<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:tahoma, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">"According to reports I have heard, there was a similar heat wave in the 1980's."</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">And when global warming<VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR> causes rising sea levels to over take the coastlines and drown islands they will say, " Well back when a guy named Noah lived before carbon pollution. . ." . </SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Donovan J. Arnold</SPAN></div>
<div><BR></div>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, 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 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> lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Art Deco <art.deco.studios@gmail.com>; vision2020@moscow.com <BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Monday, July 9, 2012 9:31 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>According to reports I have heard, there was a similar heat wave in the 1980's.<BR>Roger<BR>-----Original message-----<BR>From: Art Deco <A href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</A><BR>Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:40:30 -0700<BR>To: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees"<BR><BR>> Officials: Past 12 months warmest ever for U.S.<BR>> By the *CNN Wire Staff*<BR>> updated 2:34 PM EDT, Mon July 9, 2012<BR>> [image: Ten-year-old Lilly Hwang-Geddes, left, of Ithaca, New York,<BR>> plays in a fountain at the Yards Park on Thursday, July 5, in Washington. A<BR>> record heat wave has been in the area for more than a week.] Ten-year-old<BR>> Lilly Hwang-Geddes, left, of Ithaca, New York, plays in a fountain at the<BR>> Yards Park on Thursday, July 5, in Washington. A record heat wave has been<BR>> in the area for more than a week.<BR>>
HIDE CAPTION<BR>> Extreme heat strikes U.S.<BR>> <<<BR>> <<BR>> 1<BR>> 2<BR>> 3<BR>> 4<BR>> 5<BR>> 6<BR>> 7<BR>> 8<BR>> 9<BR>> 10<BR>> 11<BR>> 12<BR>> 13<BR>> 14<BR>> 15<BR>> 16<BR>> 17<BR>> 18<BR>> 19<BR>> 20<BR>> 21<BR>> 22<BR>> 23<BR>> ><BR>> >><BR>> *STORY HIGHLIGHTS*<BR>> <BR>> - *NEW:* Number of outages falls to just under 100,000 in 11 states,<BR>> Washington<BR>> - The first half of 2012 has also set temperature records, NOAA says<BR>> - Temperatures are falling across the nation, but storms are possible<BR>> - Heat advisories are issued for
portions of California and Arizona<BR>> <BR>> *(CNN)* -- The mainland United States, which was largely recovering Monday<BR>> from a near-nationwide heat wave, has experienced the warmest 12-month<BR>> period since record-keeping began in 1895, the National Oceanic and<BR>> Atmospheric Administration said Monday.<BR>> <BR>> High temperatures during June also contributed to a record-warm first half<BR>> of the year, the agency said in its monthly analysis. The heat during the<BR>> last half of June broke or tied 170 all-time high temperature records in<BR>> cities across the lower 48 states.<BR>> <BR>> "Temperatures in South Carolina (113 degrees) and Georgia (112 degrees) are<BR>> currently under review by the U.S. State Climate Extremes Committee as<BR>> possible all-time statewide temperature records," NOAA said.<BR>> <BR>> The average temperature for the mainland in June was 71.2 degrees --
two<BR>> degrees above the 20th-century average and the 14th warmest June on record.<BR>> How long will high temps last?<BR>> Heat wave beginning to break<BR>> Heat Wave: Triple digits<BR>> Watch SUV go airborne on buckled road<BR>> <BR>> The state of Colorado, which saw several large wildfires, had its warmest<BR>> June ever, NOAA said. The warmest-ever June experienced nationwide was in<BR>> 1933.<BR>> <BR>> The heat wave, which stretched across much of the nation for more than a<BR>> week, was largely history Monday, but the break in the heat could mean<BR>> severe storms in some areas, forecasters said.<BR>> <BR>> A cold front was working its way through the Mid-Atlantic states, dropping<BR>> high temperatures into the 80s in cities including Chicago, New York,<BR>> Boston and Washington.<BR>> <BR>> The heat wave that roasted much of the country for more than a week
