Defining the Sceptics (Part 4)
Posted by jennifer, June 25th, 2009 - under Good Causes, Opinion.
Tags: Philosophy
“GROWING up as your daughter, you have always taught me to live with an open mind, and to seek out facts before I choose a side of the fence whether it be agreeing or disagreeing with your own.”
This comment from Caroline Marohasy represents to me the essence of being a sceptic: A sceptic considers alternatives before making a decision. An opinion will eventually form, but first there will be some reasoning.
A modern education may provide skills in writing and reading, even mathematics, but not necessarily in the ability to reason – especially if the education is value laden.
*********
Notes and Links
The comment from Caroline Marohasy can be found at ‘A Progressive Environmentalist’, http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2005/04/a-progressive-environmentalist/#comments . The photograph shows Ms Marohasy modeling in Brisbane in 2006. More in this series, and also ‘Defining the Greens’ can be found at http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/philosophy/ - scroll down.
“so, let me get this straight. According to you, Evans working in computer modeling does NOT give him climate expertise.
Hanson and Schmidt, who ALSO work in modeling, do have climate expertise? ”
Evans working in computer modeling that has nothing to do with climate modeling does not give him climate expertise, Hanson and Schmidt who have worked with climate and climate modeling for many years, professionaly, have acquired climate expertise. Pauchuari is a chair of a committee creating a report, not a climate expert. The chairman of large enterprises, such as the IPCC, often do not know the details of the work they are supervising. SOP. Evans lack of understanding of the state of the science of AGW is readily apparent from reading his claims on the topic.
Really?
“For six years from 1999, he says he worked on carbon accounting, building models for the Commonwealth’s Australian Greenhouse Office (now part of the Office of Climate Change).”
tell me again how Evans does not have expertise. No, wait, he must have expertise, by your definition:
Hanson and Schmidt who have worked with climate and climate modeling for many years, professionaly (sic), have acquired climate expertise.
so which is it? He has expertise, or he doesn’t? By which criteria do you make this judgment? After all, Evans works in the same field (modeling), and has worked within an official climate office.
I agree that Pachuari is not an expert. Nor is de Boer. Which means we can safely ignore their opinions, correct?
““For six years from 1999, he says he worked on carbon accounting, building models for the Commonwealth’s Australian Greenhouse Office (now part of the Office of Climate Change).””
His Carbon Accounting model is not climate modeling.