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

[Art Deco]

Officials: Past 12 months warmest ever for U.S.
By the *CNN Wire Staff*
updated 2:34 PM EDT, Mon July 9, 2012
   [image: Ten-year-old Lilly Hwang-Geddes, left, of Ithaca, New York,
plays in a fountain at the Yards Park on Thursday, July 5, in Washington. A
record heat wave has been in the area for more than a week.] Ten-year-old
Lilly Hwang-Geddes, left, of Ithaca, New York, plays in a fountain at the
Yards Park on Thursday, July 5, in Washington. A record heat wave has been
in the area for more than a week.
                       HIDE CAPTION
 Extreme heat strikes U.S.
 <<
<
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 >
>>
  *STORY HIGHLIGHTS*

   - *NEW:* Number of outages falls to just under 100,000 in 11 states,
   Washington
   - The first half of 2012 has also set temperature records, NOAA says
   - Temperatures are falling across the nation, but storms are possible
   - Heat advisories are issued for portions of California and Arizona

 *(CNN)* -- The mainland United States, which was largely recovering Monday
from a near-nationwide heat wave, has experienced the warmest 12-month
period since record-keeping began in 1895, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration said Monday.

High temperatures during June also contributed to a record-warm first half
of the year, the agency said in its monthly analysis. The heat during the
last half of June broke or tied 170 all-time high temperature records in
cities across the lower 48 states.

"Temperatures in South Carolina (113 degrees) and Georgia (112 degrees) are
currently under review by the U.S. State Climate Extremes Committee as
possible all-time statewide temperature records," NOAA said.

The average temperature for the mainland in June was 71.2 degrees -- two
degrees above the 20th-century average and the 14th warmest June on record.
 How long will high temps last?
 Heat wave beginning to break
 Heat Wave: Triple digits
 Watch SUV go airborne on buckled road

The state of Colorado, which saw several large wildfires, had its warmest
June ever, NOAA said. The warmest-ever June experienced nationwide was in
1933.

The heat wave, which stretched across much of the nation for more than a
week, was largely history Monday, but the break in the heat could mean
severe storms in some areas, forecasters said.

A cold front was working its way through the Mid-Atlantic states, dropping
high temperatures into the 80s in cities including Chicago, New York,
Boston and Washington.

The heat wave that roasted much of the country for more than a week left
scores dead and millions without power at one point -- many of them
following a round of severe storms that swept through the Mid-Atlantic
states on June 29.

The nation's capital set another record Sunday with a high of 102 degrees
-- the city's 11th straight day of temperatures over 95.

Other high temperatures Sunday included 105 in Raleigh-Durham, North
Carolina, which tied an all-time record; 103 in Richmond, Virginia; 101 in
Charlotte, North Carolina; and 100 in Baltimore.

Nationwide, there have been more than 4,500 daily record highs in the past
30 days, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

However, the forecast high for Washington on Monday was 86. Other forecast
highs were 87 in Baltimore, 90 in Richmond and 90 in St. Louis.

Portions of North and South Carolina will be the last to escape the heat,
as a heat advisory remained in place for some locations Monday. Monday's
forecast high for Raleigh was 97 with a heat index as high as 104;
Tuesday's forecast predicts a high of 87 degrees.

Triple-digit strategies for staying
healthy<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/health/heat-medical-conditions-tips/index.html>

But the cold front brings a chance of severe weather, particularly across
the eastern Carolinas and southeastern Virginia, CNN meteorologist Sarah
Dillingham said. More than 160 wind reports were received nationwide as the
front worked its way eastward, she said.

Damaging winds were the main threat of Monday's storms, she said. A "slight
risk" area included the cities of Norfolk and Roanoke, Virginia, along with
Raleigh, Charlotte and Wilmington, North Carolina.

On Sunday, damaging winds struck Fredericksburg, Virginia, and collapsed a
building, injuring two people, according to the National Weather Service's
Storm Prediction Center. The storms have complicated restoration efforts in
some spots and caused even more damage. One person died Saturday in storms
in Cuba, Missouri, the prediction center said.

"It has been a tough few weeks for many Virginians," Gov. Bob McDonnell
said late Sunday. "They have suffered from record-breaking temperatures and
an historic storm that brought widespread damage and power outages. Now,
many have lost power again. I ask Virginians to remain patient and to
continue to help each other get through this latest storm."

Just under 100,000 customers in 11 states and metropolitan Washington were
without power as of Monday. Some have lacked electricity for more than a
week after the June 29 storms.

More than 72,000 of those customers were in West Virginia, the hardest-hit
state. Because utility companies typically define each residential and
business account as a customer, the actual number of people affected was
higher.

