by Tom Fuller,
Let’s start with proper attribution of Wikipedia’s definition: ““Wicked problem” is a phrase originally used in social planning to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems.”
The first example cited is global climate change. Sigh. Others include AIDS, international drug trafficking and urban decay.
How wicked is the problem of global climate change?
In 1973, again according to Wikipedia, Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber listed 10 characteristics of ‘wicked problems’:
- There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is a problem).
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
- Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
- There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
- Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
- Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
- Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
- Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
- The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
- The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
Personally, I think the field of study of ‘wicked problems’ needs a bit of work, based on the above. Is international drug trafficking, one of their examples, unique? Is it not similar to human trafficking, cigarette smuggling, small arms smuggling? I don’t think wicked problems need to be unique.
Similarly, planners have been wrong repeatedly on wicked issues in the past, and many of them suffered no consequences, or were ‘rehabilitated’ to positions of power following their mistakes.
And wicked problems are not alone in being subsets of other problems–ask any 4-year-old endlessly repeating ‘why?’ All problems have causes, and many times the causes are actually solutions to previous problems.
The first item on their list involves the difficulty of definition. But I don’t think that’s a correct definition of the definition problem. I think the real difficulty is getting various actors to agree on one of competing definitions.
Okay, so a blogger somewhere on the internet doesn’t like what a contributor to Wikipedia wrote about ‘wicked problems.’ Where is this going?
I would approach ‘wicked problems’ in the following manner:
- Do we understand the problem enough to define it to all parties’ satisfaction?
- Can we scope the problem adequately in terms of its consequences and the resources needed to address it?
- Do we know what a solution or solutions might look like?
- Do we know a time frame for best results of any solution we implement?
- Are solutions to elements of the problem available?
- Will solving one part of the problem significantly change the scope of the remainder?
- Is there time dependency of both parts of the problem and parts of the solutions?
Wicked problems may be tough, but I think we humans have the tendency (and the incentives) to make them seem tougher than in fact they are. So let’s see how wicked the problem of global climate change really is.
Have we properly defined the problem? Not without rewording. The problem according to the activist community appears to be, “global climate change caused by human emissions of CO2.” Which is clearer, but I think wrong.
I think a better definition would be, “the future and unwelcome extension of warming that has persisted for over a century, caused by human activities that include emissions of various greenhouse gases.”
There may be better definitions. But if we cannot agree on the definition, then by definition we will not agree on its scope or possible solutions.
Have we defined its scope? No. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has offered a variety of scenarios with different paths to the future, but has not ranked them in order of probability. Economists trying to measure the possible damage caused by global warming cannot even agree on terms of reference, let alone the right number of zeros in the answer. The IPCC is incredibly relaxed about its wide range for atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2. As of today, their position translates to ‘it either will be a big problem or not much of one.’ That’s the difference between a sensitivity of 1.5 and 4.5.
The wild-eyed fantasies of 20-foot sea level rises and 10 degree temperature rises are a direct result of this laxity–without tight boundaries, things go bump in the night.
Do we know what a solution or solutions might look like? Surprisingly, yes–but we are not even discussing the most obvious and complete solution. We could solve climate change as a problem by constructing an adequate number of nuclear power facilities to provide electricity as our primary source of energy. We then would convert to electric vehicles and use electricity for other work currently performed by fossil fuels.
People may say they don’t like nuclear power and are concerned about waste or terrorism–and that’s perfectly legitimate. I’m more concerned about the quality of construction, and possible leaks, myself. But nobody can say with a straight face that the cure would be worse than the disease the activists imagine.
Do we know a time frame for optimum achievement of a solution? Surprisingly, demographics does give us an answer–some time before 2075, when human population peaks at 9 billion souls.
Are solutions to elements of the problem available? Again, yes. Energy efficiency, such as more combined heat and power, waste-to-energy plants, higher mileage automobiles and hybrids, a higher commitment to public transportation, a smart grid and HVDC transfer of electricity, etc., etc. Continued work on renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, solar and geothermal. (I think wind has surrendered its pride of place at this point.) Research and deployment of pumped hydro storage and compressed air energy storage.
