[Vision2020] Global Warming Contrarians Exposed

[Carl Westberg]

Me: I think Natalie Portman is hot.
Carl Westberg: I think Angelina Jolie is hotter. 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.
 Actually, Angelina Jolie could make a pot of water boil just by looking at it.  That's my opinion, and it happens to be true.     Carl Westberg Jr.                                                                                                                                       
> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:40:29 -0700
> From: chasuk at gmail.com
> To: starbliss at gmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Global Warming Contrarians Exposed
> 
> 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
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
How well do you know your celebrity gossip?
http://originals.msn.com/thebigdebate?ocid=T002MSN03N0707A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080321/d6f5b467/attachment-0001.html