http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ Transition Towns Forum: Forum: Transition Timeline - Recent Posts en Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:30:34 +0000 http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1963 Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:44:09 +0000 taita 1963@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Thanks for your response, Shaun. I'm personally glad to hear your endorsement of Lovelock as a pionering scientist, despite wide disagreement on things like nuclear and wind power. I expect he freaks a lot of people out with his stark conclusions on tipping points, global population and climate migration. That links in to a question which concerns me in my work on the psycho-social aspects: how frightened is it useful for people to be? I guess that in turn keys into the Heart and Soul dimension of Transition (with its links to psychotherapy). We need to find a position which neither suppresses nor succumbs to fear, grief, guilt etc, but moves through them. By the way, one of the things I like about "The Transition Timeline" is that you seem to walk that narrow path pretty well.</p> <p>John - yes, George Marshall is great: an activist with a very keen sense of the psychological issues. He gave a brilliant talk "Sleepwalking to Disaster" at the Facing Climate Change conference in Bristol last March.</p> <p>All strength to those planning the 2010 conference. Wish I could make it to the CAT event 7-9 September; we have Transition training in Taunton that weekend.</p> <p>Adrian. </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1956 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:36:42 +0000 ShaunChamberlin 1956@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Yes, we did a Welsh book launch for The Transition Timeline at CAT a few months back, and I am considering heading there again for the Zero Carbon Britain 2 events on Sustainable Land Use (Sept 7-9) and/or Policy, Action and Economics (28-30 Sept). Will almost certainly be at the 2010 Transition Conference too, so hopefully our paths will cross before too long John. </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1954 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:17:40 +0000 benbrangwyn 1954@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>John - there's the 2010 Transition conference (probably July). And CAT is a big draw for many of us (I see you're from Machynlleth). </p> <p>And coincidentally I was on a North Wales to South Wales cycle ride for 4 days a couple of weeks ago with fellow transitioners, climate workers and a gang from Sustrans, and passed through Machynlleth. Helluva ride, with plenty of weather! </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1953 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:03:30 +0000 JohnMason 1953@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Shaun,</p> <p>Good to hear your thoughts!</p> <p>Would be good to meet up sometime - this goes for a lot of you fellow Transitioners too!</p> <p>Often it seems as though we all stand on islands......</p> <p>Cheers - John </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1952 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:59:18 +0000 ShaunChamberlin 1952@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Adrian, many thanks for your kind comments on the book. It is wonderful to hear that all the hard work is proving useful.</p> <p>With regard to your query, this is addressed on pp.143-144. David Wasdell is a friend of mine, and was kind enough to read through and check over the climate change section of the book for me, as well as being a great sounding-board for some of my ideas. If you follow up on footnote 197 (p.144 - and also for convenience available at: <a href="http://www.darkoptimism.org/timelinerefs.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.darkoptimism.org/timelinerefs.html</a> ) you will find both David Wasdell's detailed comments on this topic and, crucially, the leaked 'scientific draft' of the IPCC report (with the changes made by the politicians highlighted). This allows you to make your own mind up as to how serious you feel the changes that were made are. The conclusion I reached in the book was that "the changes are not massive and outrageous, but any political involvement in the process of generating supposedly authoritative science is dubious, and it appears clear that if anything they lean towards softening the case for urgent action". Let me know what you make of them.</p> <p>I agree with you that peak oil and climate change are intimately related, and really do need to be seen increasingly as one issue. Of course John is right to say that for specific audiences focusing on one side or the other may be more productive, but I'm not sure that avoiding the denialists is a strong argument for running solely with peak oil. I've met my fair share of obfuscaters on peak oil too, and as the issue gains a higher profile I'm sure they will too. </p> <p>Finally, I must speak up for James Lovelock. I certainly don't agree with him on everything, but I do believe him to be a quite brilliant man who has made essential contributions to our understanding. And I've never encountered the supposed "fact that Lovelock is regarded in Transition circles as having lost the plot". Certainly opinions on him differ, but I wouldn't characterise the general attitude within the Transition movement as such.</p> <p>He and I (and Rob Hopkins) were actually all speaking at the Ways With Words literary festival the other week, and for me it was a privilege to hear him. In particular I valued a new analogy he introduced us to, concerning a stone statue - he commented that if the immediate environment around such a statue heats up, then the statue too heats up. On the other hand, if the immediate environment around a human body heats up, that body nonetheless retains a roughly stable temperature. Yet if the environment continues to heat up inexorably then eventually a critical point comes where that body, that system, suddenly ceases to be able to retain its temperature (death/collapse) and then rapidly warms to the temperature of its environment. Lovelock argues that our planet is more like a living body in this respect, with an ability to retain a certain stability until it reaches critical tipping points, while the IPCC's work treats it more like a stone statue. I believe this is a point well made.