Will solving one part of the problem change the scope of the remaining portions dramatically? Yes. A commitment to build as much nuclear power as needed will without doubt change the level of urgency surrounding all remaining elements of global climate change.
Is there time dependency? Yes. We need to have inexpensive and readily available energy for those people getting ready to be born and those people climbing the development (and energy) ladders. We need to do something now, regardless of the accuracy or correctness of our definition of climate change.
Too simplistic? Maybe. But that’s not an argument against the solution. It’s an argument that some are so invested in the idea of climate change being insoluble that they do not wish to acknowledge that solutions are possible.
And I would add this: A truly wicked problem would demand a Plan B. One exists for climate change–geoengineering. Those who would prohibit examination of our alternatives in this area are obviously indifferent to any solution, and have other reasons for participating in this debate.
And also this: For the many who disagree with the reality of the definition above, replacing it with a similarly worded expression of the energy needs of this planet going forward would leave us pretty much in the same situation.
In fact, I would slyly acknowledge skeptic concerns by saying–It is feasible to imagine draconian solutions to global climate change that do not adequately address our energy concerns. However, if we solve our energy concerns responsibly and ethically, we will without doubt solve the issue of global climate change.
Not so wicked.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well then what do you do about a problem that is NOT wicked at all; in fact it isn’t a problem at all; but there are busibodies who for their own reasons keep on insisting it IS a problem.
Then you get into the definitiion of what “is” is.
Climate change isn’t a problem; it hasn’t been evidently for the 4.5 billion years that the earth has survivied it; and it isn’t likely to stop any time soon, and there isn’t liklely to be anything that hukmans can do about it anyway.
So what if you predict that 50 years from now, a big asteroid is going to strike earth; you think. So you figure out that with some application of energy; you can move it to a different orbit so it misses.
If you wait for it to get closer; so you are more sure, it will take a hell of a lot more energy to move it far enough to miss.
And if you try to move it sooner while further away; you will use more energy to get to it; and you are less certain that it is going to hit anyway.
So what if your interference moves it from a near miss to a direct dead center hit. So who are you going to trust with the decision ot make any adjustment to the orbit of that missile; so long as you aren’t all that sure it really will hit.
I don’t know anybody I would trust to make that decision; including me.
Fuller, you are a publishers dream.
Ho,Ho!, LOL!, they define it quite well, any wicked behavior comes from them!
I am, unfortunately, old enough to remember that the world’s oil resources were going to run out in 1976 according to predictions by The Club of Rome. So far as I am aware – and I am sure I will be corrected – the world has never run out of any resource, we inventive humans simply find different answers to the looming problem.
We may well have run out of whale oil, but we found alternatives. We may have run out of candle wax, but we found alternatives and so on. I am sure there are many answers yet to be found to the energy issue and am not convinced that a return to the stone age is either necessary or inevitable.
Tom – it seems every post you make starts with the unstated, and unsupported, assumption that there is a problem. I don’t buy that.
And I do not buy the “precautionary principle” argument(s) for the same reason.
In any case, why should I be concerned about the agenda of activists whose beliefs I do not share?
All the best.
Tom, you keep insisting that “climate change” is a problem. Who says? The only “problem” I see is the innumerable politicians and chicken little’s who want to give us a solution to something. In reality, it’s nothing more than an opportunity to pursue whatever bs agenda they have rattling around in their heads. But they need to convince the great unwashed that there is a problem, and guess what? Only the Environmental Illuminati (them ) can save us from it. Bull.
I like your recommended approach, Tom. Although, given the lead time to ramp up a large number of new nukes, I think I like Robert Bryce’s “N2N” solution better.
http://www.robertbryce.com/node/8
Switch from coal to natural gas as quickly as practical, while building latest technology nukes for the longer term. Ramp up development of generation 4 nuclear power technology (and beyond).
http://www.ne.doe.gov/geniv/neGenIV1.html
Scarcity is an issue with nuclear fuels as well as is the problem of making nuclear power demand-responsive. Not impossible to solve but these are legitimate technological issues which does make your proposed solution somewhat simplistic.
