Global Warming and the Cynefin Framework

Ever since meeting Louisa-Jayne O’Neill of the UK Cabinet Office at one of David Gurteen’s knowledge cafes, I’ve been interested in the Cynefin Framework.  Ms O’Neill wrote an insightful article about the interaction of faith and decision making with respect to the Bush presidency, and that was to be my introduction to the framework.

The Cynefin Framework, proposed by Dave Snowden, helps us understand the nature of knowledge as it relates to different types of situations, and different approaches to decision making in those situations. The space in the middle of the diagram reflects an area of decision making that is affected by faith, or to use a more subtle term a “predisposition to belief”.

On a plane ride to South Africa recently, I watched Al Gore’s documentary film about Global Warming – An Inconvenient Truth.  For two weeks I was a convert; image going on your first safari, thinking “all this will be gone in 30 years”.  I watched the film again on the return flight and, guilt ridden, discussed it with everybody I saw on my return.  Gore’s arguments seemed so compelling; his simple, at times personal, approach to conveying his messages was convincing.

But then I saw another documentary on Channel 4 – The Great Global Warming Swindle.  It appealed much more to the scientist in me, explaining how the global environment was a complex, and possibly chaotic, system.  It introduced arguments that are very compelling, and at odds with Al Gore’s dogma.  It also – and most interestingly from the Cynefin framework’s perspective – traced the history of the global warming movement, and showed how although it was instigated by a government trying to promote the nuclear industry, it was then adopted by reactionaries – those same people who have shown themselves as “predisposed to belief” in many other areas. 

So whose arguments should we trust?  Remember this is not a simple system we’re discussing – sunspot cycles affect solar radiation and cosmic rays, cosmic rays affect cloud levels, clouds reflect solar radiation from earth, as well as the ice caps, while volcanos and plankton give off much more CO2 than mankind.  By focusing on human CO2 output we may be underestimating the required action by orders of magnitude – and we may be missing the point altogether.  And with the government and the reactionaries aligned, what hope do the public have of making an informed decision?

One thing I now find hilarious is how the news programmes trot out new (and often un-reviewed) research about global warming every time we have a hot day. Clearly the media believes.

Philip Greenwood

Tags: Cynefin, Global+Warming, Inconvenient+Truth, Al+Gore, Channel+4

Comments

[Lauchlan Mackinnon]

Well, scientists have declared that global warming is 99% certain to have been caused by human factors and there is scientific agreement that this is the case. The fact that the global weather system is complex simply means we can't really predict what will happen or when as the icecaps melt or global tide patterns change. We just know we are giving a big shock to the system, and playing Russian Roulette with our living environment. The smart money is on mitigating risk by doing something about it.

Also I don't think it's fair to say Gore's "dogma". He basically laid out facts that are well understood in a slideshow presentation. What's "dogmatic" about that? He pointed to the peer reviewed scientific journals reaching consensus about the scientific facts of climate change. By contrast, the British Royal Academy has been sending strongly worded letters to companies such as Exxon asking them to stop sponsoring paid pseudoscience that gets published in non peer reviewed publications that disputes the realities of global warming. Given their paid interests in this case, who would you rather believe - genuine scientists, or people paid by oil companies?

Then there is a third group, economic free market radicals, who believe that whatever happes the 'free market' will sort it out, and the short term economic self-interest is so important that mitigating against events that could wipe out massive economic wealth or human lives is irrelevant. I think that one speaks for itself.

Lauchlan Mackinnon

[Phototainable]

Perhaps you might want to consider the accuracy of Channel 4's documentary a little more closely. I gather that Carl Wunsch, who is a very well respected Professor at MIT, is considering legal action as he feels that his comments were grossly distorted.

I was unable to watch the documentary as I am in the US, however having read George Monbiot's article (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/) I was a little concerned!

[roulette strategy]

To deal with global warming, the government needs to immediately plant more trees, and stop cutting them down. It is a major problem they need to deal with. The importance of trees has been understated by "scientists" that truly dont understand the relevance of trees. Dont criticize the importance of the concept until you know all the facts. On top of deforestation, we are polluting the environment. Another contributing factor is modern day energy systems rely on explosion rather than implosion, and this generates heat. Every systems need to be more efficient and work on implosion, so they stay cool. The non-profit energy research organization at http://www.universalsymbiosis.org is active in these areas which will help reverse effects of global warming. I suggest everyone also read "Living Energies" by Callum Coats which explains the work of Victor Schauberger and the importance of trees to our planet. Dont rely on information from the authorities as their advisors dont fully understand the life cycle of the planet. We need to push the authorities to develop forest management and sustainability plans, and this will solve at least part of the problem.

[Philip Greenwood]

Thanks for your comment Roulette - you're a true believer!

Or maybe you're a spam bot, or a mass commenter, because you can't have read - or understood - the blog post first! Or maybe you only read the subject line...

The blog piece was a call to pursue a deeper understanding of, rather than a stronger belief in, the causes and nature of global warming - to put aside the rhetoric.

There's some fascinating work done by the http://www.london-accord.co.uk/ if you want to delve below the surface - I would suggest starting there. Also understand the idea of the 'carbon bet'.