[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [riskanal] RE: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!



Dave,



You sent me the following mail:

"

Fritz: I find your endorsement troubling. In particular, I see three errors

of reasoning.



1) I usually look first to the NAS/NRC on technical subjects with which I'm

unfamiliar. The NRC is unambigous in its expectation of climate change, and

the human cause thereof. If we reject the NRC's conclusions on this, should

we also reject its conclusions on all other subjects? If not, why the

exception in this case?



2)  The study of Climate Change involves a huge budget. So do the studies

of cancer, energy resources, agriculture. Typically, a field of study is

well funded because it appears to be promising and important. Should we

reject a field of study because it's well funded?  If not, why is this case

different?



3)  "8000 pound Gorilla" "loud and brash claims." These are ad hominem

statements. We're taught in critical thinking courses that these sorts of

vilifications weaken arguments. Should we accept their use in this case? If

so, why the exception?



>Dave"



Well, I have a few comments to make about that:  To begin with, I find my

endorsement of the petition appropriate because I have always criticized

a scientific effort that does not follow the Scientific Method and Global

Warming research certainly does not. In addition, I fail to see the three

alleged errors of mine that you mention:



Ad 1)	I actually do not feel bound to go to NAS/NRC first, because as far as

	Global Warming is concerned, it is the Global Warmers are the NAS/NRC

	experts.  So I do not go there if I want unbiased information.  No, not

	all of their work is biased, but some of it certainly is.  Another good

	example is their one-sided reporting on the Linear No-Threshold Model of

	cancer caused by nuclear radiations. They blatantly ignore all data that

	show hormetic effects and are, therefore, at odds with the model.  This

	is the same bias situation as the one above because LNT proponents are

	carefully selected to sit on those NRC committees that might do damage

	to the paradigm status of the LNT.



Ad 2)	The huge budget stems from the initial support of Vice President Al

Gore

	and once the influence of big money has been firmly established, it tends

	to perpetuate itself. As for the quality of the science bought with those

	more than 10 billion dollars, I tend to think that less money might have

	bought more!



Ad 3)	No, these statements are not "ad hominem", they are "ad rem". The

"8,000

	pound gorilla" and the "loud and brash claims" clearly refer to the sorry

	actions and reactions of BIG TRENDY SCIENCE and not to particular homini.

	If you feel slighted personally, then all I can say is that when you climb

	aboard the BIG TRENDY SCIENCE bandwagon, then you put yourself at risk of

	getting hit by the eggs and tomatoes thrown at it.



By the way, talking about vilifications, have you read the Scientific

American

attack on Bjorn Lomborg that I mentioned?  It is utterly disgraceful and

shows

just how low a formerly good popular science journal like Scientific

American

has sunk.  A sad story indeed!



Regards,



Fritz



*****************************************************

Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.

Sigma Five Consulting:          Private:

P.O. Box 1709                   P.O. Box 437

Los Lunas, NM 87031             Tome', NM 87060

Tel.:      505-866-5193         Tel. 505-866-6976

Fax:       505-866-5197         USA

*****************************************************



*****************************************************

"This is the hour when democracy must justify

itself by capacity for effective decision, or risk

destruction or desintegration. Europe is dotted

with the ruins of right decisions taken too late."



"America's Responsibility in the Current Crisis"

 Manifesto of the Christian Realists. May, 1940.

*******************************************************









************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/