The real wicked problem I see is the corrupt scientists only out for themselves and the also corrupt politicians(present and past) gouging and stealing from the American people and the world. Anybody with any sense can see how to overcome our present energy problems while working on new types and improved uses of what we have. You mentioned nuclear-that’s one of many we let our greenies and corrupt politicians prevent us from using while pushing those stupid windmills that no one can live with near where they live. Sorry for the rant.
Mr. Fuller
A wicked problem is one that cannot even be defined and yet is essentially unique. Really! Surely it is unique or not. And if you cannot even define it how can you know?
This is not science, it is not logic, it is not even informed speculation: but merely the kind of verbiage that charlatans and mountebanks use to confuse and impress the hapless victims of their fraudulent practices.
It is not even proper metaphysics: which at least depends on developing an argument from a premise, however outlandish: in the hope that although you cannot test the premise you might be able to test the conclusion. And learn something.
Only the very credulous are taken in by this kind of verbal acrobatics. Unfortunately that includes some quite intellectual people either because they they really are very stupid or because they intend to use it to manipulate other people with it to their own advantage.
Kindest Regards
To have a wicked problem you first need a problem.
You are assuming much that is by no means clear.
I take issue in particular with your implication that a fear of “the cure being worse than the disease” is unique to sceptics. Surely any rational follower of the CACD* school of thought has a duty to be concerned with this too.
CACD – Catastrophic Anthropic Climate Disruption – substitute your own preferred acronym
Most of Mr Fuller’s problems are imaginary. Out of these “Is international drug trafficking, one of their examples, unique? Is it not similar to human trafficking, cigarette smuggling, small arms smuggling? ” I’d rate only human trafficking as a real problem. The rest are caused by stupidity and an insane desire to control people and what they do to themselves.
Many other “wicked problems” are due to a lack of moral courage to do what is necessary or lack of recognition of the way reality works.
As in many cases though we can learn from Mr Heinlein. See “Solution Unsatisfactory”.
Regarding “the future and unwelcome extension of warming that has persisted for over a century, caused by human activities that include emissions of various greenhouse gases,” how is it unwelcome when even the IPCC admits that mortality from cold is much higher than mortality from heat? The increased death toll from heat-related stress is offset by the higher number of lives extended by reduced cold. Since “20-foot sea level rises and 10 degree temperature rises” are “wild-eyed fantasies,” why would the extension of warming be unwelcome?
The world has been much warmer before, as shown by the artifacts uncovered by the melting snow—the Neolithic hunter in the Alps, Roman shoe nails in the Swiss Alps, the pre Viking finds in Jotunheimen, the ice mummies in the Andes—plus fossil wood that shows treelines hundreds of meters higher than present treelines. Man has obviously survived higher temperatures back when there was no air-conditioning to help the elderly survive heat stress. Why then would a warmer world be considered a problem in the first place?
In a warmer world, the tropics with their greater biodiversity will expand, the temperate regions and the taiga will move farther north/south, and the tundra will contract. More land will be available for agriculture with longer growing periods.
CO2 has been much higher without any runaway warming.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
It’s only a problem in the minds of activist community that wants something to agitate about in order to get attention and gain influence. To create a market, first you create a desire (or fear) that is answered by your product. They can’t do that with H2O, which is the most potent “greenhouse” gas, because there’s no way they can control it or talk about limits. But CO2 can be demonized as “carbon”—that makes selling their message easier.
Your “wicked problem” isn’t wicked. It isn’t even a problem.
“Wicked Problem” is a problem for The Wiki.
In a past episode, I tried to convince The Wiki to use my “quantum onion” as a variant of the problem that their “Wicked Problem” describes:
A regular onion is peeled by layers. With each layer, the onion gets smaller, sometimes breaking into separate pieces, but always getting smaller.