</p> <p>As described in my book, however, the scientists who contribute to the IPCC's report do tend to accept this, they just don't yet have the ability to fully incorporate the effects of life on the system into their work. Lovelock himself said that he feels that his ideas are now largely accepted by the mainstream, but that he understands the practical difficulties they are facing in incorporating this understanding. </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1947 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:26:47 +0000 JohnMason 1947@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Adrian,</p> <p>I'm always interested in promoting proper understanding of science and agree with you re - awareness-raising - there can never be too much of it, provided that it consistantly accurate and well-presented.</p> <p>Further to my thoughts above, here's a very valid recent post by George Marshall, who is something of an authority on climate denialism.</p> <p><a href="http://climatedenial.org/" rel="nofollow">http://climatedenial.org/</a></p> <p>He outlines the problems in communicating climate change to the public very clearly.</p> <p>Cheers - John </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1946 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:20:41 +0000 taita 1946@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Ben - thanks for clarifying and apologies for the misinterpretation (partly based on an off-the-record comment about Gaia Theory), but I'm glad I checked it out with you.</p> <p>John - well made points. Just two further responses: Assuming the Global Humanitarian Forum is right and 300,000 people a year are already dying as a direct consequence of man-made climate change, then isn't there a powerful ethical case for treating this with the utmost urgency? Second, whilst I have reached the same conclusion (and from direct experience) as you about the futility of "arguing in endless circles with climate deniers", there is surely a need for awareness-raising, networking and mutual support amongst the interested-concerned-committed half of the spectrum. That's at the heart of the work I'm doing for the next 3 years at at UWE Bristol's Centre for Psycho-Social Studies. I do want to tie that in somehow with peak oil though. Perhaps we'll collaborate at some point!</p> <p>Adrian. </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1945 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:20:37 +0000 JohnMason 1945@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Adrian - </p> <p>Yes you are quite right - climate change means a move to lo-carbon is urgent and peak oil makes it an immediate inevitability.</p> <p>The reasons I have shifted in my stance on this come out of the fact that climatology is an extremely complex field. I've held a deep interest in it for a long time and have likewise been part of the online debate for a long time. </p> <p>I have never before had direct experience of such a controversial matter. On the one hand you have a mountain of peer-reviewed science that pretty much points in one general direction, but which the public mostly doesn't get to see. On the other hand you have climate in the media, with a war between various vested interests that seems if anything to be escalating. There are an awful lot of conflicting messages out there at the moment. Try going to a busy cafe at lunchtime and asking the people in there how they think climate change will affect the UK - you will soon see what I mean.</p> <p>Peak oil by contrast is relatively straightforward - I am amazed that our politicians have not mentioned it, as are other commentators like Rob Hopkins. It is novel to many, many people, it is very easy to explain because the figures needed to explain it are all available, and basic but foundation-stone concepts like EROEI can be understood if outlined carefully in a matter of minutes; furthermore it is very easy to relate to, to visualise. It should come as no surprise that many climate denialists also take the denialist approach to peak oil, but when it comes to the crunch their arguments may be demolished with ease. I might have an advantage here with a background in economic geology, I guess.</p> <p>The problem in climate is that there is a well-established and extremely well-funded denialist industry, with some very persuasive slick-talkers in there. The particular task they perform is to confuse the public to the point that they do not know what to believe. What makes matters worse is that there are also climate alarmists who go about predicting imminent doom: when that doesn't happen and we get a cold winter followed by an unexceptional summer (like the last 9 months), the public want to know what all the fuss was about and the denialists kick off with "global cooling" propaganda. Climate is a multidecadal affair and people do not tend to think that far ahead - it's a great pity I agree but it is nevertheless the case. </p> <p>It's great that through Transition, people who do think that far ahead can plan for a low-carbon future, but if we are to bring on board those who do not think in terms of 2075 but 2015 at best, peak oil is the one to do the job. If we accept that the physical peak will be somewhere between the ASPO (peak 2008) and IEA (plateau by 2020) estimates, then we really have very little time to get as many people on board as possible. I'd rather spend that time explaining peak oil and promoting Transition than arguing in endless circles with climate deniers.