<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<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><br><span></span></div>
<div><span>Also, it may be naive, but climate scientists should not be helping to make policy decisions. They are not experts in the fields of foreign policy, disaster control, geo-engineering, or emergency preparedness. </span></div>
</div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>This is so obviously false, again, you must be writing in jest, or as a parody, or as bait for discussion...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>When climate scientists are consulted by politicians regarding the levels of reduction in atmospheric CO2 emissions that science indicates is required to prevent a disastrous level of climate change, <strong><em>they are helping to make actual or potential policy decisions, and on this one issue, they are experts on geo-engineering. </em></strong> As NASA climate scientist James Hansen said, and I paraphrase, we are already geo-engineering the climate, though unwittingly, and any response humans undertake to modify this unintentional geo-engineering, to lower atmospheric CO2 emissions, or sequester CO2 from the atmosphere to lower atmospheric CO2 levels, etc. is deliberate geo-engineering of the sort we have no choice but to undertake, to prevent unwanted degrees of climate change.</div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</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><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">
<div class="im">
<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>
</div><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:04 PM<br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> [Vision2020] Fwd: Climate & Science<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<div><br><br>
<div>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b>Art Deco</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:01 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Climate & Science<br>To: Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>><br><br><br>No one is arguing for unquestioned authority. Neither the author of the article nor I. It would be nice if you could argue just once without distorting a position with which you disagree.<br>
<br>There is a difference between being critical by examining the data, facts, and the probabilities/conclusions and just making pseudo-arguments as a contrarian.
<div><br><br>Paul writes:<br><br><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)">"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><br></div></div>How naive. Since when are facts/theories, especially ones difficult for the average policy maker to comprehend, main element of policy making? What kind of facts back up the claim that the national debt can be paid off without raising taxes? What kind of facts back up the claim that most welfare recipients are lazy chiselers? What kind of facts back up the claim that migrant workers live off America without contributing anything?<br>
<br>Ted Moffett posted a review of the book<i> Unscientific America</i>. Perhaps there are many here that might profit if they read that book with an open, non-contrarian mind.<br><br>w.
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br><br><br>
<div>On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex">
<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" rel="nofollow" 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" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" 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><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"></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></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>