A “Quantum Onion” is one that describes the situation often found in real science and engineering where a problem can be described simply, but when looked at in more detail, it expands in complexity. Peeling off another layer, it may expand in size or split into separable problems that may be larger after the unveiling. Eventually, peeling off the layers results in a “normal onion” behavior, where each layer is peeled away reduces the size of the problem described at that level.
The Wiki rejected my proposed nomenclature. Cretins!
While I read the whole piece, you actually lost me at “social planning”. Reminds me of city planners who seem intent on creating socially sterile environments. Or Soviet-era planners with all their attendant problems (such as their victims never meeting quotas in five-year plans).
In my mind, a wicked problem is a problem that won’t conform to some activist planner’s vivid imagination.
AIDS? Just another disease that will one day join the pantheon of diseases that once haunted mankind.
International drug trafficking? Had a similar problem in the 20’s and early 30’s — its cause was called prohibition. That problem was solved; of course we still have alcoholics.
Urban decay? Been with us since the first cities and it’s never going away.
Climate change? Oh wait, it’s now climate disruption. How can it be a problem when they (whoever “they” are) can’t even agree on a name for it. Global warming … climate change … climate chaos … climate catastrophe … and on and on and on … Didn’t the Aztecs have their own unique solution to climate whatever?
Climate change and energy supply are not ‘wicked’ problems. They are well bounded by the laws of physics. The only ‘wicked’ problem is the global warming fraud perpetrated by the IPCC. There is no climate change constraint on greenhouse gas emissions.
The IPCC has cleverly defined climate change in terms of an increase ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ that has no existence outside of the greenhouse land of its fraudulent computer models. There are two real surface temperatures that we need to understand. The first is the surface temperature either of the ground under our feeet, or of the surface of the ocean. The second is the meterological surface air temperature (MSAT). This is the temperature of the air in an enclosure placed 1.5 to 2 m above the ground. (Plenty of pictures of those enclosures on WUWT).
The ground or ocean temperature can be calculated from basic heat transfer theory. This has to be done using short term flux (half hour) averages dynamically coupled into the surface using real heat capacities and thermal conductivities. The peak summer solar flux is about 1000 W.m-2 and the night time cooling flux can reach -100 W.m-2. The total increase in downward ‘clear sky’ LWIR flux for an increase of 100 pppm in atmospheric CO2 is 1.7 W.m-2. When this is added to the flux terms BEFORE the surface temperature is calculated, the change in temperature from the additional CO2 flux is so small it cannot be measured. There is no CO2 induced surface heating. Over the oceans, the LWIR flux is coupled into the surface evaporation, but the temperature change is still too small to measure.
However, there is no convenient long term record of the real surface temperature, so the ‘hockey stick’ uses the MSAT instead. The long term changes in the MSAT are caused by changes in the air temperature of the prevailing weather systems. These are usually related to changes in ocean surface temperatures. The underlying ‘global warming’ in the ‘hockey stick’ was caused by increases in ocean surface temerpatures during the warming part of the 60 year ocean cycles (AMO, PDO) with urban heat island effects added. There has also been a lot of ‘adjustments’ to make the surface temerpature increases look warmer than they really are. The oceans are now in their cooling phases.
Once the real surface temperature and MSAT trends are understood, then the whole problem of carbon dioxide induced global warming goes away. We are left with another ‘wicked’ problem: the environmental Ponzi scheme that was created by the IPCC. Take a long hard look at the fraudulent pseudoscience hidden behind those ‘radiative forcing constants’. That can be dealt with by the legal system.
Then all we have to do is work on the energy supply problem. This is a tractable systems engineering problem, if we keep the environmental snake oil salespeople under control. Yes, there are lots of real scientific environmental issues, and plenty of different opinions, but we do not need to add another IPCC fraud to the mix.
