We have all these bad incentives that polarize us. How do we dig ourselves out of this mess?
Over the past few years, I've come to believe that there is a surprisingly simple answer. THREAD 1/
Communism may be the deadliest thing humans have ever done to each other. We should never forget or underestimate the dangers of militant utopianism.
(figure from: )
As one of the experts who was consulted on
@willmacaskill
's What We Owe the Future (but did not respond to
@xriskology
's request), I feel a duty to respond to this, as parts of this piece are misleading in ways that make me suspect this tweet might be misleading too. THREAD 1/
In William MacAskill's book What We Owe the Future, he lists 30 experts as consultants on the climate.
@xriskology
wrote to them. 20 responded. Most said they disagree with the book's take on climate change.
Some said they had not been consulted at all.
New study finds pay is the most important factor limiting undergraduate students from underrepresented backgrounds' willingness to take environment and natural resource internships.
Proud to be welcoming 3 paid undergrads this summer to our lab!
I hope this is the year universities are finally ready to grasp & reckon with how deep of a trust hole we've dug for ourselves over the past decade. Many of us are afraid to say speak up, fearing repercussions, but these trust numbers should scare us more.
Someone saying that they think there is a low probability of climate change causing total civilizational collapse or human extinction is *very* different from someone saying they don't think climate change is a big deal. 12/
Whether
@willmacaskill
has correctly interpreted the agronomy literature here is beyond my expertise, but I find the way
@xriskology
presents this quote out of context--to implicitly suggest that MacAskill doesn't think climate change is a big deal--to be misleading. 11/
Apropos nothing, here are 3 studies by top climate scientists in Nature journals supporting our ERL conclusion that 4-5C scenarios are looking implausible, 2-3C scenarios more plausible, 2C within reach*.1/2
This brings me to why I chose not to respond to the request for comment for this piece. This was the request. It seemed odd to me that the focus of the request was on this one (in the context of the book, minor) quote, and not on the whole book. It smelled like a 'gotcha'. 15/
But, I also think it doesn't make them a good candidate to do objective journalism on
@willmacaskill
's work. And so, I ignored the request, rather than participating in what I suspected might not be a good-faith investigation of the book and the ways we were consulted for it. 17/
The IRA has the potential to significantly reduce US emissions, as
@JesseJenkins
,
@JEBistline
and others have shown. In a new
@NatureClimate
paper, we discuss the supply, demand, and polarization challenges that could get in the way. 1/
Yet, it's also true that COVID did not come close to collapsing global civilization. If someone acknowledges this fact, are they being too cavalier about COVID? Do they not care about it? By the logic of the piece, the implied answer seems to be yes. 14/
New
@ScienceMagazine
paper by
@mjjuanjorda
, & others incl.
@NickDulvy
measures status of tunas, billfishes, and sharks over 70 years. After declining, tuna and billfish status has improved since ~2005 while shark status has continued to worsen. Why? 1/
Again, I agree, at least re: nuclear war. I don't know enough about AI to comment intelligently. Even if I disagreed though, I wouldn't see it as my job as a reviewer to push back unless the deep uncertainty wasn't clearly expressed, and IMO, it was. 7/
Just had a paper accepted after 4 rounds of review over 3.5 years at the same journal. Literally had two kids & moved halfway across the country between submission & acceptance.
ECRs: if you have an experience like this early in your careers, don't get discouraged. It's unusual.
