I am an economist who teaches climate change in a politica-science program.
The climate change "debate" has two sides: 1. The overwhelming consensus of the climate-change science profession as contained in the IPCC report, http://www.ipcc.ch/. See also http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf. Note that the cliimate-change science profession is subject to scientific incentives to critique each other's findings and become famous by overturning each other's theories. Externally, the incentives on them are to say whatever the "climate skeptics" in government and industry want to hear. In spite of the external incentives, the scientists followed the internal ones and published a report that -- even when watered down by the politicians -- was shocking. 2. Assorted crackpots and hired guns. For the last five year or so, I have promised a free A to any student who can find five articles in the scientific literature trashing the main ideas of climate change. No one has succeeded. When the profession lines up like that, the rest of us should just take the profession's word for it. >Ok , I see David's point now. > >CB > >From: "David B. Shemano" >Robert Gassler writes: > >>> The fundamental point however is being missed. As a citizen, I have values >>> which I >>> combine with knowledge in order to make decisions. When I visit a lawyer, >>> the lawyer >>> tells me what's possible and I decide what to do based on that knowledge >>> and my >>> own values. The same goes for doctors, auto mechanics, and economists. >>> >>> The same also goes for climate scientist, whose title should not be put in >>> quotation >>> marks. > >I agree with you. My question was prompted by the highlighted quote >in the New Yorker article that neither Levitt nor Dubner had any >training in "climate science," the implication of which is that >Levitt/Dubner's policy recommendations regarding climate change should >not be given serious consideration or serious consideration compared >to the policy recommendations of someone trained in "climate science." > It appears that Levitt/Dubner did exactly what you recommend -- they >spoke with climate scientists, engineers, etc. and others with >technical knowleldge, generally informed themselves regarding the >technical issues, and then advocated a policy in the political sphere >consistent with their values. Therefore, you and I should be able to >agree that any criticism of Levitt/Dubner based upon their lack of a >climate science training is a logical fallacy. > >My follow up point is that if you (the generalized you) somehow >believe that Levitt/Dubner's technical understanding of climate >science is a misunderstanding rooted in their lack of technical >training (i.e. they did not have the skill and capacity to make an >informed judgment and understanding of the technical material and >issues), then you have the philosophical dilemna of explaining how >someone with a similar lack of technical training could know that >Levitt/Dubner's understanding was wrong (or right), and the related >philosophical dilemna of knowing who was an expert and whether the >claimed expert was truly knowledgeable or a quack. I believe you can >avoid these philosophic dilemnas if you avoid the logical fallacy made >by the author of the New Yorker article. > >David Shemano >_______________________________________________ >pen-l mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