</p> <p>Cheers - John </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1944 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:07:49 +0000 benbrangwyn 1944@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Adrian,</p> <p>You wrote "you seem to want to distance yourself from Wasdell". Nothing could be further from the truth and I'm struggling to see how I may have given that impression.</p> <p>Wasdell's work is hugely valuable and I continually use his analysis of feedback mechanisms in all my talks, and many of my day-to-day conversations. Shopkeepers are getting bored with me here in Totnes :¬) </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1943 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:53:19 +0000 taita 1943@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Thanks Ben; that's helpful and seems to demonstrate clearly that Wasdell is no maverick or eccentric. But you seem to want to distance yourself from Wasdell. Is that because of the Gaia (and therefore Lovelock) association and the fact that Lovelock is regarded in Transition circles as having lost the plot?</p> <p>John - though I broadly agree with your comments about politics and denial, I must take issue with you about peak oil being a more urgent issue and promising basis for our efforts than climate change. Surely what's central to and unique about Transition is the view that peak oil makes movement towards a post-carbon world inevitable and climate change makes it urgent. We can't keep politics out of it. We have to be part of a political process and work as effectively with politicians as we can, in the face of inertia, fear, denial and vested interests.</p> <p>Back to Shaun - I think that if Wasdell is even half right, then the comment about IPCC's aspirations to rigour needs to be heavily qualified in future editions of the book.</p> <p>Adrian. </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1940 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:50:40 +0000 benbrangwyn 1940@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>David Wasdell's analysis was based on reviewing the sequence of drafts and looked very sound to me. Others have made similar claims (do a google search of "+IPCC +censorship -wasdell" to get the links to articles that don't include Wasdell's comments or that were unlikely to have been prompted by his work.</p> <p>Monbiot adds to the debate here: <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/." rel="nofollow">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/.</a> </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1937 Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:23:41 +0000 JohnMason 1937@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Frankly, I would just concentrate on peak oil. Politics is hijacking the climate debate more and more. Peak oil is a relatively immediate problem. Climate change does have built-in uncertainties (what field of science does not?) and a lot of confusion/obfuscation is being sown by the denialist lobby. Don't get drawn into it - it is frankly a waste of time! What essentially goes on is agenda-driven politics masquerading as having some ability in science, but every time I read their stuff the same old themes come through - rabidly right-wing, pro-neoclassical economics, anti-BBC, anti Met Office, anti-science... you get the picture!</p> <p>Cheers - John </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/ipcc#post-1936 Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:24:27 +0000 taita 1936@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Shaun - congratulations on the book; I'm suggesting that it becomes the central reference source for Transition Athelney. One query (for now), regarding IPCC and your reference (p 140) to it aiming "to be the epitome of scientific rigour". I have recently come across David Wasdell, who was one of the expert reviewers of IPCC's 4th Assessment Report. In particular, I'm thinking of a 6 minute talk on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPxunJwCjP4" rel="nofollow">www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPxunJwCjP4</a> As anyone viewing this will see, he asserts that the IPCC accredited data is not only (as you mention) out of date, but it has also been heavily censored, as a result of the myriad national and economic interests represented on the panel. I find this disturbing, and in need of checking out. Have you come across this questioning of IPCC's reliability elsewhere? </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback/page/2#post-1919 Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:17:48 +0000 JohnMason 1919@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>That's a great link, Graham. Essential reading for all!</p> <p>Thanks - John </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback/page/2#post-1913 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:42:25 +0000 Graham Strouts 1913@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>John Gibbons has a great piece in the Irish Times today, “When Science is reduced to a game, anyone can play”, basically making the same points that I have been making, linking quackery with climate change denial:<br /> <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0723/1224251143766.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0723/1224251143766.html</a> </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback/page/2#post-1888 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:01:11 +0000 ShaunChamberlin 1888@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Hi Roger,</p> <p>This part of the forum is advertised in my book The Transition Timeline as the place to come and leave feedback of any kind, so the many and varied topics aren't too much of a surprise!</p> <p>Still, it might be useful for people to start new topics for comments on a new aspect, so that things can be discussed in a bit more depth without too much confusion and crossed wires.