<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Fine, then. I officially bow to the Climate Scientists Priesthood. May they live long and prosper.</span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>I still don't see any evidence they have the feedback thing worked out, though.</span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>Paul<br></span></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;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Ted Moffett
<starbliss@gmail.com>; Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, July 5, 2012 11:18 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees"<br> </font> </div> <br>
You are just ignoring the points I made. You say that "you've looked<br>into it" but I don't see how you could have looked into the matter<br>more than the 100s of folks I've met, who are actual working<br>scientists, and who think that folks like you don't know what they are<br>talking about. Joe<br><br>On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Paul Rumelhart <<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Just a quick response, since my time is currently limited.<br>><br>> Whether the gods gave us our brains or we just came by them naturally, we<br>> shouldn't be afraid to use them. The difference between the fields of<br>> climate science and lung cancer research FOR ME, is that I have looked into<br>> climate science and haven't taken the time to look into the tobacco/lung<br>> disease connection yet. I don't smoke, I have zero interest in it, and
the<br>> connection doesn't surprise me, so it's way down the list of items that I<br>> would like to look into.<br>><br>> I look into things all the time, either because they are interesting on<br>> their own or because they affect me personally and I want to be informed<br>> about them. For example, quite a few years ago I sat down with Einstein's<br>> book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" (which can be found online<br>> here: http://www.bartleby.com/173/) and laboriously worked my way through<br>> mind experiments involving rigid rods and trains moving past stationary<br>> platforms. It was slow going, but I got there. I was hoping that I'd see<br>> something that the great Einstein overlooked. Not surprisingly, I didn't.<br>> What I didn't find was a ton of reasons to be skeptical about the theory to<br>> begin with. The concepts are actually pretty easy, they just take
some work<br>> to reorient yourself to think of the consequences. I've also done the same<br>> thing to a lesser degree with Big Bang Theory. When I decided to do this<br>> with climate science, I found a science in it's infancy that is generally<br>> making progress in lots of areas but is handicapped by it's own political<br>> relevance.<br>><br>> So, that's the difference between smoking and climate science, at least for<br>> me. One I've looked into and found it wanting, the other I take as simple<br>> faith purely because it sounds plausible and because I could really give a<br>> crap about it. Maybe someday I'll be motivated enough to examine the claims<br>> made by scientists with regards to the tobacco/lung disease link. If I did<br>> so, I'd drop my preconceptions and come into it fresh. For all I know, it's<br>> another case where it's politically convenient to
make the connection but<br>> isn't really that clear-cut.<br>><br>> Paul<br>><br>><br>><br>> ________________________________<br>> From: Joe Campbell <<a ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>> To: Paul Rumelhart <<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>><br>> Cc: Ted Moffett <<a ymailto="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>>; Moscow Vision 2020<br>> <<a ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 8:57 AM<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the<br>> Forest for the Burning Trees"<br>><br>> Paul,<br>><br>> Thanks for helping me to make my case!<br>><br>> The
point is that you DON'T believe that smoking causes lung cancer on<br>> the basis of scientific evidence that you understand and evaluate,<br>> because you are not a scientist. You believe it because it is "common<br>> sense" (which is irrelevant, for it merely boils down to the fact that<br>> it seems to you to be true) and because the experts tell you it is<br>> true. You still haven't shown a difference between the case of smoking<br>> and human carbon consumption. Let's look more closely at some of the<br>> BAD arguments you give below for the supposed difference.<br>><br>> Two clarifications first. My point was that unless you are an actual<br>> scientist, it is almost impossible to make judgments about scientific<br>> claims on evidence alone. In most cases, understanding the evidence<br>> would require a high level of expertise. This is why scientific<br>> beliefs should be based on testimony, the testimony