West Virginians brace for storms,
aftermath<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/us/west-virginia-storm-aftermath/index.html>

Outages in metropolitan Washington, however, had dropped to 316 Monday
morning.

More hot weather may be on the way, forecasters warned. The National
Weather Service issued excessive heat warnings for parts of Arizona and
California starting Monday, predicting temperatures in the range from 110
to 115 degrees.

"The combination of hot afternoon temperatures and very warm overnight lows
will result in oppressive conditions," the weather service said.

Use caution if you drive in extreme
heat<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/travel/heat-road-conditions/index.html>

High temperatures Monday were expected to reach 102 in Redding, California;
98 in Sacramento, California; 104 in Fresno, California; 100 in Salt Lake
City; 115 in Yuma, Arizona; and 113 in Phoenix.

The Pacific Northwest, however, experienced cooler than average
temperatures in June, according to the NOAA. Cooler conditions were also
present in the Southeast, despite record-breaking heat in late June.

CNN's Devon Sayers and Dave Alsup contributed to this report.
 <https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2012%2F07%2F09%2Fus%2Fextreme-heat%2Findex.html&text=Officials%3A%20Past%2012%20months%20warmest%20ever%20for%20U.S.%20&hashtags=cnn>
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/extreme-heat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#>
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/extreme-heat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#>
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/extreme-heat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#>
     [image: ADVERTISEMENT]
   NewsPulse <http://newspulse.cnn.com/>

