[Vision2020] Global Warming Contrarians Exposed

[Ted Moffett]

Chas et. al.

Thanks for your feedback on Naomi Oreskes research on climate change
science.

I went back to your comment below, and considered that if Vision2020
participants followed your suggestion that "we should lay off the
unqualified pronouncements," most of the opinions and comments to this list
would cease, including your own "unqualified pronouncements," such as your
defense of the Moscow City Council's back room Hawkins development deal,
well, that is, unless you have a doctorate relating to the economics, water
resources, or urban planning involved, or a law degree regarding the legal
complexities.

Only those with a PhD. in the particular discipline covering the issue at
hand would be posting, perhaps, assuming having a PhD. would satisfy your
conditions for being qualified to make a pronouncement.

Explain why, given a public list serve such as Vision2020 is an opportunity
for those who do not have a PhD. or law degree covering the topic under
discussion, to discuss and learn, why "we should lay off the unqualified
pronouncements," whatever you mean exactly?  Perhaps you did not really mean
what it appears your comment suggests?

Regarding your comments on Naomi Oreskes research on climate change science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459
----------------
Your comment below raises an important issue, though I do not agree with the
hyperbole:

This is a complicated
scientific issue, and USians suck at making rational decisions about
science.  We make emotional decisions about everything.
------------------

Many other nations (is this an "unqualified pronouncement?") score higher in
science education than the USA, so you make a valid point.  However, I do
not think this state of affairs is inevitable.  The USA as a whole
could expand its science comprehension, and raise the level of respect for
the scientific method.

I do not agree that "we make emotional decisions about everything,"  though
I may be nick picking here, given you probably did not mean this literally.
People in the USA often make very rational cold hard calculations about
money, wealth and power, and in applying science to these goals.  Many
scientific advances occurred first in the USA.  We have the most advanced
military hardware on the planet, for example, and this goal has been
achieved by utilizing well funded advanced scientific research.

I suppose, though, that it could be argued, in the long run, our decisions
about our economic system are too "emotional," given the long term crisis
our economy is headed for, due to irrational economic decisions (too much
credit and debt, over reliance on depleting fossil fuel energy, over
extraction of resources, too much consumer consumption, and the resulting
environmental problems, etc.).

Ted Moffett


> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:22 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> >  Do you discount John Coleman and all 500 of the Climate Scientists that
> recently met in New York. I think that the question is still open. That is
> not to say we shouldn't be working on decreasing air pollution.
>
> I agree.  Competent scientists on both sides of the debate have come
> to opposite conclusions.  Nontheless, and Inexplicably, some of us
> have decided to become cheerleaders for our particular hobbyhorse.  Of
> course, it is still prudent to take the cautious approach, but we
> should lay off the unqualified pronouncements.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080321/3b060b2a/attachment.html