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

[Ted Moffett]

I'm sorry it appears you took offence at my post referencing your
statement on climate science.  But maybe again I am commenting on what
I think you meant, not what you said, as your response quoted here
indicates you think I was doing (or does it?):  "Just please comment
on what I SAY, not what you think I meant."

I appreciate very very much your comments on climate science regarding
the "extensive" expertise required to make the "kinds of general,
sweeping judgments of Paul's recent posts on these topics."

It was a relief to discover someone of your academic capabilities
respond critically to Paul R.'s broad attacks on climate scientists.
In my mind, it was as though you were an ally of sorts, defending the
probable truth against the powerful disinformation.campaign on climate
science that is hoodwinking the public.

I'm disappointed you "didn't read much after that."  I have spent much
time and effort to research climate science and related issues to
understand the salinent points involved, even with my humble
bachelor's degree; and I hope my post you responded to revealed this
effort.

Consider these "recent posts" by Paul R. are an expression of a
consistent attack on the science indicating anthropogenic climate
warming to be a significant problem, pushed for years on Vision2020 by
Paul R., that has resulted in an ongoing debate between he and I on
this subject, ad nauseum, as some probably think...

I am inclined to think Paul R. is playing a sophisticated game of
devil's advocate on the issue of anthropogenic climate warming
science... HIs repeated referencing of what even the most cursory
research reveals to be junk climate science and journalism indicates
an appalling lack of scientific rigor, masked by clever
pseudo-scientific reasoning that he evades subjecting to professional
scientific peer review.  I think he is too intelligent to not know
this is the case...

Consider Paul R.'s attacks on climate scientists, both their moral
integrity and scientific capabilities, that I have repeatedly
suggested he present publicly to the very widely read climate science
website Realclimate.org, open to vigorous critical scientific debate.
As far as I know, he has not had the integrity to present his hard
nosed attacks on climate scientists to the climate science community
on Realclimate.org.

But in total, even having made the scathing comments above, I have
appreciated the debate between Paul R. and myself on climate science
and related issues.  It has inspried me to learn more about the
subject, to think more broadly than I might have otherwise about the
issues involved.

Thanks, Paul!
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 1/8/11, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>