of experts in the<br>> field. My general claim was that there is NO basis to dismiss one set<br>> of scientists (climate scientists, say) yet not dismiss others as<br>> well. In my previous post, I happened to mention scientists who<br>> specialize in lung cancer research but below I mention others since<br>> they are helpful in showing flaws in your reasoning.<br>><br>> Also, you might wonder how I'm qualified to speak about such matters,<br>> given that I'm not a climate scientist either. But I'm not making any<br>> claims about the climate. I just trust what the climate scientists<br>> tell me for reasons given. I'm making claims about your arguments and<br>> when it comes to judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of<br>> arguments -- the area of logic and the broader area of epistemology --<br>> there is NO ONE living on the Palouse who is more qualified than I am<br>> (although there are a few people
who are as qualified).<br>><br>> The points in (1) are irrelevant and were addressed above. In the<br>> 1950s smoking seemed to be a healthy activity and was promoted as<br>> such. Common sense turned out to be wrong. Common sense is never a<br>> reason for holding scientific beliefs.<br>><br>> Wrt (2), I'd be willing to bet that there are climate scientists<br>> working on these very questions. In any event, I'm not sure what<br>> evidence you have to say otherwise. I tend to leave it to scientists<br>> to determine what kinds of studies they should or shouldn't be<br>> concerned with in order to support their claims. Since you are not a<br>> scientist, these points are meaningless.<br>><br>> For point (3), it is true that the climate is complex. But the<br>> universe is even MORE complex. To the extent that this gives you a<br>> reason to dismiss climate science it should give you EVEN MORE
reason<br>> to dismiss all of physics for both the micro-level of the universe and<br>> the macro-level of the universe are FAR MORE complex than the earth's<br>> climate. This is just a general skeptical argument that applies to<br>> almost ANY area of science. Why accept it wrt climate science but not,<br>> say, cosmology? Why believe anything that Stephen Hawking says, for<br>> instance? Do you know how much MORE complicated the whole frickin'<br>> universe is when compared with the earth's climate? This is an absurd,<br>> BAD, and irresponsible argument.<br>><br>> I've responded to arguments like those in (4) and (5) before but it<br>> hasn't seemed to sink in yet. Whether or not a scientist has an agenda<br>> is IRRELEVANT. What matters is the EVIDENCE he or she has in support<br>> of the claims made. Suppose you find out that 99% of scientists who<br>> study the links between smoking and lung cancer went
into the field<br>> for emotional and irrational reasons -- suppose, say, that members of<br>> their family died of lung cancer. That would be irrelevant and<br>> shouldn't cause you to dismiss their findings. ALL that is relevant is<br>> the epistemological quality of the evidence, which can be judged in<br>> objective ways.<br>><br>> If your argument were sound, it should give people reason to dismiss<br>> EVERYTHING you say because you clearly have an agenda. You can't tell<br>> me that your concern with the issue of global warming is independent<br>> of your political views or your personal habits, that it is solely<br>> motivated by the desire for objective truth and nothing more. This<br>> very argument undermines everything you say on Vision 2020 since all<br>> of it is in keeping with your own political viewpoints, or "agenda."<br>> But people shouldn't dismiss your views merely because you happen
to<br>> be interested in politics. They should judge your views on the basis<br>> of the evidence you provide in support of the claims that you make.<br>> They shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about your claims either;<br>> they should evaluate each argument individually.<br>><br>> If your argument were sound, we should dismiss ALL sciences related to<br>> human heath, since they are all motivated by the subjective desire to<br>> help human beings extend their lives and improve the quality of their<br>> lives. Likely anyone working in the area of cancer research is<br>> motivated in part by the selfish desire to become THE person that<br>> finds the cure for cancer. That is irrelevant. This is another general<br>> skeptical argument that (if sound) should cause you to dismiss much<br>> more than climate science.<br>><br>> ALL scientific claims should be judged by the merits of the evidence<br>>