In my case, the specific issue I was asked to comment on was the scenarios and the current thinking in the field re: most plausible emissions pathways. I think the
@willmacaskill
did a good job representing the state of the field on this in the limited space & for the audience.4/
And so, I Googled and saw that much of Torres's popular writing over the past year has been opinion pieces critical of
@willmacaskill
and longtermism. That's fine; disagreeing with MacAskill is their prerogative, and I think some of their critiques are thoughtful. 16/
That said, the general impression I got from reading the chapter (& later the rest of the book) was that
@willmacaskill
thinks climate change is a serious challenge, and making progress on the energy transition is unambiguously a good thing for society to prioritize. I agree. 5/
When asked to review a popular book as part of the fact-checking process, I see it as my job to comment on the scientific merits of specific parts that fall into my area of expertise, and not editorialize on the authors' normative conclusions, etc. 3/
Fisheries and conservation folks: do you use climate change scenarios in your research and wonder what all the fuss is about regarding RCP8.5? We have a new preprint for you (which reviews published work). With Sarah Becker,
@AFredston
&
@cassandrafish
1/
Big announcement: I will be joining the faculty of
@UWyoBiz
in the fall, & taking up a Presidential fellowship to work with
@UWyonews
President Seidel on campus initiatives promoting civic discourse, incl. dialogs, a podcast, & serving as a mentor to their
@BridgeUSA_
chapter. 1/
My impression from reading the piece is that my instinct here was probably right. But, now that it's out, I feel a responsibility to correct the record regarding how
@willmacaskill
consulted me (and I suspect also my colleagues). 18/
First, to the charge that we weren't told what we were reviewing: I can't speak for the other experts consulted (which includes many highly regarded scientists like
@hausfath
), but it was very clear to me that I was being asked to review a chapter of What We Owe the Future. 2/
To be clear, MacAskill's claim that this is an extremely low-probability emissions scenario is very uncontroversial. So, him speculating on whether this scenario would wipe out civilization doesn't really bear much on whether he thinks climate change is a problem. 9/
Climate change policies lose popularity when combined with pausing regulations or with social justice policies.
That's the headline finding of our new paper, led by
@RenaeEMarshall
, with
@Prof_SEAnderson
,
@LaithAlShawaf
, & Leaf Van Boven.
THREAD 1/
Publication bias is an important problem, in our field and many others.
@PatrickTBrown31
provides a brave and honest account of his experience with it that's worth reading:
But, before we get completely down on our profession, there are some nuances: 🧵1/
Since part of the book deals with speculating on what are the greatest threats of extinction-level catastrophes for humanity, MacAskill speculates that climate change is significantly less likely to cause human extinction than other things like nuclear war or AI takeover. 6/
For an analogy, take COVID: COVID is horrific and has caused millions of deaths. It is one of the worst humanitarian disasters in recent history. Everyone agrees that society should do whatever is necessary to prevent it from happening again. 13/
Standing up for people I know is apparently a theme for me this week. In light of the recent PNAS retraction of the MPA paper, I just wanted to say that
@renielcabral
is an excellent scientist of high integrity, and, based on what I know, he acted ethically in this situation. 1/
But, unless you're an academic philosopher, I encourage you to focus on the basic and important points of the book, which FWIW I agree with:
1) We don't think enough about long-term future and how much it could be shaped by major consequences of decisions we make now. 21/
Much of the book focuses on important uncontroversial premises, and then, like any good academic philosopher,
@willmacaskill
tries to push his ideas to their logical extremes and in doing so, gets into admittedly speculative and critique-able territory. 20/
2/ Major threats that deserve our attention include things already on our radar, like climate change, nuclear war, and pandemics (and
@willmacaskill
was sounding alarms on pandemics before COVID), as well as some things that are not, like AI and stagnation. 22/
But this is where the quote
@xriskology
highlights comes from.
@willmacaskill
speculates whether "the low-probability but worst-case climate scenario, in which we ultimately burn through all recoverable fossil fuels" would cause enough climate change to make humans extinct. 8/
Although I think Twitter is not a good place to have some of these convos (listening to Twitter is how we got here), I want to make a quick comment on the
@DorianAbbot
de-platforming, since I think standing up for people you know personally when they're smeared is important. 1/
New paper:
We present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that slow-growth, slow-income-convergence economic scenarios such as SSP4 might be best-case--not worst-case--scenarios for 21st-century growth and inequality. 1/
Beyond that, I encourage people who are not academic philosophers to take the stuff about colonizing space, how do you weigh quantity & quality of long-term future lives, etc as what it is: an academic philosopher philosophizing. 25/
3) Given deep uncertainties, three good things to focus on are: learning, building options, and doing things which are unambiguously good (like cutting CO2 emissions, which incidentally is one of the examples
@willmacaskill
uses). 24/
But, as part of this speculation, MacAskill asks whether it would become physically impossible to grow crops anywhere on Earth in this scenario, and speculates that it would not, citing a 2015 study by King et al on crops' lethal limits. 10/
"if (we) continue to openly and preferentially support the progressive wing of the Democratic party’s preferred positions and causes, then we shouldn’t be surprised if (our) public support eventually approximates its support for the progressive wing of the Democratic party"
People sometimes argue that scientific orgs should leverage their trusted position in society to push preferred political candidates and causes.