</p> <p>All the best,<br /> Shaun </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback#post-1876 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:01:15 +0000 rogadair 1876@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>This posting seems to have morphed amazingly from the<br /> thrust of Bob Thorp's original and thought provoking thesis that seems a step too far<br /> for many on this forum.</p> <p>I am happy for my review of the Mayo Energy Audit to be posted<br /> to try and move the debate forward from the current rather Jesuitical level<br /> of theological transition debate. </p> <p>Roger Adair </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback#post-1824 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:43:23 +0000 andywilson 1824@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>First, thanks Shaun (and Rob) for your efforts in putting together Transition Timeline. </p> <p> To pick up on an earlier part of the thread, I think the role of energy literacy - which is mostly only about Junior cert maths ('O' Level equivalent) when it comes down to it - cannot be over stated when formulating energy descent or energy transition action plans. Its hard to have a reduction strategy without some idea of the ultimate destination. I'd like to share some of the work that has been done in Ireland in this area, namely the Mayo Energy Audit. This was a very detailed assessment of energy use and renewable energy resource-potential in Co. Mayo.</p> <p>In recent dialogue with me, however,Roger Adair of the North West Group, commented that the Mayo Audit contained no definitive statement on future energy use. This is true. Co-author Paul Lynch and I simply assessed what was available and left the reader to make her or his own conclusions. In his short review of the Audit, Roger does exactly that and surmises that renewable resources, even if developed in an optimal way, will only provide the equivalent of a small fraction of current energy usage.<br /> (See <a href="http://transitiontownsireland.ning.com/forum/topics/mayo-energy-audit-review" rel="nofollow">http://transitiontownsireland.ning.com/forum/topics/mayo-energy-audit-review</a>)</p> <p>Given there appears to be a need for greater clarity, I have made a short summary of the findings of the Mayo Audit below. If we take Final Energy Consumption, the figures are as follows (proportion of current Final Energy Consumption ultimately provided from indigenous resources):<br /> 2020: 16%<br /> 2030: 28%<br /> 2040: 35%</p> <p> I have used the word ‘indigenous’ as there was some turf (local hand or machine-cut peat) included in the Mayo calculations. However, this is a diminishing resource, and the extraction of the raw material carries a high environmental footprint.</p> <p> The Mayo figures were quite optimistic, as they assumed the necessary steps to plant thousands of acres of sub-tillage-quality land in broadleaves (for biomass) would begin almost immediately. However, we also assumed relatively low yields of biomass per ha - perhaps in well organised agro-forestry systems higher outputs would be achievable. There was also some surplus electricity (not included in the figures above), which could be exported to regions of Ireland less endowed with electricity generation capability.</p> <p>Is Mayo representative of Ireland? Not really. Its population density of 22 persons per km2 is only slightly over one third of the national average (59 persons/km2). Conversely, it has good renewable resources compared to many parts of Ireland. Current per capita energy use is slightly above the national average owing to high transport requirements.</p> <p>The inescapable conclusion is that the Final Energy Consumption percentages given above should probably be divided by three when applied to Ireland as a whole. This gives:</p> <p> 2020: 5-6%<br /> 2030: 9-10%<br /> 2040: 11-12%</p> <p>Remember, these are best case scenario figures, and assumes massive country-wide mobilisation, beginning immediately.</p> <p>To put the energy figures in context, if Ireland relied on indigenous resources alone, the best case scenario would imply about the same per capita energy usage as India, not Cuba!!</p> <p>It is worth pointing out that Ireland’s low population density and good renewable energy resources base still puts it in a much better position than many of its European neighbours, especially Britain (with 15 times the population, 4 times the population density as Ireland and only 3 times the renewable resources)!</p> <p>The question is, how long do the high-energy consuming nations have to make the switch from fossil fuels to a renewable energy-based society that carries out its essential functions on as little as one tenth of what we use now? If we really did have till 2040, and could wean ourselves off oil and gas in a gentle gradual way, probably the transition could be made relatively smoothly. I somehow doubt the reality will be anything like that.</p> <p>It is certainly worth pondering these very difficult energy problems in more detail, hence the need for a greater energy literacy, and also perhaps some broad consensus of the scale of reductions that will occur, planned or otherwise. </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback#post-1821 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:43:40 +0000 JohnMason 1821@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Hi Andrea,</p> <p>Your "case examples" above are interesting but, and I'll take the coal-burning one as my one to expand upon, they illustrate something else apart from pure science. I'll explain why.</p> <p>Now, the industrialist of the 19th Century, with his steam-driven machinery, would see the economic benefit of having his workforce living in proximity to the place of labour: therefore, it would follow that towns expanded around centres of industry, in which pollution consequent on the burning of coal was likewise an expanding thing. The health of workers and their families increasingly suffers and the powers-that-be identify the need that Something Must Be Done.