given. Personal facts about the scientists are ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.<br>> People tend to choose their vocations for personal reasons, not<br>> because of a desire to seek objective truth. Scientists are no<br>> different in this regard.<br>><br>> Best, Joe<br>><br>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> On 07/03/2012 05:42 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>>>><br>>>> So, Paul, why believe that smoking causes lung disease if you don't<br>>>> believe that human carbon consumption has an impact on global warming?<br>>>><br>>>> Joe<br>>><br>>><br>>> First, I'm not saying that carbon consumption is not having an impact on<br>>> global warming. I'm saying that the size of the impacts compared to the<br>>> more-or-less unknown natural
factors is unknown and that the feedbacks<br>>> from<br>>> warming in general are unknown, among other things.<br>>><br>>> There are plenty of reasons, both scientific and not, that make me<br>>> skeptical<br>>> of global warming. Although everyone will assume I'm just grasping at<br>>> straws because of my deep-seated urge to deny everything (probably has to<br>>> do<br>>> with my relationship with my mother), I humbly present a smattering of<br>>> them<br>>> for your enjoyment:<br>>><br>>> 1. On the face of it, the idea is extraordinary. Humans, even with our<br>>> vaunted civilization, are small potatoes compared to the forces of nature.<br>>> The only reason our carbon footprint even makes a dent compared to natural<br>>> forces has to do with the small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. We've<br>>> had<br>>> far less of
an impact on the water cycle, for example, or with oxygen<br>>> levels. Not saying that it isn't possible, but there is automatically a<br>>> bar<br>>> that has to be gotten over which smoking causing lung disease doesn't<br>>> have.<br>>> It should be common sense that inhaling smoke multiple times a day for<br>>> years<br>>> can have a deleterious effect on the lungs, even without bringing in<br>>> carcinogens.<br>>><br>>> 2. There are some obvious questions that aren't being answered because of<br>>> the focus on human impacts. For example, what caused the earth to heat up<br>>> immediately following the Little Ice Age? If we do not know, how can we<br>>> say<br>>> with any confidence that human-induced climate change is to blame instead<br>>> of<br>>> the same natural processes still at work? What causes an ice age
to<br>>> start,<br>>> and what brings us out of one?<br>>><br>>> 3. The climate is complex, with multiple feedbacks of unknown strength<br>>> and<br>>> unknown feedbacks of unknown strength. The sign of the combination of<br>>> feedbacks isn't even known. Climate models cannot be that accurate, given<br>>> the above, yet they are seen as gospel. Even when they make different<br>>> assumptions and model things different ways. As long as they project a<br>>> warmer future, they are added to the model average and used as proof that<br>>> global warming will kill babies and cause frogs to rain from the sky.<br>>><br>>> I imagine that the mechanisms for lung disease from tobacco are relatively<br>>> straight forward.<br>>><br>>> 4. Some of the major players in the spotlight on the side of global<br>>> warming<br>>>
are environmental activists with an agenda, as opposed to being objective<br>>> scientists just following the data. For example, Timothy Wirth (Senator<br>>> from Colorado and leader of the negotiating team for the Kyoto treaty)<br>>> held<br>>> a hearing on global warming at the capital. He called the Weather Bureau<br>>> to<br>>> find out what day of the year was usually the hottest in DC, and scheduled<br>>> the hearing for that date. His team then went in the night before the<br>>> hearing and opened all the windows in the room in which the hearing was to<br>>> be held, causing the air conditioning to fail to keep up with the heat.<br>>> All<br>>> so that it could be hot and muggy when James Hansen gave his spiel about<br>>> the<br>>> dangers of global warming.<br>>><br>>> (<a
href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html</a>)<br>>><br>>> The anti-tobacco campaigns, with all their sheer propaganda, do seem to be<br>>> run by political activists, but that may be coincidental.<br>>><br>>> 5. Major climate scientists also appear to have political agendas.<br>>> Michael<br>>> Mann and his "hockey stick" come to mind, trying to erase the Medieval<br>>> Warm<br>>> Period and the Little Ice Age, using dubious statistics, all so they could<br>>> show that current warming was "unprecedented". All this from a few<br>>> bristlecone pine trees.<br>>><br>>> I haven't heard of any of these kinds of shenanigans from scientists<br>>> studying the link between tobacco use and lung diseases, probably because<br>>> the links
were relatively straight forward. Not so much the case with<br>>> global warming / global climate change / global climate disruption.<br>>><br>>> There are more, but that gives you the gist of it. But hey, it's just me<br>>> being contrarian, right? So please, move along. Nothing to see here.<br>>><br>>> Paul<br>><br>><br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>