First Blog

  Davos – in a nutshell . The World Economic Forum, an association mostly of billionaires, meets annually in Davos, Switzerland to discuss all things economic. Lately, it's been mostly about climate change. Thousands of rich people attend. Yes, the conference is much about money.  Here is a brief description of the attendees.  1.       Billionaires wanting to cash in on climate change. 2.       Millionaire industrialists paying homage to billionaires, looking for crumbs. 3.       Governments sucking up to anyone. 4.       Movie stars hoping for relevancy beyond their fictional existence. 5.       News people hoping for a prize interview. 6.       Working girls working.

Biggest Existential Threats .   Every day our leaders warn us, scare us, and threaten us about existential threats.   These hint at caution: “Do something now or we will cease to exist.”    What are they? For politicians: anything that will scare you into voting for them.   For scientists: anything they believe may be risky. For religions: anything disabusing the scriptures. For the people: anything they believe to be dangerous in at the moment.   There is much theory involved, projections into many decades ahead, life-style changes, political expediency, and more. Politicians love these things as they generate huge campaign war chests.   Here’s the shortlist: Climate change, Pandemics, Artificial Intelligence, Drones, War, and Black Swans. Climate change – includes global warming, changing animal habitats, enlarged deserts, increased carbon dioxide, eventual degradation of livable area, an increase of disease, rising temperatures, arctic melting, etc. Pandemics – usually hig

I'm not talking about climate change or global warming here.  Our discussion is about climate risk.  Just a couple of decades past, all the buzz was about global cooling. Now it is about warming.   Unhappily politicians have become involved.  You must ask yourself, and answer honestly.  If I support party A and they claim this, do I believe them?  Or if I support party B, and they believe the opposite, do I believe that?  Short answer.  Believe neither.  Any politician supporting or denying "climate risk" is being political, not scientific.   NOBODY understands it.   If you really want to know, here's a very short list what to do and know. Remove most of the $$$. Establish theories of reflectivity of solar energy by atmospheric particle suspension, particulate and aerosol (micro and nano). Understand the nature of oceanic currents, historic and current. Establish consistent locations and equipment for thermal measurements. Understand the effects of atm

Political campaigns these days are different. They’re dirty, derogatory, and deranged.   All candidates must now prepare for ·        Pledging support for expensive and/or unrealistic goals, ·        Scandals, usually related to sex, though possibly fake, ·        Past sins, even back to high school, ·        Appeasing the base then pivoting to the middle, ·        Past lies (documented) and past lies (from weak testimonials), ·        Past or recent changes in policies or beliefs, ·        Income tax problems, ·        Illegal alien hiring. Given all this we give a question:  Who could possibly want to go into politics in this massive climate change?

We are residents in a silver bullet society.   We believe just about any problem has a simple pinpointed, highly targeted, definitely focused solution.    The problem complexity is irrelevant.   The overarching simplicity of the solution neutralizes complexity, creating a silver bullet solutions environment.   This is not to say the proposed solution is cheap or even simple, but it is single-minded and simple to comprehend.   It is easy to sell.   It is believable to the uninitiated, to the gullible, to the willing expert, and to the inexperienced.   It is simplistic and makes promises of a total resolution of the problem.    It comes to, “To solve problem X, just do Y.” The silver bullet paradigm compels believers to accept simplistic, often expensive, solutions.   It resolves problems, not by study and consensus, but rather by fiat, by denying alternatives, by denying study, and by rejecting alternative views.    Such solutions often address a symptom of the problem, and

June 13, 2012 Climate Change Of course there is climate change.   The climate is always changing.   Actually, what would it mean to say the climate is not changing? So, when people talk of climate change they are implying “man made global warming,” a term that has been tarnished of late, not to mention a couple of record cold winters in various parts of the world also of late.    For climate change, there is lots of evidence.   Ice packs are receding, sea levels are rising, and temperatures are up in the last century.   Researchers use even finer measures that look back centuries using data from ice cores, tree rings, and corals. Moreover, they use indices of volcanism, solar variability, changes in GHGs (Greenhouse Gases), and tropospheric aerosols.   Then, they build models based on all this showing that standard deviations are terrifically small for the nine centuries prior to the 20 th   where the changes took place.   They conclude that “most of the warming must be du