Meeting are schedule from 11.15 to 12.05 in the room 105 @ NIMBioS
|01/27||Simon||Evolution of Moralizing Gods||here|
|02/10||Damian||Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact||NA|
|02/24||Lou||Human Risk Perception and Climate Change||NA|
If you want to add this list to your own calendar import or follow this link
|Complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history||2019||Whitehouse et al.||nature|
|Corrected analyses show that moralizing gods precede complex societies but serious data concerns remain||2019||Beheim et al.||psyarxiv|
|Historians Respond to Whitehouse et al.(2019)||2019||Slingerland et al.||psyarxiv|
Answers from Withouse et al. to the two last papers:
Misc. info, blog posts and discussions:
|Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017||2020||Bail et al.||pnas|
|Linking models of human behavior and climate alters projected climate change||2018||Beckage et al.||Nature Climate Change|
|Accounting for the Human Factor||2018||Gilligan||Nature Climate change|
Gilligan (2018) is a comment that will give you more context about Beckage et al. (2018) ; and for more information you can also read the NIMBioS’ press release about Beckage et al. (2018) paper here.
The group involved in Beckage et al. (2018) paper continues to work on similar topics with the support of the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). You can visit their webpage (SESYNC.org) to find more publications and researches on similar topics and ask Lou about it.
You can also visit the webpage of the NIMBioS working group : http://www.nimbios.org/workinggroups/WG_risk
Title of Lou’s presentation: “A Rational Basis for Hope: Human Behavior Modeling and Climate Change”
It is easy to lose confidence in the capacity for human social and political systems to respond effectively to the challenges from rising average global temperature and associated climate change. A working group of diverse researchers with backgrounds in mathematical modeling, climate science, psychology, sociology, geography and ecology has addressed the question as to whether there is any rational basis to expect that human behavioral changes can sufficiently impact climate to significantly reduce future mean global temperatures. Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses. We have built this rational basis by developing a model based on a set of standard assumptions from the psychology literature in the theory of planned behavior, linking these to extreme events obtained from a climate model, and then allowing feedback to global emissions in a climate model on a yearly basis as affected by human behavior. The key result from this is that there is indeed some rational basis for hope, whereby a meaningful reduction of future average temperature occurs under circumstances in which mitigation arises from infrastructure changes which allow for cumulative impacts.