This survey illustrates that view's naivety: it takes public trust for granted and misses how we lose it by becoming politicized.
“In 2020, Nature endorsed Joe Biden in the US presidential election. A survey finds that viewing the endorsement did not change people’s views of the candidates, but caused some to lose confidence in Nature and in US scientists generally”
@ArthurLupia
"Catastrophic climate risks should be neither understated nor overstated". My comment, with
@RogerPielkeJr
&
@jritch
on the recent 'Climate Endgame' paper. 1/
Marine protected areas are announced before they come into force. New research in
@PNASNews
by
@grant_mcdermott
et al. shows that, as a result, fishers tend to fish extra hard in the interim period, setting back the gains about 1.5 y in the case of PIPA.
Honored and humbled by this, and greatly appreciative of my
@CUBoulderENVS
&
@CIRESnews
colleagues for nominating me and supporting my development of the Sustainable Economies course (spaces still available for Spring, CU students) and reducing polarization dialog series. Thanks!
We are thrilled to announce the 2020 Open Inquiry Awards winners:
@JohnHMcWhorter
, Leadership; Amy Lai, Exceptional Scholarship;
@JustinTosi
&
@BrandonWarmke
, Exceptional Scholarship; Princeton Open Campus Coalition, Outstanding Student Group; and
@matthewgburgess
, Teaching.
📢New
@csef_cuboulder
report on climate change opinion and recent presidential elections. 📢
We find that climate-conscious voters are ~2/3 of voters; they strongly prefer Democrats; & climate change opinion probably cost Trump the 2020 election. 1/
In March, I read in the
@dailycamera
about an amazing local HS junior, Henry Westfall, who had won a regional science fair with an agent-based model of political polarization. I decided to track him down and offer him a summer job working in our lab. 1/
We're recruiting a cohort of three PhD fellows--fully funded for 5 years--to study effects of emerging technologies on food security and the environment!
Please RT and pass along to networks from colleges large and small across the country!
For those interested in the climate scenarios debate, I made a figure (for a working paper summarizing it for a fisheries audience) that tries to combine the emissions story with the climate sensitivity story. Warming ranges in B are from AR6 Ch 4 Table 4.5. Hope it's helpful! 1/
We're hiring an Assistant Professor in Coupled Human-Natural Systems Modeling and Analysis!
Looking for someone who uses machine learning, AI, complex systems modeling, or another quantitative approach, on an interdisciplinary environment-related topic.
Yep. Lots of room for debate on policy, but the basic fact that humans are causing global warming through our greenhouse gas emissions could not be clearer.
Pretty remarkable how almost every “alternative” explanation (solar activity, volcanoes, aerosols, etc.) for climate warming actually has a *negative* impact on temperatures since 1850, or is neutral.
New paper with
@AlexaLFH
, Tilman, Loreau, Gaines (
@sfgucsb
@emLabUCSB
): we show that broadly inflicted stressors (e.g., pollution, habitat loss, climate change, multispecies harvesting) cause what we call 'ecosystem thinning' via species competition. 1/n
Good post. I suspect patriotism will be important to addressing climate change--an all-of-society public goods project. I suspect the climate movement underappreciates the importance of patriotism because it negatively correlates with climate concern.
@KenCaldeira
Not only that, our paper the article reports on implies it is just as good, only in different ways (more food security, less environmental gain).
Congratulations to CIRES/
@CUBoulderENVS
' Matthew Burgess (
@matthewgburgess
), who has been named a 2023
@CUBoulder
Research & Innovation Office (RIO) Faculty Fellow!
Read more from RIO ⤵️
I love our community, and my heart goes out to our colleagues, students, and neighbors who were affected by this.
American voters are overwhelmingly united behind common-sense gun reforms. No other advanced country has this chronic mass-shooting problem.
Now published:
"IPCC baseline scenarios have over-projected CO2 emissions and economic growth" with
@jritch
@RogerPielkeJr
See threads below for summaries of this and related papers (part of my lab's ongoing focus on growth futures & the environment).