left<BR>> scores dead and millions without power at one point -- many of them<BR>> following a round of severe storms that swept through the Mid-Atlantic<BR>> states on June 29.<BR>> <BR>> The nation's capital set another record Sunday with a high of 102 degrees<BR>> -- the city's 11th straight day of temperatures over 95.<BR>> <BR>> Other high temperatures Sunday included 105 in Raleigh-Durham, North<BR>> Carolina, which tied an all-time record; 103 in Richmond, Virginia; 101 in<BR>> Charlotte, North Carolina; and 100 in Baltimore.<BR>> <BR>> Nationwide, there have been more than 4,500 daily record highs in the past<BR>> 30 days, according to the National Climatic Data Center.<BR>> <BR>> However, the forecast high for Washington on Monday was 86. Other forecast<BR>> highs were 87 in Baltimore, 90 in Richmond and 90 in St. Louis.<BR>> <BR>> Portions of North and South Carolina will be the last to
escape the heat,<BR>> as a heat advisory remained in place for some locations Monday. Monday's<BR>> forecast high for Raleigh was 97 with a heat index as high as 104;<BR>> Tuesday's forecast predicts a high of 87 degrees.<BR>> <BR>> Triple-digit strategies for staying<BR>> healthy<<A href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/health/heat-medical-conditions-tips/index.html" target=_blank>http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/health/heat-medical-conditions-tips/index.html</A>><BR>> <BR>> But the cold front brings a chance of severe weather, particularly across<BR>> the eastern Carolinas and southeastern Virginia, CNN meteorologist Sarah<BR>> Dillingham said. More than 160 wind reports were received nationwide as the<BR>> front worked its way eastward, she said.<BR>> <BR>> Damaging winds were the main threat of Monday's storms, she said. A "slight<BR>> risk" area included the cities of Norfolk and Roanoke, Virginia, along
with<BR>> Raleigh, Charlotte and Wilmington, North Carolina.<BR>> <BR>> On Sunday, damaging winds struck Fredericksburg, Virginia, and collapsed a<BR>> building, injuring two people, according to the National Weather Service's<BR>> Storm Prediction Center. The storms have complicated restoration efforts in<BR>> some spots and caused even more damage. One person died Saturday in storms<BR>> in Cuba, Missouri, the prediction center said.<BR>> <BR>> "It has been a tough few weeks for many Virginians," Gov. Bob McDonnell<BR>> said late Sunday. "They have suffered from record-breaking temperatures and<BR>> an historic storm that brought widespread damage and power outages. Now,<BR>> many have lost power again. I ask Virginians to remain patient and to<BR>> continue to help each other get through this latest storm."<BR>> <BR>> Just under 100,000 customers in 11 states and metropolitan Washington were<BR>>
without power as of Monday. Some have lacked electricity for more than a<BR>> week after the June 29 storms.<BR>> <BR>> More than 72,000 of those customers were in West Virginia, the hardest-hit<BR>> state. Because utility companies typically define each residential and<BR>> business account as a customer, the actual number of people affected was<BR>> higher.<BR>> <BR>> West Virginians brace for storms,<BR>> aftermath<<A href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/us/west-virginia-storm-aftermath/index.html" target=_blank>http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/us/west-virginia-storm-aftermath/index.html</A>><BR>> <BR>> Outages in metropolitan Washington, however, had dropped to 316 Monday<BR>> morning.<BR>> <BR>> More hot weather may be on the way, forecasters warned. The National<BR>> Weather Service issued excessive heat warnings for parts of Arizona and<BR>> California starting Monday, predicting temperatures in
the range from 110<BR>> to 115 degrees.<BR>> <BR>> "The combination of hot afternoon temperatures and very warm overnight lows<BR>> will result in oppressive conditions," the weather service said.<BR>> <BR>> Use caution if you drive in extreme<BR>> heat<<A href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/travel/heat-road-conditions/index.html" target=_blank>http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/travel/heat-road-conditions/index.html</A>><BR>> <BR>> High temperatures Monday were expected to reach 102 in Redding, California;<BR>> 98 in Sacramento, California; 104 in Fresno, California; 100 in Salt Lake<BR>> City; 115 in Yuma, Arizona; and 113 in Phoenix.<BR>> <BR>> The Pacific Northwest, however, experienced cooler than average<BR>> temperatures in June, according to the NOAA. Cooler conditions were also<BR>> present in the Southeast, despite record-breaking heat in late June.<BR>> <BR>> CNN's Devon Sayers and Dave
