[Vision2020] "...no possible way that you could... make these...judgments -- unless you have a PhD in climatology!"

[Ted Moffett]

The question of whether or not someone who has a broad based education
(what at least a bachelor's degree should provide, but often does not,
from my observations of many college graduates) but does not possess
PhD. specialist expertise in a given subject (climate science, in this
thread), can arrive at probable truthful judgements regarding said
subject, is critical for the foundations of how Democracy functions.

If making valid probable evaluations of the truth of a given complex
difficult subject, whether it be foreign policy, economics and taxes,
human rights, scientific issues, etc. is not possible for
non-specialists without a PhD., then the public very often could not
make informed educated votes to determine the best course for society.
 We perhaps should adopt Plato's model, where society is run by
committes of PhD. experts (I hope I am not too greatly distorting
Plato's thoughts).  And if not, if we are to defend the assumptions of
Democracy, then a broad based education offered broadly to the public
is mandated for the very health and foundation of Democracy, so that
the public can make valid informed evaluations of complex issues when
they vote.

I do not have PhD level knowledge on any subject.  But I believe that
with the broad based education I possess, equivalent to what a
bachelors college degree should provide, I can make valid evaluations
of the probable truth or falsehood of a given proposition on many
complicated difficult subjects, climate science included.  This does
not mean that I can comprehend the complexities of all the peer
reviewed science publishing on this issue, of course.  But I can often
understand the conclusions of scientific research presented in the
abstracts of the literature in question, and how they either confirm
or deny a given proposition on climate science.  Surveying the
literature will reveal either widespread disagreement, or varying
degrees of consensus on a given scientific question (Read here:
"Expert Credibility in Climate Change"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/expert-credibility-in-climate-change-responses-to-comments/
)

Consider that PhDs in climate science related fields also often cannot
comprehend all of the peer reviewed published science relating to
climate studies; they are too specialized in their own field.  Even
the most brilliant PhD. scientist would find it difficult to be a
specialized expert in every field of climate study.

Climate science is very interdisciplinary, covering biology
(ecosystems species response and CO2 plant uptake), physics (solar
variations and CO2 radiative forcing), astronomy and astrophysics
(even galactic cosmic rays have been posited as a significant
influence on Earth's climate: Read here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/
, along with the claim that the climate of other planets in our solar
system are changing in a manner that relates to how Earth's climate is
now changing), chemistry (CO2 atmospheric lifespan and uptake by
oceans causing acidification), paleoclimate/geology (PETM figures
prominently in Earth's paleoclimate, as this incredible Nov. 2010
statement from the Geological Society of London indicates:
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange ), mathematics, statistics and
computer modeling, etc. with specialists in each of those subjects
often covering a narrow field of study within each discipline.

The findings of the thousands of professional scientists from many
nations and independent scientific organizations, involved in this
very interdisicplinary scientific enterprise to study climate, as
these findings confirm or dispute the claim that human impacts are
significantly altering Earth's climate, are a reason the consensus
that indeed human impacts are significantly altering Earth's climate,
is robust.

Species are shifting ranges, the cryosphere is changing dramatically,
the world's oceans are warming and sea level rising, atmospheric
temperature is changing at different levels ("Increasing greenhouse
gases should result in a warmer troposphere and a cooler
stratosphere:"  Quote from the excellent summation of the climate
science confirming human impacts on climate at this website from
Professor Scott Mandia: "Global Warming: Man or Myth?
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html
); and the natural variables that might be causing these changes have
been monitored and studied to a degree that rules them out as a
primary cause.

It requires positing unknown natural variables or climate system
physics principles that are significantly altering or functioning in
the Earth's climate system, to explain the current climate changes as
mostly natural or that human climate forcings (continued CO2
emissions) will not continue to increasingly warm Earth's climate.

And the approach of arguing for unknown natural variables does not
refute the science indicating human impacts on climate are major.  If
there are also natural variables significantly forcing a warmer
climate, this is reason for even more focus on lowering human impacts
that are contributing to a warmer climate, given we could be forcing
even more rather rapid and deleterious climate change.  But in fact,
there is scientific evidence suggesting Earth's climate has been
entering a cooling phase due to natural variables, at least in part
the Milankovitch Cycles (From "Science" journal: "Recent Warming
Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.abstract ), which is
being overcome by anthropogenic climate warming.

