 |
 |
Dear All, I think this excellent bit of work does not go far enough. using only value free geo-physics, not social science, the blunt truth is that 2 or 4 degrees will be seriously disasterous for the biosphere, and the Humans.The reality is that barring some extraoedinary science, We are well on the way to a runaway greenhouse sceanario, with climate changes pushing temperatures up beyond those of th Permian extinction. on the way, you will get a whiplash effect, which will mean very short, intermittant mini-ice ages, perhaps only decades long, then temperature rises. Enough to cause Anthropic extinction. In actuality, if there was a technical fix, (just possible) then we would actually be aiming for a temperature REDUCTION, of 4 degrees, because of the overshoot effect of the climate runaway. Even that, might not stabilize things. In reality, our old, normal World has gone now, for ever. it is into the Whirlwind now. Graham Ennis ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Shaw To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 11:38 AM Subject: Re: The dangerous limits of dangerous limits Thanks all for your kind and encouraging words. I am aiming to publish in the journal Global Environmental Change as it is the top ranked journal for environmental sciences. The two degree limit is a problem because it falsely constructs climate change as a purely instrumental scientific question when actually it is an issue of values. The two degree limit construction says we all want to live in a two degree world. In fact a two degree world looks pretty awful on the basis of optimistic projections, we won't limit warming to two degrees anyway (policy makers are planning for four degrees) and two degrees is an end game for many ecosystems and cultures. So I do want to try and popularise the ideas and sentiments suggested by my analysis. I am working on a website/blog called notargets to try and build a resource and community of citizens trying to evolve a value based response to climate change. Though there is a website it is so rudimentary and embryonic there is no point visiting it at the moment, but if find the time, creativity and ability to make it half-decent I'll let you know. Thanks again, your positive messages mean a great deal to me as I hold this list in the highest esteem - here and medialens are the only boards/lists I post on. Chris From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Barker, Tom Sent: 09 November 2011 09:58 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The dangerous limits of dangerous limits Right, I'm going to stop boasting about my corrections now! Get it out there in high profile journals and News Scientist? T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Christopher Shaw [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 09 November 2011 09:24 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: The dangerous limits of dangerous limits Dear all Mark has kindly invited me to share a very brief outline of my thesis with the list members, it being of some relevance to the issues discussed here. I think the best thing I can do is just post the abstract for the thesis, and if anyone is interested in further details I can email chapters/initial attempts at journal papers on to them. (I say, not as a boast but in support of my claims to the validity and quality of the thesis, that the examiners passed it without correction, and the external examiner Brian Wynne, probably the most respected scholar in the field of science and society studies, remarked it was as good as any piece of work he has examined). Cheers Chris CHOOSING A DANGEROUS LIMIT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO HOW THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS IS CONSTRUCTED IN PUBLIC DISCOURSES International climate change policy is predicated on the claim that climate change is a phenomenon with a single, global dangerous limit of two degrees of warming above the pre-industrial average. However, climate science does not provide sufficient empirical evidence to determine such an exact limit. In addition, a single limit incorrectly assumes that social and physical vulnerabilities to climate change are uniformly distributed in space and time. Public commentaries play an important role in shaping public engagement with an abstract concept such as climate change. This research project examines how public discourses construct the dangerous limits to climate change decision making process. My analysis draws on elite theory to argue that the two degree limit is a discourse which constructs climate change as a problem solvable within existing value systems and patterns of social activity. A comparison of primary and secondary data drawn from diverse sources is used to chart the key historical, social and cultural elements present in the construction and reproduction of the two degree dangerous limit discourse. The historical dimension of my analysis shows that public commentaries have 'black boxed' the genesis of the two degree dangerous limit idea. I demonstrate how claims of a consensus amongst elite policy and science actors are central to developing a dangerous limit ideology amongst influential public audiences. The two degree discourse elevates the idea of a single dangerous limit to the status of fact, and in so doing marginalises egalitarian and ecological perspectives. I conclude that the two degree limit is a construct which makes possible an international environmental regime safe for the interests of elite actors. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database: 2092/4597 - Release Date: 11/04/11