Alsup contributed to this report.<BR>> <<A href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2012%2F07%2F09%2Fus%2Fextreme-heat%2Findex.html&text=Officials%3A%20Past%2012%20months%20warmest%20ever%20for%20U.S.%20&hashtags=cnn" target=_blank>https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2012%2F07%2F09%2Fus%2Fextreme-heat%2Findex.html&text=Officials%3A%20Past%2012%20months%20warmest%20ever%20for%20U.S.%20&hashtags=cnn</A>><BR>> <<A href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/extreme-heat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#" target=_blank>http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/extreme-heat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#</A>><BR>> <<A href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/extreme-heat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#" target=_blank>http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/extreme-heat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#</A>><BR>> <<A href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/extreme-heat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#"
target=_blank>http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/extreme-heat/index.html?hpt=hp_t1#</A>><BR>> [image: ADVERTISEMENT]<BR>> NewsPulse <<A href="http://newspulse.cnn.com/" target=_blank>http://newspulse.cnn.com/</A>><BR>> <BR>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Tom Hansen <<A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > Well, well, well, Mr. Rumelhart -<BR>> ><BR>> > I watched both of my parents die (my mom on September 26, 2005 - my dad on<BR>> > October 4, 2009). They both died at home, as a matter of preference,<BR>> > within a couple weeks of being discharged from the hospital. It was a<BR>> > medical doctor that provided me and my sister guidance in making my<BR>> > mother's last days as comfortable as possible, to include administering<BR>> > morphine to relieve her
pain.<BR>> ><BR>> > I even helped "bag" my father for transport by the Neptune Society, while<BR>> > under the guidance of a nurse.<BR>> ><BR>> > At the end of 2011/beginning of 2012 my wife spent five weeks in the ICU<BR>> > of Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane, the first week concerned about<BR>> > potential heart failure, the next four weeks concerned about brain damage,<BR>> > while she was under 24/7 monitoring by two medical doctors and a team of<BR>> > critical care nurses. She survived . . . no brain damage . . . due in no<BR>> > small part to a handful of MDs and a staff of RNs.<BR>> ><BR>> > Appreciation doesn't begin to relate what I attempt to express in weekly<BR>> > letters to Drs. Howard and Harder, and the critical care nurses of Sacred<BR>> > Heart's ICU 2 South. I will be indebted to them for every breath my wife<BR>> >
takes.<BR>> ><BR>> > THANK GOD for MDs and RNs.<BR>> ><BR>> > Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go to Hodgins to pick up prescription<BR>> > refills.<BR>> ><BR>> > Seeya round town, Moscow.<BR>> ><BR>> > Tom Hansen<BR>> > Moscow, Idaho<BR>> ><BR>> > "If not us, who?<BR>> > If not now, when?"<BR>> ><BR>> > - Unknown<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > On Jul 9, 2012, at 11:46, Paul Rumelhart <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > Go fuck yourself. Yes, I do happen to remember times when my mother was<BR>> > on the verge of dying very clearly. There were quite a lot of them. I<BR>> > think it's amazing that you would assume I'm misremembering because no<BR>> > medical professional would ever defer to a patient's
spouse on treatment.<BR>> > Clearly it does happen, because I saw it happen. I remember the nurses<BR>> > consulting with my dad on it, and I remember them deferring to him when he<BR>> > was with her, which was usually as close to 24x7 as he could arrange. I<BR>> > wasn't a babe in a basket, I was out of college for many of them.<BR>> ><BR>> > I'm not telling you I dropped an apple and it floated up to the fucking<BR>> > ceiling. I'm telling you that a trained professional recognized my dad's<BR>> > expertise in this matter and acted accordingly.<BR>> ><BR>> > Jesus jumping Christ on a pogo stick.<BR>> ><BR>> > Paul<BR>> ><BR>> > ------------------------------<BR>> > *From:* Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> > *To:*
