Bush Admin's Top Environmental Advisor Takes Job at Exxon.

[jBirch]

Its the interjecting of uncertainty that shouldn't be trusted. The report was written by people who's job it is to study that. And this guys job was apparently to reshape the information gathered to fit what the president wanted it to say. He is not a scientist, he wasn't on the project , he has no business editing it.

As an individual biased against the conclusions of the paper, he is most certainly an individual who has business editing it. Why would someone biased for the conclusions be better? I did not hear him change the evidence, only change the conclusions drawn from that evidence to highlight areas of uncertainty. This, to me, seems acceptable.

You say that the evidence that global warming is caused by humans is not strong, but then this evidence shows how the government has been working to weaken evidence so perhaps we should all re-examine what we think we know on the subject. I'll see if I can dig up some independent research, and post what I find.

I have no doubt that climate change is a real phenomenon. Nor do I doubt that air pollution is bad. I haven't seen anything strong that the cause of climate change is air pollution.

I have seen statistical models that show a general increase in observed temperature over the last 200 years or so. Since readings only really started to be taken 200 years ago, this doesn't show much IMHO. Correlation with human emissions is conjecture, from what I can tell.

I have seen climate models that simplify the problem and project trends. When validated with reality, these models often fail to account for how increadibly homeostatic the Earth is. More atmospheric heat = more clouds = less surface heat. More forests = more 02 = more C02 = less forests.

An objective individual will therefor conlcude that we don't know enough. Action taken should be taken in conjunction with the certainty and the severity. Classic risk analysis.

Air pollution, for example, is a real health problem in urban centres. Arguing that we should curb emmissions because of global warming is a poor argument given the climitological uncertainty of the correlation. Arguing that we should curb emmissions because we are killing our citizens, a certain correlation, is a much stronger case. Heck, the anti-smoking lobby has been pretty sucessful with it.

Denigrating Mr. Cooney for adding uncertainty is an Ad Hominem attack, though not circumstantial like Inq has appended. The evidence does not support the conjecture that Bush et al are actively trying to subvert or bury information in order to pursue their pre-conceived beliefs in this matter. Mr. Cooney's actions do not seem to support the assertion that Bush is making bad decisions to benefit Big Oil in a corrupt and nefarious manner. The fox, as it were, may really be a squirrel hiding nuts with the eggs.

James.

[jeff]

Heya Jeff,

I was merely pointing out that... (snip)...BTW, I'm with you on the analysis of personality being important to this particular discussion. I think Inq's "Ad Hominem" is a distraction or a mis-call.

James.

Hi James,

I was more focussed on the meta-argument (the invalidity of the "Ad Hominem" counter attack) than the specific, and I think we're in agreement there.

For the specific instance of Cooney in particular - I read extracts of documents with his edits, and it certainly appeared that he was emasculating the scientists documents to minimize what they said about the ecological impacts and likely causes.

Squirrels? They eat chicken? I thought they only ate nuts, stored 'em for winter, and so on. Canadian squirrels must be tough bastards, eh?

[jBirch]

For the specific instance of Cooney in particular - I read extracts of documents with his edits, and it certainly appeared that he was emasculating the scientists documents to minimize what they said about the ecological impacts and likely causes.

Hmmm, inserting uncertainty is "emasculating"? If the goal of the document is to persuade, then absolutely. If the goal of the document is to evaluate truth and show it, I disagree. My point is that toning down the language from certain language to probable language is appropriate when the paper is to be presented as a problem analysis. From that, rational action can be taken even if it is contrary to belief.

Here's a classic excerpt:

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

It shows, very clearly, that the earth is warming. What it does not show, in really any way, is why. It conjectures that because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it is a gas produced in significant quantity by people that people are responsible for the increase in C02.

Historical trends are notoriously inaccurate because the tools used to measure the changes weren't sensitive enough. Odd that global warming is correlated with technological change, eh? Is the change historically a result of actual change or measurement tool change?

This is the best report I've been able to find on climate change and global warming:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

Note the language differences between the conclusions and the findings and especially how they handle uncertainty. I do see an over-reliance on models rather then observation, with model conclusions being used to support generalisations and mitigate uncertainty.

