I'm new to this crisis forum, so obviously I don't know its history or many of the members. To be honest I don't even know how I got on it.
I'm all for better tones of discussion. Of course its arguable what that means.
it is very common for people to find any distraction they can to change the subject, think about something else, put the blockers up and do an ostrich head in the sand act when faced with something as big and ugly as a planet wide extinction event. I think john nissans right to name this as an extreme example of mortality salience-when people are confronted with something that reminds them of their own mortality they tend to do anything they can to avoid thinking about it.
I've had the opportunity to observe this many times recently, when talking to nz politicians, business leaders etc for example I've known several leaders of the nz green party, which is ten percent of our parliament for a long time. They are fully aware how bad things are on the gw front, but are also suffering from pessimism bias. Thinking that nothing can be done. So although they have talked and communicated freely with me for years, respect the work I've done for them on scientific reports on other issues, they are running for the hills on this one. I'm not getting this from the environment minister from the last labour government, whom I also know well though.
Anyway I hope Im wrong, but it may be that I provoked some mortality salience by mentioning that venus syndrome or snowball earths were possible outcomes.
I'm all for less talk and more action. However in saying that, marketing science says that 15-20 repetitions can make almost anyone think that almost anything is a good idea.
Yours respectfully
Aaron franklin
On Thursday, April 25, 2013, david McKay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Aaron, are you suggesting that by proposing a better tone of discussion we are running for the hills? I'm not sure I quite understand your point, but I don't think the suggestions made by Mark et al amount to a denial of the situation we face rather than the wish for healthier discussions about these and other world issues on this list.
>
> I for one support doing things differently on this list having been frustrated by the sheer volume and repetiveness of recent emails - whether we can achieve a different tone of discussion without intervention or a new list is an open question, but intervention may become inevitable if things continue as they are.
> Dave McKay
>
> From: Aaron Franklin <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 16:17
> Subject: Re: FUTURE OF CLIMATE FORUM LIST
>
> I thought it was really productive.
>
> The running for the hills is just the usual human response to undeniable evidence of impending doom. Lose your fear of death and you lose this problem.
>
> On Thursday, April 25, 2013, George Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Indeed, I find it astonishing that the discussion has continued despite our discussion about turning off the lights- which rather reinforces my feeling that this is not a productive discussion. And Veli’s letter below did not seem to be answering it either.
>>
>>
>>
>> So this is a new letter with a new title. Asking for sensible proposals and firm action from the moderator.
>>
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of david McKay
>> Sent: 24 April 2013 15:08
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic and denial of life-threats
>>
>>
>>
>> Veli, I don't think it's been suggested that Crisis Forum is limited to only those in academic institutions, the issue is the domination of proceedings by some members and the tendency not to openly discuss ideas but to repeat debatable points ad infinitum.
>>
>> Secondly, although academia indeed has its issues and deserves scrutiny, your email echoes the oft-repeated sentiment from AMEGers that all earth scientists are now compromised and implies that they should now be bypassed, which I and I suspect others here feel is rather extreme and not conducive to disucssion.
>>
>> On another note, I've noticed a few people who have carried on debating in the previous email chain despite (and seemingly ignoring) Mark's earlier email - perhaps it's time for this thread to be discontinued and the discussion focused on the future of this list and how Crisis Forum discussions are carried out?
>>
>> Dave McKay
>>
>> From: Veli Albert Kallio <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 14:35
>> Subject: Re: Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic and denial of life-threats
>>
>>
>>
>> UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL'S STATEMENT:
>> FOR CRISIS FORUM MEMBERS TO CONSIDER BALANCE
>>
>> I have further documents from heads of state on .pdf format but due to the file size consideration these are not attached. Please request these, and further information by emailing me for copies of documents. I only disclose documents in public domain, not those files obtained by Wikileaks, Openleaks, CIAleaks, Anonymous, News International (Andy Coulson, Rebecca Brooks, Rupert Murdoch) or various state agencies spying on each other (even on climate). In principle, I deplore press espionage of government.
>>
>> Crisis Forum has a problem to bring into its discussions of both academia and policy makers from the different countries. This is an extremely difficult, may be even impossible feat. EU/US academia have their own "petty ideas" and "partisanship", that are widely rejected by both the academia and the policy-makers in other parts of the world (for very good reasons). The Western academia dominates its view points over the heads of others, often on a flimsy basis and failing to consider well facts what the others know.
>>
>> United Nations has a tendency for the Western nations view points to gravitate to its centre point and spotlight in its debates. This also includes its scientific organisations to the detriment of its other member states, their academia, and politicians. Money buys influence: limelight, attention, and power clout. It is also true in science as the limited resources reduce the volume of research and sexy science projects the richer countries can afford. The impoverished nations become the "outsiders" which the West all-too-readily thinks, know nothing. Furthermore, there is a self-enforcing group-think that also impacts the Southern Nations (or developing nations) themselves: their academia is eager to find employment opportunities (well paid jobs) and funding from the Western nations scientific projects. In order to do so, they cannot "rock the boat" and have to publish articles - that they know - are incorrect but which please the Wes