Paul Rumelhart <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>>; Joe Campbell <<BR>> > <A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > *Cc:* "<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>" <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> > *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2012 11:00 AM<BR>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss<BR>> > the Forest for the Burning Trees"<BR>> ><BR>> > Paul, I'm sure that is the way you remember it.<BR>> ><BR>> > Donovan J. Arnold<BR>> ><BR>> > *From:* Paul Rumelhart <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> > *To:* Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>>; Joe Campbell <<BR>> > <A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > *Cc:* "<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>" <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> > *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2012 9:19 AM<BR>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss<BR>> > the Forest for the Burning Trees"<BR>> ><BR>> > I saw it first hand, Donovan. There might be a nice sliding scale for<BR>> > insulin somewhere, but we got really good
at determining what amounts of<BR>> > insulin to input to the machine. You had to take into account how much<BR>> > activity she had had and how much she was expected to have, what her<BR>> > general condition was (fatigued, fighting an infection, whatever), what she<BR>> > ate and what the timing of it was, what her current blood sugar is and what<BR>> > it was earlier, and probably other things I have forgotten. We tried to<BR>> > let the medical staff make the choices, but that caused blood sugars<BR>> > outside the acceptable ranges at times. So they determined that my dad<BR>> > knew more about it than they did and deferred to him.<BR>> ><BR>> > I was there, sir, I saw it for myself. I'm not lying to you. I'm not<BR>> > making it up. I remember it as if it were yesterday.<BR>> ><BR>> > Paul<BR>> ><BR>> > *From:*
Donovan Arnold <<A href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> > *To:* Paul Rumelhart <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>>; Joe Campbell <<BR>> > <A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > *Cc:* "<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>" <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> > *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2012 12:44 AM<BR>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss<BR>> > the Forest for the Burning Trees"<BR>> ><BR>> > As a CNA, I find that story hard to believe. The amount of insulingiven
is not a guessing game. The number of units given are by a doctor's<BR>> > prescription and a sliding scale based on their blood glucose reading. Any<BR>> > medical staff that doesn't give that amount or observes that amount<BR>> > given is subject to a lawsuit and loss of their license or certification,<BR>> > regardless of what a spouse or patient insists upon giving or getting.<BR>> ><BR>> > Doctors may be wrong about the facts, they may not have all the<BR>> > information or disbelieve a patients testimony, but they know a great<BR>> > deal more of what to do based on the facts. That is why they have a license<BR>> > to practice medicine.<BR>> ><BR>> > Also, when you second guess your doctor, you can do a great deal of harm<BR>> > to yourself.<BR>> ><BR>> > Donovan J. Arnold<BR>> > *From:* Paul Rumelhart <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> > *To:* Joe Campbell <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > *Cc:* "<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>" <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> > *Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2012 12:42 AM<BR>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss<BR>> > the Forest for the Burning Trees"<BR>> ><BR>> > "If your doctor tells you something, and 90% of the other doctors say<BR>> > the same thing, yet Paul tells you something different, whom do you<BR>> > believe? Paul? Because medicine is uncertain?"<BR>> ><BR>> > Wouldn't that depend greatly on exactly why I claim that the
doctors are<BR>> > wrong? While you will go on believing your doctor is infallible, maybe<BR>> > Roger will actually evaluate what I have to say and bring it up with his<BR>> > doctor next time he sees him or her?<BR>> ><BR>> > Always assuming the experts know best can be dangerous, too.<BR>> ><BR>> > Case in point: my mom was a Type I diabetic (she completely lost the<BR>> > ability to make insulin at age 17) and was in the hospital often for<BR>> > diabetes-related problems. There were plenty of times where if my dad<BR>> > hadn't been watching closely, the medical staff might have done<BR>> > something dangerous. Usually having to do with how much insulin to give<BR>> > her via her insulin pump. Too little, and she can go unconscious and<BR>> > die, too much can cause a sordid list of problems from organ damage to<BR>> > neuropathy.