</p> <p>Now, you go on to say:</p> <p>"The analytical solution to that problem was to build higher smoke stacks so that the smoke would fly over the populated industrial areas. This is surprising, since a Scottish chemist, Robert Angus Smith, had already identified the link between coal smoke and rain acidification back in 1852. Yet the engineers proposing higher smoke stacks were only concerned with resolving the problems of local smog, which higher smoke stacks duly solved."</p> <p>That is not a purely reductionist scientific approach. The latter would call for ways of effectively capturing/isolating what are clearly well-identified and noxious products of combustion and if that were not possible with the technology available, to recommend instead that such pollutant sources of energy be discontinued on health/environmental grounds. No wonder scientists can be unpopular!</p> <p>However - and this is the important bit - the engineer, in the employ of the industrialists, has not been offered a fee to bring about that conclusion. Instead, it would have been more like "if we pay you enough, can you find a way of dealing with this pollution in the immediate vicinity? We have to continue using this form of energy at all costs because it is the most economical." To which the engineer would, needing the money, immediately set about making said pollution somebody else's problem.</p> <p>That then, in time, not being enough, and the industrialists getting concerned about being sued by the agriculture and forestry people downwind, they do set about developing the capture technology they should have tried all along. No doubt, hopes run high that the captured sulphur may be worth something! If not, they can always bury it somewhere and hope that nobody notices...</p> <p>That is not reductionist science: instead it is a bit of science, mixed in with the usual economic priorities. if you look at government approaches to climate chage, you see similar things. I think it's important not to get reductionist science mixed up with Business As Usual - the primary drivers are totally different!</p> <p>Your final point on that example:</p> <p>"Unfortunately, the sulphur particles in the atmosphere also act as water vapour condensers, thus promoting the formation of extensive cloud cover. This cloud cover helps to reflect solar radiation back into space, thus mitigating the effects of climate change."</p> <p>Now, I would say that the sulphur aerosols STILL need to be taken out of the equation, and likewise the GHGs such as CO2. Reductionist science tells me this at a glance. These bits of the system both have properties that make them bad in excess. You don't want extra clouds to up the local planetary albedo if they are going to carry on dropping acidified rainfall 50 miles downwind! That's still the sphere of a bit of science/lots of economics/somebody else's problem.</p> <p>Instead, capture all noxious products effectively, and only then are you starting to get close to a clean way of using the energy contained in an impure fossil fuel like coal. At that turning point, it becomes a reasonable source of energy. Unfortunately for the poor industrialist, he has to live with the fact that the EROEI value isn't quite as lucrative as it was, which in turn hits his pocket. Never mind. He can go off for a few drinks to his Golf Club and have a rant about "bloody environmentalists"!</p> <p>Cheers - John </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback#post-1820 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:33:51 +0000 Graham Strouts 1820@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Andrea; what a load of New Age Balloney. You and JDE need someone like John Mason to sit down with you and explain the scientific method is and how it works. (John you are a breath of fresh air! And what a fascinating hobby!)<br /> My guess is you know nothing about it. You have probably never read a scientific paper, nor would you have a clue how to assess different methodologies.<br /> No matter, you are quite happy to arrogantly pontificate about what constitutes "bad science".<br /> In order to investigate a given phenomenon, you must first have a hypothesis.<br /> Your lengthy waffle, apart from shredding zero light on the topic we are discussing- (wild lions and captive lions... what are you, like 10 years old?!) conveniently skirts around this fundamental point.<br /> Let's be clear: intuition may be the best on deciding who next to date, but when you are dealing with causal relationships (Hypothesis: Lions behavior changes in captivity") like does this therapy help with this condition, science is your only man (or woman).<br /> Science will not, however, be able to investigate something for which there is no hypothesis, so a tactic frequently used by the New Age and throughout pseudoscience is to be evasive about the hypothesis, or keep changing it- which is why rationalists often say they feel like they are debating with blancmange.<br /> So the hypothesis we are discussing here would be something like, "homeopathy cures a (specific named) disease".<br /> Now, that is something that can definitively be investigated using clinical trials- it is basically the routine daily nuts and bolts of scientific work.<br /> If you dont have a hypothesis, you are talking about nothing at all.<br /> Both you and JDE are just repeating the tired old New Age Myth that you know something does something, but you cant say what it is this something does because it is "holistic" ie meaningless.<br /> There are parallels in discussions on the existence of God- no meaningful discussion can take place until you have a hypothesis about what god is.<br /> So it is with alternative therapies. In effect, we all agree: there is no evidence that they work- you say, because it is not possible to collect such evidence!<br /> So how do you know they "work"- especially when you have no clear hypothesis about what "working" would actually mean.