tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post7707753852884649540..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Climate Change: Summary Position Part IAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18948823542845897662009-12-23T09:36:15.797-07:002009-12-23T09:36:15.797-07:00anonymous
i offered Michaels' piece as but on...<b>anonymous</b><br /><br /><i>i offered Michaels' piece as but one example of substantive reasons for concern.</i><br /><br />I have not denied that there is reason for concern.<br /><br />To deny reason for concern is to render an 'innocent' verdict without a careful review of the evidence.<br /><br />This is just as objectionable as rendering a 'guilty' verdict without a careful review of the evidence.<br /><br />I am doing neither. I am saying that there should be a careful review of the evidence and I will not pre-judge the verdict that such a review would come to.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-40235496006302623612009-12-23T09:11:06.743-07:002009-12-23T09:11:06.743-07:00i offered Michaels' piece as but one example o...i offered Michaels' piece as but one example of substantive reasons for concern. there are things in the article that clearly are disturbing regardless of his motives: direct quotes from these leaked emails which are publicly available and easily verifiable.<br /><br />it appears that you are really setting up a standard tailored to allow you to ignore and dismiss whatever information comes to light that paints your side of the debate (I do not believe you are as disinterested as you say) in a bad light.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-65798373209958893862009-12-23T08:42:31.618-07:002009-12-23T08:42:31.618-07:00Anonymous
I noticed this quote in the link you ci...<b>Anonymous</b><br /><br />I noticed this quote in the link you cited.<br /><br /><i>Messrs. Mann and Wigley also didn't like a paper I published in Climate Research in 2002.</i><br /><br />So, we are clearly not dealing with the verdict of an impartial judge. Instead, we are dealing with the opening statement of one of the litigants in the dispute.<br /><br />Even where scientists render an opinion on such a matter, since they are human, these may well be ill-conceived snap knee-jerk reactions based on a cursory examination of information filtered by the biases of both the transmitter and the receiver.<br /><br />I am saying that I will adopt the conclusions of an impartial panel that has the time (that I do not have) to look at the evidence in detail and reach a conclusion.<br /><br />I am not going to condone reading the transcript of one of the complainants and, without a trial or listening to the other side, declare that I have enough information to render a verdict.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32859895063625390052009-12-23T08:07:50.860-07:002009-12-23T08:07:50.860-07:00don't you think it looks even a little dishone...don't you think it looks even a little dishonest for you to say that most of the critics haven't bothered to look at the evidence or to suggest that the only people to read are Beck and Limbaugh?<br /><br />a morally responsible person who does not want to make garbage arguments might start with somebody like the University of Virginia's Patrick Michaels: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32338100641073937232009-12-23T08:01:26.816-07:002009-12-23T08:01:26.816-07:00Anonymous
[N]one of those raising concern over Ea...<b>Anonymous</b><br /><br /><i>[N]one of those raising concern over East Anglia are saying to oppose science itself (in fact, I would say that suggesting as much is a garbage argument that no morally responsible person would use)</i><br /><br />Right. And it is not my argument.<br /><br />Yet, there are a great many people who declare that they already know the verdict without ever examining the evidence.<br /><br />In fact, national talk show hosts said they knew all along that there was fraud because the scientific consensus could not possibly be correct.<br /><br />This is the arrogant presumption that I am talking about.<br /><br />There should be an investigation. Those found guilty of wrongdoing should be punished. And work needs to be done to modify the conclusions based on new information.<br /><br /><i>if that's the case, then you really, really need to read about what has transpired at the CRU (as well as Goddard and NOAA) in greater detail.</i><br /><br />Read about it . . . from who?<br /><br />From the likes of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh?<br /><br />I will, in fact, read about it when competent reviewers have rendered a decision and recommended a course of action.<br /><br />What I will not do is appoint myself judge, jury, and executioner based on snippets of information that show up on the internet.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11419814297527747932009-12-23T07:43:26.946-07:002009-12-23T07:43:26.946-07:00if that's the case, then you really, really ne...if that's the case, then you really, really need to read about what has transpired at the CRU (as well as Goddard and NOAA) in greater detail.<br /><br />this is a false dichotomy. none of those raising concern over East Anglia are saying to oppose science itself (in fact, I would say that suggesting as much is a garbage argument that no morally responsible person would use), but to investigate and hold accountable those who seem to have actively worked to corrupt the field of climatology and undermine those "built-in correction mechanisms."<br /><br />If this has happened, and there are many real reasons to suspect it has, then that's not science at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-16339119338596263022009-12-22T22:20:48.500-07:002009-12-22T22:20:48.500-07:00Anonymous
I am not yet certain how much of a scan...<b>Anonymous</b><br /><br />I am not yet certain how much of a scandle there is - as opposed to a need on the part of some people to twist what others have written for the sake of political points.<br /><br />Yet, even if there is a scandle, science remains the best source of information. You cannot name any institution that can serve as even a close substitute for science. While science can never be perfect so long as scientists are human, humans (with those same flaws) are also involved in every substitute to science.<br /><br />Yet, science has its own built-in correction mechanisms. Unlike virtually anything else.<br /><br />If you can name a competitor to science that has proved to do a better job of delivering accurate predictions of future events, please do so.<br /><br />You cannot.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-44573371362092917732009-12-22T19:43:13.186-07:002009-12-22T19:43:13.186-07:00a sensible approach to the issue. however, this c...a sensible approach to the issue. however, this current email scandal cuts to the very heart of whether there even is a consensus, and if there is one, if it's a product of corruption. do you intend to explore the disturbing allegations that the big scientists of East Anglia hijacked and sabotaged the peer review process, and perpetrated witch hunts against skeptical scientists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com