[Vision2020] Response to Dale Courtney on Daily News Website Re: Why global warming is a nightmare for libertarians

[Ted Moffett]

I am requesting Dale Courtney remove any and all content on his website
right-mind.us that I have authored, including the content under this
heading: * Ted Moffett Pushing for Category 6 Hurricanes* viewable here:
http://right-mind.us/ted-moffett-pushing-for-category-6-hurricanes/

Also, note the following:

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2000 through life
plus 70 years, Ted Moffett.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
outside the Vision2020.Moscow.com
forum without the express written permission of the author.*****

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

I posted the following comment on the Moscow/Pullman Daily News website in
response to this comment on the dnews site by Dale Courtney regarding my
column.

Dale Courtney comments:
This cracks me up: being lectured on science by someone with a Bachelor’s
Degree in philosophy.

If he wants to lecture me on dead white guys who wrote philosophical tomes,
maybe.

But other than regurgitating what others have said (that he agrees with):
no thanks.
-------------------------------
Ted Moffett responds:

My column "Why global warming is a nightmare for libertarians" was
primarily not about climate science. It assumed human induced global
warming is a serious problem, to explore economic, political and
psychological outcomes.

But Mr. Dale Courtney's response to this column on the Daily News website
in the final analysis has nothing to do with academic expertise. If my
column had been headed "Global warming is politicized faulty science" his
response, if any, would have been far more positive given the agreement
with his views.

If Courtney had a consistent objective open-minded respect for academic
expertise, he would give very serious consideration to the following
rigorously vetted and peer reviewed article published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, "Expert credibility in climate change. "
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcontent%2F107%2F27%2F12107.full&h=ATOiNkB8oOH9bduJ43-_QV2Ew3Zto0DNS9tiz3BM5UnWTUNYRYXrkxEqLUFsgLxNR7lGSwbkzzUVeBDTKp_xKenhYRchlZL5aVlIhgAR7XVyeQL5dqWh1fg0MEVl205c52vi97PR8NIUAA>

To quote the abstract: "Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98%
of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed
here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific
prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below
that of the convinced researchers."

But to Courtney, the work represented by the hundreds of researchers
referenced in this article is not credible, revealing his fundamental
disregard for academic expertise, as evidenced by content on his website
right-mind.us. His statement "regurgitating what others have said (that he
agrees with)" describes his management of his website content on climate
science.

Interesting to observe his behavior on his website matches his criticism of
my column.

Browsing this website numerous times over years reveals example after
example of cherry-picking snippets of often junk science information aimed
at mocking and discrediting climate science, a stellar example of a
confirmation bias filtered presentation of information on global warming,
that represents the opposite of an objective factual academic approach.
---------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20171031/9366bf95/attachment.html>