References
(To start from)
J. D’Aleo and D. Easterbrook, ‘Multidecadal Oscillations’
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.html
R. Clark, ‘Surface Temperature’
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/what-surface-temperature-is-your-model-really-predicting-190.php
J. D’Aleo and A. Watts, ‘Surface Temperature Deception’
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
The problem gets harder when you can’t really nail down the stakeholders in one conversation. You work hard to get the folks in the room to agree on definitions and plans, but then a bunch more people think they also need to be part of the process. It’s difficult enough to get all the scientists of different kinds from different nations on the same page. But to the dismay of the tops-down crew, that is only the starting point. Then the industrialists require a completely different kind of discussion, starting from their frame of reference, and the scientists aren’t necessarily the right people to have that talk. And in this case there are some savvy and active taxpayers who insist on being part, too.
I will have to disagree like most here on the entire complex of wicked problems. Its not that there are issues that may be too complex as said that might fit some of the criteria, but there are more variables in the criteria that are based on decision making which goes to personal values + optimism level.
Lets look at the 10 rules:
1.There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is a problem).
This means the science is thrown out in defining the problem in the first place. If science can not categorize something, then WE CAN!
2.Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
This one just made me laugh. Same issue as #1, if you can stop time, then its not a wicked problem! The problem is forever and ever and ever and ever…I think they might have meant this a little differently, or maybe I misunderstood the stopping rule requirement, but it was my understanding that for the system to be measureable in any degree of relevance, any system would have to be stopped so to speak to take measurements…but then again, after I read some of the other requirements, this kind of goes along with the idea of the solutions being impossible to define….
3.Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
Solutions are not quantifiable in any sense mathematically or scientifically…lets continue on. I think I went over this enough in #2.
4.There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
Same as #3, these problems can not be tested, because if they could be, it would be classified as science as in #1, and two, the systems are constantly in motion with no reference point possible to measure or test the solution to the problem so to speak.
5.Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
First quantifiable requirement of “wicked problems”.
6.Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
Obviously, because every solution is simply better or worse, its up to the user to define the values, so there is infinite possible solutions. This is just basically repeating #2,3 and to an extent #4.
7.Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
What does essentially unique mean? I thought every problem was “essentially” unique, but maybe we changed the rules…
8.Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
I guess this could be considered quantifiable. Mark that two total. I guess they are meaning that every wicked problem is a string of wicked problems that progress into infinity forever and ever….shrug.
9.The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
So you can view the problem through different colored lens’. If the problem is viewed differently as is stated, it obviously means that the choice of explanation (that determines the solution) is also determined by explanations in numerous ways. This means that the determination of the solution is basically an opinion of the planner. I think the point of this is seen in #10 as I explain….
10.The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
Couldn’t agree more, but what does this mean when everyone views the problem differently, then by inference we can all assume the results are also based on how we view the world, so we can all define the world as either better or worse depending on whether we view the glass as half empty or half full. Full circle, we return to how in the conclusion of citing wrongness, the problem in itself gives full leeway for the planners to be wrong by circular logic and problematic formation in the first place. So in essence, number 10 is impossible…unless the person is moral and brings attention to the fact that “hey I was wrong, come punish me.”
In conclusion, wicked problems have three requirements:
1. If the problem can be enumerated with science/math laws, its not a wicked problem.
2. Solutions to these problems are based on the person’s feelings who are studying the problem. Any differences in what people feel can account for different answers to the same solution in the problem. The person is responsible for adverse effects of what they feel happened.
3. Every wicked problem is a one shot operation. The problem changes everytime someone throws a monkey into the works.
In essence, its a string of balogne. And in essence, global warming is not a wicked problem, because by definition we can take a snapshot of the climate system (say now) and measure it. Of course, our measurements can be taken into the “feeling” category, but if you can stop time and measure the system like I said, its no longer a wicked problem. I am not sure who put global warming as an example, but it seems like something I would do as a joke to point out how climate scientists like to measure things by feelings….and that they know the correct climate our planet is supposed to be at…..The problem is also not unique to any time since we can all come up with solutions, and determine a system for what makes a better or worse solution.
But I digress…maybe someone else can tell me I am wrong on the global warming call….
Tom, you amaze me! You can consistently be both correct and wrong all at the same time!
“The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).”
This is correct, because people have been able to escape the consequences of their actions in the past, doesn’t mean it is acceptable.
