Letters to the Editor
-
More comments (this time to Sam Sham)
Sam Sham wrote:
"There's been no "open and steady debate" - what there's been is a witch hunt in the service of a lie. And a witch hunt for people doing "real science"."
I am still waiting for any evidence of a witch hunt. Show me what people actually said and did in response to the "heretics." Give me some evidence. Mainly what I've seen -- among scientists -- is a willingness to look at a wide range of possibilities and explanations. But through it all, the evidence for a greenhouse-gas warming phenomenon direclty connected to C02 levels has grown.
"Now, of course, it's oh-so-fashionable to scream, "he works for Exxon!" as though who employs someone makes the substance of his statements "too irrelevant" to address. Sure. I don't buy it. I can think for myself, and, sister, you're all wrong, wrong, wrong, about everything."
I don't know that it is fashionable to scream anything one way or the other. But it is always worth pointing out whenever any scientist is funded by a corporation or other organization with a conflict of interest. That includes people on the left as well. Sometimes there's more conflict of interest for some than others. With oil companies the conflict of interest is very strong.
"You're arguing there's some wall between real science and pseudoscience and I've told you that wall fell, a long time ago. You don't want to admit the wall fell."
Can you name the year the wall fell? I don't think this metaphor should be overstated. The wall between science and pseudoscience has never been perfect and there will always be holes to patch. For many years (starting decades ago) Duke University had a small branch of the psychology department devoted to testing for ESP and related phenomenon, and they have progressively shut that down -- an example of the wall being rebuilt. My central argument stands -- scientists have more rigors, more self-correcting-processes, and a more credible system of trying to ascertain facts than anybody associated with pseudoscience. Pseudoscience does not self-test, science does. I concede that science is not perfect, and I would never say it was. But at least there are standards. You agree that some people have more standards than others, right? I mean, you obviously have quite a few standards yourself, being very down on pseudoscience and the dangers it causes. Where did you establish your standards? How do you feel is the best means to arrive at scientific truth? You seem to be arguing that nobody can be trusted, ever. Okay, don't "trust" anybody then. But examine the available evidence and assess which facts have more credibility than others.
"You say I gave "a single example where some cultish thing managed to sneak into a realm usually reserved for science." Belittling the issue that this bullshit is in almost all of our nursing schools, and hospitals, where, I guess, no "real" science or "real" medicine is being done. Nobody in hospitals ever looks over anyone else's shoulder and, seeing "some cultish thing" says, "What are you doing?" Right?"
I am not belittling the issue you have brought up. But it is fair to point out that you have leapt to a separate subject and realm. We're talking about climate science and you've switched the subject to hospitals. It is fair for me to point out that hospitals are not scientific establishments, they are healing centers staffed by people trained in science -- and many who are only minimally trained in science. There is some research done in hospitals, of course, but the examples you provide apply to treatment, not research. You're talking about various forms of therapy and such that have crept into some hospitals (by the way, do you have any links or references to your examples?). I just don't think your discussion of this side-issue in any way invalidates climate science. It provides an example of something where the standards seem to have slipped, but that's about it. It's sort of like saying "one bad apple ruins the whole bunch" in the service of trying to argue that the oranges are rotten.
"I never attacked you. You're thin skinned."
We can debate what "attack" means, but you have indeed descended to ad hominem, and I am merely pointing it out, as well as pointing out that James Randi, whom you respect and whose website you've linked to, has a very strong stance against the use of ad hominem in debate. I don't think calling people on their use of ad hominem is in any way thin-skinned; in fact, quite the opposite.
"As well as being someone who (qualifier alert!) APPARENTLY can't be bothered with my simple-minded world, of going to our scientifically-based hospitals to watch the witch doctors prescribe the ritual of hand-waving to the desperate and dying."
You want me to visit hospitals where people are doing what, exactly? If I were to attend such hospitals, why would it mean anything to me in terms of my position on the truth/untruth of global warming? If you are going to ask me to visit hospitals, I hereby ask you to visit your local university library and skim through the scientific journals, sit in on some classes, etc. You'll find that academic people tend to be some of the most no-bullshit, anti-quackery people imaginable.
-
Sam Sham 2
"Ah, yes: now that's the "real science" of today that we all love. They probably came by these techniques through some serious "open and steady debate in the scientific community"."
Are you denying that there has been open and steady debate in the scientific community? If not, how do you explain the tens of thousands of scientific studies done over decades that were directly related to global climate change? Do you think scientists settled on one conclusion many years ago and have been working steadily ever since to find only information that supports that conclusion? I don't.
"Look, here's an actual insult - not just an observation: you're an arrogant buffoon."
Like I said before, my mind translates such statements as meaning, "I realize I am losing the debate."
"How Buttmen can use statistics, and a half-assed education, to squash evidence he doesn't like about a subject he does. About how black people can get beaten down by their "friends"."
What do you know about my education? I think we all can stand to be better educated, both you and me. I do not consider myself an authority in any way on this subject, I just find it interesting and I dislike poor argument tactics enough to respond to them.
As for black people being beaten down by their friends, huh?