whatever.

It is one of the best I have ever read on TOD.

Looking back of late to my Native American ancestry that I recently discovered some months back and ran to ground, I was reading this last night as I studied their culture and ways. To me it speaks volumes and I wonder then what I did inherit from my old half-breed grandfather whom I lived with back in my youth that has slowly transformed me over the years and more of late.

This:
"In the old days, there was peace and harmony in the mountains where our people(the Cherokee) lived, struggled for survival, and raised the young ones. There was respect for the elders, and they were honored in our ceremonies. Don't get me wrong, we were not without our difficulties, 'cause there were plenty with just surviving a winter in the mountains.

We were a people who shared all things, and we did not own the land. It and we were free to be responsible,to care for others who also shared. We had everything in nature and Mother Earth gifted us with plants for food and for our ills.

We beat our drum,sang our songs,danced, and worked for survival of the family,clan, and tribe. We were one with each other and the Universal Circle of Life."

Oscar Rogers
Cherokee Elder
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

I noticed that Nate put the following figure in the thumbnail montage:

I know it is meant to ultimately be funny as it comes from a web site called "Overthinking It".

Yet what better way to educate people than to show something that uses some nasty statistical tricks including data censoring and scaling. And that does not even begin to touch on how utterly preposterous of someone to make causal connections between the two. I say this since it is clear that the best movies of all time (and not rock songs) coincide with USA peak oil production.

Some people too proud of the progress they have made with their belief systems might be surpassed by those who can grow beyond their existing knowledge bases. Much of the science, math, and intellectual progress has been wrought in more Christian tolerant societies. Moral ethics that have provided healthy and peaceful enjoyment for many may not be abandoned for the emptiness of spiritual anarchy.

Rene Descartes, "Cogito, ergo sum." Certain truths are inevitable.

Some were content to be able to invest in fixed line phones for customers, but others took risks to
implement mobile wireless broadband services already going into planning for the fourth generation technology and hardware upgrades, the fastest growing segment of the telecom industry.

Those worried the world would quickly run out of oil and henceforth energy were challenged by innovations in drilling, completion, seismic exploration, and heavy oil upgrading technologies.

If I did not have the time to do my own, in depth research on a topic, the next best thing would be to read papers produced by scientists in the relevant field, doing current research on the topic.
The reason most people are confused about the causes of global warming is because they view scientific knowledge areas as interchangeable.
Would you go to a brain surgeon for a heart attack? No, probably not, yet no-one disputes that a brain surgeon is probably very smart when it comes to brains.
It is important to realize that all scientists are not alike - their expertise is not interchangeable. And the smarter, and better educated in one topic the particular scientist is, the less likely they are to know much outside their given area.
While an astrophysicist is very smart, and very specialized, and could probably pontificate at length on the correlation between sunspots and climate, they don't have credibility in the discussion about anthropogenic global warming, since they have not done their own, peer reviewed research on the topic.
Yet, every single day, we are bombarded with out-of-context "facts", second- and third-hand opinion and "belief" by psychologists, commentators, lapsed and retired geology professors funded by oil companies, religious and political pundits, even TV weather-persons claiming a position on climate change.
Me, I prefer to go to the source - Climatologist James Hansen.
"http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/"
or to the website http://www.realclimate.org. "Commentary on climate science news by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists."
Once you read this material, there is no room for doubt about the current cause of global warming.
Michelle

That is the question being addressed here. I have read over 190 responses and comments. The responses have been very interesting. I have not noted any responses that have stated that the fundamental problem of population overshoot must be solved first.

IMO, the best path will not be found until a consensus on population control is reached.

Nate,

Wonderful topic. I am a bit fatalist in this matter. I tend to think that the solution is as Lorenz's father (forgot name)instructed "You can solve a problem by proving no solution exists"

Not very cheery. We essentially face a limit issue, and our entrenched opinions, which are tied to our 'beliefs' do not allow us to accept the answer. There is none. Humans will continue to consume and populate until we start a conflict in which nukes are used and that's it.

It is the most likely outcome given the start point we are at now.

For Example: I worked internationally for several years in Venezuela as a 'expert' for PDVSA. We were looking at ways to allocate budgetted resources to a variety of exploration and development projects using a portfolio approach. I performed an analysis on every producing oil and gas well in Venezuela. We declined Maraciabo, Maturin, Lagunillas, all the IOC's holding, everything. Then we looked at the exploration end, Plataforma Deltana, etc. Our analysis said build huge pipelines to transfer all the gas on the eastern side of Venezuela to the Western side to inject into Lake Maraciabo to maintain reservior pressure. We looked at several other possibilites, even Nitrogen injection from 300' tall nitrogen harvestors. The best solution was discarded and instead they re-wrote the fiscal tax regime to get more money from the IOC's. The analysis also said don't spend any more money drilling new offshore wells as the lead time was 7-10 years and if they don't fix mariciabo they won't have the money to do it anyway. That was 2003. It's 2009 and Venezuela can't pay it's creditors with $30-50 oil. (portfolio selection was run on a GA and a linear solver, risk term was semi-mean dev and value was NPV@10)

All of our analysis and evidence flew in the face of all of what they had been planning for the previous 10 years. They rejected it for political and social reasons. Now the Chinese will step in.

The most likely outcome, not the solution, is what we need to solve for. Then prepare for. I for one am buying land and learning to farm. I also am spending more time fishing, I like to fish.

Only my opinion.

PooBah

Airdale, your posts are so informative, i have always enjoyed your posts. your knowledge, your down to earth spirit. If you never post a again we collectively at The Oil Drum will always be one person short! No one person can fill your shoes. Kentucky is a very beautiful place, the farm fields, the barns, the horses, the rolling pastures. I really think this is Gods Country.
That being said, I personally wish you the best in health, and a recovery if it can be done, and look forward to your posts if ever you post again. you will be missed. and i mean that!!!
we are going to miss you!
(as i wipe tears from my eyes)

Thank You Airdale for your contributions to The Oil Drum!

(as i wipe tears from my eyes)

So you consider a referenced 40 page pdf as an equivilent to a 1 hour unverifiable propaganda video..

This is the problem of false equivication. Video is probably the least scientific form of evidence possible, give the extreme difficulty of extracting and analysing all of the claims mentioned. Clearly you wanted to 'prove a point'..

While the ocean life gets mentioned in passing, I'll go for the direct tie of CO2 and ocean acidification. Is man not worried about acidification because man will create fake reefs, or provide electrical help to coral so it can build reefs?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315272,00.html

Increased acidification effects can be shown with simple chemistry and experiments. "Facts" if you will - thus allowing one to 'know'.

Nor does CO2 levels change the effects of a sun warming a planet - if the sun's getting the Earth hotter the coasts are STILL toast and man had better plan on moving inland. Or growing gills.

I can understand fights/disputes about how much governmental influence/taxation/what the tax money will be used for. But to say CO2 has no effect? The ppm in the ocean tell a different story.

Sorry double post.

Hi Nate,

On the same vibe, David Bohm's "Thought as a System" (1994, Routledge) is very insightful as to how the process of thought works.

Also, this link to the Farce of Physics is very interesting.

And as posted else where, Paul Stamets (2005, Ten Speed Press) points out in his "Mycelium Running", on a blank page, just before the index:

"The greatest achievement of science to date: the acknowledgement of our ignorance."

IMHO, true science is that fine line between superstition and scientism, a delicate balancing act if there ever was one.

I still don't know... but at least I know that – at least I think I do!

No amount of knowledge, intellect, reason or rhyme can over come the foibles of being human, only humility can do that…

L,
Sid.