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

> Well, well, well, Mr. Rumelhart -
>
> I watched both of my parents die (my mom on September 26, 2005 - my dad on
> October 4, 2009).  They both died at home, as a matter of preference,
> within a couple weeks of being discharged from the hospital.  It was a
> medical doctor that provided me and my sister guidance in making my
> mother's last days as comfortable as possible, to include administering
> morphine to relieve her pain.
>
> I even helped "bag" my father for transport by the Neptune Society, while
> under the guidance of a nurse.
>
> At the end of 2011/beginning of 2012 my wife spent five weeks in the ICU
> of Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane, the first week concerned about
> potential heart failure, the next four weeks concerned about brain damage,
> while she was under 24/7 monitoring by two medical doctors and a team of
> critical care nurses.  She survived . . . no brain damage . . . due in no
> small part to a handful of MDs and a staff of RNs.
>
> Appreciation doesn't begin to relate what I attempt to express in weekly
> letters to Drs. Howard and Harder, and the critical care nurses of Sacred
> Heart's ICU 2 South.  I will be indebted to them for every breath my wife
> takes.
>
> THANK GOD for MDs and RNs.
>
> Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go to Hodgins to pick up prescription
> refills.
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "If not us, who?
> If not now, when?"
>
> - Unknown
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 11:46, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Go fuck yourself.  Yes, I do happen to remember times when my mother was
> on the verge of dying very clearly.  There were quite a lot of them.  I
> think it's amazing that you would assume I'm misremembering because no
> medical professional would ever defer to a patient's spouse on treatment.
> Clearly it does happen, because I saw it happen.  I remember the nurses
> consulting with my dad on it, and I remember them deferring to him when he
> was with her, which was usually as close to 24x7 as he could arrange.  I
> wasn't a babe in a basket, I was out of college for many of them.
>
> I'm not telling you I dropped an apple and it floated up to the fucking
> ceiling.  I'm telling you that a trained professional recognized my dad's
> expertise in this matter and acted accordingly.
>
> Jesus jumping Christ on a pogo stick.
>
> Paul
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; Joe Campbell <
> philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2012 11:00 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss
> the Forest for the Burning Trees"
>
> Paul, I'm sure that is the way you remember it.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>   *From:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; Joe Campbell <
> philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2012 9:19 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss
> the Forest for the Burning Trees"
>
>   I saw it first hand, Donovan.  There might be a nice sliding scale for
> insulin somewhere, but we got really good at determining what amounts of
> insulin to input to the machine.  You had to take into account how much
> activity she had had and how much she was expected to have, what her
> general condition was (fatigued, fighting an infection, whatever), what she
> ate and what the timing of it was, what her current blood sugar is and what
> it was earlier, and probably other things I have forgotten.  We tried to
> let the medical staff make the choices, but that caused blood sugars
> outside the acceptable ranges at times.  So they determined that my dad
> knew more about it than they did and deferred to him.
>
> I was there, sir, I saw it for myself.  I'm not lying to you.  I'm not
> making it up.  I remember it as if it were yesterday.
>
> Paul
>
>   *From:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; Joe Campbell <
> philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2012 12:44 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss
> the Forest for the Burning Trees"
>
>   As a CNA, I find that story hard to believe. The amount of insulingiven is not a guessing game. The number of units given are by a doctor's
> prescription and a sliding scale based on their blood glucose reading. Any
> medical staff that doesn't give that amount or observes that amount
> given is subject to a lawsuit and loss of their license or certification,
> regardless of what a spouse or patient insists upon giving or getting.
>
> Doctors may be wrong about the facts, they may not have all the
> information or disbelieve a patients testimony, but they know a great
> deal more of what to do based on the facts. That is why they have a license
> to practice medicine.
>
> Also, when you second guess your doctor, you can do a great deal of harm
> to yourself.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>   *From:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2012 12:42 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss
> the Forest for the Burning Trees"
>
> "If your doctor tells you something, and 90% of the other doctors say
> the same thing, yet Paul tells you something different, whom do you
> believe? Paul? Because medicine is uncertain?"
>
> Wouldn't that depend greatly on exactly why I claim that the doctors are
> wrong?  While you will go on believing your doctor is infallible, maybe
> Roger will actually evaluate what I have to say and bring it up with his
> doctor next time he sees him or her?
>
> Always assuming the experts know best can be dangerous, too.
>
> Case in point:  my mom was a Type I diabetic (she completely lost the
> ability to make insulin at age 17) and was in the hospital often for
> diabetes-related problems.  There were plenty of times where if my dad
> hadn't been watching closely, the medical staff might have done
> something dangerous.  Usually having to do with how much insulin to give
> her via her insulin pump.  Too little, and she can go unconscious and
> die, too much can cause a sordid list of problems from organ damage to
> neuropathy.  It made sense, my dad was used to working with my mom to
> estimate how much of a basal rate was needed and how much to give as an
> extra amount to counteract what she just ate (her "bolus" amount).  The
> doctors and nurses that worked with my mom regularly learned to defer to
> my dad's judgment on her insulin dosages.  I became pretty good at it,
> too.  Blind trust in medical authority might have killed my mother long
> before she actually died.  Diabetes is a horrible disease.
>
> Perhaps that's where I learned to be skeptical of even expert opinion.
>
> Paul
>
> On 07/08/2012 11:05 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> > Ok Roger. You owe me $100. Don't be too hard on me. After all, I'm just
> a skeptic. Whether you owe it to me is subject to debate, at least
> according to me. If you're a critical thinker, you'll pay up. So pay up.
> >
> > These arguments don't work on debt, and there is no reason to think they
> work on the environment either. What matters is the evidence. My point is,
> in most cases non-scientists are not in a position to say. I won't care
> what Paul says about this issue until he publishes a paper on the topic in
> a peer-reviewed journal. You can believe what you wish.
> >
> > If your doctor tells you something, and 90% of the other doctors say the
> same thing, yet Paul tells you something different, whom do you believe?
> Paul? Because medicine is uncertain?
> >
> > Nonsense. You trust the doctors because they are the experts. What makes
> climate science different?
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:36 PM, lfalen < <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You guys are being too hard on Paul. While there is climate change, the
> full effects and causes are subject to debate and critical review. You tout
> critical thinking. That is all Paul is doing. To blandly accept every thing
> that is put out by Climate Scientists is not engaging in critical thinking.
> >> Roger
> >> -----Original message-----
> >> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:49:43 -0700
> >> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>godshatter at yahoo.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss
> the Forest for the Burning Trees"
> >>
> >>> I'm not criticizing criticism and debate. I'm criticizing you; we're
> debating. I'll respond to the longer post later. Joe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Paul Rumelhart < <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Does "validly express one's positions on the findings of science"
> equate to "conform to the scientific consensus"?  Is there no room for
> criticism and debate?
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07/08/2012 11:10 AM, Sam Scripter wrote:
> >>>>> Good post, Joe!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I appreciate the "pains"/time/effort you take to carefully, fully
> explain your points about how to validly express one's position on the
> findings of science.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sam S
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------- Original message --------
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss
> the Forest for the Burning Trees"
> >>>>> From: Joe Campbell < <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> >>>>> To: Paul Rumelhart < <godshatter at yahoo.com>godshatter at yahoo.com>
> >>>>> CC: Moscow Vision 2020 < <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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>
> 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>starbliss at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> To: Joe Campbell < <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 < <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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/>http://www.fsr.net/
> >>>>>>          mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>                <http://www.fsr.net/>http://www.fsr.net/
> >>>>>          mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>                <http://www.fsr.net/>http://www.fsr.net/
> >>>>>          mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               <http://www.fsr.net/>http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                <http://www.fsr.net>http://www.fsr.net
>           <Vision2020 at moscow.com>mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com<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
> =======================================================
>



-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120709/4f0fb3eb/attachment-0001.html>