[Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees"

[Tom Hansen]

“Politics: 'Poli' a Latin word meaning 'many'; and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.”

- Robin Williams

--------------

“Politicians are a lot like diapers – they should be changed frequently and for the same reason."

- Robin Williams

--------------
 
Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"If not us, who?
If not now, when?"

- Unknown



On Jul 8, 2012, at 6:57, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

> Two other points worth making.
> 
> First, you would come off as something other than a spokesman for a
> radical, ill-informed, politically motivated position if your
> criticisms went both ways. You like to point out "flaws" in climate
> science. But are there no flaws in the arguments of their detractors?
> No fallacies, no prejudices, no false reports, no political
> motivations? Doubtful.
> 
> Second, in your initial post, at the bottom of this one, you list
> several complaints about the political motivations lurking behind
> climate science. But this makes it seem as if climate science is
> somehow separated from the rest of science and the academy and nothing
> can be further from the truth.
> 
> At WSU, climate scientists work within the School of Earth and
> Environmental Sciences (SEES), which is made up of scientists from a
> multitude of disciplines such as geology, geochemistry, ecology,
> hydrology, microbiology, and marine biology. Were you to poll these
> folks -- indeed, were you to poll scientists in general -- you'd find
> that there is an overwhelming consensus among them about the impact of
> human behavior on global warming. Thus, if we are to believe your
> reports of bias among climate scientists, the conspiracy would be more
> widespread than you suggest, involving not just climate scientists but
> the entire scientific community, perhaps all of the academy. In the
> end, we're left with a fairytale conspiracy theory that is
> preposterous and unbelievable.
> 
> Just to note one example, you constantly complain about problems with
> computer models when making large-scale claims about global climate
> change but did you know that these models are used in other areas of
> science as well? A quick scan of some of the research interests of
> members of SEES makes the point. One professor's "research uses
> computer simulation models to help us understand the recent problems
> in the electric power industry." Another "combines field measurements
> with theoretical models and computer simulations to shed light on
> natural water flows, mixing, and sediment transport." This is research
> that is funded by competitive national grants and provides information
> that is actually used to solve real-world problems. Why not
> investigate whether or not your worries about computer models apply to
> these areas of research as well? The flip-side is, don't you think
> that these scientists would all be standing up on their soapboxes
> deriding the claims of climate scientists if their work were as biased
> and fallacious as you contend that it is? Don't you think they'd want
> to separate their research from the disreputable research of climate
> scientists if that work were as questionable as you contend? Again, if
> we are to believe any of your claims, the political conspiracy would
> be very wide, so wide as to involve the whole of the academy.
> 
> As the Director of the School of Politics, Philosophy, and Public
> Affairs, I have a keen interest in the connections between science,
> ethics, and policy: How can we take the information that science
> provides and apply it to the real world in a way that is beneficial to
> humanity and the universe in general? Last year we started a series of
> lectures in an attempt to help the general public better understand
> complex issues like global warming, bringing together experts from a
> variety of fields for public forums at least once a semester. Last
> spring we brought in Andrew Light, a Senior Fellow at the Center for
> American Progress, and formed a panel discussion with representatives
> from biochemistry, sociology, and philosophy to provide information on
> this very topic. After brief presentations from the panelists, there
> was a Q&A where folks were allowed to ask questions and voice concerns
> about these matters. I advertised this on Vision 2020. This is not the
> behavior of people who have an agenda that they want to trick you into
> believing.
> 
> This year we promise to have more events. I'm in the process of
> organizing a conference on neurophilosophy, investigating the impact
> of neuroscience on such areas as ethics and the law, and we're also
> inviting Allen Buchanan, James B. Duke Professor of Philosophy at Duke
> University, who will likely give a talk on bioethics. I'll continue to
> advertise these events on Vision 2020 and I encourage you and others
> to attend. In general, I encourage you, Paul, to seek out local
> presentations by climate scientists -- I've helped organize at least 3
> such events over the last 3 years -- and to ask questions directly to
