<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 07/13/2011 04:32 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6VATxywkw-k64Na484dZFCD01y_Gc+33e=W9rrWWW+s-w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
The "Global Climate Science Overlords" bit was in direct response to
the article that was arguing that we should not question the science
of the climate experts. It's a reference to a Simpson's quote that
I see on the Internet regularly as a standing joke of the form "I,
for one, welcome our new _______ overlords."<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6VATxywkw-k64Na484dZFCD01y_Gc+33e=W9rrWWW+s-w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
I find it just as frightening that *any* criticism of climate
scientists is seen as a statement that there is a "paranoid extreme
conspiracy". I have good reasons for not trusting some of the major
figures in climate science. Mann, for example, and his "hockey
stick" graph.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6VATxywkw-k64Na484dZFCD01y_Gc+33e=W9rrWWW+s-w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nope. But I do think that some of the more prominent ones have
forgotten they are actual scientists and not political figures of
some kind. That's just my opinion, though.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6VATxywkw-k64Na484dZFCD01y_Gc+33e=W9rrWWW+s-w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Climate science is a young field. The first actual degree offered
in climatology was a BS in climatology offered by the University of
South Queensland in Australia with the first enrollments in the
degree in 2001. I think it's a bit soon in a field that looks at
time spans of 30+ years to say that we've pretty much concluded what
the answers are.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6VATxywkw-k64Na484dZFCD01y_Gc+33e=W9rrWWW+s-w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
There may indeed be a well funded, politically supported junk
science agenda, I wouldn't know. That's not where I get my info. <br>
<br>
I'll have to get a copy of that book, it looks interesting. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6VATxywkw-k64Na484dZFCD01y_Gc+33e=W9rrWWW+s-w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
name="L000"></a><font size="5"> Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse
Effect</font></div>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="firstChild"
href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt"><font
color="#cc0000">2</font></a>,<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true" class="firstChild"
href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt"><font
color="#cc0000">5</font></a>,<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family:
times new roman,new york,times,serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 face="Arial"
size="2">
<hr size="1">
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b>
Art Deco <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 class="h5"><br>
<div>
<div>
<h1><a moz-do-not-send="true" title="Go to
Opinionator Home"
href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/anthropogenic-global-warming/"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">anthropogenic
global warming</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/climate-change/"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">climate
change</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/global-warming/"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Global
Warming</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/plato/"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Plato</a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<br>
mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>