Your advocacy of nuclear power is absolutely correct. And you correctly tied increased demand with increase populations. I don’t believe you’re correct about the necessary time frame and some of your other solutions are not very realistic. To that, for another time.
Obviously, most here don’t regard CO2 as a problem and no one yet has put forth a convincing argument that a bit of warming will be detrimental. History tells us its typically a good thing.
Here’s the real problem, and while not unique to the U.S., it isn’t a global problem either. You aptly pointed out that some people object to nuclear power. They are in a vast minority, but vocal enough to have stopped investors from building much. Since you invoked Wikipedia, from wiki “On February 16, 2010, President Barack Obama announced loan guarantees for two new reactors at Georgia Power’s Vogtle NPP.” I’m not sure, but I think the last one to come on-line was Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, by Spring City in 1996 operated by the TVA. (That would be 3 in about 30 years!)
Now to the problem, from the TVA’s website, “……. Construction began in 1973, and Unit 1 began full commercial operation in 1996.
Currently, it will take about 20 years from planning to operating, with the caveat of smooth sailing with the red tape, law suits, etc…..
Because of the incessant blocking of other energy plants(coal and even hydro has fallen out of favor in some places) and the lack of building nuclear, we don’t have until 2075! In my state, Kansas, it is predicted with the current growth rate and if capacity isn’t increased, demand will exceed stable capacity in 8 years. All the windmills and solar panels in the world aren’t going to help this. We have a coal plant that is ready to begin construction. Ex-Gov. Sebelius, had continually blocked the building of it, finally we shared our misery to the rest of the country as she is now Secretary of Health and Human Services. The state finally removed all of their roadblocks only to have the new EPA edict regarding CO2 come in to force. The point is, Kansas isn’t unique. We’ve dawdled so damned long with idiotic Utopian toys that we’ve now backed ourselves into a corner. We have to build coal plants where available because it doesn’t take that long to build. Now, that’s a wicked problem.
We have to, but we’re barred by our own people.
The solution? Well, come November, we’ll make a very small first step, but it can’t be the only part of the solution, two years from now another step, but that can’t be it either, because we’ve have conservative legislatures and executives simultaneously, and they allowed this idiocy to thrive. (I blame them more than I do the lunatics, but that’s for another time, also.) We have to relegate the alarmists into irrelevancy and obscurity. And we have to do it quickly and with resolve. We can no longer afford to allow these people to obstruct our progression. We’ve suffered these fools long enough, indeed far too long.
I don’t know, I think I’ve been in new England too long. “Wicked” here is a colloquialism that generally means “extreme” but usually in a good way, in fact “wicked good” garners 192,000 Google inflated hits, and “wicked problem” gets 27,100.
There’s even http://www.wickedgoodcompany.com/
And a McDonalds commercial with a guessing game before one guy will give his friend the coffee – “Blizzard of…” “…’78”, best broadway musical evah…” “…Wicked”.
“Wicked weather” is my kind of weather.
Tom,
Interesting post.
Here’s some food for thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
You mentioned that urban blight was an example of a wicked problem. I found that the “Broken Windows” theory interesting, if hard to prove and quantify. That is, to combat urban decay and crime, fix quality of life issues like unsafe and unsavory subways; pick up the litter; and fix the broken windows in the neighborhood. These kinds of remedies, plus on the ground police efforts, allege to have drastically reduced crime and led to a degree of urban renewal.
Could the same kind of approach work in climate science and climate science informing energy decisions? Let’s see….we could straighten out the temperature recording and siting (fix broken windows); MSM could start if not telling the truth about climate science, at least report on the skeptical and lukewarm side (clean up the unsafe and unsavory climate science information highway); and about the crazy squeegie man (this won’t make sense unless you read the Wicki link), Pachuri and the IPCC could be made accountable for their lameness instead of being let loose to scare people and demand money.
