> > --- Ray Lanier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > Hello folks,
> > >
> > > It is somewhat interesting to read what the "no-global warming" camp
> has
> >
> > Nice.  A nice and simple straw man agrument.
> 
> Ray here:
> You seem to be saying that the "no-global warming" camp is simply a
> straw
> man argument.
> 
> In fact, I think that there are real issues involved and that there is
> not "
> straw man" stuff.  But that is not the issue for us; that is an issue
> for
> those competent to discuss the technical aspects.  I am not, and
> obviously
> neither are you.

This is a straw man argument that you are making.  Most of the "skeptics"
do not claim that there is absolutely no warming, but that there is alot
that we just don't know, and what evidence we do have is either weak or
the data has problems.  I don't have to a climatologist to understand the
problem of measurement error in a data series and what it implies.  In
fact, I have spent alot of time studying such problems.


> > > to
> > > say about technical issues.  But this is an environmental ethics
> list,
> > > not a
> > > technical physics/etc list.  It seem to me that those who want to
> pursue
> > > that aspect should find the appropriate forum.
> >
> > Actaully, I have been content for many many months to simply lurk.  It
> was
> > when global warming was presented as being a fact that is in no manner
> > what so ever in dispute or question that I felt it necessary to point
> out
> > some of the problems.  I consider (purposefully?) ignoring evidence
> that
> > is contrary to a hypothesis not only unethical, but scientific fraud.
> > Perhaps my ethics are different than yours, I dunno.
> >
> Ray  here:
> 
> Unfortunately, you have not presented yourself as just bringing up
> problems
> with the thesis that global warming exists.  You are saying that it does
> *not* exist.

Again, this is a straw man argument.  You are no claiming for me the
position that there is no warming.  This is false.  I have indeeed pointed
to problems.  Problems with the data, problems with the models (GCMs),
etc.


> Yes, clearly you and I have differences.  No one is ignoring evidence
> that
> is contrary to *your* hypothesis.  There are very competent scientists
> that
> are addressing the evidence; so far with differing conclusions.  But,
> that
> is not an issue here.  This list is concerned with ethical* issues. 
> None of
> us here *know* the truth.  And as far as I can see, no one here has
> competence to *judge* the arguments on either side.  Certainly, from my
> own
> 50 years experience, *no* economist has that competence.
> The question is: how do ethicists address that issue?  Global warming is
> an
> important case that can be used to develop, understand, how edthical
> conclusions can/should be handled under conditions of uncertainty.

But to understand the uncertainty you also have to have knowledge of what
is going on.  If you want to start with the assumption of "global warming
is happening and it is bad" that is fine, but for me it is actually very
uniteresting.  With such an assumption there is no question of what to do
ethically.  We do whatever we can, withing reason, to prevent the problem.



> And nobody here has suggested that global warming is not in question
> among
> those who are competent to address that issue.
> -------------------
> 
> And the kicker is the company I work for actually supports the
> hypothesis
> > for global warming.  So that means I am arguing counter to the
> company's
> > position.  Nice try at an ad hominem Ray, but you'll have to try
> harder.
> 
> Ray here:
> Sorry boy, you do not seem to know what ad hominem means.  Now that *is*
> an
> ad hominem statement.

No, you were making a circumatantial ad hominem.  You were pointing to the
fact that I work for a electric transmission and distribution company
(please don't start claiming the company I work for contibutes to
emissions, we have sold almost all of our generation facilities.  Except
for some pump storage and nuclear we have no other generating facilities).


> > > We have been through this with that person before.  In spite of the
> > > fact, as
> > > I posted a few days ago, that the Edison Electric Institute has said
> it
> > > is
> > > moving toward actions to reduce global warming.
> > > There are several ethical issues that we *should* be addressing.
> > >
> > > 1.  Under conditions of uncertainty, what are the ethical
> considerations
> > > that should be addressed.  And how?
> >
> > But, you don't want to talk about the uncertaintly?  Ooookay, I guess
> this
> > makes sense to you, but seems odd to me.
> >
> Ray here:
> You are *not* talking about uncertainty.  You are asserting that there
> is
> either no human induced global warming or that if there is it is
> insignificant.  That is what is in question among those who have some
> competence to judge.  You don't have that competence.

Wrong again.  Also, we seem to have a case of argumentum ad nauseum, i.e.
the more likely people are to believe something if you keep repeating it
often enough.  There has been warming, but what part of that warming is
due to man?  How much of the warming trend is due to data problems?  Will
reductions in anthropogenic green house gases be enough to stop the
problem?


> Now if you want to engage in a discussion about how to handle
> uncertainty in
> an ethical conflict,  I would say that you would have some competence to
> address the nature of uncertainty.  But, you are not doing that.

Bunk.  I have posted a link on how to incorporate subjectivity into
research.  Namely, I was hoping to build of Michael and Chris Hope's
discussion of subjective probabilities.

Here is the link again.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rajm/openesef.htm

Read this, it is somewhat technical, but it does highlight how different
beliefs can be explicitly added to research and that the data will end up
being the final arbiter in the disagreement.  Of course, we'd have to
clean up our current data problems.

> > > 2.  Given that Edison Electric Institute believes that any reactions
> > > should
> > > be voluntary, what are the ethical considerations that should be
> > > considered
> > > there?
> >
> > Voluntary, would to me indicate market based incentives.
> 
> Ray here:
> Given the power of the institutions that conceivably contribute to
> global
> warming, then, "voluntary" for them means coercion for the rest of us. 
> It
> is a debatable issue.

Not really Ray.  California is already moving towards a competitive market
in energy generation.  There are still some problems, but the idea is to
get consumers to respond to market prices.  When prices are high, people
should reduce consumption.  Prior to this when electricity was a
vertically integrated monopoly there were no price signals (or very weak
ones).  Thus, if it was hot and demand was very high people had little
incentive to reduce their load.



> > > Quite frankly, I am getting tired of the situation where a person
> who is
> > > not
> > > competent in the global warming field should continue to distract us
> > > from
> > > the ethical considerations involved.
> >
> > Now, that is a better ad hominem Ray.  Congratulations.
> 
> Ray here:
> It might be "ad hominem" if it was not true.  Surely, you are not
> setting
> yourself up as a competent scientist on global warming?

There you go again.  You are asserting that since I have not gone to
school in climatology I therefore know nothing of global warming.  Okay,
fine, then I submit that the moderators for this list should delete any
and every post on global warming.  All of them.  Chris' press releases, my
posts, yors, everybodies until we can verify their credentials as a bona
fide climatologist or atmospheric scientist.  Hows that.  Oh, and since we
need to understand the uncertainty, before es can discuss the ethics,
until we get a climatologist here no ethical discussions either.  How's
that?

Steve

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%