[ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack

Jeff Lightner jlightner at water.com
Wed Dec 2 15:32:26 EST 2009


Ad hominem attacks are bad when one is simply changing the subject but
when one is talking about "scientific opinions" I'd say a person's other
"scientific opinions" may be relevant if they too fly in the face of
what reasonable people believe.   The argument that one can't directly
show cause and effect is specious - the argument is about correlation of
data.   If a "scientist" ignores such correlation in one argument then
it seems reasonable to suppose he is doing the same in another.   

There is a huge economic incentive to say global warming does not exist
and not much of one to say it does exist so my skepticism will always
fall against those who have gained or stand to gain from denying its
existence.  Where I earlier lauded W for his stance for the need to have
global standards I now mention that it was by and large his pro-business
at any cost administration that mainly challenged global warming as a
problem.   It is telling that at the very end of his Presidency he
changed positions on this and admitted it is something that needs to be
addressed.  

-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
david w. millians
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:38 PM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
Subject: Re: [ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack

Doug McNash wrote:
> Similarly you argue:
> Professor Lindzen does not believe in AGW. Lindzen does not believe
> smoking causes cancer.  Therefore, AGW must be true because Lindzen
> is obviously a kook since everybody know smoking causes cancer
> (another "consensus").  By the same logic it could be argued that the
> sun rises in the west because everything Lindzen asserts is false.
> 
> This is the Ad Hominem argument, attacking the person instead of
> attacking his argument.

To clarify:
You're right. I am using a bit of ad hominem. But, I feel it is
warranted.

It is not a "consensus." It is a consensus. Indeed, it is a fact that if

you smoke, you vastly increase negative effects on your body, and you 
dramatically increase your odds of cancer.

Now, me saying this does not mean that he is not wholly correct about 
climate change. He might be. However, if you have a person who is 
willing to pick nits to an infinite degree to be able to try to get 
around the central concept that smoking is bad, and to assuage the fact 
that he started a stupid behavior and is too addicted to quit, I find it

wholly reasonable to use that lens to filter his other comments through.

If he held similar views on "evolution" (quotes added for comparison) he

would be under scrutiny just the same way. I find this a valid method of

the process of evaluating a person's trustworthiness.

I find this quite similar, actually, to the reports that come out from 
orgs (paid by Microsoft) about the money that Windows saves vs. Linux 
and about how all is rainbows and unicorns.
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
 
Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
 
Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments.
----------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
----------------------------------



More information about the Ale mailing list