It made sense, my dad was used to working with my mom to<BR>> > estimate how much of a basal rate was needed and how much to give as an<BR>> > extra amount to counteract what she just ate (her "bolus" amount). The<BR>> > doctors and nurses that worked with my mom regularly learned to defer to<BR>> > my dad's judgment on her insulin dosages. I became pretty good at it,<BR>> > too. Blind trust in medical authority might have killed my mother long<BR>> > before she actually died. Diabetes is a horrible disease.<BR>> ><BR>> > Perhaps that's where I learned to be skeptical of even expert opinion.<BR>> ><BR>> > Paul<BR>> ><BR>> > On 07/08/2012 11:05 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<BR>> > > Ok Roger. You owe me $100. Don't be too hard on me. After all, I'm just<BR>> > a skeptic. Whether you owe it to me is subject to debate, at least<BR>> > according to
me. If you're a critical thinker, you'll pay up. So pay up.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > These arguments don't work on debt, and there is no reason to think they<BR>> > work on the environment either. What matters is the evidence. My point is,<BR>> > in most cases non-scientists are not in a position to say. I won't care<BR>> > what Paul says about this issue until he publishes a paper on the topic in<BR>> > a peer-reviewed journal. You can believe what you wish.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > If your doctor tells you something, and 90% of the other doctors say the<BR>> > same thing, yet Paul tells you something different, whom do you believe?<BR>> > Paul? Because medicine is uncertain?<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Nonsense. You trust the doctors because they are the experts. What makes<BR>> > climate science different?<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Joe<BR>> > ><BR>> >
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:36 PM, lfalen < <<A href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" ymailto="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A>><BR>> > <A href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" ymailto="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> > ><BR>> > >> You guys are being too hard on Paul. While there is climate change, the<BR>> > full effects and causes are subject to debate and critical review. You tout<BR>> > critical thinking. That is all Paul is doing. To blandly accept every thing<BR>> > that is put out by Climate Scientists is not engaging in critical thinking.<BR>> > >> Roger<BR>> > >> -----Original message-----<BR>> > >> From: Joe Campbell <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A><BR>> > >> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:49:43 -0700<BR>> > >> To: Paul Rumelhart <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><BR>> > >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss<BR>> > the Forest for the Burning Trees"<BR>> > >><BR>> > >>> I'm not criticizing criticism and debate. I'm criticizing you; we're<BR>> > debating. I'll respond to the longer post later. Joe<BR>> > >>><BR>> > >>><BR>> > >>><BR>> > >>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Paul Rumelhart < <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> > <A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> > >>><BR>> > >>>> Does "validly express one's positions on the findings of science"<BR>> > equate to "conform to the scientific consensus"? Is there no room for<BR>> > criticism and debate?<BR>> > >>>><BR>> > >>>> Paul<BR>> > >>>><BR>> > >>>> On 07/08/2012 11:10 AM, Sam Scripter wrote:<BR>> > >>>>> Good post, Joe!<BR>> > >>>>><BR>> > >>>>> I appreciate the "pains"/time/effort you take to carefully, fully<BR>> > explain your points about how to validly express one's position on the<BR>> > findings of science.<BR>> > >>>>><BR>> >
>>>>> Thank you!<BR>> > >>>>><BR>> > >>>>> Sam S<BR>> > >>>>><BR>> > >>>>><BR>> > >>>>><BR>> > >>>>> -------- Original message --------<BR>> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss<BR>> > the Forest for the Burning Trees"<BR>> > >>>>> From: Joe Campbell < <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > <A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > >>>>> To: Paul Rumelhart < <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> > >>>>> CC: Moscow Vision 2020 < <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> > <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> > >>>>><BR>> > >>>>><BR>> > >>>>> 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > more<BR>> > >>>>> widespread than you suggest, involving not just climate scientists<BR>> > 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<BR>> > research<BR>> >
>>>>> that is funded by competitive national grants and provides<BR>> > information<BR>> > >>>>> that is actually used to solve real-world problems. Why not<BR>> > >>>>> investigate whether or not your worries about computer models apply<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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,<BR>> >