In the light of new evidence and taking into account the
remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Notice the word "likely". According to the paper, "likely" means 66-90% certainty. Read the rest of the paper and then determine whether the language of the paper is overly certain, appropriately judgemental or understating the case when you read the conclusions specifically contained in the section on anthropogenic forcing. If they were quoted verbatim, would they lend an overly strong sense of certainty, an appropriate level of certainty or an understated level of certainty based on their context in the rest of the report?

Squirrels? They eat chicken? I thought they only ate nuts, stored 'em for winter, and so on. Canadian squirrels must be tough bastards, eh?

Oh yeah. I guess you've never been to Toronto. Those little blighters will eat cats.

James.

[jeff]

Hmmm, inserting uncertainty is "emasculating"? ...snip! by Jeff

The excerpts I read were of the nature of "really bad things are happening here, here, and here, and if we don't change this, that, and the other thing, we can expect bad consequences A, B, and C" (I paraphrase, obviously - I don't keep the newspapers indefinitely). The edits I saw changed the wording in such a way to dramatically weaken the report's conclusions conclusions. Much, much more equivocal than the interesting material you cite, which cautiously provides caveats. The rewording pretty much went so far as to say "no problem here, not really, nothing proved, just move along". So, yes, "emasculating" fits.

Oh yeah. I guess you've never been to Toronto. Those little blighters will eat cats.

James.

Not recently. Have they been irradiated and become mutant deviant bloodthirsty squirrels in my absence? Yikes! Hey - do you think these squirrels might be convinced to rid Soldier of his chicken?

By odd coincidence I'll be in Toronto on Monday for business; I better wear my squirrel-repellant spray.

cheers, Jeff

[Inquartata]

Yes, Inq is excellent about arguing the shortcomings of other's arguments while providing absolutely no substance to the other perspective of the discussion.

I but shrug and lift my palms. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the opposing argument does not in fact prove what it purports to prove. If that can be done, why bother disproving it a second time on the facts?

[Inquartata]

You know, even in a court of law, the jury can be instructed by the judge to consider the credibility and veracity of a witness based on witnesses behavior, history, self-interest, conflict of interest, and so forth.

Non sequitur. This is not a court of law. The legal world has more than its share of singular practices and principles which apply nowhere else.

( However, I do not believe that that is correct. The judge addresses only matters of law; matters of fact, of "credibility", are not proper matters for him to instruct the jury about. )

Fox guarding the hen house? My, my! How illogical to protest that, or even point it out!

Pooh pooh all you like; the basic fact remains---that argument is fallacious, however appealing you may find it. As to "people do it every day"...that's another fallacious argument.

[jeff]

Non sequitur. This is not a court of law. The legal world has more than its share of singular practices and principles which apply nowhere else.

This is also not a class in formal logic. In real world situations it is quite reasonable to so evaluate a person's testimony.

( However, I do not believe that that is correct. The judge addresses only matters of law; matters of fact, of "credibility", are not proper matters for him to instruct the jury about. )

You're wrong. I received instructions along these lines in a recent trial in which I served on the jury. To be precise: the judge did not tell us his opinion of witnesses, and confined his remarks to matters of law, but he told us that we should address the issue of witness credibility. In fact, it was a central part of our responsibilities.

Pooh pooh all you like; the basic fact remains---that argument is fallacious, however appealing you may find it. As to "people do it every day"...that's another fallacious argument.

It's not a fact that it's a fallacious argument - that's merely your repeated, counterfactual claim. It's quite reasonable and incorporated in all kinds of rational behaviors. In business, in law, elsewhere, to determine if a counter party has a conflict of interest or is untrustworthy for the post. Planning to let Michael Jackson babysit at your house any time soon?

If you claim this is Ad Hominem and fallacious, then I call your attention to the numerous instances on this board in which you refused to consider any proposition in which someone cited material from Michael Moore. You made it clear that you felt he was such an unprincipled and biased source that any material from him was of no value - even if it was a bald presentation of factual material. You said so explicitly, even to the extent that you refused to read anything of his or see his movie, on that basis.