> the scientists themselves and see if they might be able to respond to
> your concerns. In other words, instead of voicing your concerns to a
> group with no expertise that is unable to evaluate the merits of your
> claims, take them to the climate scientists themselves and see what
> they say. And do it in a public venue. That way, folks would be able
> to here both sides of the issue and make a more informed decision.
> 
> Best, Joe
> 
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Can I assume you have credentials in climate science?  Because, otherwise,
>> you are being hypocritical in calling me out for "degrading" the
>> conversation because of my lack of the same.
>> 
>> Perhaps I'm missing some fundamental knowledge of how arguments work.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
>> To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 2:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the
>> Forest for the Burning Trees"
>> 
>> Thanks for these comments phrased in a manner so easy to understand, coming
>> from someone who could write at a level that would be obtuse for many... I'm
>> reminded of the writing style of philosopher Bertrand Russell
>> 
>> When in a dialog someone of a significant level of education and
>> intelligence repeatedly refuses to admit when it is pointed out that they
>> have engaged in significant omissions, errors and misrepresentations
>> regarding a critical scientific field, and promotes what can be easily
>> determined by most anyone doing cursory research of scientific peer review,
>> to be junk science, as though we are supposed to take it seriously, this
>> implies a factual and/or argumentative filter at work, for whatever reason
>> or reasons.  Call it a indication of an "agenda," or who knows what it is!
>> 
>> Maybe there is still some social value to such a degraded dialog, but it
>> ceases to offer significant credible factual or augmentative input of
>> interest for someone who reaches a certain level of competency in exploring
>> the scientific field involved.
>> 
>> On the issue of complexity as an argument for a high degree of skepticism
>> about the claims of a given field of knowledge, the human brain/mind is
>> claimed by some to be the most complex object in the known universe,
>> therefore we should engage in a high degree of skepticism about any claims
>> by anyone about any ones state of "mind," whether scientific claims or other
>> sorts.  It amazes me that people make such simple and easy judgements about
>> each others state of mind, given that such propositions to be credible
>> should only be made by those with PhDs in a psychology or perhaps
>> neurobiology related field, and even these judgements it can be argued are
>> very open to question, assuming a vast complexity is underpinning each
>> humans state of mind.
>> 
>> Consider this dialog with neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga:
>> 
>> ALAN ALDA INTERVIEWS MICHAEL GAZZANIGA
>> Featured on "The Man with Two Brains,"
>> from the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS special "Pieces of Mind."
>> 
>> http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm
>> 
>> Alan Alda:
>> I have to say - and from talking to you I think you feel this way, too -
>> consciousness is a terrific thing to have. It feels good to have
>> consciousness. When you lose consciousness and when you sense you're going
>> to lose consciousness, it doesn't feel good. You get a little nervous about
>> that. But what do you suppose is the reason we have consciousness? Why has
>> it persisted? What good is it in terms of the survival of the species?
>> Michael Gazzaniga:
>> That's related to the $64,000 question. What's it for? If you want to
>> understand anything, you've got to know what it's for. And it so permeates
>> every thought we have, you think, well, it's for keeping us motivated, to
>> have these thoughts, or whatever. But you start to put this stuff down on
>> paper and it just doesn't look like you're saying much.
>> You know, there's a bunch of philosophers now who are saying, "A human
>> trying to understand consciousness is like a nematode trying to understand a
>> dog." It's just too big a problem, and they kind of toss it out the window.
>> Well I don't think we should do that. Clearly, it's going to take a lot of
>> major new thinking to really give us an insight, a handle on how we can
>> scientifically talk about this phenomenal awareness that we all experience.
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm making claims about your arguments and
>> when it comes to judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of
>> arguments -- the area of logic and the broader area of epistemology --
>> there is NO ONE living on the Palouse who is more qualified than I am
>> (although there are a few people who are as qualified).
>> 
>> Paul,
>> 
>> Thanks for helping me to make my case!
>> 
>> The point is that you DON'T believe that smoking causes lung cancer on
>> the basis of scientific evidence that you understand and evaluate,
>> because you are not a scientist. You believe it because it is "common
