http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/text-to-text-einstein-and-where-science-and-religion-coexist/

"Einstein and ‘Where Science and Religion Coexist’"

... we take on the question of the compatibility of science and religion, with an excerpt from a Times Opinion piece written by Albert Einstein in 1930; a 2013 report on a conference between scientists and Buddhist monks hosted by the Dalai Lama; and a video in which the theoretical physicist Richard Feynman talks about trying to find answers to life’s big questions while living with doubt.

Well, actually that's pretty much a word for word transcription, with just a slight rearrangement (as alluded to above)

"That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Oddly enough, that actually sounds a lot like how physicists talk about the "multiverse" and the "collapse of wave function"

Only in the case of Rove (and/or whoever said that), I think "multiperverse" and the "collapse of the Rove function" might be more apt.

As they say, politics is stranger than quantum mechanics.

Horatio, you amaze ... things we have not yet dreamed of, in handy couplets etc. ...

"Recreational Reality"

– Horatio’s (ever so slight) perversification of a Bush aide (thought to be Karl Rove)

We create our own reality.
That’s simply what we do
And while you study, judiciously,
We’ll act again, create anew
Other realities, to study too.

And that’s how things sort out,
We’re history’s actors…and you,
All of you, without a doubt,
Will be left to study what we do,
And fail to do, on climate too.

No, I was reading too little into it. Flippancy might be a defence mechanism.

I think you are probably reading too much into it. I am not trying to be cynical (or sexist for that matter, just quoting accurately). I am trying to back up an effort to revive constructive optimism, as ever.

The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics, whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were and ask, why not?

Or am I reading too much into it?

Disgraceful. But there is good news across the pond: they'll eventually be filling more casks like these -- hat tip Ben Heard -- and

A price of £92.50 per MWh was agreed as the strike price for the project, meaning the government will top up EDF's income to this level if wholesale prices are lower. EDF will have to pay back to government if market prices are higher.

If the shale gas story turns out to have some twists, the UK government may well become an electricity rentier.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.2126678

Dozens Flee Homes After Fuel Train Cars Derail, Explode West of Edmonton
Posted: 19 Oct 2013 09:57 AM PDT
(CBC News)
A CN Rail train carrying liquefied petroleum gas and crude oil has derailed and exploded about 80 kilometres west of Edmonton, prompting an evacuation in the tiny community of Gainford.

Seems this study is popping up all over the place now - there's a message in there about how we perceive evidence, I'm sure.

Over at wottsupwiththatblog Richard Tol says "There is no known relationship between climate (change) and violent conflict, so that the best impact estimate is zero." and when pointed to this study opines "That paper is a strong contender for the worst climate paper of 2013." I'd rank Tol as one of those towards the 'sceptic' end of the spectrum who warrants being listened to more than most, but his enigmatic one line responses there are typically frustraing.

Even if there is no empirical evidence, which looks questionable, of a link between climate change and violence is the correct conclusion to draw that 'the best impact estimate' is zero? It seems to me that there are some fairly obvious logical reasons to think that changes in climate will increase social stress and given that there is surely no evidence that these changes won't increase violence is it right to discount this logic?

Putin is clear that Arctic oil and gas will form the basis of Russia’s future economic prosperity, and thus Russia wants to send the message that anybody who attempts to interfere in its Arctic activities will feel the full legal and political force of the state.

All round, we face a bit of an uphill struggle getting this sankey diagram to net zero.

On climate and social instability - an NMA lyric (song here) springs to mind: "Let dreams flow into savage times. Do you hear the sirens scream across the city? We've had three hot nights in succession - the riot season is here again."

Hmm. I'm cheery this evening. That song ends "put out the lights on the age of reason"...

Denial is a stadium wave
Passing through a crowd
An undulating rant and rave
Where reason ain’t allowed

Back and forth and in and out
Like wheat-fields in the breeze
Rambler waves without a doubt
Brain raves if you please

Warning: "stadium waves" may be hazardous to your health. Take precautions: Always wear a braincoat and avoid the urge to stand/sit (or kneel, like they do in church) just because everyone around you is doing it.

These impacts, in my view, are what are most likely to put the 'catastrophic' into anthropogenic climate change, at least for those caught up in the conflict.

How is it that a report like this can get so little attention?

(I thought I'd better google the study before posting to see how little attention it actually did get - it seems it came out at a time when I was on holiday so I may have missed some of the discussion. Even so the only mainstream media on the first page was this from the Guardian, which is more an analysis of the methodology than its conclusions - and a reprint of a Spiegel piece from the GWPF, which unsurprisingly talks (ironically?) of 'unusually violent' criticism.)

I see that Stoat has the first installment of a pleasurably snarky response. Let's hope Dr Connolley has some more free evenings coming up soon.

Sure we'll inevitably face ultimate ecological catastrophe, but it's no reason to stop doing your homework.