<div>Thanks for posting the article on climate and science.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have written a long comment on "Experts and Global Warming" </div>
<div>that I will not post till I rewrite and edit, assuming I get around to it...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the statement "I'm just not comfortable following the orders of our Global Climate Science Overlords blindly, because I've learned not to trust them." is so incredible, I hope that it was meant in jest, or as a parody, or as bait for discussion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The level of paranoid extreme conspiracy implied by this statement is so over the top all I can do is laugh, except when I realize there are a scary number of people who actually literally in all seriousness think in this manner...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then I stop laughing!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do you really, really believe the numerous competent and professional scientists involved with numerous scientific organizations in many nations, who have been researching and publishing on climate science for over 100 years, represent some sort of global conspiracy as "Global Climate Science Overlords?" </div>
<div> </div>
<div>An in-depth study of the history of climate science reveals that by 1980, the general outlines of the science indicating that human sourced CO2 emissions, if continued unabated, were likely to substantially alter climate, was already established, long before this issue became a political, ideological and economic battleground. These scientists were for the most part humbly pursuing their discipline in obscurity, trying to do competent science and pursue their careers. To imply they were a part of an order of "Global Overlords" is hilarious and incredible! Since 1980, the scientific evidence, after extensive and rigorous skepticism and re-examination, has only for the most part further confirmed the work of those earlier climate scientists. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The field of climate science is perhaps the most vigorously vetted and critically examined scientific field, in part because of the intense political and ideological attacks against its integrity. There is substantial evidence that the primary scientific fraud or hoax involved in climate science in the media and Internet, is the well funded and politically supported junk science agenda to discredit the work of the aforementioned climate scientists, who had no agenda except competent science (<a href="http://www.mark-bowen.com/book_cs.html">http://www.mark-bowen.com/book_cs.html</a> : <span id="btAsinTitle">Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming ).</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I could expand on this theme for a thousand pages, but I'll simply once again offer an essay on the history of the scientific study of the CO2 greenhouse effect, going back over 100 years, from the American Institute of Physics... And then for those inclined to paranoid conspiracy theories about climate science "Global Overlords", I'll once again reference one of the best satires on this paranoia, "The Knights Carbonic," from George Monbiot:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="5">The</font><a name="L000"></a><font size="5"> Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect</font></div>
<p><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm</a></p>
<div>------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div>
<h1 class="firstChild">The Knights Carbonic</h1>
<h2 class="lastChild">November 23, 2009 <br><a href="http://www.monbiot.com/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/">http://www.monbiot.com/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/</a></h2>
<p>Yes, the hacked climate emails are damaging. But here’s the one you’d need to see if you wanted to show that manmade global warming is a scam.</p>
<p><span id="more-1224" class="firstChild lastChild"></span></p>
<p>By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009</p>
<p>It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(<a class="firstChild lastChild" href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/"><font color="#cc0000">1</font></a>). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.</p>
<p>Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(<a class="firstChild" href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt"><font color="#cc0000">2</font></a>,<a href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt"><font color="#cc0000">3</font></a>), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(<a class="lastChild" href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt"><font color="#cc0000">4</font></a>).</p>
<p>Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(<a class="firstChild" href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt"><font color="#cc0000">5</font></a>,<a href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt"><font color="#cc0000">6</font></a>), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(<a class="lastChild" href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt"><font color="#cc0000">7</font></a>). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.</p>
<p>But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(<a class="firstChild" href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/"><font color="#cc0000">8</font></a>,<a class="lastChild" href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116882"><font color="#cc0000">9</font></a>) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.</p>
<p>“From: <a href="mailto:ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk">ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk</a><br class="firstChild">Sent: 29th October 2009<br class="lastChild">To: The Knights Carbonic</p>
<p>Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.</p>
<p>The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.</p>
<p>More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master’s second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet’s atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.</p>