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<BR>> > to<BR>> > >>>>> humanity and the universe in general? Last year we started a series<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > concerns<BR>> > >>>>> about these matters. I advertised this on Vision 2020. This is not<BR>> > the<BR>> > >>>>> behavior of people who have an agenda that they want to trick you<BR>> > 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<BR>> > Duke<BR>> > >>>>> University, who will likely give a talk on bioethics. I'll continue<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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 <<<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> > <A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> > >>>>>> Can I assume you have credentials in climate science? Because,<BR>> > 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<BR>> > work.<BR>> > >>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>> Paul<BR>> > >>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>> ________________________________<BR>> > >>>>>> From: Ted Moffett < <<A href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</A>><A
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > >>>>>> To: Joe Campbell < <<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > <A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > >>>>>> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 < <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> > <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 2:03 PM<BR>> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media<BR>> > Miss the<BR>> > >>>>>> Forest for the
Burning Trees"<BR>> > >>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>> Thanks for these comments phrased in a manner so easy to<BR>> > understand, coming<BR>> > >>>>>> from someone who could write at a level that would be obtuse for<BR>> > 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<BR>> > that they<BR>> > >>>>>> have engaged in significant omissions, errors and misrepresentations<BR>> > >>>>>> regarding a critical scientific field, and promotes what can be<BR>> > easily<BR>> > >>>>>> determined by most anyone
doing cursory research of scientific peer<BR>> > review,<BR>> > >>>>>> to be junk science, as though we are supposed to take it seriously,<BR>> > this<BR>> > >>>>>> implies a factual and/or argumentative filter at work, for whatever<BR>> > reason<BR>> > >>>>>> or reasons. Call it a indication of an "agenda," or who knows what<BR>> > it is!<BR>> > >>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>> Maybe there is still some social value to such a degraded dialog,<BR>> > but it<BR>> > >>>>>> ceases to offer significant credible factual or augmentative input<BR>> > of<BR>> > >>>>>> interest for someone who reaches a certain level of competency in<BR>> > exploring<BR>> > >>>>>> the scientific field involved.<BR>> >
>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>> On the issue of complexity as an argument for a high degree of<BR>> > skepticism<BR>> > >>>>>> about the claims of a given field of knowledge, the human<BR>> > 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<BR>> > claims<BR>> > >>>>>> by anyone about any ones state of "mind," whether scientific claims<BR>> > or other<BR>> > >>>>>> sorts. It amazes me that people make such simple and easy<BR>> > judgements about<BR>> > >>>>>> each others state of mind, given that such propositions to be<BR>> > 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<BR>> > argued are<BR>> > >>>>>> very open to question, assuming a vast complexity is underpinning<BR>> > 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>> > >>>>>> <<A href="http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm"
target=_blank>http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm</A>><BR>> > <A href="http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm" target=_blank>http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm</A><BR>> > >>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>> Alan Alda:<BR>> > >>>>>> I have to say - and from talking to you I think you feel this way,<BR>> > too -<BR>> > >>>>>> consciousness is a terrific thing to have. It feels good to have<BR>> > >>>>>> consciousness. When you lose consciousness and when you sense<BR>> > you're going<BR>> > >>>>>> to lose consciousness, it doesn't feel good. You get a little<BR>> > nervous about<BR>> > >>>>>> that. But what do you suppose is the reason we have consciousness?<BR>> > Why has<BR>> >
>>>>>> it persisted? What good is it in terms of the survival of the<BR>> > species?<BR>> > >>>>>> Michael Gazzaniga:<BR>> > >>>>>> That's related to the $64,000 question. What's it for? If you want<BR>> > to<BR>> > >>>>>> understand anything, you've got to know what it's for. And it so<BR>> > permeates<BR>> > >>>>>> every thought we have, you think, well, it's for keeping us<BR>> > motivated, to<BR>> > >>>>>> have these thoughts, or whatever. But you start to put this stuff<BR>> > 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<BR>> > human<BR>> > >>>>>> trying to understand consciousness is like a
