Common Sense

Avatar

Will

Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.

Related Post Roulette

20 Responses

  1. Avatar ehmoran
    Ignored
    says:

    It gets much worse than stolen emails!

    Amazingly, the data are in the faces of Man-Made Climate Change supporters and they still refuse to acknowledge the evidence. But, then again, someone once said that the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

    Now, Al Gore PUBLICLY states Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn’t have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. SO WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can’t, because if they do, the gig is up. “Make no mistake, this event is not revenge, it’s the reckoning”.

    These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth’s physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me and the following is what I perceived as personal intimidation and a threat to call my USGS supervisor for doing this study. When someone uses words like “Does your boss know what your doing” in the context of this event, they’re going after your JOB.
    QUOTE
    “264
    John Mashey says:
    30 June 2007 at 1:04 AM
    re: #261: Chuck: you can stop worrying. Tindall has been at USGS for while,……………………………………..
    Mr. Moran, if you’re still watching:
    I have read USGS 370.735.5 and I hope you (and James Tindall) have.
    Do managers SAF and LE HB know about this? Any constructive comments?”
    UNQUOTE
    From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
    If my study and theory were not plausible and a potential explanation of global temperature variability, then why would RealClimate.org do what they did in their posts? Not very professional for PhDs. Additionally, there are many other areas on that website where conversations took place. On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried posting comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..

    I always knew that when man-made global climate change was shown as insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word “FAITH”, in science. But this event and exposure is by far worse for the science community; but “Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)”.

    Nevertheless, the bigger question is when and where will next big lie and mass manipulation occur? With Job Creation, our Economy, or the Financial and Monetary Systems?Report

  2. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    Too often common sense means nothing more then you agree with somebody’s point of view. I have heard multiple people, unfortunately sometimes standing behind me in a line, say that since it is cold that particular day GW just doesn’t make sense to them. Well that may be common sense to them but it is also painfully stupid.

    I just don’t know how to separate “real” common sense from somebody’s opinion. And if I could, I still want to know expert opinion on a lot of things. My guess is that if you go to a cardiologist for an exam and he says that various fancy tests show you have a problem most people will trust the tests and the doctor instead of their common sense about the functioning of their heart. A big part of that is the common sense argument is based more on supporting your own instincts against the opinion of people you don’t want to believe. And those people you don’t want to believe are likely to be people who are far away and you have a culture based distrust of. I think Linker spot on with his view on how the common sense trope was used by politicians to sway people. I guess I trust common sense more if the person has shown they also understand the science or facts in the matter.

    PS It seems just plain good old fashioned American common sense to me that since there are four major labs with data sets regarding GW ( the now infamous east anglia lab along with NASA, NOAA and a lab in Japan) and all their data is similar that climategate is a tempest in a teapot. Even you completely excluded the east anglia data, there are still three separate labs that support the conclusions about AGW. I’m guessing that will not seem like common sense to other people.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak
      Ignored
      says:

      Look at the immediate responses to the leaked emails, however.

      Imagine if the responses were something like “those so-called ‘scientists’ have betrayed the trust of millions of people and need to be punished as quickly as possible and this demonstrates nothing more than a need for more transparency, more openness, and more discussion!”

      Instead, the responses were similar to what the Bush Administration did in response to a whistleblower.

      This makes the dynamic appear, to those without specialized scientific knowledge, like just another political fight between two groups of political people.

      The dynamic is one that appears identical to a fight about the funding of commercials telling people to vote no on Prop 8, rather than a discussion of science.

      Marshall McLuhan covered this. “The medium is the message.”Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        You are criticizing the PR handling of the situation by scientists. Scientists who are not trained in PR. It just doesn’t seem all common senselike to have the PR abilities of scientists sway opinion on a complex subject like AGW.

        I can guarantee you that scientists or people well read in the history of science will tell you that science has never been free of politics, in fighting, pettiness and every other unfortunate characteristic of humans.