The consensus might be wrong, of course.  There may be fundamental
scientific errors being unwittingly made by thousands of scientists,
or a widespread fraud or hoax being coordinated.  But these
extraordinary claims should be supported by extraordinary evidence.  I
have not read any credible evidence that holds up to skeptical
analysis that verifies that climate scientists are making widespread
fundamental scientific errors, nor that indicates there is an
international conspiracy across numerous independent scientific
organizations to engage in a fraud or hoax.

I think it would be possible for someone without a PhD in climate
science to uncover evidence of widespread fundamental scientific
errors or a widespread fraud or a hoax in climate science.  I don't
have a PhD in political science or foreign policy, but I believe I
have uncovered significant evidence that in the build up to the
invasion of Iraq, the W. Bush administration played loose with the
truth about Iraq WMD and Iraq's connection to 9/11, to induce a public
war frenzy to support the invasion.  But again, I have not read any
convincing evidence climate scientists around the world are engaged in
a propaganda campaign to deceive the public.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 1/7/11, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> What exactly are you commenting on? Do you read scientific journals?
> Can you, would you be able to understand that information? Or are you
> basing these judgments on reports from critics? I'll tell you that
> there is just no possible way that you could have enough information
> to make these kinds of judgments -- unless you have a PhD in
> climatology! My guess is you read criticisms of scientific studies
> (from biased sources) without reading the studies themselves. That's
> what it sounds like.
>
> Admittedly this is an area that I don't know Jack about but I'm going
> to trust the actual climatologists I've talked to more than I'll trust
> you! It isn't as if you or anyone else is bias-free on this issue, so
> that complaint is a wash. Ultimately it is an empirical issue. And
> like it or not you are not qualified to speak to this issue. Sorry!
> Get a PhD and we'll talk.
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well, I don't know what to tell you.  I've looked into evolution and
>> what's behind it, and it made sense.  I came away from it even more
>> convinced that the very underpinnings of evolution were sound.  In fact,
>> I used some of the basics of natural selection and evolutionary theory
>> to design a program that watches the stock market looking for stocks to
>> invest in, using genetic algorithms.  I've looked at some of the actual
>> facts, and came to the same conclusions.
>>
>> Climate science sets off my bullshit detectors, though.  Too much
>> political pressure, too much reliance on the idea of conformity amidst
>> the community, almost no examination of other hypotheses.  They're
>> assuming their hypothesis is true, and are trying to prove it.  They
>> should be assuming their hypothesis is false and should be trying to
>> find holes in it.  Throw some obvious crap in the mix like trying to
>> wipe out the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in order to
>> pretend that temperatures were stable until mankind fucked it up, and my
>> bullshit detector explodes.
>>
>> The earth is warming, but it was warming even before SUVs hit the
>> market.  Climate has been changing forever.  I see no reason to believe
>> that mankind is behind enough of it that taking massive sweeping
>> measures at this time is warranted.  Come up with some validated
>> predictions, and maybe I'll give the models a closer look.  Take, say,
>> 20 years to show me how close everything that is happening fits their
>> models and maybe I'll stop thinking of them as a bunch of politically
>> connected buffoons suffering from confirmation bias.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Andreas Schou wrote:
>>> That's a little harsh. Sorry. Shouldn't send email at midnight.
>>>
>>> It's just bizarre to see someone who's normally so well-informed, and
>>> a huge advocate of science, attacking literally an entire field of
>>> science. Climatology's consensus around global warming is as uniform
>>> and well-supported as biology's consensus around evolution. What's
>>> left over is a motley collection of crank physicists, conservative
>>> economists, conspiracy bloggers, geologists, and TV weathermen,
>>> well-funded by the petroleum industry. They've produced an argument
>>> that's superficially convincing to the myopic and managed to (since
>>> the 1990s) disinform a plurality of Americans, who -- back in the
>>> 1990s -- used to believe in global warming.
>>>
>>> I've tried to stay quiet, but the whole thing just makes me nauseous.
>>>
>>> --  ACS
>>>
>>>
>>
>>