<br /> A real problem here is that you have no means whatsoever with your approach to discern between genuine therapies and quackery.<br /> I could invent a new therapy in the morning and start selling it pretty much with impunity; it could be entirely made up but I wouldnt need evidence, just marketing skills- and it is pretty clear that words like "safe, natural, holistic, with no nasty side-effects" is a very effective way of marketing a health product, accompanied with appropriate photos of healthy young mothers and their babies. </p> <p>The idea that "reductionist" and "holistic" approaches can work together is meaningless. You are saying that evidence based approaches can go alongside things that are just made up, ie things for which there is no evidence.<br /> Obviously they can't work together- the evidence is clear that alternative therapies are ineffective, yet you still claim they are! How do suppose this can be reconciled?</p> <p>Try this: "Yes, reductionist science is useful in telling us about climate change,but there is a holistic approach- which cannot be verified for love nor money-that tells us that everything's grand really. Isnt it great these two approaches can work together so well!"<br /> But as I said before, many (most?) alternative therapists claim there is indeed "scientific" evidence for the effectiveness of their treatments.<br /> just one example:<br /> <a href="http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/successful-use-of-homeopathy-in-over-5-million-people-reported-from-cuba/" rel="nofollow">http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/successful-use-of-homeopathy-in-over-5-million-people-reported-from-cuba/</a><br /> Note the gushing reports in the article: "The skeptics said they wanted evidence- well here it is!!" Note also the photos of people in lab coats and microscopes- they are literally stealing the clothes of reductionist science, which alternative therapists would so love to have the credibility from, backed by usually unpublished, unverified "studies".<br /> Now, Id love to see you take these fraudsters on and tell them that no such study is credible because homeopathy is "holistic" and cannot be touched with such "reductionist" approaches.<br /> I'm sure I'll be vilified from all sides on account of my tone, but i think it is time to get angry about these very important issues- we are talking about people's health remember. Giving bad advice -often as part of a professional service- about dubious therapies with no evidence is a very bad thing to do.<br /> In surveys in the BMJ in 2002 (Schmidt,Ernst, Andrews)found more than 50% of homeopaths advised against MMR vaccines.<br /> As a result of this deluded and irresponsible way of thinking that you are proposing, the UK is now experiencing the worst measles epidemic since the vaccine was introduced.<br /> Doesnt anyone care about this?</p> <p>Here is what I would like to see:<br /> -all transition groups are required to include a sub group courses on Critical Thinking and proper instruction in the scientific method and how science works in practice.<br /> -the new edition Transition Timeline replaces "alternative therapies" as being a core pillar with "evidence based medicine" as being a core pillar;<br /> -that the Transition movement makes explicit that it is a secular movement, and does not promote either new Age nor any other religion.</p> <p>There is not a cat's hope in hell of this happening, so I humbly excuse myself from further debate on this forum. </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback#post-1817 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:47:54 +0000 JDE 1817@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>I wasn't going to get into mudslinging and agree fully that good science is, well, good [actually just mistyped that as "is god", ironically!]. Andrea has clarified my point on clincial trials vs holistic care nicely, and really that's the crux of my point - there are too many variables in holistic medicine for a clincial trial to work, and using clinical trials to try and prove that any given system works in situations where it would never be applied in real life is bad science.</p> <p>Agreeing to disagree...</p> <p>JDE </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback#post-1816 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:43:21 +0000 Andrea Berardi 1816@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Hi John,<br /> I absolutely agree with you with regards to the fundamental importance of reductionist science. Once again, I would like to emphasise that it is not a question of either/or, but in both using reductionist and holistic means to address problems.</p> <p>This is a brief extract from one of my books which might help since it uses a slightly different form (and hopefully, more acceptable) of words:</p> <p>"There are two key approaches which guide the way we think and understand what surrounds us: analysis and synthesis.</p> <p>Analysis focuses on the component parts of a situation, at heart the recognition of the differences between things. The process of analysis is the process of taking something apart and recognising the differences between the parts, and determining what the thing's parts are and do. Finally, the parts are reconstituted so as to understand the whole. It is often assumed in this process that the whole will be the same as the sum of its parts. That is, the properties of the whole can be determined by the properties of the parts. Analytical thinking has been immensely useful in resolving a wide range of problems that have clear causes. For example, most of the advances in health have been as a result of identifying simple causes of many diseases: viral and bacterial vectors; nutrient deficiencies; genetic mutations; and so on.