[Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss theForest for the Burning Trees"
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 9 22:11:25 PDT 2012
Does anyone, other than Gary, remember me saying that the world is
likely warming? And that it's mainly the amount that is man-made and
the sign of the likely feedbacks that is at issue? Gary seems to have
read enough of my posts to remember this, everyone else just makes shit
up that they think I believe, I guess.
Paul
On 07/09/2012 08:56 PM, Moscow Cares wrote:
> Courtesy of the National Weather Service at:
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/6/supplemental/page-6/
> -----------------------------------
>
> Warmest 12-month consecutive periods for the CONUS
>
> These are the warmest 12-month periods on record for the contiguous
> United States. During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13
> months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution
> for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this
> occurring randomly is 1 in 1,594,323. The July 2011-June 2012 12-month
> period surpassed the June 2011-May 2012 period as the warmest
> consecutive 12-months that the contiguous U.S. has experienced.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Care to elaborate on your claim concerning the late 1980s, Mr. Falen?
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "If not us, who?
> If not now, when?"
>
> - Unknown
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 20:45, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
>> You may teach logic, but your arguments nmake no sense to me.
>> Roger
>> -----Original message-----
>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:23:55 -0700
>> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss
>> theForest for the Burning Trees"
>>
>>> Roger,
>>>
>>> Here's a little logic lesson at no charge.
>>>
>>> Arguments are valid or invalid depending on their formal structure.
>>> You gave an argument. I provided another absurd argument -- by your
>>> own admission -- that had the same structure. Thus, your argument was
>>> absurd, as well. It is called "providing a counterexample."
>>>
>>> Best, Joe
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 7:59 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your statement on $100 makes no sense. I should have elaborated
>>>> more on science. The way science works to to criticize,review and
>>>> attempt to duplicate. A case in point of not doing this is
>>>> Wakefields's research. Look ant the problems accepting that
>>>> research caused.
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>>> -----Original message-----
>>>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 23:05:39 -0700
>>>> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media
>>>> Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees"
>>>>
>>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:49:43 -0700
>>>>>> To: Paul Rumelhart 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> 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>
>>>>>>>>> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> CC: Moscow Vision 2020 <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> 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 gmailcom>
>>>>>>>>>> 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/wirthhtml)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>> 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
>> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120709/a0a7ec51/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list