[Vision2020] Global Warming Contrarians Exposed

[Chasuk]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> unless you have a doctorate relating to the economics, water
> resources, or urban planning involved, or a law degree regarding the legal
> complexities.

Nope.  I'm total un-degreed.  I'm currently laboring to rectify that,
but it ain't happened yet.

> 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.

That's not actually what I'm saying.  But read on...

> 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?

I think I've already belabored this enough, but I'll make the attempt
one more time:  I don't object to someone, anyone, expressing an
opinion on something in which their opinion is the only measure of
truth.

Me: I think Natalie Portman is hot.
Carl Westberg: I think Anglina Jolie is hotter.

Both of us are right, and our opinion makes it so.

Then there is this conversation:

Me: I think that water boils at 600 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level.
Carl Westberg:  I think that it boils at considerably less than that.

In this case, only one of us can be right, and that person happens to
be Carl.  But this isn't expert level knowledge.  it is within both
our realms to argue.  This is reasonable argument.  In other words, I
don't object to someone, anyone, expressing an opinion on something
which doesn't require expert level knowledge for that opinion to be
valuable.

But what about this?

Me:  I think that Professor Fizzbottom is correct when he argues that
the Higgins boson particle, when redacted by mitochondrial drift, (and
considering the influence of chaotic extremis created by Golgi body
apparatus) will cause plenitudinal corruption in dalmations.

Someone Else:  Ah!  But Professor Ezekiel Tink disagrees!  In fact,
he... Etc.  Etc.

Now, I didn't actually say anything meaningful at all (unless it was
accidental).  Neither did Someone Else.  But pretend that these
arguments are valid for Profs Fizzbottom and Tink to have, being
authorities on the subject.  This reduces Me and Someone Else to mere
cheerleaders for our respective Profs.  Our opinions are entirely
worthless.  Th truth of our Profs claims are not matters of opinion,
and we don't have the qualifications to usefully judge their words.
We are making unqualified pronouncements.

Worse, the same old players make the same old predictable
pronouncements, every time.  If Gore/Clinton/Kerry seem to be
favorable towards proposition X, then certain Vision2020 members will
invariably, and reflexively, take opposing sides.  If
Bush/McCain/Reagen heirs  seem to be favorable towards proposition X,
then certain Vision2020 members  will invariably, and reflexively,
take opposing sides.  So, in the case of complicated issues like
global warming, we have people arguing about the causes of global
warming who are (a) unqualified to do so, and (b) aren't making
arguments based on the evidence at all, but based upon fan club
membership.

In other words, it is pointless for someone, anyone, to express an
opinion on a matter of fact, something which requires expert level
knowledge for that opinion to be valuable, when: (a) they don't
possess that  expert level knowledge, and (b) they aren't arging THEIR
OWN opinion at all, but regurgitating the opinions of presumably
qualified scientists only because it happens to match (or not match)
whatever Bushco espouses.

Whew!

Chas