</p> <p>Analytical thinking has gained momentum since the Enlightenment, when there was a shift against mysticism, superstition, tradition, and revelation as the main ways of thinking about the world and what we do in it. The period within which this shift in thinking took place, the late 17th and early 18th century, was also called the ‘Age of Reason’. This age promoted the use of logic and rationality, with Newtonian physics at the forefront of the revolution. People who favour analytical thinking promote the idea that most things can be ‘reduced’ to an atomistic interpretation, ultimately implying that the basic common denominator of analysis, physics, will be able to explain how everything and anything works. It is not surprising that it is physicists who coined the term ‘Theory of Everything’: the quest to find a single model to explain all fundamental interactions of nature.</p> <p>But a singular emphasis on analytical thinking can also create more problems than it solves. A famous example illustrating the unintended consequences of just focusing on analytical thinking is the story of how pollution from coal burning has been dealt with. In the late 19th century, the burning of coal within industrial centres created significant air pollution in the immediate vicinity of the industry. The analytical solution to that problem was to build higher smoke stacks so that the smoke would fly over the populated industrial areas. This is surprising, since a Scottish chemist, Robert Angus Smith, had already identified the link between coal smoke and rain acidification back in 1852. Yet the engineers proposing higher smoke stacks were only concerned with resolving the problems of local smog, which higher smoke stacks duly solved. Soon though, significant areas of forest and water bodies downwind of these industrial areas began dying. Investigating scientists, still focusing on resolving the immediate problem, discovered that the high sulphur concentrations of coal smoke was acidifying rainfall over these downwind regions. The solution to the new problem, acid rain, was to install scrubbers within the smoke stacks which would remove the sulphur particles. Unfortunately, the sulphur particles in the atmosphere also act as water vapour condensers, thus promoting the formation of extensive cloud cover. This cloud cover helps to reflect solar radiation back into space, thus mitigating the effects of climate change. Another solution currently being promoted, yet again based on analytical thinking, is to spike jet fuel with sulphur. Some people are wondering what new problems this will bring.</p> <p>A great example of an area where analytical thinking fails, is in understanding human emotions. The following quote from Jamshid Gharajedaghi's book (Gharajedaghi, 2006) on systems thinking illustrates the problem beautifully:</p> <p>I can love, but none of my parts can love. If you take me apart, the phenomenon of love will be lost.</p> <p>Indeed it often seems the case that with too much emphasis on analytical thinking, ‘facts’ are in, while ‘emotions’ are out!</p> <p>Synthesis (holistic thinking), on the other hand, involves building a whole from disparate parts; a whole which at first maybe completely unclear, because sometimes this whole has properties that cannot be explained by looking at the parts. In order to synthesise different things we need to determine what similarities there are in two or more different situations, for example, consider living organisms. How can you distinguish something that is living from something that is inanimate?</p> <p>There is no single mechanism that determines what is living and what isn't. We cannot explain life by ‘pulling it apart’ and then reconstituting it. Yet, we seem to be able to readily distinguish living things from non-living things. Synthesis is therefore about understanding ongoing processes that create recognisable patterns of behaviour. If I encounter different situations that produce a common pattern, I can then label this common pattern, and I can use this label again, and again. Coping with or surviving in new situations, situations we have not met before, depends upon our ability to synthesise. We can do this quickly and efficiently if we recognise commonalities with previous situations. This kind of synthesis clearly aids and speeds the learning process, and is a powerful tool in surviving in a changing world.</p> <p>Many ‘wholes’ can only be understood by identifying their role or function in a 'larger whole' (the context or environment) that contains them. My labelling an oak tree and a blackbird as ‘living’ is the realisation that there is a pattern of ‘living’ behaviour in each of the two different entities, within the ‘larger whole’ of the ecological system, or ecosystem, within which they are both embedded. Synthesis, therefore, may very well involve identifying the whole that you wish to focus your investigation on, understanding the role or function of this whole within its context/environment ('the larger whole'), and then defining this whole according to the relationship with its context/environment.</p> <p>The same thing can be looked at through analysis and synthesis. Take for example a lion. Analytical thinking would assume that a lion in the zoo is the same as a lion in the wild because they are exactly the same type of animal. But, holistic thinking reveals that the lion’s role as part of savanna ecology is very different from the lion’s role as part of a zoo. Studying the lion in its ‘larger whole’ – i.e. in the zoo – would tell you little about lions in the wild. Analysis tells you lions in the zoo and lions in the wild could be biologically identical, but synthesis would tell you that the animal in the zoo is not the same as the animal in its natural habitat. The two approaches can lead to two different conclusions. For example, as the study of the behaviour of animals has focused more on their actions within their natural habitats, we have been steadily revising upwards our understanding of animal intelligence."