Since your refusal to treat with anything Moore said was Ad Hominem, I suggest you either cede the point here that "who says it matters" in the context Cooney "enjoys", or retract the arguments you made consequent to denying validity of material presented by Moore, and cede the debates they were part of. Otherwise, you're just trying to have your cake and eat it too: Ad Hominem only when it suits your purposes, otherwise piously pretending it's invalid.

[Have At You]

You're wrong. I received instructions along these lines in a recent trial in which I served on the jury. To be precise: the judge did not tell us his opinion of witnesses, and confined his remarks to matters of law, but he told us that we should address the issue of witness credibility. In fact, it was a central part of our responsibilities.

Actually, both you and Inq are right. The judge cannot instruct the jury as to who is more credible than whom. And your judge did not instruct you as to matters of fact. He only instructed you that, when deciding what the facts were, you were to take into account how credible each bit of testimony was.

The judge only instructed you on the law, and how you were to do your job. The judge did not instruct you as to who was more credible than whom.

[jBirch]

Non sequitur. This is not a court of law. The legal world has more than its share of singular practices and principles which apply nowhere else.

( However, I do not believe that that is correct. The judge addresses only matters of law; matters of fact, of "credibility", are not proper matters for him to instruct the jury about. )

No, the jury is to determine whether an allegation is factual based, in part, on their interpretation of the credibility of the witness. It's one of the main reasons for a "jury of peers". The judge's role in this matter is to act on the determination of the jury and conduct the court such that the jury does get a fair shake of what is in contention.

Pooh pooh all you like; the basic fact remains---that argument is fallacious, however appealing you may find it. As to "people do it every day"...that's another fallacious argument.

The argument about whether past employment is relevent to projecting suitability for future employment and as a predictive indicator of intent, is not fallacious on the grounds you provided. Past judgements, and perceived credibility, are indeed valid logical grounds to throw out an assertion.

Your initial assessment of the argument about Mr. Cooney as being Ad Hominem is correct in that the argument (as I perceived it) was more innuendo then fact and assertion. Your appending and defense of the circumstantial sub-typing is incorrect.

Might I also mention that throwing logical fallacies about like darts on a lawn is not a productive way to engage in discourse. Aristotle intended them to identify weakness in argument as an illustrative exercise to put one's own arguments through before presenting them. In fact, the repeated pointing out of errors in anothers arguments is the logical fallacy of "Style Over Substance". That the manner in which an idea is discussed is more important than the idea itself.

James.

[jeff]

Actually, both you and Inq are right. The judge cannot instruct the jury as to who is more credible than whom. And your judge did not instruct you as to matters of fact. He only instructed you that, when deciding what the facts were, you were to take into account how credible each bit of testimony was.

The judge only instructed you on the law, and how you were to do your job. The judge did not instruct you as to who was more credible than whom.

What you just said is exactly what I was saying, or at least trying to communicate. That's the "instructed by the judge to consider the credibility and veracity of a witness" (a determination to be made by the jury, not the judge) that Inq told me was wrong.

I endorse James' closing paragraph above. There are modes of discourse in which fornal rules of logic (or things loudly claimed to be such) are appropriate, and others where they are a inappropriately applied, a distraction from the subject matter at hand, or used as atomic bombs to squash opposing opinions.

[esskreemr]

I but shrug and lift my palms. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the opposing argument does not in fact prove what it purports to prove. If that can be done, why bother disproving it a second time on the facts?

Depends on what you consider sufficient. This is neither a court of law nor a class on debate. It is a forum where a wide range of individuals express their opinions through a variety of means. I suspect that pointing out the logical fallacies of these opinions does little to advance the discussion in most people's minds and adds little to the discourse.

Still, this is a semi-open forum so you are allowed to express your opinions, even if they are in latin.

That being said, I'm allowed to post this little ditty:

Inq, Inq the logical troll
the more that you post
the more Latin he'll dole!
Why argue the facts
when the logic is wrong,
he screams from his 'puter
in his zebra striped thong.
He's Inq, Inq the logical troll
on a mission of mercy
to save your logical soul.

