[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 8 15:47:57 PST 2011 

Joe Campbell wrote:
> Unlike logic, on which it depends?
>   

Unlike climate science.

Paul

> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   
>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>     
>>> Sorry but if I were to make the kinds of wild claims about computer
>>> science that you make about climate science, you'd be all over my ass
>>> as well.
>>>
>>>       
>> Indeed.  Hopefully with coherent, logical arguments describing why you're
>> wrong or where you've misunderstood something.  In fact, merely replying
>> through email would lend credence to the science of computing devices just
>> by itself.  It's a pretty concrete, down-to-earth science.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>     
>>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> 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
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>         
>>>       
>>     
>
>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list