<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Joe,</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Me too. I think if more professors of ethics, <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-0><SPAN>philosophy</SPAN></SPAN> and <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-1><SPAN>political</SPAN></SPAN> science took the time to explain and educate as you do far more students would understand and stay interested in the subjects.</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"><FONT style="RIGHT: auto" face="tahoma, new york, times, serif">However, I don't think politics and ethics always mix well. Good ethics is like <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT face="tahoma, new york, times, serif">kryptonite</FONT> </SPAN>to most <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-3><SPAN>politicians</SPAN></SPAN>.</FONT></SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> <VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Donovan J. Arnold</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><BR style="RIGHT: auto"></div>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto" dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr contentEditable=false readonly="true"></DIV><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Sam Scripter <moscowsam@charter.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> philosopher.joe@gmail.com <BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> vision2020@moscow.com <BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sunday, July 8, 2012 12:10 PM<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>
<DIV id=yiv1618180494>
<DIV>Good post, Joe!
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I appreciate the "pains"/time/effort you take to carefully, fully explain your points about how to validly express one's position on the findings of science.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thank you!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Sam S</DIV></DIV><BR><BR><BR>-------- Original message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees" <BR>From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com> <BR>To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com> <BR>CC: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com> <BR><BR><BR>
<DIV>Two other points worth making.<BR><BR>First, you would come off as something other than a spokesman for a<BR>radical, ill-informed, politically motivated position if your<BR>criticisms went both ways. You like to point out "flaws" in climate<BR>science. But are there no flaws in the arguments of their detractors?<BR>No fallacies, no prejudices, no false reports, no political<BR>motivations? Doubtful.<BR><BR>Second, in your initial post, at the bottom of this one, you list<BR>several complaints about the political motivations lurking behind<BR>climate science. But this makes it seem as if climate science is<BR>somehow separated from the rest of science and the academy and nothing<BR>can be further from the truth.<BR><BR>At WSU, climate scientists work within the School of Earth and<BR>Environmental Sciences (SEES), which is made up of scientists from a<BR>multitude of disciplines such as geology, geochemistry, ecology,<BR>hydrology, microbiology, and
marine biology. Were you to poll these<BR>folks -- indeed, were you to poll scientists in general -- you'd find<BR>that there is an overwhelming consensus among them about the impact of<BR>human behavior on global warming. Thus, if we are to believe your<BR>reports of bias among climate scientists, the conspiracy would be more<BR>widespread than you suggest, involving not just climate scientists but<BR>the entire scientific community, perhaps all of the academy. In the<BR>end, we're left with a fairytale conspiracy theory that is<BR>preposterous and unbelievable.<BR><BR>Just to note one example, you constantly complain about problems with<BR>computer models when making large-scale claims about global climate<BR>change but did you know that these models are used in other areas of<BR>science as well? A quick scan of some of the research interests of<BR>members of SEES makes the point. One professor's "research uses<BR>computer simulation models to help us
understand the recent problems<BR>in the electric power industry." Another "combines field measurements<BR>with theoretical models and computer simulations to shed light on<BR>natural water flows, mixing, and sediment transport." This is research<BR>that is funded by competitive national grants and provides information<BR>that is actually used to solve real-world problems. Why not<BR>investigate whether or not your worries about computer models apply to<BR>these areas of research as well? The flip-side is, don't you think<BR>that these scientists would all be standing up on their soapboxes<BR>deriding the claims of climate scientists if their work were as biased<BR>and fallacious as you contend that it is? Don't you think they'd want<BR>to separate their research from the disreputable research of climate<BR>scientists if that work were as questionable as you contend? Again, if<BR>we are to believe any of your claims, the political conspiracy would<BR>be
very wide, so wide as to involve the whole of the academy.<BR><BR>As the Director of the School of Politics, Philosophy, and Public<BR>Affairs, I have a keen interest in the connections between science,<BR>ethics, and policy: How can we take the information that science<BR>provides and apply it to the real world in a way that is beneficial to<BR>humanity and the universe in general? Last year we started a series of<BR>lectures in an attempt to help the general public better understand<BR>complex issues like global warming, bringing together experts from a<BR>variety of fields for public forums at least once a semester. Last<BR>spring we brought in Andrew Light, a Senior Fellow at the Center for<BR>American Progress, and formed a panel discussion with representatives<BR>from biochemistry, sociology, and philosophy to provide information on<BR>this very topic. After brief presentations from the panelists, there<BR>was a Q&A where folks were allowed to
