<div><span class="gmail_quote"><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-February/051940.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-February/051940.html</a></span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"><em></em></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"><em>Chas wrote:</em></span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"><em></em></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"><em>>We<br></em>><i> elected hopefully wise individuals to represent us, and that's what<br></i>><i> they did. You ask whether I think there should have been "more open </i>><i> public >discussion" first, and my truthful response is no, I don't.<br>
</i>><i> First, because I believe that there had already been ample opportunity<br></i>><i> for discussion for everyone who had anything viable to say. Every<br></i>><i> nuance of opinion had already been expressed ad nauseum.<br>
</i><br>Applying your analysis below regarding "unqualified pronouncments," as you put it, and your lack of expertise in economics, water resources, urban planning, and law, your final sentence above is "pointless," again to use your wording, not mine. You concede by your own argument that you lack the "expert level knowledge," and again this is your wording, not mine, to evaluate the complex questions impacting the Hawkins deal. Yet you state that "Every nuance of opinion has already been expressed ad nauseum." regarding these complex issues, which is a bold assessment I doubt would be made by many experts evaluating the completies involved in the Hawkins/Moscow deal. </span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">If you presented well researched findings to support this statement, on water use, for example, showing that the science involved in local water resources demonstrates, with a high degree of probability, how much water can be extracted, without risk of problematic depletion, according to the form of the argument I make below regarding a non-professional researching the science of climate change, then at least you would be supporting your statement with research, lending some credibility, even though you are not an expert in water resources. But you presented no evidence on this important question.</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">In my posts on the science of climate change I present credible research to support any claims regarding the scientific consensus; and I certainly would never state that on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, "Every nuance of opinion has been expressed ad nauseum." </span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">I doubt there has been "...ample opportunity for discussion for everyone who had anything viable to say." as you phased it, on the question of local water resources and conservation, given the current uncertainties in the science regarding this issue, and what further investigation and discovery will reveal.</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">Now to address your dismissal of the value of a non-professional but well researched analysis of climate change science:</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/21/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Chasuk</b> <<a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">chasuk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br><br>But what about this?<br><br>Me: I think that Professor Fizzbottom is correct when he argues that<br>
the Higgins boson particle, when redacted by mitochondrial drift, (and<br>considering the influence of chaotic extremis created by Golgi body<br>apparatus) will cause plenitudinal corruption in dalmations.<br><br>Someone Else: Ah! But Professor Ezekiel Tink disagrees! In fact,<br>
he... Etc. Etc.<br><br>Now, I didn't actually say anything meaningful at all (unless it was<br>accidental). Neither did Someone Else. But pretend that these<br>arguments are valid for Profs Fizzbottom and Tink to have, being<br>
authorities on the subject. This reduces Me and Someone Else to mere<br>cheerleaders for our respective Profs. Our opinions are entirely<br>worthless. Th truth of our Profs claims are not matters of opinion,<br>and we don't have the qualifications to usefully judge their words.<br>
We are making unqualified pronouncements.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Your example does not conform to the example of an evaluation of the scientific consensus on climate change, which was the subject of the thread. The consensus is determined by the scientific community compiling the work of thousands of scientists to determine the probability of the truth or falsehood of the proposition that human impacts are changing the climate. Having respect for the consensus position of the scientific community is not being a "cheerleader" for a professor, or expressing "fan club membership," but involves making a rational objective assessment of what the scientific community determines to be the consensus, if there is one.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If I survey the peer reviewed literature from the most well respected scientific journals, and the conclusion that human caused climate change is very likely occurring predominates, to believe that this conclusion is more likely to be true than the claims it is not occurring, is not to be a "cheerleader," but someone who follows the findings of objective research. If someone states that we do not know with any reliability, based on science, whether the climate will warm or cool due to increasing anthropogenic sourced CO2 levels, as if this question has been examined by the scientific community and found to be very uncertain, to object and provide the scientific research that shows otherwise, is again not to be a "cheerleader." It is to present the majority findings of the scientific community.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'll put aside the question of whether I, or any other non-professional student of climate change, can understand the hard science to a high level. This issue is not central to the argument I am making. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Chas continues:</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Worse, the same old players make the same old predictable<br>pronouncements, every time. If Gore/Clinton/Kerry seem to be<br>
favorable towards proposition X, then certain Vision2020 members will<br>invariably, and reflexively, take opposing sides. If<br>Bush/McCain/Reagen heirs seem to be favorable towards proposition X,<br>then certain Vision2020 members will invariably, and reflexively,<br>
take opposing sides. So, in the case of complicated issues like<br>global warming, we have people arguing about the causes of global<br>warming who are (a) unqualified to do so, and (b) aren't making<br>arguments based on the evidence at all, but based upon fan club<br>
membership.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Why you are reducing questions regarding the objective evidence of the scientific consensus on climate change to political loyalty, or "fan club membership," I am not sure. However, I agree this is the approach of many who have not carefully and objectively researched the body of scientific work on climate change. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Chas continues:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In other words, it is pointless for someone, anyone, to express an<br>opinion on a matter of fact, something which requires expert level<br>knowledge for that opinion to be valuable, when: (a) they don't<br>possess that expert level knowledge, and (b) they aren't arging THEIR<br>
OWN opinion at all, but regurgitating the opinions of presumably<br>qualified scientists only because it happens to match (or not match)<br>whatever Bushco espouses.<br><br>---------</div>
<div>The last paragraph seems to merely restate your previous points in different words. Again, I don't think your analysis allows for the value of the opinion of a careful unbiased non-scientist researcher, who investigates the published science on climate change, to come to credible conclusions regarding whether there is or is not a scientific consensus. Again, it is not necessary for the researcher to understand all the complexities of the hard science involved to come to a reliable conclusion. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Within the science of climate change, covering numerous disciplines, even the scientists themselves are so specialized that they do not fully understand the work of other scientists. One scientist is an expert on atmospheric dynamics, another on ocean currents, another on climate change impacts on forests, another on impacts to animal species extinction and adaptability, another on glaciation, and so forth. Evidence from numerous disciplines is involved in determining the consensus on climate change.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett </div><br>