<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<font size="4"><font face="Courier, Courier New"><span style="font-size:13pt">Chas,<br>
<br>
First, it would be easier to debate about a topic with you if you refrained from putting words in my mouth. For instance you claim that I said that “Scientists have no infallibility, on empirical claims or otherwise” which is an absurd claim that I did not, would not make. What I said is that when it comes to empirical claims, we should defer to the judgments of scientists. They do not need to be infallible in order for us to take their advice. Consider the science of medicine. Doctors are not infallible either. But you’d be better off listening to your doctor when it comes to matters of health than you would be listening to Gary or me. This is not a “shocking admission,” it is just common sense. You’d be better off listening to a lawyer when it comes to legal advice, a gardener when it comes to advice about gardening, etc.<br>
<br>
Second, you write: “Having dispensed with consensus as possessing relevance to the argument, Gary (and I) move on to the next claim, which is that your scientists have impressive credentials. My opposing scientists also have impressive credentials - effectively rebutting your point.” This is just another example of you putting words in my mouth. If you can find one place where I ever used the phrase “impressive credentials,” or where I made this “point” in other words, I’ll buy you a hat.<br>
<br>
My point is not that the folks who accept global warming have more “impressive credentials” than those that don’t. It is that there are A LOT more experts who accept global warming than there are who don’t. I’ve been told that among climatologists, for instance, over 90% accept the thesis of man-made global warming. That is significant in my book. Again, there is no claim that there is universal consensus, or that scientists know anything, nor am I making any claims about truth at all. But when you have an issue and 90% of the folks in the know say “Theory A is true,” then it is rational to accept theory A. Listing some of the 10% who favor theory B cannot be a reason for either thinking that theory B is true or for undermining your support for theory A or for thinking a genuine “debate” exits. <br>
<br>
Third, you write that “The law of gravity is testable by everyone who has ever lived.” This is false. There are natives who have never even heard of the law of gravity, so it is not even believed by everyone, and it certainly is not “testable by everyone.” The law of gravity applies to all times and places but no one has experienced all times and places. How does the fact that when you dropped your keys yesterday they fell to the ground prove that the same thing will happen tomorrow? All the law of gravity has going for it — relative to the kinds of issues we are talking about here — is that there is universal consensus. But you also say that “Consensus demonstrates nothing except that a lot of people agree.” Well, if that is true, then we have no reason to believe the law of gravity, which is absurd. You can’t suppose that there is some way of saving the empirical claims you like from your argument. There are not. Your argument has absurd consequences. That was my point.<br>
<br>
Lastly, you claim that “there is no absolute consensus among scientists about many things, the cause(s) of global warming” being one of them. Again, this is false. Perhaps among scientists, there is no consensus but among scientists in the know – climatologists – there is near consensus. I’m not suggesting that ALL of them accept it, but a HUGE majority accept it. Also, I’m not saying that folks who deny global warming are somehow intellectually irresponsible. Folks can believe what they wish. But when it comes to matters of public policy, basing one’s decisions on the overwhelming opinion of people in the know strikes me as the right way to go. Look, there is always debate in matters of science, as you note. But often we have to make policy decisions in spite of this fact. In cases where 90% of the experts hold one view over another, that is significant. To expect more than 90% consensus is, given our agreement about the lack of certainty in empirical matters, to essentially say that science has nothing to offer when it comes to public policy.<br>
<br>
Joe Campbell</span></font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br>
</span></font>
</div></blockquote></body></html>