ask questions and voice concerns<BR>about these matters. I advertised this on Vision 2020. This is not the<BR>behavior of people who have an agenda that they want to trick you into<BR>believing.<BR><BR>This year we promise to have more events. I'm in the process of<BR>organizing a conference on neurophilosophy, investigating the impact<BR>of neuroscience on such areas as ethics and the law, and we're also<BR>inviting Allen Buchanan, James B. Duke Professor of Philosophy at Duke<BR>University, who will likely give a talk on bioethics. I'll continue to<BR>advertise these events on Vision 2020 and I encourage you and others<BR>to attend. In general, I encourage you, Paul, to seek out local<BR>presentations by climate scientists -- I've helped organize at least 3<BR>such events over the last 3 years -- and to ask questions directly to<BR>the scientists themselves and see if they might be able to respond to<BR>your concerns. In other words, instead of
voicing your concerns to a<BR>group with no expertise that is unable to evaluate the merits of your<BR>claims, take them to the climate scientists themselves and see what<BR>they say. And do it in a public venue. That way, folks would be able<BR>to here both sides of the issue and make a more informed decision.<BR><BR>Best, Joe<BR><BR>On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com> wrote:<BR>> Can I assume you have credentials in climate science? Because, otherwise,<BR>> you are being hypocritical in calling me out for "degrading" the<BR>> conversation because of my lack of the same.<BR>><BR>> Perhaps I'm missing some fundamental knowledge of how arguments work.<BR>><BR>> Paul<BR>><BR>> ________________________________<BR>> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><BR>> To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 2:03 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the<BR>> Forest for the Burning Trees"<BR>><BR>> Thanks for these comments phrased in a manner so easy to understand, coming<BR>> from someone who could write at a level that would be obtuse for many... I'm<BR>> reminded of the writing style of philosopher Bertrand Russell<BR>><BR>> When in a dialog someone of a significant level of education and<BR>> intelligence repeatedly refuses to admit when it is pointed out that they<BR>> have engaged in significant omissions, errors and misrepresentations<BR>> regarding a critical scientific field, and promotes what can be easily<BR>> determined by most anyone doing cursory research of scientific peer review,<BR>> to be junk science, as though we are supposed to take it seriously, this<BR>> implies a factual and/or
argumentative filter at work, for whatever reason<BR>> or reasons. Call it a indication of an "agenda," or who knows what it is!<BR>><BR>> Maybe there is still some social value to such a degraded dialog, but it<BR>> ceases to offer significant credible factual or augmentative input of<BR>> interest for someone who reaches a certain level of competency in exploring<BR>> the scientific field involved.<BR>><BR>> On the issue of complexity as an argument for a high degree of skepticism<BR>> about the claims of a given field of knowledge, the human brain/mind is<BR>> claimed by some to be the most complex object in the known universe,<BR>> therefore we should engage in a high degree of skepticism about any claims<BR>> by anyone about any ones state of "mind," whether scientific claims or other<BR>> sorts. It amazes me that people make such simple and easy judgements about<BR>> each others state of mind,
given that such propositions to be credible<BR>> should only be made by those with PhDs in a psychology or perhaps<BR>> neurobiology related field, and even these judgements it can be argued are<BR>> very open to question, assuming a vast complexity is underpinning each<BR>> humans state of mind.<BR>><BR>> Consider this dialog with neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga:<BR>><BR>> ALAN ALDA INTERVIEWS MICHAEL GAZZANIGA<BR>> Featured on "The Man with Two Brains,"<BR>> from the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS special "Pieces of Mind."<BR>><BR>> http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm<BR>><BR>> Alan Alda:<BR>> I have to say - and from talking to you I think you feel this way, too -<BR>> consciousness is a terrific thing to have. It feels good to have<BR>> consciousness. When you lose consciousness and when you sense you're going<BR>> to lose consciousness, it doesn't feel good. You get a
little nervous about<BR>> that. But what do you suppose is the reason we have consciousness? Why has<BR>> it persisted? What good is it in terms of the survival of the species?<BR>> Michael Gazzaniga:<BR>> That's related to the $64,000 question. What's it for? If you want to<BR>> understand anything, you've got to know what it's for. And it so permeates<BR>> every thought we have, you think, well, it's for keeping us motivated, to<BR>> have these thoughts, or whatever. But you start to put this stuff down on<BR>> paper and it just doesn't look like you're saying much.<BR>> You know, there's a bunch of philosophers now who are saying, "A human<BR>> trying to understand consciousness is like a nematode trying to understand a<BR>> dog." It's just too big a problem, and they kind of toss it out the window.<BR>> Well I don't think we should do that. Clearly, it's going to take a lot of<BR>> major new thinking to really
give us an insight, a handle on how we can<BR>> scientifically talk about this phenomenal awareness that we all experience.<BR>> -------------------------------------------<BR>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<BR>><BR>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>> wrote:<BR>><BR>>I'm making claims about your arguments and</DIV>> 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>> 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 <godshatter@yahoo.com> 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>>> (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html)<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>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> http://www.fsr.net<BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> =======================================================<BR>><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR> http://www.fsr.net<BR> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></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" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR><BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>