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.
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
Douglas T. Kenrick, Vladas Griskevicius, Steven L. Neuberg
and Mark Schaller - Renovating the Pyramid of Needs:
Contemporary Extensions Built Upon Ancient Foundations. .
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social
class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the
social realm, Current Directions in Psychological Science,
touches on some of the feedback loops that arise through
life-experiences. You can email the authors for a copy.
Best of luck,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Rich
Its always nice to get your constructive inputs.
Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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