Hi Gordon. 

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote:

"If your point in posting this was to reinforce the theme you are
constantly expounding - that grand, sweeping statements of position on a
given issue made without factual basis are utterly dismissible - you
have chosen an excellent example."

I was not at all claiming that YOU are prone to making generalizations
without factual reinforcement. Quite the contrary. I have come to know
you over the years on these forums as someone whose painstaking
insistence on facts and data has challenged me - and probably others -
to question my own assumptions and probe much deeper into these types of
issues. I have always appreciated that and I greatly respect you for it.


What I was trying to say (perhaps with a bit more irony than necessary)
was that I was surprised you had posted an essay brimming with
superlative (the "biggest threat to freedom"), invective ("Malthusian
pessimists"), and melodrama ("dictates of political correctness
...imposed upon us") without commenting on the complete lack of
supporting evidence for any of it. I was waiting for you to impugn
Klaus' appeal for truth over propaganda by deconstructing any one of his
propagandistic sentences. For instance: 


"[Top-class scientists] protest against the arrogance of those who
advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human
activities."


The scientific evidence we have about climate change can only suggest -
it cannot prove - that human activities contribute to climate change.
Given that lack of confidence, it is sheer propaganda to promote a
position of certainty (whether completely promoting or completely
dismissing human contribution). 

But given the IPCC conclusion that this era of global warming "is
unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence
suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate," it is
neither arrogant nor imprudent to advocate actions to curb those human
activities. It would be the height of arrogance to wait until we had
100% certainty before taking action. 

Brian Ellis said it best that the precautionary principle "will not
always be right, any more than it will always be wrong." But to
completely dismiss the contributions of humans shows a marked disdain
for science. Talk about doctrinal totalitarianism... 


Kindest regards, 
Todd




-----Original Message-----
From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Davy, Gordon
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EN] Freedom, not climate, is at risk

Todd,

I'm glad you had a chuckle. I got one, too. Your claim that I am
constantly expounding grand, sweeping statements of positions without
factual basis strikes me as a grand, sweeping statement without factual
basis. 

As for citing a "fiction writer" as an unreliable source of information,
that strikes me as a logical fallacy used to avoid thinking - the very
tendency that I "constantly expound  on" - apparently so far without
effect on some. "Fiction writer" is not the same thing as "inveterate
liar who is incapable of knowing or telling the truth." You can't settle
disagreements as easily as that, and I suspect that when you were in
college you didn't try to get by that way, either. To use a word that
has practically dropped out of the lexicon, it strikes me as mental
laziness. So to prompt you to thinking more deeply, I have some
questions and challenges for you.

Surely you know that Michael Crichton is highly regarded for what he has
to say and the issues he addresses, and not just because he writes good
fiction. Surely you don't want to say that because Crichton writes
fiction we don't have to take seriously anything he has to say. If you
disagree with this statement of his, please explain why: "The greatest
challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from
fantasy, truth from propaganda". 

What do you think is the greatest challenge facing mankind? Assuming
that you believe that it is at least somewhat important to distinguish
reality from fantasy, what ranking would you assign to its importance,
and how does the approach to resolving differences of opinion that you
used in your posting - what strikes me as ridicule - help?

I'll repeat one paragraph here from my posting yesterday: "Your response
to the data presented is to challenge the motivation of the data
providers, but not the data themselves. You are not the only one on this
forum who has posted this kind of rebuttal. If you disagree with the
data, please present data (or at least arguments) of your own..." Maybe
if people stop posting this kind of rebuttal, I won't constantly expound
on its unsuitability for reasoned discourse.

Similarly, Brian says he has already given his views on President Klaus.
I didn't go back to read Brian's views on Klaus (had he said that he
critiqued what Klaus has to say, I might have), but he is apparently
willing to dismiss anything that Klaus has to say because he (Klaus) is
not an expert on global warming. That may or may not be true, but it's
irrelevant. What matters is whether what he says is true or not. 

Also, much of what he says in his essay is not about global warming but
about attempts at doctrinal totalitarianism. I've said this before, too:
Truth, and particularly scientific truth, is not determined by
credentials or by counting experts on opposing sides. In Klaus' words,
"Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term
"scientific consensus."  

The Financial Times regards what he has to say as of sufficient interest
to its readers to warrant making it available to them. Please don't
challenge the motives, competence, or impartiality of the Times editors
in their decision to publish his essay. 

Surely you don't want me to dismiss what you have to say because I
perceive you as someone who has been indoctrinated by environmental
activist demagogues, unwilling to consider opposing positions and
therefore incapable of independent thinking - and I won't. That's why
I'm posting this reply. So if you know that Klaus is wrong, present the
evidence. If you do that, I promise not to chuckle. I won't ask for your
qualifications. Reading things I disagree with doesn't upset me. I'm up
to the challenge. I promise to consider the evidence and arguments you
present as seriously and impartially as I can, and we'll leave it up to
the other subscribers to evaluate our discussion. 

How true do you think Klaus' statement is that "The dictates of
political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for
the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is
denounced."? Should we dismiss his qualifications to comment on the
"threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity" in
addition to dismissing his qualifications to comment on global warming?
Do you think he is sufficiently qualified to urge us to resist the
politicization of science and use of the term "scientific consensus,"
and do you agree or disagree that we should?

Where would you put yourself among those who react to statements that
conflict with the "one permitted truth" as promulgated by environmental
activists - an encourager or a denouncer? Which is more important to you
- orthodoxy or truth?

In closing, here's a link to a ten-question test on global warming that
may be of interest to readers who don't already know all they care to
know about the subject:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html. At the risk
of belaboring the obvious, if you don't like it, please don't challenge
the motivation or the perceived competence of the people who created the
questions and answers. Challenge their facts and arguments.

 

Gordon Davy