<p>Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.</p>
<p>The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(<a class="firstChild lastChild" href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html"><font color="#cc0000">10</font></a>). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.</p>
<p>Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.</p>
<p>Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.</p>
<p>The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?</p>
<p>Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.</p>
<p>Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.”</p>
<p>This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.</p>
<p>------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</p></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; COLOR: #000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<div><span>I can't help being dismayed that someone whose posts are praised as ones that "apply critical thinking to information and events in the news" would come down on the side of arguing *for* argument from authority. That seems to me to be about as uncritical as you can get. <br>
</span></div>
<div><br><span></span></div>
<div><span>One question to ask, in fact, one that's been lying around just begging to be asked is: why do experts in the field of climate science feel the need to argue from authority in the first place? Shouldn't they let their methodology and conclusions speak for themselves? This is science, after all. Why did they deny multiple FOIA requests for their data simply because the person requesting them might be critical of their results? Why did one of them specify in one of the Climategate emails that they would delete the information before they would allow themselves to be forced to give it up? Why did they "lose" the original unadjusted data? Why do they feel obligated to get in the middle of policy-making? Shouldn't they be conservatively stating their conclusions, with caveats, and letting the policy-makers decide their importance?</span></div>
<div><br><span></span></div>
<div><span>Science is supposed to be egalitarian. It shouldn't matter if an award-winning climate scientist submitted a paper or a fourteen-year-old Japanese school girl submitted it. The paper should stand or fall on it's own merits.</span></div>
<div><br><span></span></div>
<div><span>Also, "consensus among scientists" can be misleading. In one poll I looked at (<a href="http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-20-02.asp" target="_blank">http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-20-02.asp</a>), scientists had to agree or disagree with two items: </span>in the past 200 years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a "significant contributing factor" in changing mean global temperatures. I would unequivocally answer "yes" to the first one, and probably answer "yes" to the second one. The word "significant" has a special meaning in science. The CO2 signature could be "significant" and not be very large. These statements also say nothing about the expected impact of global warming. A person could answer "yes" to both statements and still feel that global warming is not a danger. I would expect a critical thinker to wonder, if that's the case, why such importance is placed on such statements. The right talks about "loyalty oaths", and I can sometimes see their point.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I would also like to argue that a person doesn't have to be a complete "expert" in a field of study to see problems in one. We live in a world in which we can educate ourselves quickly on very specific topics with a little motivation and a fair amount of time available.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I'm just not comfortable following the orders of our Global Climate Science Overlords blindly, because I've learned not to trust them.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Paul<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font size="2" face="Arial">
<hr size="1">
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Art Deco <<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:35 AM<br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> [Vision2020] Climate & Science<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<div>
<div>
<h1><a title="Go to Opinionator
Home" href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img alt="Opinionator - A Gathering of Opinion From Around the Web" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs_v3/opinionator/opinionator_print.png"></a></h1>
<div></div></div>
<div>
<div align="left"><span title="2011-07-12T16:01:22+00:00">July 12, 2011, <span>4:01 pm</span></span>
<h3>On Experts and Global Warming</h3>
<address>By <a title="See all posts by GARY GUTTING" href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/gary-gutting/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">GARY GUTTING</a></address>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Stone</a> is a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.</div></div>
<div>
<h4>Tags:</h4>
<div><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/anthropogenic-global-warming/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">anthropogenic global warming</a>, <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/climate-change/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">climate change</a>, <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/global-warming/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Global Warming</a>, <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/plato/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Plato</a>, <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/science/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">science</a></div>
</div></div>
<div><br><i>The Stone is featuring occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking to information and events that have appeared in the news.<br></i><br>
