"Scientific truth is not determined by consensus."

[Guest Mr. P.]

I am posting this letter addressed to me from Jane M. Orient, MD. She is the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. In it she extends an invitation to refute the science in her journal which refutes "catastrophic human - caused global warming." The web address of the study is found within the text of the letter.

[Guest Guest]

I am posting this letter addressed to me from Jane M. Orient, MD. She is the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. In it she extends an invitation to refute the science in her journal which refutes "catastrophic human - caused global warming." The web address of the study is found within the text of the letter.

These are the same yahoos who argued that that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and that the "gay male lifestyle" lowers life expectancy by TWENTY YEARS.

You sure know how to pick 'em.

[Guest Guest]

You're right that "Scientific truth is not determined by consensus." What you don't seem to realize is that consensus is reached through scientfic evidence. The evidence creates consensus, not the other way around. That's why the two are often close to each other.

If you are Paszkiewicz, I'm not surprised by your abysmal choice in the AAPS. They want religion to replace science in the schools, after all. If it is you, you're just showing your true colors more vividly than ever.

[Guest Guest]

I am posting this letter addressed to me from Jane M. Orient, MD. She is the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. In it she extends an invitation to refute the science in her journal which refutes "catastrophic human - caused global warming." The web address of the study is found within the text of the letter.

If this is David Paszkiewicz, or whoever you are, why not invite Matthew to discuss the subject yourself?

[Guest Guest]

I am posting this letter addressed to me from Jane M. Orient, MD. She is the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. In it she extends an invitation to refute the science in her journal which refutes "catastrophic human - caused global warming." The web address of the study is found within the text of the letter.

OK, let’s start with the first so-called scientist on the list, Earl Aagard. Apparently he claims to be a biologist, which means he has no credentials whatsoever to comment on global warming. If you look on his web site, http://ogblog.net/ , you’ll see titles such as “What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?” (http://ogblog.net/index.php/weblog/C12/) , along with right-wing ponderings on AIDS (http://ogblog.net/index.php/weblog/C32/) and Ben Stein’s latest farce (http://ogblog.net/index.php/weblog/C10/). Apparently Aagard teaches at a religious institution - what a surprise.

So, are there any credible scientists on this list, who actually know something about climate change?

[Guest Paul]

I am posting this letter addressed to me from Jane M. Orient, MD. She is the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. In it she extends an invitation to refute the science in her journal which refutes "catastrophic human - caused global warming." The web address of the study is found within the text of the letter.

I take at face value that the letters are genuine, which leads me to conclude that this is indeed David Paszkiewicz. Who else would have access to these letters?

Mr. P, I have told Matthew about your post here. He is in Manhattan this evening for Austin Dacey’s book signing. I encourage you to register here if you're going to post, which I invite you to do.

Why do you think Matthew should have any interest in responding on a scientific question to an organization that is mainly political and has no apparent qualifications in the field of climate science? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_o...ns_and_Surgeons and http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/medicine.html and http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/artic...ange-bedfellows and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ns_and_Surgeons ) Do you think this organization has credibility on the issue of climate control? If so, why? There are at least two reasons why they don’t:

1. They are not climate scientists.

2. They have an obvious political agenda, which seems to drive their conclusions. In other words, there isn’t a hint of objectivity in their approach.

Apropos of that, I suspect the reason no one has bothered to issue a formal refutation of AAPS’s work is that no one believes their work merits a response. To merit a response, an organization must cross a certain threshold of credibility. What makes you think AAPS meets that test, especially on the issue of global warming? Why on earth would they send a letter asking Matthew to do something, to you? What does that tell you?

The more I read from you, the more difficulty I have with the idea that you're teaching our kids. It's not just your conclusions, which I do indeed abhor; it's your mode of thought, your apparent inability to think about issues rationally and objectively. I've heard you conduct some pretty good history classes, and never doubted that you have the ability - except when your biases overwhelm your good sense. I cringe to think what you're telling your students when you think no one is listening. So consider this the voice of one Kearny taxpayer who also has to be concerned about the trouble you could get us into in the future. If I end up paying for your in-school crusades, I'm not going to be a happy camper.

Consider your willingness to pass on this letter from AAPS. I presume that you agree with them, also because I know you deny global warming. Indulge me for a moment and assume that the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists are right, that human-caused global warming is a serious problem. Assume further that in thirty years it becomes clear that we are headed for a major world-wide catastrophe if carbon emissions are not brought under control immediately. Under those circumstances, what would be more important: national sovereignty or the survival of the human species? I don’t think any of us wants to hand over political control to international governing bodies. We have too little control over our government as it is. But with a global economy virtually running the world and now global climate change, don’t you think we should least start thinking about these questions from a perspective that isn’t merely ideological?