>> sense" (which is irrelevant, for it merely boils down to the fact that
>> it seems to you to be true) and because the experts tell you it is
>> true. You still haven't shown a difference between the case of smoking
>> and human carbon consumption. Let's look more closely at some of the
>> BAD arguments you give below for the supposed difference.
>> 
>> Two clarifications first. My point was that unless you are an actual
>> scientist, it is almost impossible to make judgments about scientific
>> claims on evidence alone. In most cases, understanding the evidence
>> would require a high level of expertise. This is why scientific
>> beliefs should be based on testimony, the testimony of experts in the
>> field. My general claim was that there is NO basis to dismiss one set
>> of scientists (climate scientists, say) yet not dismiss others as
>> well. In my previous post, I happened to mention scientists who
>> specialize in lung cancer research but below I mention others since
>> they are helpful in showing flaws in your reasoning.
>> 
>> Also, you might wonder how I'm qualified to speak about such matters,
>> given that I'm not a climate scientist either. But I'm not making any
>> claims about the climate. I just trust what the climate scientists
>> tell me for reasons given. I'm making claims about your arguments and
>> when it comes to judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of
>> arguments -- the area of logic and the broader area of epistemology --
>> there is NO ONE living on the Palouse who is more qualified than I am
>> (although there are a few people who are as qualified).
>> 
>> The points in (1) are irrelevant and were addressed above. In the
>> 1950s smoking seemed to be a healthy activity and was promoted as
>> such. Common sense turned out to be wrong. Common sense is never a
>> reason for holding scientific beliefs.
>> 
>> Wrt (2), I'd be willing to bet that there are climate scientists
>> working on these very questions. In any event, I'm not sure what
>> evidence you have to say otherwise. I tend to leave it to scientists
>> to determine what kinds of studies they should or shouldn't be
>> concerned with in order to support their claims. Since you are not a
>> scientist, these points are meaningless.
>> 
>> For point (3), it is true that the climate is complex. But the
>> universe is even MORE complex. To the extent that this gives you a
>> reason to dismiss climate science it should give you EVEN MORE reason
>> to dismiss all of physics for both the micro-level of the universe and
>> the macro-level of the universe are FAR MORE complex than the earth's
>> climate. This is just a general skeptical argument that applies to
>> almost ANY area of science. Why accept it wrt climate science but not,
>> say, cosmology? Why believe anything that Stephen Hawking says, for
>> instance? Do you know how much MORE complicated the whole frickin'
>> universe is when compared with the earth's climate? This is an absurd,
>> BAD, and irresponsible argument.
>> 
>> I've responded to arguments like those in (4) and (5) before but it
>> hasn't seemed to sink in yet. Whether or not a scientist has an agenda
>> is IRRELEVANT. What matters is the EVIDENCE he or she has in support
>> of the claims made. Suppose you find out that 99% of scientists who
>> study the links between smoking and lung cancer went into the field
>> for emotional and irrational reasons -- suppose, say, that members of
>> their family died of lung cancer. That would be irrelevant and
>> shouldn't cause you to dismiss their findings. ALL that is relevant is
>> the epistemological quality of the evidence, which can be judged in
>> objective ways.
>> 
>> If your argument were sound, it should give people reason to dismiss
>> EVERYTHING you say because you clearly have an agenda. You can't tell
>> me that your concern with the issue of global warming is independent
>> of your political views or your personal habits, that it is solely
>> motivated by the desire for objective truth and nothing more. This
>> very argument undermines everything you say on Vision 2020 since all
>> of it is in keeping with your own political viewpoints, or "agenda."
>> But people shouldn't dismiss your views merely because you happen to
>> be interested in politics. They should judge your views on the basis
>> of the evidence you provide in support of the claims that you make.
>> They shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about your claims either;
>> they should evaluate each argument individually.
>> 
>> If your argument were sound, we should dismiss ALL sciences related to
>> human heath, since they are all motivated by the subjective desire to
>> help human beings extend their lives and improve the quality of their
>> lives. Likely anyone working in the area of cancer research is
>> motivated in part by the selfish desire to become THE person that
>> finds the cure for cancer. That is irrelevant. This is another general
>> skeptical argument that (if sound) should cause you to dismiss much
>> more than climate science.
>> 
>> ALL scientific claims should be judged by the merits of the evidence