So how are we doing? We claim the windows aren’t broken instead of even discussing fixing them. MSM keeps up a never ending river of foolishness on one hand and on the other complete radio silence on reporting our side. The crazy squeegie men are advising / running the UN and advising top gvt (Holdren? Presidential advisor? Really)?
My point is by this analogy, that there may be a fix; but it might just be virtue and honesty directed at just the right places. Right now, that isn’t happening, and the fact that it isn’t says a lot about our cultural and political standards.
Katherine says: October 18, 2010 at 5:45 pm
“Why then would a warmer world be considered a problem in the first place?”
Hi Katherine. A moderately warmer world is not a problem. At +3C that may no longer be the case for many nations. I recommend Mark Lynas “Six Degrees” as an excellent, well researched and accessible book describing potential consequences of rises of 1C, 2C, 3C… Don’t be put off by the “alarmist” title and feel free to ignore chapters beyond 4C.
Tom
You keep on saying there is a problem and it seems like you’re not engaging with those here who say there simply is no problem. Manmade climate changes, virtually nada, zilch. Real problem being the total rapid corruption of Science at the highest levels, probably hastened by the invention of the IPCC by Maurice Strong as a weapon of mass distraction.
Here are the main science issues (IMHO) again:
* The inflation of warming due to a whole basketful of factors like UHI, corrupting the data and insufficiently or improperly accounted-for.
This can account for about half the apparently excessive temperature rise of the last century.
* The artificial depression of past temperature records due to the very nature of the calibration of proxies, that cannot help but mine for hockey sticks.
This makes even the natural temperature rise look unnatural.
*The artificial depression of past CO2 levels due to a whole basketful of factors including the reasons for CO2′s partial escape from ice cores before measurement.
This makes it look as if we’re to blame for the recent CO2 rise.
* The city-dwellers’ failure to comprehend the vast mass of the oceans, compared with the tiny mass of the atmosphere, and the oceans’ capacity, following Henry’s Law, to outgas CO2 far in excess of all our emissions, at the tiniest global temperature increase.
This hides the natural cause of the recent CO2 rise.
* Reluctance to look at what is staring everyone in the face: the Sun and astrophysics: because the measured solar effects, still very inadequately understood, are not large enough to cause the measured temperature changes, and because the true correlation is hidden by the first factor, UHI etc.
Denying the Sun hides the natural cause of the land warming our thermometers, and the oceans warming to emit CO2.
* The unstated, unrecognized abandonment of Scientific Method, and adoption of models rather than data, again for a whole basketful of reasons.
This is added to all the aforesaid distortions to provide alarming distortions for the future.
* The unstated purpose of the IPCC in coordinating all the above, while keeping them in apparently different boxes of expertise.”Everyone can’t all be wrong” so if experts see problems in their area they still defer to other areas.
Divide And Rule.
This is why IMHO we still need a skeptics’ wiki, to state these simple issues in simple ways (but with expert backups) for simple people to understand, any time, all the time.
“However, if we solve our energy concerns responsibly and ethically, we will without doubt solve the issue of global climate change”
I gather the “we” covers China and India?
Do you believe that China is interested in responsible and ethical energy concerns?
You keep banging the drum on energy concerns and climate whatever it is today.
China is on the march,time will tell what that means,but I suspect that in 20-50 years climate whatever it is today will be the least of the western worlds problem.
http://www.iags.org/china.htm
In recent years, China has been undergoing a process of industrialization and is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. With real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 8-10% a year, China’s need for energy is projected to increase by 150 percent by 2020. to sustain its growth China requires increasing amounts of oil. Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S.’
“A key driver in China’s relations with terrorist-sponsoring governments is its dependence on foreign oil to fuel its economic development. This dependency is expected to increase over the coming decade.”
End
Will China have the USA in a grip dependent on China for oil?The USA is desperately trying to be the nice guy,we all know what happens to nice guys.
Of course oil is only one factor,China is investing in all minerals all over the world.
Yes something wicked this way comes and it isn’t climate whatever it is today.
Yeah right if you believe in wicked problems, hold your breathe till your delusion solves itself. Only a modern liberal or social scientist can spout drivel like this.