|From:||Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:42:04 -0400|
I've been following the recent exchanges, and the connection between this particular point that you seem keen to promote and ontology is tenuous at best. For others who have been following the science on climate change, the points you reference and present are frustratingly similar to the objections presented to question the link between lung cancer and tobacco. Hence, I imagine, Chris' response.
In this particular case, you have cited two people are well-known climate change deniers. Neither has a background in atmospheric science. John and Doug adequately dispatched with Spencer's article. James Taylor is a fellow at the Heartland Institute, with a known and well documented agenda arguing against climate change ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute ). Previous notable positions advanced by the Heartland Institute include work / publications for the tobacco companies disputing the link between second hand smoke and cancer.
The Remote Sensor journal in which Roy Spencer published his article, is oddly not one focused on atmospheric science or climate, it is about ... sensors. Indeed, the peer-reviewers are presumably qualified to determine whether the article presents solid claims re sensors, not climate science. Does it not make you wonder why he didn't publish it in a more appropriate journal? Indeed, a simple google query will give you dozens of posts and articles by people with actual background in climate science who were forced to divert precious time and resources to outline the problems and debunk Spencer's claims.
The frustration from many with the deniers is that they are akin to the deniers between the link of second hand tobacco smoke and lung cancer, or a sort of "flat-earthers". Unfortunately, unlike flat vs round earth, the answer isn't as obvious. Rather, we are relying on correlation and a growing(!) body of evidence that supports the thesis at hand. While some details might be wrong, the vast majority of researchers believe that hte evidence supports anthropogenic climate change.
However, with adequate funding, lobbying and some complicit partners in media (Fox) / hype machine, it is easy to publish volumes of misinformation which soak up precious time and resources from others to debunk. This was a well known tactic employed by the tobacco companies, and it is being pursued by oil-companies and other interested parties alike. It is true that there are those who also stand to profit from a shift of societal values, attitudes and behaviour to the climate, but it is disingenuous to equate the two sides. It's not just two special interests arguing about science, it is also about a large majority of researchers and scientists who agree on basic principles in the science. It is not a partisan issue.
As a result, efforts like http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/ have been deployed to help mitigate the volume of misinformation with regard to this topic.
It is disheartening to see ontolog diverted with these topics, especially since the link to ontology here is not apparent to me.
With regard to the rest of your posts regarding social policy and self-interest. Please acknowledge that there are many other, distinct narratives, with many many many people working in the field. What you've thus far presented is ... I don't know your background ... but let's say a very specific point of view.
I recommend familiarity with the following resources in the effort to create an "ontology of self-interest". Below, you will find some narratives that don't take for granted equal access to information, the same level of opportunity for each individual, and make explicit the feed-back loop between accumulation or inherited privilege and imbalanced agency in social group dynamics. I don't particularly agree with them, but if we're inundating this forum with one particular point of view that is not accurate of the domain of specialty, let's remember there are others.
Here is a perspective which presents an extension of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)
If that is too long, technical, here is not too horrible, media friendly version of the article: http://www.physorg.com/news201430108.html
In, https://sites.google.com/site/mwkraus/Home/publications, the first paper
touches on some of the feedback loops that arise through life-experiences. You can email the authors for a copy.
Alternatively, here is somewhat misleading, but not too horrible media version of the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44084236/ns/health-behavior/#
I would also recommend the group at least acknowledge Lakoff's Moral Politics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)), which is somewhat related to Jonathan Haidt's work on moral foundations of politics (http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/). Again there are numerous other researchers in the field.
In terms of your anecdotes, (and I wholly admit, this is a possibly erroneous assumption) it appears that you believe in tough love and that everyone can solve their own problems if we just left them to it. I suspect you assert that government should be minimally involved in society and social safety nets are extraneous rents on personal liberties. I suggest you try to map the anecdotes presented here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/10/america-poverty-criminalised or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed) into your preferred schema.
Best of luck,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why mostclassificationsarefuzzy), AzamatAbdoullaev|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self Interest, Ron Wheeler|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self Interest, Rich Cooper|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self Interest, Ron Wheeler|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|