--0-2016263436-1163134409=:83104
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Considering I work in the most intensely scrutinized industry in the world, I
wouldn't want anything I said to be misinterpreted. I'm happy to have friendly
, one-on-one conversations any time. However, misinterpretation is guaranteed
with a group this size, especially with so many people's predisposition to
hate or distrust everything oil related. Even in one-on-one conversations
with people in this distribution list, I've experienced some incredulous
conclusions drawn from the mildest of statements.=0A=0A =0A----- Original
Message ----=0AFrom: Daniel Reeves =0ATo: improvetheworld Æ
umich.edu=0ASent: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 10:48:39 PM=0ASubject : Re: Fwd:
Global Warming=0A=0A=0AI hate to put my brother-in-law on the spot but he's a
chemical engineer =0Aworking in the oil industry and quite well -informed and
he has expressed =0Adoubt that the risk/benefit analysis indicates that any
drastic =0Acurtailment of industrial emissions is warranted .=0A=0ACam, could
you elaborate on that?=0AImprovetheworld settles for nothing less than the
truth!=0A=0AThanks!=0ADanny=0A=0A--- \/ FROM Daniel Reeves AT 06.10.24 13:18
(Oct 24) \/ ---=0A=0A> You rock, Erik. For those with a more casual
interest in climatology, the =0A> take-home point from Erik's analysis, in my
opinion, is: junkscience.com =0A> exists to create doubt in the consensus of
the scientific community, namely =0A> that global warming is real and
potentially catastrophic.=0A>=0A> That was really insightful , Erik.=0A>=0A>
And I think there's even more to this point. Junkscience .com is full of =0A>
phrases like "the existence of X is uncertain", "they may add to warming ...
=0A> or, equally likely, suppress it", and "it is not known that..."=0A>=0A> I
mean, sure, production of greenhouse gases *may * put New York City =0A>
underwater but maybe it *won't* and then we'd sure feel silly for doing =0A>
anything about it!=0A>=0A> Danny=0A>=0A> --- \/ FROM Erik Talvitie AT
06.10.24 12:31 (Today) \/ ---=0A>=0A>> Well I hope junkscience.com of all
things isn't enough to shake your=0A>> faith in the scientific process. While
it is absolutely important to=0A>> stay skeptical and critical, especially
with regard to issues in which=0A>> so many people with lots of money and lots
of power have a large stake,=0A>> there's no need to doubt everything you hear
anywhere.=0A>> =0A>> First off, the beauty of science is its redundancy. Yes,
any individual=0A>> piece of work might be exaggerated or overblown or biased
or in the=0A>> worst case entirely fabricated, but there are so *many* people
reviewing=0A>> papers, repeating experiments, challenging assumptions, and so
on that=0A>> overall, progress is made. So when there's a politically charged
debate=0A>> over a scientific issue, I think the first thing to do is *go to
the=0A>> actual science .* Scientific consensus is not *always* right
(surely=0A>> lock-in on ridiculous conclusions has happened before and will
happen=0A>> again) but it 's sort of the best we've got and I think it's pretty
good.=0A>> Sometimes there isn't a consensus to fall back on, but in this
case=0A>> we're lucky . I am not a climatologist, but as I understand it,
the=0A>> debate over the existence/danger of rapid, global climate change and
its=0A>> causal link to human industrial activity stems largely from think
tanks=0A>> and lobbying organizations (junkscience.com included, due to
Steven=0A>> Milloy's affiliations ) and less from within the climatological
community=0A>> itself. Indeed , it seems like all of the science Milloy
references he=0A>> brings up to refute. One is then obligated to ask, where is
the science=0A>> that *agrees * with him and how much of the literature is he
*not*=0A>> refuting? =0A>> =0A>> Secondly, sometimes one can spot propaganda
just from looking at it. In=0A>> the case of junkscience.com, one will usually
find the articles filled=0A>> to the brim with straw man arguments, and this
one is no exception . Here=0A>> are some of my favorite claims that nobody
makes that Milloy =0A>> successfully refutes:=0A>> =0A>> - Greenhouse gases
have the same thermodynamical properties as sheets of=0A>> glass=0A>> -
Greenhouse gases do not allow heat to escape from the Earth's=0A>>
atmosphere=0A>> - The greenhouse effect is categorically and objectively
bad=0A>> - CO2 is categorically and objectively bad=0A>> - CO2 is the only
greenhouse gas=0A>> - Average global temperature is the best metric for
climate change=0A>> - (this one is my favorite) Greenhouse gas molecules
absorb and then=0A>> re-emit the "same" energy, unchanged=0A>> =0A>> He also
hijacks the term "climate change " and defines it as change of=0A>> the
climate, something "the climate is always doing," and something that=0A>> is
"outside the realm of anthropogenic (manmade) effects," not=0A>> acknowledging
