[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus?: Global Warming, etc.

[Paul Rumelhart]

Ok, I've taken a deep breath.  My apologies for being rude.  I was 
reacting to your having "called me out" about that message that I had 
posted some number of months ago that I've since forgotten all about.  
Now I've realized what (I think) the issue is:  you are wanting to have 
a debate; I'm wanting to have a discussion.

I'm thinking of this more as a group of college students late at night 
eating pizza, drinking beer, and discussing a topic in the news.  There 
are lots of "what about such-and-such" kinds of comments, and rebuttals 
to those comments, and so forth.  It appears that you are thinking of 
this as two groups holding hardline positions on the subject who are 
each working to best support their case.  So when I posted about a 
website I ran across, it was basically with the idea that it might 
(given what I knew at the time) be useful in the discussion.  It seemed 
reasonable to me, and as this was a new subject to me, I based much of 
my opinions about global warming on it.  It was pretty handily stomped 
upon, which to me was an educational experience.  I got out of what I 
wanted, which was your reaction to a different perspective and I learned 
from it.  That's how I like to learn: look at things from all angles 
until my knowledge about it generally gels into an opinion.  Your 
response was a good one, and it changed how I think about global warming 
a bit.  I did not, however, expect to have to go rebut your rebuttal of 
my post.  I didn't do the work to create the pages I linked to, it's not 
my position that I feel obligated to defend; in fact, my views on it 
changed enough that I'm not sure I even want to defend it anymore.  As 
I've mentioned previously, I'm not knowledable enough about this to do 
that kind of thing and I don't feel strongly enough about it to do the 
underlying learning that I would need to do to be able to argue 
knowledgably about this subject.  That would require more than just 
reading a few webpages and the wikipedia entry on it.  I've too many 
irons in the fire for that.

So, I might pop in a question here or there, but I don't have any stakes 
in the answers and will not be taking whatever new perspective I'm 
currently evaluating as a position that I will expect that I will have 
to defend in the future.

I also want to say that this is nothing personal.  I appreciate your 
posts and look forward to reading your opinions on a variety of 
subjects.  Don't let my emotional reaction to being (or so I felt) 
called on the carpet in front of an audience dissuade you from 
continuing to post your well-thought out emails.  Even today, after 
years of trying to rid myself of this, I still hold too much self-worth 
in how intelligent I appear to others.

Paul

Ted Moffett wrote:

>  
> Paul et. al.
>  
> I did not seek debate with you as some sort of personal contest to 
> "win" an argument.  I would much rather discover the scientific 
> evidence mostly argues against dangerous human induced climate 
> change.  I would sleep better for it.  And feel less need to cut back 
> on my fossil fuel use.
>  
> I asked you to answer why I should not trust the evidence presented in 
> the Science magazine article on the scientific consensus for human 
> induce global warming.  In short, if you think this article in general 
> to be wrong, explain why the article and its sources are false. Your 
> skepticism appears to suggest you think the article to be false, or at 
> least not well grounded to a high probability in the best science.
>  
> I guess you are saying you really don't give a damn about whether 
> there is or is not a current scientific consensus on global warming, 
> or at least care enough to defend your skepticism based on 
> science...You have "other projects... to focus on..."  Well, why 
> didn't you just say so?  I was wasting my time responding, well, 
> unless by some miracle someone else read my response to some positive 
> effect.
>  
> I do not buy your "I'll leave saving the world to somebody more 
> qualified" line...
>  
> Those who are most qualified to speak on the global warming issue are 
> for the most part not those controlling governments, armies, and 
> multinational corporations, and most scientists are not among the 
> super rich who have more power over the decisions regarding fossil 
> fuel use than those of modest economic means.  Everyone has some 
> obligation, I am inclined to feel, to educated themselves about the 
> dangers of environmental degradation, and take action to address the 
> problems.  If the scientists who study these issues and are the most 
> "qualified" are the only people attempting social/political/economic 
> change, they will face an overwhelming task.
>  
> Thanks for your skepticism.  Rene Descartes "all powerful evil 
> deceiver" should always be kept in mind.
>  
> Just don't be so open minded that, in the words of another Vision2020 
> subscriber who sent me this advice in an Offlist message, your "brains 
> fall out on your lap."
>  
> Ted Moffett
>  
> Paul wrote on 4/1/07::
>  
> Ted,
>
> I'm not going to debate with you about the science of global warming.  
> Like I said in my previous post, I'm not qualified to do so.  You are 
> probably right, hell you probably have a 90% confidence level of being 
> right.  So strike one up in the win column for yourself and move on.
>
> However, you ask why I'm so skeptical about this.  I'm 41 years old.  
> Just a youngster to many on this list, I'm sure.  Still, I've spent 
> the last 20 years of my life relearning what I thought I knew from the 
> previous 20.  Our knowledge about the world has grown that quickly.  I 
> can't keep up any more.  The funny thing is, though, that every person 
> who told me what they thought was true believed it to be true just as 
> vehemently as those who tell me what they think they know do now.  
> Hence the skepticism.  I wouldn't be surprised if we find out 20 years 
> from now that what we thought we knew about lots of different things 
> (including Global Warming) is wrong.  I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm 
> not saying it's going to be wrong, I'm just not going to be surprised 
> if it goes the way of global cooling in the 70's.
>
> Global warming has all the hallmarks of a subject that could turn out 
> to be wrong.  Big money is behind one side of it, a "save the world" 
> mentality is behind the other side.  Lots of interests to protect, 
> lots of damage if we guess wrongly.  And still, too many variables 
> that affect each other.
>
> On a more practical front, we are not at odds.  I think we should 
> reduce our consumption of fossil fuels or even eliminate it entirely 
> as a fuel source.  We should work to make energy production as clean 
> as possible.  And, even if we lived in a world where the Middle East 
> was a peaceful place and oil was non-polluting with respect to other 
> dangerous toxins except for CO2, I would be advocating cleaner 
> technologies because of the looming threat of global warming even if I 
> don't have a 90% confidence level in it being true.  It's just a smart 
> thing to do.
>
> So, I have no interest in trying to defend my skepticism on this 
> point.  It's simply an effect of my upbringing.  Besides, I have other 
> projects I wish to focus on right now.  I'll leave saving the world to 
> somebody more qualified than me. 
>
> Paul