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

lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Mon Jul 9 20:31:01 PDT 2012


According to reports I have heard, there was a similar heat wave in the 1980's.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:40:30 -0700
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees"

> 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
> 
> 



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list