that "climate change" is used by the scientific community=0A>> as a term of
art, a shortening for catastrophic or rapid climate change.=0A>> Using
straw-men like this allows Milloy to make misleading statements=0A>> like
"Greenhouse gases therefore do not trap heat" and undermines the=0A>>
scientific discussion by muddying the meaning of terms. When I see this=0A>>
much logical fallacy and obfuscation in an article, I'm significantly=0A>>
less inclined to trust the more technical conclusions to be well-founded=0A>>
or well-researched.=0A>> =0A>> So , in short, I think there *are* things you
can trust and conversely I=0A>> think it is possible to spot dubious claims
that one should at least=0A>> corroborate with some auxiliary reading if not
totally ignore.=0A>> Personally , I'm more inclined to trust articles that have
a broad, deep,=0A>> and clearly presented list of references that demonstrates
support in=0A>> and connection to legitimate scientific literature and that
contain=0A>> clear, well-presented, and logically sound arguments. Even better
is=0A>> when the article appears in a publication that is either
peer-reviewed=0A>> or that is otherwise under intense scrutiny (like high
circulation,=0A>> well-reputed magazines/newspapers, etc.) I've never seen
anything on=0A>> junkscience .com that met any of those criteria for me. In
fact, I'll=0A>> even go so far as to say that I believe junkscience.com and
publications=0A>> like it exist expressly to *create* doubts like those you
expressed,=0A>> rather than to create understanding or spread knowledge. They
*want* to=0A>> create the impression that all sources of information are
equally=0A>> informative (or uninformative) and that's just not true. There is
a=0A>> range of legitimacy and it's important that we retain our ability
(and=0A>> our trust in our ability) to perceive it.=0A>> =0A>> Well I wrote
kind of a lot -- much more than I intended. Hopefully I've=0A>> addressed your
conundrum at least a little bit, though.=0A>> =0A>> Erik=0A>> =0A>> On Tue,
2006-10-24 at 09 :40 -0400, Dave Morris wrote:=0A>>>
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ =0A>>> =0A>>> Some rather compelling
arguments that maybe we're focusing our efforts=0A>>> on the wrong problems,
or at the very least CO2 is a problem for=0A>>> reasons other than what
everyone has been telling us it's a problem =0A>>> for.=0A>>> =0A>>> Kind of
makes you doubt everything you hear anywhere , since it's=0A>>> (including
this) almost always presented by someone with such a strong=0A>>> agenda that
they're really inventing science to support their arguments=0A>>> rather than
the other way around. What's even more scary- I think about=0A>>> all the
research I've done as a scientist and the Powerpoint=0A>>> presentations I've
put together to try to make it look good... it's so=0A>>> easy to do. But you
can't ignore everything you didn 't do yourself and=0A>>> bury your head in the
sand. Quite the conundrum .=0A>> =0A>=0A>=0A=0A--
=0Ahttp://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search ://"Daniel
Reeves"=0A=0ATime flies like an arrow=0AFruit flies like a banana
--0-2016263436-1163134409=:83104
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Considering I work in the most intensely scrutinized industry in the
world, I wouldn't want anything I said to be misinterpreted . I'm happy to
have friendly, one-on-one conversations any time . However, misinterpretation
is guaranteed with a group this size , especially with so many people's
predisposition to hate or distrust everything oil related. Even in one-on-one
conversations with people in this distribution list, I've experienced some
incredulous conclusions drawn from the mildest of statements. =0A =0A -----
Original Message ---- From : Daniel Reeves <dreeves Æ umich.edu> To:
improvetheworld Æ umich.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 10:48:39 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Global Warming =0A I hate to put my brother-in-law on the
spot but he's a chemical engineer working in the oil industry and quite
well-informed and he has expressed doubt that the risk/benefit analysis
indicates that any drastic curtailment of industrial emissions is warranted.
Cam, could you elaborate on that? Improvetheworld settles for nothing less
than the truth! Thanks! Danny --- \/ ; FROM Daniel Reeves AT 06.10.24
13:18 (Oct 24) \/ --- > ; You rock, Erik. For those with a more casual
interest in climatology , the > take-home point from Erik's analysis, in my
opinion, is: junkscience.com > exists to create doubt in the consensus of
the scientific community, namely > that global warming is real and
potentially catastrophic. > > That was really insightful, Erik. >
> And I think there's even more to this point. Junkscience .com is full of
>
phrases like "the existence of X is uncertain", "they may add to warming . ..