nematode trying to<BR>> > understand a<BR>> > >>>>>> dog." It's just too big a problem, and they kind of toss it out the<BR>> > window.<BR>> > >>>>>> Well I don't think we should do that. Clearly, it's going to take a<BR>> > lot of<BR>> > >>>>>> major new thinking to really give us an insight, a handle on how we<BR>> > can<BR>> > >>>>>> scientifically talk about this phenomenal awareness that we all<BR>> > experience.<BR>> > >>>>>> -------------------------------------------<BR>> > >>>>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<BR>> > >>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Joe Campbell <<<A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > <A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>> > >>>>>> wrote:<BR>> > >>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>> 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>> > --<BR>> > >>>>>> there is NO ONE living on the Palouse who is more qualified than I<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > "common<BR>> > >>>>>> sense" (which is irrelevant, for it merely boils down to the fact<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > the<BR>> > >>>>>> field. My general claim was that there is NO basis to dismiss one<BR>> > 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<BR>> > matters,<BR>> > >>>>>> given that I'm not a climate scientist either. But I'm not making<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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>> > --<BR>> > >>>>>> there is NO ONE living on the Palouse who is more qualified than I<BR>> > 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<BR>> > reason<BR>> > >>>>>> to dismiss all of physics for both the micro-level of the universe<BR>> > and<BR>> > >>>>>> the macro-level of the universe are FAR MORE complex than the<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > either;<BR>> > >>>>>> they should evaluate each argument individually.<BR>> >
>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>> If your argument were sound, we should dismiss ALL sciences related<BR>> > to<BR>> > >>>>>> human heath, since they are all motivated by the subjective desire<BR>> > to<BR>> > >>>>>> help human beings extend their lives and improve the quality of<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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 href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> > <A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> > >>>>>>> On 07/03/2012 05:42 PM, Joe Campbell
wrote:<BR>> > >>>>>>>> So, Paul, why believe that smoking causes lung disease if you<BR>> > don't<BR>> > >>>>>>>> believe that human carbon consumption has an impact on global<BR>> > warming?<BR>> > >>>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>>>> Joe<BR>> > >>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>>> First, I'm not saying that carbon consumption is not having an<BR>> > impact on<BR>> > >>>>>>> global warming. I'm saying that the size of the impacts compared<BR>> > to the<BR>> > >>>>>>> more-or-less unknown natural factors is unknown and that the<BR>> > 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<BR>> > grasping at<BR>> > >>>>>>> straws because of my deep-seated urge to deny everything (probably<BR>> > has to<BR>> > >>>>>>> do<BR>> > >>>>>>> with my relationship with my mother), I humbly present a<BR>> > smattering of<BR>> > >>>>>>> them<BR>> > >>>>>>> for your enjoyment:<BR>> > >>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>>> 1. On the face of it, the idea is extraordinary. Humans, even<BR>> > with our<BR>> > >>>>>>> vaunted
civilization, are small potatoes compared to the forces of<BR>> > nature.<BR>> > >>>>>>> The only reason our carbon footprint even makes a dent compared to<BR>> > natural<BR>> > >>>>>>> forces has to do with the small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.<BR>> > We've<BR>> > >>>>>>> had<BR>> > >>>>>>> far less of an impact on the water cycle, for example, or with<BR>> > oxygen<BR>> > >>>>>>> levels. Not saying that it isn't possible, but there is<BR>> > automatically a<BR>> > >>>>>>> bar<BR>> > >>>>>>> that has to be gotten over which smoking causing lung disease<BR>> > doesn't<BR>> > >>>>>>> have.<BR>> > >>>>>>> It should be common sense that inhaling smoke multiple times a
day<BR>> > for<BR>> > >>>>>>> years<BR>> > >>>>>>> can have a deleterious effect on the lungs, even without bringing<BR>> > in<BR>> > >>>>>>> carcinogens.<BR>> > >>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>>> 2. There are some obvious questions that aren't being answered<BR>> > because of<BR>> > >>>>>>> the focus on human impacts. For example, what caused the earth to<BR>> > heat up<BR>> > >>>>>>> immediately following the Little Ice Age? If we do not know, how<BR>> > can we<BR>> > >>>>>>> say<BR>> > >>>>>>> with any confidence that human-induced climate change is to blame<BR>> > instead<BR>> > >>>>>>> of<BR>> > >>>>>>> the same