        If all common sense means is just something to back up our own prejudices, beliefs and what we want to believe then it is nothing worth while.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak
          Ignored
          says:

          Not just the scientists, the ideologues who understand the data about as well as the “denialists” do but chose a side anyway.

          When the information came out that data was destroyed in response to a FOIA request, the response was questioning the provenance of the information that the data was destroyed in response to a FOIA request, rather than dealing with the fact that data was destroyed in response to a FOIA request.

          This makes it seem like “two sides”, neither of which is particularly interested in science.

          The medium is the message.Report

          • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            but what does that have to do with common sense? what does that have to do with the point i raised about three other seperate labs having data sets that show the same thing as the east anglia lab? I only raised the AGW example as a situation where people would have very different ideas of what seemed like common sense, so CS would seem useless.Report

            • Avatar Mark Thompson in reply to greginak
              Ignored
              says:

              The trouble is that the value of expert opinion goes only insofar as people are willing to trust the experts. When experts act like insiders, covering things up and doing everything they can to keep dissenting opinion on the outside, they lose that trust by making it appear that their expert opinions – whether or not they are actually correct – are merely self-serving political statements. Nothing in the e-mails remotely disproves AGW, but it does deeply undermine the basis for public trust of global warming scientists. In order for the public to trust experts, it must believe that the experts’ opinions are objective and apolitical rather than merely an expression of political preferences. This is, to say the least, a problem.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak
              Ignored
              says:

              It is common sense that when you find that 4 people agree with each other and you find out that one of them was lying that you immediately begin to distrust the other 3.

              That is common sense.

              It may be wrong. It may be right. It may be a bit of both. It’s common, however.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                so like i said, we each think “common sense” bolsters our point of view. yet somehow we reach different conclusions but both of us think “common sense” is on our side.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                So we cannot trust experts, and we cannot trust common sense.

                If only there were a method we could use that was transparent, dispassionate, and had people following it that believed in the free transfer of information!Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                maybe we have to exercise our thinking muscle in combination with gaining knowledge about a particular subject along with experts and a dollop of common sense.Report

              • Avatar Barry in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “It is common sense that when you find that 4 people agree with each other and you find out that one of them was lying that you immediately begin to distrust the other 3.”

                Which means that the global warming denialists are shot from the word go.Report

          • Avatar Barry in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            “When the information came out that data was destroyed in response to a FOIA request…”

            What data was destroyed? Last I heard (a) the original data was still in the hands of the various weather services from which that climate lab had bought copies (much of which came under restrictions on copying and forwarding), and (b) not even the copies were destroyed.Report

  3. Avatar Bob Cheeks
    Ignored
    says:

    I thought the reason Algore said the things he does, is because he’s “not right.” You shouldn’t make fun of the mentally handicapped.
    So you guys thought he was telling the truth….hmm.Report

  4. Avatar Hudson
    Ignored
    says:

    When quoting FDR on common sense, you’re talking about a bygone era. He might have also used a term like “Yankee ingenuity,” also bye bye. The core is much diminished nowadays; splintered into thousands of interest groups, lobbyists, blogs.

    Re: global warming. When did it start and is every year at least a fraction of a degree warmer than the year before? No one can deny that glaciers are retreating, huge chunks are breaking off the Ross Ice Shelf, etc. But how much is nature and how much man made, with heavy economic penalties to correct?Report

  5. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/12/monty-hall-problem-and-counter.html

    This post at Lawyers Guns and Money is great example of the limits of common sense.Report

  6. Avatar Barry
    Ignored
    says:

    Will: “… the borderline dishonesty of Bernanke and Paulsen in the midst of the economic crisis, …”

    What borderline dishonesty? Paulsen was a Goldman Sachs CEO; he made sure that the terms of the government bailout were very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very generous to Goldman Sachs.

    Bernanke is somebody who decided that once the bailout was done, that there’s nothing more that the Fed need to about the current recession (except for giving bankers guarantees).Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *