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

[Joe Campbell]

Ted,

No need to apologize and I guess I should apologize to you for
sounding offended. I wasn't offended. When I'm offended I call people
"jackass," like I did in my last post to Crabtree. He explicitly said
that liberals were anti-US. For a member of one political party to
call someone anti-US just because he is on the other side of the isle
is offensive. There was nothing offensive about your post.

I sit at my computer for long hours working my butt off and every now
and then take a break by throwing out a few words on the V. My posts
are usually quick -- I type very fast and write short, direct
sentences. Earlier today Tom thought that I was offended by one of his
posts but in that case, too, it was more a case of throwing out a
quick post, not trying to be too keen on smoothing it out for social
consumption. It has more to do with my being busy than anything else.
Some of it has to do with the Jersey style, which is direct and
unpolished.

In my last post I just wanted to make clear what I said earlier. It
seems that it was misunderstood by a few people, so I wanted to be
clearer about it. Again, I think that some people think of short,
terse sentences with occasional caps for emphasis as an indication of
anger but that's just how I write. I like to be clear and quick.
Apparently there is a danger that folks will read too much into it.
Apparently I don't care enough to change.

I openly admit that I know nothing about global warming. Both you and
Paul know far more than I'll ever know because the fact is I do
complex research for my job and when I have time off I'd rather watch
a movie or hang out with my son than read data about the global
warming debate. As I said, the V is a break for me, not a job.

I hope it's clear by now that I don't think one needs a PhD to engage
in debates about climate science or anything else. I entirely agree
with Art Deco's post and I'll further the point by noting that often
contributions to a discipline come from the outside, from laypersons
like you and Paul. My two favorite philosophers are Spinoza and Hume
and neither held an academic position. Spinoza was a lens grinder. But
philosophy is better for their contributions than it would be
otherwise. Art mentioned some examples and there are tons of others to
note. Einstein wrote important papers on physics while working as a
patent clerk, prior to getting his PhD (or at least during that same
year). There are plenty of other examples.

And certainly the field of climate science is so young, who knows
where the most important contributions from that field will come. So
my point was never that one should not talk about that area, or any
other area, unless one has a PhD. As Paul notes, I lack a PhD in
climate science but here I am talking about it.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where there is a general disrespect
for academics. And I'm trying to do my best to challenge that
disrespect. Maybe that's an odd way to put the point because I don't
think that I've gained any respect in doing this! What I mean is I
want to point out when instances of disrespect come up, to note them,
to note their prevalence. Again, most folks think I do it because I'm
so sensitive but that's not it. I want to make clear the prevalence of
the disrespect of the academy because I think by disrespecting it, we
all suffer. (Just as I wish to make clear the level of disrespect that
conservatives have toward progressives and liberals.)

In Paul's case I think he shows a tremendous disrespect for the field
of climate science. Again, I readily admit that he knows more about
the subject than I do. I have no problem thinking that he might, one
day, become the Einstein of climate science, leading to a paradigm
shift in the topic. It is for this reason, this small chance that we
should let skeptics run wild. Who knows, after all, who will make what
contribution when? It is for this reason that I usually just ignore
his posts and let the two of you go at it.

But nearly all his posts are the same. He picks a few studies and
points out their flaws. Sometimes the "flaws" are merely that the data
is inconclusive. At the end of the day, folks look at the debate
between the two of you and think it has come to a draw. One of our
council members, in fact, referred to climate science as a matter of
"opinion" not "fact" -- a distinction that I have always found
curious. (Some opinions are facts and some are not; we just don't know
which is which. "Opinion" is an epistemic term, while "fact" is a
metaphysical term. There is no fact/opinion DISTINCTION.) Arguments on
both sides, and who's to say who is right?

There is a three-fold danger to Paul's skeptical strategy, a danger
that undermines not just climate science but science in general.
First, is the fallacy that bad arguments make for bad theory. That is
just plain wrong. I could give you ten arguments for the same
conclusion. It might be the case that 9 of those arguments are
fallacious. But if the 10th is sound, then the conclusion is true. One
cannot judge the weakness of a theory by the number of bad arguments
given in its support. It is nice to point out faulty studies but in
isolation -- without looking carefully at ALL of the studies -- it is
a pointless task. Someone needed to say this.

Second, there is the clamor for certainty. But as everyone knows, NO
scientific theory is certain. We choose evolution theory over
creationism (if we are basing our opinion on empirical findings
instead of our desire for eternal life) because, on balance, the one
theory is better than the other. This is a comparative claim. Does
evolution theory have flaws. Yes it does. The theory of gravity has
flaws in the sense that it does not give a perfect explanation for
everything. Nor does the evidence in its favor logically entail its
truth. It is not certain, it is just the best theory that we have. (In
fact, this is a theory that has changed quite a lot in the last
hundred years, since Einstein -- and it is still changing and will
likely change a lot more before all of us are gone). Thus, when
deciding between two competing theories of climate science one would
need to look at ALL the data and judge which is better in light of
that data and other factors (such as simplicity, explanatory power,
fecundity, etc.). It is ridiculous to say "This theory is uncertain,
so it should be rejected!" Here the danger is in accepting only that
knowledge which is certain. But nothing, apart from math and
(possibly) logic will ever pass that test. We will come away knowing
nothing and in that case the best thing to do is keep quite.

All of this leads to the third danger. It is easy for someone, like
our council member, to say: "In the midst of these complicated debates
what should one decide? There are good points made on each side. When
I read Ted, he seems to be correct. When I read Paul, he seems to be
correct. It is a draw. There is no reasonable decision to be made. All
of it is just a matter of opinion, not fact." Of course, from the last
paragraph we should note that there is nothing special about climate
science. The same could be said about evolution theory and
creationism. "When I listen to Prof. Sullivan it seems that evolution
theory is true but when Mr. Wilson speaks it seems that creationism is
true. Who's to say? It is all a matter of opinion not fact." (It is
interesting that Paul's response was that climate science seems like
bs but evolution theory does not. As if that is the test -- whatever
sets off your bs meter!) Again, if crap arguments are allowed to stand
for good science, then all debates are reduced to opinion, no matter
how much the issue depends on empirical facts, no matter how much
evidence lies in support of one theory over the other. Science, the
academy, and our standards of knowledge are all losers if this is the
way debates go. And in the end we're all losers because we base policy
decisions on a flip of the coin instead of research, experiment, and
reason. We've spent much of civilization establishing the scientific
method only to have it displaced by the rhetorical version of three
card monte.

I'm sorry but I can't let this bs continue without at least making a
stand in favor of reason and against crap. And if Paul really has
something to say, there is nothing wrong with him getting a PhD,
learning a lot more than he already knows, and taking part in an
epistemological revolution that has been developing for over 2,000
years.

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>