[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain

[Paul Rumelhart]

Do you have the qualifications necessary to evaluate my claims?  Do you 
have a PhD in climate science or a related field?

;)

Paul

Joe Campbell wrote:
> I hope you're not responding to my post. I didn't say anything close
> to the point you're responding to. I criticize PhDs for a living. In
> fact, MOST PhDs criticize other PhDs for a living. So of course having
> a PhD cannot exempt one from criticism. And of course you don't need a
> PhD to criticize someone who has one (see my recent post to get
> clearer about what I actually said wrt this issue).
>
> I do think that some of Paul's claims are at least close to being
> crackpot claims. He is dismissing the prevailing view amongst
> scientists in the know and in the process more or less dismissing an
> entire field of study, and related fields as well. I'll repeat what I
> said before: you would need to do more than read a few journal
> articles, read a lot of blogs, and refute a handful of studies to
> support the claims he makes. That is just a fact of logic.
>
> I agree with your last few points. I'd even go so far as to say that
> the kind of skepticism about this "new field" is healthy. But someone
> needs to point out that his claims are radically unsupported by his
> arguments.
>
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>   
>> Simply having a PhD in any field does not exempt one's work from criticism,
>> even from laypersons.  There are thousands of examples of the works of PhDs
>> in the social sciences whose experimental design errors and misuse of
>> statistical tools is easily apparent to even a moderately sophisticated
>> reader.  Some in the social sciences do not even appear to understand the
>> correct implications of the Central Tendency Theorem, a most basic theorem
>> of statistics, and an indispensable tool for drawing correct conclusions
>> from data sets..
>>
>> I do not have a PhD in probability, but I have exposed on at least two
>> occasions, serious errors in arguments using probability by such experts.  I
>> have found that such experts do not appreciate such corrections, even though
>> it does advance knowledge in some small way.
>>
>> Though I do not agree with Rumelhart on his current conclusions about
>> climate change (not only from my reading of the literature, but because of
>> my personal experiences over a life time with ice masses), I do not think
>> his concerns should be dismissed simply because he does not have a PhD in
>> climate science.  Climate science is a relatively new science, or more
>> properly, a combination of several sciences and as such its
>> conclusions/probability statements deserve careful scrutiny, especially
>> since if they are true or highly probable, then serious changes in the way
>> we live on and use the earth seem strongly warranted.
>>
>> Science progresses in part by discovering errors in previous
>> conclusions/statements of probability.  I do not see Rumelhart as a
>> crackpot, but as one trying to test the truth/probability of
>> statements which have profound implications.  I do think Rumelhart a
>> bit unyielding like some of the rest of use when defending a position that
>> seems less and less tenable as time goes on and more information is
>> gathered.
>>
>> Time will tell in this dispute who was/is correct, and maybe much sooner
>> than many predict.
>>
>>
>> Wayne A. Fox
>> 1009 Karen Lane
>> PO Box 9421
>> Moscow, ID  83843
>>
>> waf at moscow.com
>> 208 882-7975
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Paul Rumelhart
>> To: Joe Campbell
>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 9:43 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office
>> iscripplingBritain
>>
>> Well, I'm glad we've got that all worked out.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>     
>>> Of course he has the right, Tom. Anyone can talk about whatever they
>>> wish. I just wouldn't talk about issues of scientific confirmation
>>> without a PhD. I'm just expressing my own preference -- what "I
>>> wouldn't do."
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Joe Campbell stated:
>>>>
>>>> "What I wouldn't do is continue to harp on an area of empirical science
>>>> if I lacked a PhD in science, especially if one was available and I
>>>> wanted to get a PhD anyway . . . "
>>>>
>>>> Although I strongly agree with you, Joe, I believe that Mr. Rumelhart has
>>>> every right to discuss empirical science.  He simply cannot discuss
>>>> empirical science from a position of authority . . . say, like somebody
>>>> with a PhD in science can..
>>>>
>>>> Tom Hansen
>>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>>
>>>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to
>>>> change
>>>> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
>>>>
>>>> - Unknown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>       
>> =======================================================
>>  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
>> =======================================================
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>     
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>
>