natural processes still at work? What causes an ice age<BR>> > to<BR>> > >>>>>>> start,<BR>> > >>>>>>> and what brings us out of one?<BR>> > >>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>>> 3. The climate is complex, with multiple feedbacks of unknown<BR>> > strength<BR>> > >>>>>>> and<BR>> > >>>>>>> unknown feedbacks of unknown strength. The sign of the<BR>> > combination of<BR>> > >>>>>>> feedbacks isn't even known. Climate models cannot be that<BR>> > accurate, given<BR>> > >>>>>>> the above, yet they are seen as gospel. Even when they make<BR>> > different<BR>> > >>>>>>> assumptions and model things different ways. As long as they<BR>> > project a<BR>> >
>>>>>>> warmer future, they are added to the model average and used as<BR>> > proof that<BR>> > >>>>>>> global warming will kill babies and cause frogs to rain from the<BR>> > sky.<BR>> > >>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>>> I imagine that the mechanisms for lung disease from tobacco are<BR>> > relatively<BR>> > >>>>>>> straight forward.<BR>> > >>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>>> 4. Some of the major players in the spotlight on the side of<BR>> > global<BR>> > >>>>>>> warming<BR>> > >>>>>>> are environmental activists with an agenda, as opposed to being<BR>> > objective<BR>> > >>>>>>> scientists just following the data. For example, Timothy Wirth(Senator<BR>> >
>>>>>>> from Colorado and leader of the negotiating team for the Kyoto<BR>> > treaty)<BR>> > >>>>>>> held<BR>> > >>>>>>> a hearing on global warming at the capital. He called the Weather<BR>> > Bureau<BR>> > >>>>>>> to<BR>> > >>>>>>> find out what day of the year was usually the hottest in DC, and<BR>> > scheduled<BR>> > >>>>>>> the hearing for that date. His team then went in the night before<BR>> > the<BR>> > >>>>>>> hearing and opened all the windows in the room in which the<BR>> > hearing was to<BR>> > >>>>>>> be held, causing the air conditioning to fail to keep up with the<BR>> > heat>> >> All<BR>> > >>>>>>> so that it could be hot and muggy when James
Hansen gave his spiel<BR>> > 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>> > <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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > Medieval<BR>> > >>>>>>> Warm<BR>> > >>>>>>> Period and the Little Ice Age, using dubious statistics, all so<BR>> > 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<BR>> > scientists<BR>> > >>>>>>> studying the link between tobacco use and lung diseases, probably<BR>> > because<BR>> > >>>>>>>
the links were relatively straight forward. Not so much the case<BR>> > 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<BR>> > just me<BR>> > >>>>>>> being contrarian, right? So please, move along. Nothing to see<BR>> > here.<BR>> > >>>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>>> Paul<BR>> > >>>>>><BR>> > >>>>>><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>><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>><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>> > >>>>>> =======================================================<BR>> > >>>>>><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>><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>><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>> > >>>>> =======================================================<BR>> > >>>>><BR>> > >>>>><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>><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>><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>> > >>>>> =======================================================<BR>> > >>>><BR>> > >>><BR>> ><BR>> ><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>><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>><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>> > =======================================================<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><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>><A href="http://www.fsr.net/" target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net/</A><BR>> >
<<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A>>mailto:<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> > =======================================================<BR>> ><BR>> ><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>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR>> <A href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" ymailto="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</A><BR>> <BR>> <BR><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><BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>