On the supply side, there has been lots of discussion about permitting reform. Indeed, most IRA benefits go away without permitting reform; major projects regularly take 6-10+ years to get federal permits; and construction productivity has decreased since 1950. 2/
Detailed & convincing reply by
@JonHaidt
to his critics who claim that he hasn't demonstrated causal links between social media & mental health.
The exchange reminds me of this
@StatModeling
post about how "banning common sense" leads to research failure.
A review in Nature, by
@candice_odgers
, asserts that I have mistaken correlation for causation and that “there is no evidence that using these platforms is rewiring children’s brains or driving an epidemic of mental illness.” Both of these assertions are untrue.…
Interesting: After getting rid of mandatory SAT/ACT, MIT studies the evidence and reinstates the requirement *on equity grounds*. tl;dr it's easier for talented and disadvantaged students to do well on a test than to accrue fancy extra curriculars.
Impotant quote: "not having SATs/ACT scores to consider tends to raise socioeconomic barriers to demonstrating readiness for our education"
Why isn't this more widely recognized?
New preprint:
"Most plausible 2005-2040 emissions scenarios project less than 2.5 degrees C of warming by 2100", by
@RogerPielkeJr
, myself, &
@jritch
1/
Nuanced, counter-narrative papers do sometimes make it into Nature. E.g. this one by
@AFredston
came out on the same day as Patrick's: 2/
Does that mean there's no bias? No. But it does mean that submitting counter-narrative findings isn't hopeless.2/
Academic friends: what is your most under-appreciated paper? I.e. the one that you like the most compared to the attention it has gotten so far. Reply with links below. I look forward to reading all the hidden gems!
#AcademicTwitter
Just found out my fall in-person class was moved to a soccer field. Naturally, I ordered a
@impactmontreal
jersey and mask to wear to class. We're going to have fun with it. Kudos to our facilities folks for getting creative with the socially distanced classrooms.
But it's also a false dichotomy, as
@JonHaidt
and
@glukianoff
show in The Coddling of the American Mind: shielding students from ideas they don't like doesn't actually make them safer. Instead, it promotes cognitive distortions that increase anxiety and lower ability to thrive.
"In keeping with previous surveys, we find that there are three groups of students: one group consistently supporting emotional safety over freedom, another backing free speech over safety, and a significant undecided group."
@epkaufm
@Policy_Exchange
Some constructive takes on today's SCOTUS ruling:
1) Anyone who has been on a campus in the past decade--especially the past 3 yrs--will recognize the dynamics Tyler Austin Harper describes in the passages below, not just in admissions. We can do better.
My parents are getting vaccinated today. Very grateful to all the scientists and healthcare workers who made this possible. My sons often ask when they can see their grandparents again. The answer finally feels like "soon".
Climate models have been over-projecting emissions, in part because they have been over-projecting economic growth.
My honors student John Shapland, defending in two weeks, looked at the implications of pessimistic (I would say realistic) growth for 2100 emissions. Stay tuned.
Arrived in Colorado! Updated website here:
I will be recruiting a funded postdoc and a PhD student to start in 2019. Stay tuned for official postings: . Feel free to email me anytime if interested.
We are thrilled to announce the 2019 Class of
@SmithFellows
! Congratulations Anat Belasen, Charlotte Chang, Joan Dudney, Max Lambert, and Amy Teffer!!
In case you missed it over the holidays, quick thread on our new Nature Human Behaviour paper: "Prepare developed democracies for long-run economic slowdowns".
Excellent summaries by
@CUBoulder
and UCSB:
1/
Thrilled to be co-chairing (with Pete Newton and Pilar McQuillan) one of the inaugural
@HdxAcademy
Campus Communities here at
@CUBoulder
. See announcement and Chronicle coverage here:
Inspired by
@ElenaBennett
, I have included a Resources page on my new lab website. It covers research advice, job market advice, mental health, and more. Suggestions welcome!
"A person entirely unconcerned about environmental behaviour is estimated to be just over 50% more likely to go on to have a child than a deeply committed environmentalist." I.e., It's not just the surveys.
We need a more pro-human environmentalism.