>> given. Personal facts about the scientists are ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.
>> People tend to choose their vocations for personal reasons, not
>> because of a desire to seek objective truth. Scientists are no
>> different in this regard.
>> 
>> Best, Joe
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2012 05:42 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> So, Paul, why believe that smoking causes lung disease if you don't
>>>> believe that human carbon consumption has an impact on global warming?
>>>> 
>>>> Joe
>>> 
>>> 
>>> First, I'm not saying that carbon consumption is not having an impact on
>>> global warming.  I'm saying that the size of the impacts compared to the
>>> more-or-less unknown natural factors is unknown and that the feedbacks
>>> from
>>> warming in general are unknown, among other things.
>>> 
>>> There are plenty of reasons, both scientific and not, that make me
>>> skeptical
>>> of global warming.  Although everyone will assume I'm just grasping at
>>> straws because of my deep-seated urge to deny everything (probably has to
>>> do
>>> with my relationship with my mother), I humbly present a smattering of
>>> them
>>> for your enjoyment:
>>> 
>>> 1.  On the face of it, the idea is extraordinary.  Humans, even with our
>>> vaunted civilization, are small potatoes compared to the forces of nature.
>>> The only reason our carbon footprint even makes a dent compared to natural
>>> forces has to do with the small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.  We've
>>> had
>>> far less of an impact on the water cycle, for example, or with oxygen
>>> levels.  Not saying that it isn't possible, but there is automatically a
>>> bar
>>> that has to be gotten over which smoking causing lung disease doesn't
>>> have.
>>> It should be common sense that inhaling smoke multiple times a day for
>>> years
>>> can have a deleterious effect on the lungs, even without bringing in
>>> carcinogens.
>>> 
>>> 2.  There are some obvious questions that aren't being answered because of
>>> the focus on human impacts.  For example, what caused the earth to heat up
>>> immediately following the Little Ice Age?  If we do not know, how can we
>>> say
>>> with any confidence that human-induced climate change is to blame instead
>>> of
>>> the same natural processes still at work?  What causes an ice age to
>>> start,
>>> and what brings us out of one?
>>> 
>>> 3.  The climate is complex, with multiple feedbacks of unknown strength
>>> and
>>> unknown feedbacks of unknown strength.  The sign of the combination of
>>> feedbacks isn't even known.  Climate models cannot be that accurate, given
>>> the above, yet they are seen as gospel.  Even when they make different
>>> assumptions and model things different ways.  As long as they project a
>>> warmer future, they are added to the model average and used as proof that
>>> global warming will kill babies and cause frogs to rain from the sky.
>>> 
>>> I imagine that the mechanisms for lung disease from tobacco are relatively
>>> straight forward.
>>> 
>>> 4.  Some of the major players in the spotlight on the side of global
>>> warming
>>> are environmental activists with an agenda, as opposed to being objective
>>> scientists just following the data.  For example, Timothy Wirth (Senator
>>> from Colorado and leader of the negotiating team for the Kyoto treaty)
>>> held
>>> a hearing on global warming at the capital.  He called the Weather Bureau
>>> to
>>> find out what day of the year was usually the hottest in DC, and scheduled
>>> the hearing for that date.  His team then went in the night before the
>>> hearing and opened all the windows in the room in which the hearing was to
>>> be held, causing the air conditioning to fail to keep up with the heat.
>>> All
>>> so that it could be hot and muggy when James Hansen gave his spiel about
>>> the
>>> dangers of global warming.
>>> 
>>> (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html)
>>> 
>>> The anti-tobacco campaigns, with all their sheer propaganda, do seem to be
>>> run by political activists, but that may be coincidental.
>>> 
>>> 5.  Major climate scientists also appear to have political agendas.
>>> Michael
>>> Mann and his "hockey stick" come to mind, trying to erase the Medieval
>>> Warm
>>> Period and the Little Ice Age, using dubious statistics, all so they could
>>> show that current warming was "unprecedented". All this from a few
>>> bristlecone pine trees.
>>> 
>>> I haven't heard of any of these kinds of shenanigans from scientists
>>> studying the link between tobacco use and lung diseases, probably because
>>> the links were relatively straight forward.  Not so much the case with
>>> global warming / global climate change / global climate disruption.
>>> 
>>> There are more, but that gives you the gist of it.  But hey, it's just me
>>> being contrarian, right? So please, move along.  Nothing to see here.
>>> 
>>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> =======================================================
>> 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
> =======================================================