[Vision2020] 10-21-09: ASA: 17 Sci. Org. Letter to All US Senators: "human...greenhouse gases...primary driver"

[Ted Moffett]

On 7/13/11, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:

> It takes a nearly blind person to dispute the reality of average temperature
> increase worldwide over the last 140 years, the lost of ice mass worldwide,
> and the rise of sea levels.  There may be several causes, but there is
> strong evidence that human activity that generates carbon dioxide is a not
> insignificant factor.

This manner of phrasing the extent of the impact of human atmospheric
CO2 emissions, while technically logically not false, does not
accurately communicate the magnitude of the human impacts forcing a
warming of Earth's climate, compared to natural forcings, at this
point in history, given extensive and well researched science on this
issue.

A "not insignificant factor" could mean human CO2 atmospheric
emissions are 20% of the cause of the observed warming.  Of course
human influenced methane, ozone, nitrous oxide and CFC greenhouse gas
impacts must also must be quantified (
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html ), with human
alterations in carbon sinks on land and the oceans.  Also important,
human sourced atmospheric aerosols in part from coal fired plant
sulfate pollution, aerosols which climate science indicates are
cooling the Earth's climate, to some extent masking the radiative
forcing of CO2; thus if humans stopped coal plant atmospheric sulfate
pollution, this masking of global warming would be removed, resulting
in higher temperatures: July 30th, 2011: Sulfur stalls surface
temperature rise:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/332152/title/Sulfur_stalls_surface_temperature_rise_
 "When sulfur emissions are reduced, 'What you will see in the short
term is a relative rapid rise in temperature, because you have taken
away the brake,' Ammann says."

But I'll keep this comment simplified

If human impacts on climate are a "not insignigicant factor" of 20% of
the cause of the observed warming of climate, with the other 80%
natural warming forcings, it can be argued there is much less urgency
to take action to reduce human sourced CO2 emissions.  Indeed, this
argument is sometimes made by those opposing significant regulation of
carbon emissions.

The scientific references on this subject are voluminous, but the
following letter from the American Statistical Association sent to all
US senators on October 21, 2009, signed by 17 prominent scientific
organizations, begins with the following statement as the second
sentence:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change
is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the
greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

And further on in the letter:

"If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change,
emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced."