To put my question another way, Mr. P: At what point do the facts take over and become more important than your ideology or your religious beliefs? In your recent piece arguing dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark, you engage in the following chain of reasoning: (1) I (David Paszkiewicz) believe the Bible is the unerring Word of God; (2) I (David Paszkiewicz) do not believe the Bible can be reconciled with evolution; therefore (3) one should ignore all the scientific evidence that proves evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt because it is contrary to what I (David Paszkiewicz) have chosen to believe.

So now, two more questions:

1. Why should any reasonable person take anything you say on any subject that touches on your religious or political beliefs seriously?

2. Why should I, as a taxpayer, be comfortable paying your salary, knowing that you lack a fundamental understanding of basic modes of modern thought?

It’s a problem.

Finally, Mr. P, I’ll invite you to read something from real climate scientists.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm

Have you ever read these, or any other report from any scientifically credible body on this subject? If not, why not?

[Guest Paul]

You're right that "Scientific truth is not determined by consensus." What you don't seem to realize is that consensus is reached through scientfic evidence. The evidence creates consensus, not the other way around. That's why the two are often close to each other.

If you are Paszkiewicz, I'm not surprised by your abysmal choice in the AAPS. They want religion to replace science in the schools, after all. If it is you, you're just showing your true colors more vividly than ever.

You're right. Scientific consensus is based on evidence.

What's amusing in this context is that David Paszkiewicz is a moral absolutist and a firm opponent of moral relativism. Yet on questions of science, he takes the position of a relativist: standards, schmandards, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I doubt that he even realizes it.

[Guest Guest]

OK, let’s start with the first so-called scientist on the list, Earl Aagard. Apparently he claims to be a biologist, which means he has no credentials whatsoever to comment on global warming. If you look on his web site, http://ogblog.net/ , you’ll see titles such as “What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?” (http://ogblog.net/index.php/weblog/C12/) , along with right-wing ponderings on AIDS (http://ogblog.net/index.php/weblog/C32/) and Ben Stein’s latest farce (http://ogblog.net/index.php/weblog/C10/). Apparently Aagard teaches at a religious institution - what a surprise.

So, are there any credible scientists on this list, who actually know something about climate change?

Roger L Aamodt, PhD, is a cancer researcher

M Robert Aaron, was an electrical engineer, who passed away in 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Robert_Aaron)

Ralph F Abate is a civil engineer

Hamed Abbas, PhD, works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a research plant pathologist (http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=12)

Paul Abbett – credentials unknown

Wyatt E Abbitt III – credentials unknown

David M Abbott Jr, appears to have something to do with the mining industry (http://www.dolbear.com/Publications/PotpourriofSECObservations.pdf)

Ursula K Abbott, PhD, appears to be involved in avian developmental genetics (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109568274/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)

Riaz F. Abdulla, PhD, appears to be a chemist (http://pubs.acs.org/acs/journals/toc.page?incoden=joceah&indecade=0&involume=40&inissue=16)

That's zero for ten. Not one of the first ten people on "Pproject's" list has any qualifications in climate science. Has any of them actually read anything about it? The list is completely useless.

[Guest Guest]

You're right. Scientific consensus is based on evidence.

What's amusing in this context is that David Paszkiewicz is a moral absolutist and a firm opponent of moral relativism. Yet on questions of science, he takes the position of a relativist: standards, schmandards, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I doubt that he even realizes it.

The latest IPCC summary report is available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/a...ar4_syr_spm.pdf. Critics, especially global-warming deniers, claim that these reports are hysterical. Nothing could be further from the truth. The IPCC report objectively assesses the likely costs and even potential benefits of global warming. For example, higher temperatures are virtually certain to bring about reductions in human mortality from cold exposure.

However, those benefits are far outweighed by the negative effects of global warming, both in the short term, and especially in the long term. One of the most important points climate scientists are making is that we cannot reverse the effects of global warming at the drop of a hat. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations “could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending on the rate and magnitude of the climate change” (see p. 13). “There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30 % of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5ºC. . .” (p. 13).

The report continues on page 14: “A wide array of adaptation options is available, but more extensive adaptation than is currently occurring is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change.” Those dumb, scientists, right. Why don’t they just tell us what’s going to happen. Because they don’t know. What they do know is that we are putting ourselves at risk, and that numerous trends are becoming increasingly obvious.

This shouldn’t be a difficult point for people, especially conservatives, to grasp. Why do we advise our teenagers not to have unprotected sex? Completely apart from moral questions, we do it because unprotected sex exposes them to the risk of disease and unwanted pregnancy, with potentially disastrous consequences that may not be reversible. Do we know that teenagers who have unprotected sex will become ill or pregnant? No. But we know better than to take the risk.

It’s the same with climate control, but on a much larger scale. If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we could be dooming hundreds of millions, or even billions of people to death, with no means to prevent it once the climate effects pass an unknown point – is she ovulating or not, does he have HIV or not, and are ya feelin’ lucky. Whatever you may think about what steps should be taken, this is not something that a wise person would just dismiss.