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

[Joe Campbell]

I didn't say anything that disputes the comment in the first paragraph
below. I didn't read much after that.

I made a restricted claim -- no way one could make "these judgments"
-- which refers to the kinds of general, sweeping judgments of Paul's
recent posts on these topics. Of course you can make reasonable
judgments and partake in a debate on this or any other topic without a
PhD.

Can you conclude that a whole area of study is flawed without doing
extensive research in that area on a regular basis -- reading actual
scientific journals instead of blogs, etc.? No. As I pointed out,
showing a study is or even 100 studies are flawed could not possibly
undermine a discipline. Nothing follows from the fact that a
conclusion, or set of conclusions, is faulty. What matters is if there
are any good arguments for a claim, so the kind of points that Paul
makes on a regular basis are besides the point. You would need to do
some extensive reading of ALL or MOST of the relevant studies to come
close to making a reasonable judgment OF THIS SORT -- e.g., one that
dismissed the prevailing views of a particular discipline.

Would one read actual scientific journals on a regular basis and thus
have enough actual knowledge to support the kinds of judgments that
Paul made unless he had a PhD? It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Not impossible
but given that it takes me nearly all of my time to keep up with my
own research I'm going to make a guess that someone who has another
job besides teaching at a university does not have the time required
to make THE KINDS OF GENERAL COMMENTS THAT PAUL WAS MAKING.

That was my point. It is enough that I have to live in a world where
conservatives try to paint academics as elitists. Just please comment
on what I SAY, not what you think I meant.

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>