Experts have always posed a problem for democracies. Plato scorned democracy, rating it the worst form of government short of tyranny, largely because it gave power to the ignorant many rather than to knowledgeable experts (philosophers, as he saw it). But, if, as we insist, the people must ultimately decide, the question remains: How can we, non-experts, take account of expert opinion when it is relevant to decisions about public policy?</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote>One we accept the expert authority of climate science, we have no basis for supporting the minority position.</blockquote></div></div>
<div>To answer this question, we need to reflect on the logic of appeals to the authority of experts. First of all, such appeals require a decision about who the experts on a given topic are. Until there is agreement about this, expert opinion can have no persuasive role in our discussions. Another requirement is that there be a consensus among the experts about points relevant to our discussion. Precisely because we are not experts, we are in no position to adjudicate disputes among those who are. Finally, given a consensus on a claim among recognized experts, we non-experts have no basis for rejecting the truth of the claim.<br>
<br>These requirements may seem trivially obvious, but they have serious consequences. Consider, for example, current discussions about climate change, specifically about whether there is long-term global warming caused primarily by human activities (anthropogenic global warming or A.G.W.). All creditable parties to this debate recognize a group of experts designated as “climate scientists,” whom they cite in either support or opposition to their claims about global warming. In contrast to enterprises such as astrology or homeopathy, there is no serious objection to the very project of climate science. The only questions are about the conclusions this project supports about global warming.</div>
<div>There is, moreover, no denying that there is a <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">strong consensus</a> among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human activities are warming the planet. There are climate scientists who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline. Non-expert opponents of A.G.W. usually base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate scientists have raised against the consensus view. But non-experts are in no position to argue against the consensus of expert opinion. As long as they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position. Critics within the community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the overall consensus of that community, we non-experts have no basis for concluding that this is so. It does no good to say that we find the consensus conclusions poorly supported. Since we are not experts on the subject, our judgment has no standing.</div>
<div>It follows that a non-expert who wants to reject A.G.W. can do so only by arguing that climate science lacks the scientific status needed be taken seriously in our debates about public policy. There may well be areas of inquiry (e.g., various sub-disciplines of the social sciences) open to this sort of critique. But there does not seem to be a promising case against the scientific authority of climate science. As noted, opponents of the consensus on global warming themselves argue from results of the discipline, and there is no reason to think that they would have had any problem accepting a consensus of climate scientists against global warming, had this emerged.</div>
<div>Some non-expert opponents of global warming have made much of a number of e-mails written and circulated among a handful of climate scientists that they see as evidence of bias toward global warming. But unless this group is willing to argue from this small (and questionable) sample to the general unreliability of climate science as a discipline, they have no alternative but to accept the consensus view of climate scientists that <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/gate-fever-breaks/#more-22259" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">these e-mails do not undermine the core result of global warming</a>.</div>
<div>
<div>Related <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">More From The Stone</a>
<div>Read previous contributions to this series.</div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Go to All Posts »</a></li></ul></div></div>
<div>I am not arguing the absolute authority of scientific conclusions in democratic debates. It is not a matter of replacing Plato’s philosopher-kings with scientist-kings in our <i>polis</i>. We the people still need to decide (perhaps through our elected representatives) which groups we accept as having cognitive authority in our policy deliberations. Nor am I denying that there may be a logical gap between established scientific results and specific policy decisions. The fact that there is significant global warming due to human activity does not of itself imply any particular response to this fact. There remain pressing questions, for example, about the likely long-term effects of various plans for limiting CO2 emissions, the more immediate economic effects of such plans, and, especially, the proper balance between actual present sacrifices and probable long-term gains. Here we still require the input of experts, but we must also make fundamental value judgments, a task that, <i>pace</i> Plato, we cannot turn over to experts.</div>
<div>The essential point, however, is that once we have accepted the authority of a particular scientific discipline, we cannot consistently reject its conclusions. To adapt Schopenhauer’s famous remark about causality, science is not a taxi-cab that we can get in and out of whenever we like. Once we board the train of climate science, there is no alternative to taking it wherever it may go.</div>
</div></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br></div><br></div></div>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a> <br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br><br></div></div></div></div><br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote><br>