http://www.amstat.org/outreach/pdfs/climateletterfinal.pdf

http://magazine.amstat.org/blog/2010/03/01/climatemar10/

American Statisical Associstion

Statisticians Comment on Status of Climate Change Science
1 March 2010

In November 2009, ASA Past-President Sally Morton joined with the
leaders of 17 other science organizations to sign a letter (pdf) to
all U.S. senators summarizing the consensus of climate change science.
In short, the letter cited the strong scientific evidence that climate
change is happening and that human activities are the primary driver.
It went on to list the many likely consequences, some of which are
already starting to occur.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> Your statement that no one is arguing for unquestioned authority is
>> patently false.  Here is his conclusion:
>>
>>  "I am not arguing the absolute authority of scientific conclusions in
>> democratic debates.  It is not a matter of replacing Plato’s
>> philosopher-kings with scientist-kings in our *polis*. We the people still
>> need to decide (perhaps through our elected representatives) which groups
>> we
>> accept as having cognitive authority in our policy deliberations. Nor am I
>> denying that there may be a logical gap between established scientific
>> results and specific policy decisions.  The fact that there is significant
>> global warming due to human activity does not of itself imply any
>> particular
>> response to this fact.  There remain pressing questions, for example,
>> about
>> the likely long-term effects of various plans for limiting CO2 emissions,
>> the more immediate economic effects of such plans, and, especially, the
>> proper balance between actual present sacrifices and probable long-term
>> gains.  Here we still require the input of experts, but we must also make
>> fundamental value judgments, a task that, *pace* Plato, we cannot turn
>> over to experts.
>> The essential point, however, is that once we have accepted the authority
>> of a particular scientific discipline, we cannot consistently reject its
>> conclusions.  To adapt Schopenhauer’s famous remark about causality,
>> science
>> is not a taxi-cab that we can get in and out of whenever we like.  Once we
>> board the train of climate science, there is no alternative to taking it
>> wherever it may go."
>>
>>  His whole argument is that we cannot be critical of climate scientists
>> when it comes to knowledge in their own field.  He graciously allows us to
>> determine if we should use their (unquestionable) conclusions in our
>> decision making, he allows us to help elect officials which have specific
>> plans that relate to the (unquestionable) fact of human-induced global
>> warming, and he also is nice enough to allow us to make value judgements
>> of
>> how to handle the coming catastrophes (the existence of which we cannot
>> question), but what we cannot do is reject their conclusions regarding the
>> science.  That's a clear argument for the unquestioned authority of
>> climate
>> scientists whose opinions are in the majority as relates to their field.
>> He
>> also states quite clearly that we cannot take the word of the minority of
>> climate scientists that are experts but whose opinions buck the trend,
>> apparently because they are simply out-numbered.
>>
>>  Did I read it incorrectly?
>>
>>  Let me guess: a "pseudo-argument" is one that you disagree with, and a
>> "contrarian" is someone who does not fall in line like a good soldier
>> regardless of the validity of their opinions.
>>
>>  Also, it may be naive, but climate scientists should not be helping to
>> make policy decisions.  They are not experts in the fields of foreign
>> policy, disaster control, geo-engineering, or emergency preparedness.
>> They
>> should leave all that to the experts in those fields, and only do what
>> they
>> have been trained to do: explain the science in terms that do not make
>> their
>> statements into more than they are, and that only express what they
>> actually
>> *know*, with caveats about the error bars and what they mean to the
>> conclusion.  It may be naive in that I don't expect them to do that, but
>> that doesn't mean it isn't what they *should* do.  The author of the
>> original article actually says that we should not be replacing
>> philosopher-kings with scientist-kings.
>>
>>  Paul
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:04 PM
>> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Fwd: Climate & Science
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Art Deco* <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Climate & Science
>> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>> No one is arguing for unquestioned authority.  Neither the author of the
>> article nor I.  It would be nice if you could argue just once without
>> distorting a position with which you disagree.
>>
>> There is a difference between being critical by examining the data, facts,
>> and the probabilities/conclusions and just making pseudo-arguments as a
>> contrarian.
>>
>>
>> Paul writes:
>>
>> "Why do they feel obligated to get in the middle of policy-making?
>> Shouldn't they be conservatively stating their conclusions, with caveats,
>> and letting the policy-makers decide their importance?"
>>
>> How naive.  Since when are facts/theories, especially ones difficult for
>> the average policy maker to comprehend,  main element of policy making?
>> What kind of facts back up the claim that the national debt can be paid
>> off
>> without raising taxes?  What kind of facts back up the claim that most
>> welfare recipients are lazy chiselers?  What kind of facts back up the
>> claim
>> that migrant workers live off America without contributing anything?
>>
>> Ted Moffett posted a review of the book* Unscientific America*.  Perhaps
>> there are many here that might profit if they read that book with an open,
>> non-contrarian mind.
>>
>> w.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Paul Rumelhart
>> <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>> I can't help being dismayed that someone whose  posts are praised as ones
>> that "apply critical thinking to information and events in the news" would
>> come down on the side of arguing *for* argument from authority.  That
>> seems
>> to me to be about as uncritical as you can get.
>>
>> One question to ask, in fact, one that's been lying around just begging to
>> be asked is: why do experts in the field of climate science feel the need
>> to
>> argue from authority in the first place?  Shouldn't they let their
>> methodology and conclusions speak for themselves?  This is science, after
>> all.  Why did they deny multiple FOIA requests for their data simply
>> because
>> the person requesting them might be critical of their results?  Why did
>> one
>> of them specify in one of the Climategate emails that they would delete
>> the
>> information before they would allow themselves to be forced to give it up?
>> Why did they "lose" the original unadjusted data?  Why do they feel
>> obligated to get in the middle of policy-making?  Shouldn't they be
>> conservatively stating their conclusions, with caveats, and letting the
>> policy-makers decide their importance?
>>
>> Science is supposed to be egalitarian.  It shouldn't matter if an
>> award-winning climate scientist submitted a paper or a fourteen-year-old
>> Japanese school girl submitted it.  The paper should stand or fall on it's
>> own merits.
>>
>> Also, "consensus among scientists" can be misleading.  In one poll I
>> looked
>> at (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-20-02.asp), scientists
>> had to agree or disagree with two items: in the past 200 years, mean
>> global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a
>> "significant contributing factor" in changing mean global temperatures.  I
>> would unequivocally answer "yes" to the first one, and probably answer
>> "yes"
>> to the second one.  The word "significant" has a special meaning in
>> science.  The CO2 signature could be "significant" and not be very large.
>> These statements also say nothing about the expected impact of global
>> warming.  A person could answer "yes" to both statements and still feel