> or, equally likely, suppress it", and "it is not known that..." > >
I mean, sure, production of greenhouse gases *may* put New York City >
underwater but maybe it *won't* and then we'd sure feel silly for doing >
anything about it! > > Danny > > --- \/ FROM Erik Talvitie AT
06.10.24 12:31 (Today) ; \/ --- > >> Well I hope junkscience.com
of all things isn't enough to shake your >> faith in the scientific
process. While it is absolutely important to >> stay skeptical and
critical , especially with regard to issues in which >> so many people
with lots of money and lots of power have a large stake, >> there's no
need to doubt everything you hear anywhere. >> >> First off, the
beauty of science is its redundancy. Yes, any individual >> ; piece of
work might be exaggerated or overblown or biased or in the >> worst
case entirely fabricated, but there are so *many* people reviewing > ;>
papers, repeating experiments, challenging assumptions, and so on that
>> overall, progress is made. So when there's a politically charged
debate >> over a scientific issue, I think the first thing to do is *go
to the >> actual science.* Scientific consensus is not *always* right
(surely >> lock-in on ridiculous conclusions has happened before and
will happen >> again) but it's sort of the best we 've got and I think
it's pretty good. >> Sometimes there isn't a consensus to fall back on,
but in this case >> we're lucky. I am not a climatologist, but as I
understand it, the >> debate over the existence/danger of rapid, global
climate change and its >> causal link to human industrial activity stems
largely from think tanks > > and
lobbying organizations (junkscience.com included, due to Steven >> ;
Milloy's affiliations) and less from within the climatological community
>> itself. Indeed, it seems like all of the science Milloy references he
>> brings up to refute. One is then obligated to ask, where is the
science >> that *agrees* with him and how much of the literature is he
*not* >> refuting? >> >> Secondly, sometimes one can spot
propaganda just from looking at it. In >> the case of junkscience.com,
one will usually find the articles filled > ;> to the brim with straw man
arguments, and this one is no exception. Here >> are some of my favorite
claims that nobody makes that Milloy >> successfully refutes: >>
>> - Greenhouse gases have the same thermodynamical properties as sheets
of >> glass >> - Greenhouse gases do not allow heat to escape from
the
Earth's >> atmosphere >> - The greenhouse effect is categorically
and objectively bad >> - CO2 is categorically and objectively bad
>> - CO2 is the only greenhouse gas >> - Average global
temperature is the best metric for climate change >> - (this one is my
favorite) Greenhouse gas molecules absorb and then >> ; re-emit the "same"
energy, unchanged >> >> He also hijacks the term "climate change"
and defines it as change of >> the climate , something "the climate is
always doing," and something that > ;> is "outside the realm of
anthropogenic (manmade) effects," not > ;> acknowledging that "climate
change" is used by the scientific community >> as a term of art, a
shortening for catastrophic or rapid climate change. >> Using straw-men
like this allows Milloy to make misleading statements >> like
"Greenhouse gases therefore do not trap heat" and
undermines the >> scientific discussion by muddying the meaning of
terms. When I see this >> much logical fallacy and obfuscation in an
article, I'm significantly >> less inclined to trust the more technical
conclusions to be well-founded >> or well-researched. >> >>
So, in short, I think there *are* things you can trust and conversely I
>> think it is possible to spot dubious claims that one should at least
>> corroborate with some auxiliary reading if not totally ignore.
>> Personally, I'm more inclined to trust articles that have a broad,
deep, >> and clearly presented list of references that demonstrates
support in >> and connection to legitimate scientific literature and
that contain >> clear, well-presented , and logically sound arguments.
Even better is >> when the article appears in a publication that is
either peer-reviewed >> or that is
otherwise under intense scrutiny (like high circulation, >> well-reputed
magazines/newspapers, etc.) I've never seen anything on >>
junkscience.com that met any of those criteria for me. In fact, I'll > ;>
even go so far as to say that I believe junkscience.com and publications
>> like it exist expressly to *create* doubts like those you expressed ,
>> rather than to create understanding or spread knowledge . They *want*
to >> create the impression that all sources of information are equally
>> informative (or uninformative) and that's just not true. There is a
>> range of legitimacy and it's important that we retain our ability
(and >> our trust in our ability) to perceive it. >> >>
Well I wrote kind of a lot -- much more than I intended. Hopefully I've
>> addressed your conundrum at least a little bit, though. >>
>> Erik >> >> On
Tue, 2006-10-24 at 09:40 -0400, Dave Morris wrote: >>>
http://www.junkscience .com/Greenhouse/ >>> >>> Some rather
compelling arguments that maybe we're focusing our efforts >>> on
the wrong problems, or at the very least CO2 is a problem for >>> ;
reasons other than what everyone has been telling us it's a problem
>>> for. >>> >>> Kind of makes you doubt everything
you hear anywhere, since it's >>> (including this) almost always
presented by someone with such a strong >>> agenda that they're
really inventing science to support their arguments >> ;> rather than
the other way around. What's even more scary- I think about >>> all
the research I've done as a scientist and the Powerpoint >>>
presentations I've put together to try to make it look good... it's
so >>> easy to do. But you can't ignore everything you didn't do
yourself and >>> bury your head in the sand. Quite the conundrum.
>> > > -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu /people/dreeves - -
search://"Daniel Reeves" Time flies like an arrow Fruit flies like a banana
=0A
--0-2016263436-1163134409=:83104--
|