</p> <p>when I state in the final paragraph that "the two approaches can lead to two different conclusions", I do not make a judgement on one being better than the other. Once again, I believe that any problem requires both a reductionist and the holistic approach. Not either/or...... but both. </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback#post-1814 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:14:36 +0000 JohnMason 1814@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>Quoting Andrea:</p> <p><em>"if I have understood you correctly Graham, the science that you refer to could be defined as "reductionist science" i.e. the isolation of a few components within a system of interest so that we could better understand the relationship between these few components."</em></p> <p>Quoting Graham:</p> <p><em>"what do you mean by "alternative"? I think the only answer, since you make no distinctions between them, is "holistic" in the religious sense, ie. remedies that are exempt from having any supportive evidence. This is why I spent so long on the issue in my review- for one it seems a sloppy and even irresponsible approach to something as important as health; but more broadly it betrays an ideological and anti-science world view which underpins much of the environmental movement, and, it seems, the transition movement as well- which as I say is surely an example of cognitive dissonance."</em></p> <p>When I read debates like this, which are always interesting philosophically, I do get a little bit concerned for the Transition Movement itself. I'll get onto the reason why in a moment.</p> <p>Reductionism is an integral part of the sciences because it is often necessary to isolate certain critical components from a broader system in order to better understand what the system is doing, and examine their relationship - I'm thinking of something I do for a bit of fun - severe thunderstorm forecasting. Success in that field depends on not just identifying that the atmosphere is convectively unstable (that's the easy bit) but on looking at a series of parameters - such as wind, moisture, temperature profiles - and predicting how they will interact. It then becomes possible to determine whether there will be everyday heavy showers or on the other hand there will be the risk of a tornadic supercell. Such things don't just happen because they feel like it! </p> <p>On a much more complex scale, the science of climatology likewise involves examining in minute detail the relationships between a series of parameters - you have starting points and subsequent positive/negative feedbacks to consider in order to attempt to predict the outcome. Hence, as a consequence, we actually understand climate change to the extent that we can confidently say we need to reduce GHG emissions and at the same time prepare for the predicted climate trends that are expected to develop in our various corners of the world.</p> <p>Climate change deniers - you only need to read the comments that typically follow e.g. Monbiot's blog on the Guardian website - certainly display, as Graham describes, an "ideological and anti-science world view". Often violently so.</p> <p>So don't knock reductionist science, fellow Transitioneers! It has brought to you, if you wish to learn about it properly, the understanding of climate change, one of the key foundations upon which the Movement was originally founded. Likewise it has brought, through geology, the realisation that oil is not something that keeps magically replenishing itself over human timescales: indeed, without such science we would not have a clue that Peak Oil was coming until it actually happened. Instead we've known all about it for over half a century, and we have a chance to prepare for post-peak life.</p> <p>Spiritually, I think we all share a deep-seated feeling that what we have been doing to the planet is fundamentally wrong, and that we are reaping the consequences of that. We have varying but broadly similar views of the sort of world we wish to live in. But, and this is important, there still exists, outside of us, an enormous majority of people who are variously uneducated, confused or plain prejudiced regarding climate change and oil depletion. It is no good to wrap yourself up in a spiritual blanket and hope that they all go away, or to expect them to all spontaneously paradigm-shift overnight into a holistic way of thinking. By appearing to reject reductionism as a part of the "old ways" the Movement stands the risk of setting itself apart from the majority when it should be hell-bent on engaging positively with the unaware. The key is maybe in the word "Transition". Transition isn't about overnight revolution, switching instantly from one way of life or belief-system to another. It's about starting with the world we have now and moving, inclusively and responsibly, into a viable future for mankind and the biosphere that sustains us. There are certain things that it would seem pleasurable to leave behind - hedonistic consumerism, for example. Many others will occur to you. But we will still need good science, uncluttered by belief-systems. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water, that's my advice!</p> <p>Cheers - John </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback#post-1813 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:33:57 +0000 Graham Strouts 1813@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>PS Just found your comment in my spam Shaun, thanks. </p> http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback#post-1812 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:36:50 +0000 Graham Strouts 1812@http://transitiontowns.org/forum/ <p>just another thought I had: suggesting that "alternative" therapies must work because we wont have fridges or oil for pharmaceuticals, or sufficient resources for clinical trials, is like saying "we wont have cars in the future, so therefore that is proof that flying carpets/free energy/flying pigs are real";<br /> or more usefully, it is the same kind of thinking that leads people to believe "the oil is running out; therefore renewables will fill the gap";<br /> that is the majority "Green tech" view n'est pas? </p>