>> that
>> global warming is not a danger.  I would expect a critical thinker to
>> wonder, if that's the case, why such importance is placed on such
>> statements.  The right talks about "loyalty oaths", and I can sometimes
>> see
>> their point.
>>
>> I would also like to argue that a person doesn't have to be a complete
>> "expert" in a field of study to see problems in one.  We live in a world
>> in
>> which we can educate ourselves quickly on very specific topics with a
>> little
>> motivation and a fair amount of time available.
>>
>> I'm just not comfortable following the orders of our Global Climate
>> Science
>> Overlords blindly, because I've learned not to trust them.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:35 AM
>> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Climate & Science
>>
>> [image: Opinionator - A Gathering of Opinion From Around the
>> Web]<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/>
>> July 12, 2011, 4:01 pmOn Experts and Global Warming By GARY
>> GUTTING<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/gary-gutting/>
>> The Stone <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/> is a
>> forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.
>> Tags:
>> anthropogenic global
>> warming<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/anthropogenic-global-warming/>,
>> climate change <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/climate-change/>,
>> Global Warming <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/global-warming/>,
>> Plato <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/plato/>,
>> science<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/science/>
>>
>> *The Stone is featuring occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of
>> philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking
>> to
>> information and events that have appeared in the news.
>> *
>> Experts have always posed a problem for democracies.  Plato scorned
>> democracy, rating it the worst form of government short of tyranny,
>> largely
>> because it gave power to the ignorant many rather than to knowledgeable
>> experts (philosophers, as he saw it).  But, if, as we insist, the people
>> must ultimately decide, the question remains: How can we, non-experts,
>> take
>> account of expert opinion when it is relevant to decisions about public
>> policy?
>>
>> One we accept the expert authority of climate science, we have no basis
>> for
>> supporting the minority position.
>>
>> To answer this question, we need to reflect on the logic of appeals to the
>> authority of experts.  First of all, such appeals require a decision about
>> who the experts on a given topic are.  Until there is agreement about
>> this,
>> expert opinion can have no persuasive role in our discussions.  Another
>> requirement is that there be a consensus among the experts about points
>> relevant to our discussion.   Precisely because we are not experts, we are
>> in no position to adjudicate disputes among those who are.  Finally, given
>> a
>> consensus on a claim among recognized experts, we non-experts have no
>> basis
>> for rejecting the truth of the claim.
>>
>> These requirements may seem trivially obvious, but they have serious
>> consequences.  Consider, for example, current discussions about climate
>> change, specifically about whether there is long-term global warming
>> caused
>> primarily by human activities (anthropogenic global warming or A.G.W.).
>> All
>> creditable parties to this debate recognize a group of experts designated
>> as
>> “climate scientists,” whom they cite in either support or opposition to
>> their claims about global warming.  In contrast to enterprises such as
>> astrology or homeopathy, there is no serious objection to the very project
>> of climate science.  The only questions are about the conclusions this
>> project supports about global warming.
>> There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong
>> consensus<http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm>among
>> climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human
>> activities are warming the planet.  There are climate scientists who doubt
>> or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view
>> that
>> is dominant in their discipline.   Non-expert opponents of A.G.W. usually
>> base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate
>> scientists have raised against the consensus view.   But non-experts are
>> in
>> no position to argue against the consensus of expert opinion.   As long as
>> they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science,
>> they
>> have no basis for supporting the minority position.  Critics within the
>> community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W.,
>> but,
>> given the overall consensus of that community, we non-experts have no
>> basis
>> for concluding that this is so.  It does no good to say that we find the
>> consensus conclusions poorly supported.  Since we are not experts on the
>> subject, our judgment  has no standing.
>> It follows that a non-expert who wants to reject A.G.W. can do so only by
>> arguing that climate science lacks the scientific status needed be taken
>> seriously in our debates about public policy.  There may well be areas of
>> inquiry (e.g., various sub-disciplines of the social sciences) open to
>> this
>> sort of critique.  But there does not seem to be a promising case against
>> the scientific authority of climate science.  As noted, opponents of the
>> consensus on global warming themselves argue from results of the
>> discipline,
>> and there is no reason to think that they would have had any problem
>> accepting a consensus of climate scientists against global warming, had
>> this
>> emerged.
>> Some non-expert opponents of global warming have made much of a number of
>> e-mails written and circulated among a handful of climate scientists that
>> they see as evidence of bias toward global warming. But unless this group
>> is
>> willing to argue from this small (and questionable) sample to the general
>> unreliability of climate science as a discipline, they have no alternative
>> but to accept the consensus view of climate scientists that these e-mails
>> do not undermine the core result of global
>> warming<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/gate-fever-breaks/#more-22259>
>> .
>>  Related More From The
>> Stone<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/>
>> Read previous contributions to this series.
>>
>>    - Go to All Posts
>> »<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/>
>>
>> I am not arguing the absolute authority of scientific conclusions in
>> democratic debates.  It is not a matter of replacing Plato’s
>> philosopher-kings with scientist-kings in our *polis*. We the people still
>> need to decide (perhaps through our elected representatives) which groups
>> we
>> accept as having cognitive authority in our policy deliberations. Nor am I
>> denying that there may be a logical gap between established scientific
>> results and specific policy decisions.  The fact that there is significant
>> global warming due to human activity does not of itself imply any
>> particular
>> response to this fact.  There remain pressing questions, for example,
>> about
>> the likely long-term effects of various plans for limiting CO2 emissions,
>> the more immediate economic effects of such plans, and, especially, the
>> proper balance between actual present sacrifices and probable long-term
>> gains.  Here we still require the input of experts, but we must also make
>> fundamental value judgments, a task that, *pace* Plato, we cannot turn
>> over to experts.
>> The essential point, however, is that once we have accepted the authority
>> of a particular scientific discipline, we cannot consistently reject its
>> conclusions.  To adapt Schopenhauer’s famous remark about causality,
>> science
>> is not a taxi-cab that we can get in and out of whenever we like.  Once we
>> board the train of climate science, there is no alternative to taking it
>> wherever it may go.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>