[jBirch]

Depends on what you consider sufficient. This is neither a court of law nor a class on debate. It is a forum where a wide range of individuals express their opinions through a variety of means. I suspect that pointing out the logical fallacies of these opinions does little to advance the discussion in most people's minds and adds little to the discourse.

I disagree. I think Inq in particular adds significantly to a debate (which is, of course, about determining truth). It's persuasion that he screws up.

One of the things I most like about the politics folder here is that the discourse is usually very sophisticated and intelligent. You generally can't get away with blatently partisan comments, nor can you get away with presenting opinion as fact (not even Inq can get away with that). Someone usually starts off trying to persuade and ends up looking at the truth/falsity of their proposition.

Understanding what a logical fallacy is, and when it is used, is illustratitive and certainly adds to the discourse. What doesn't, is obscuring ideas in style or opinions in fact.

In here, a remise counts, attacks are frequently off target and parries must deflect the blade. *grin* And the jury is always out to lunch.

James.

[jeff]

By the way, James - I liked the lawn darts metaphor. Rep point!

[Have At You]

I disagree. I think Inq in particular adds significantly to a debate (which is, of course, about determining truth). It's persuasion that he screws up.

One of the things I most like about the politics folder here is that the discourse is usually very sophisticated and intelligent. You generally can't get away with blatently partisan comments, nor can you get away with presenting opinion as fact (not even Inq can get away with that). Someone usually starts off trying to persuade and ends up looking at the truth/falsity of their proposition.

Understanding what a logical fallacy is, and when it is used, is illustratitive and certainly adds to the discourse. What doesn't, is obscuring ideas in style or opinions in fact.

In here, a remise counts, attacks are frequently off target and parries must deflect the blade. *grin* And the jury is always out to lunch.

James.

I agree wholeheartedly, so long as RL's posts don't count.

[jeff]

Darn, unable to assign rep point, as I'm instructed to spread it around some more before giving another to JBirch. Ah well.

Regarding the point of (apparently) formal logic: it, and furthering esskreemr's comments, it's worth remembering that the appearance of logic is a powerful partisan tool in an argument. We don't have an "impartial search for truth", which should be the shared starting position if we really want to use these rules. Lawyers and debaters use this weapon this all the time. It's common, if the facts of the case are weak for you, or support the other side, to change the subject to procedure, rules of logic, or analogies to other topics altogether, to obscure the fact that the facts are against you. I've seen it on this board many times...

I'll illustrate this misuse using this particular subject: if the assertion was made that Cooney's job history and subsequent hire by ExxonMobil was by itself proof of malfeasance (or whatever you want to call it), that would be incorrect. It does not rise to the level of proof (eg: "Cooney was in the govt and now works for ExxonMobil, therefore his work in govt was tainted"). But, that's not the claim I make in my posts, nor is it what esskreemr said in his opening post that started this thread. Instead, it is highly suspect behavior: coupled with Cooney denaturing documents that stated scientific results that were contrary to the interests of the oil industry and the industry-friendly Administration.

Even that is not "proof": he might sincerely believe that those results were not based in science (though, as Inq pointed out, he's not qualified to so judge). But: formal proof that absolutely determines the truth of the conjecture is not necessary. We are pointing out what appears to be a conflict of interest and unethical behavior (at least, I am), which is highly suspicious and should be condemned as an impediment to proper formulation of policy. If the energy policies it supports turn out to be correct, it is an impediment to having those policies be accepted by people who believe the Administration and oil industry to be in bed with one another.

Any argument that pooh-poohs exposure of Cooney's industry connection and decrying his action are invalid because they are not proven beyond a shadow of doubt is an attempt to distract from the facts of the situation: an industry flack changing scientific results in order to support his economic interests.

Absolute certainty, as would be shown by a smoking gun or other incontrovertible proof, would be nice to have, but is not necessary for decrying Cooney's actions. I didn't claim a proof. An argument based on refuting the argument I didn't make is a well-known logical fallacy: that of the Straw Man.

[Inquartata]

One's performance in various job roles goes directly to establishing a trend for one's behaviour in similar situations in the future. It's the basis of experience. Success through employment reinforces that. Etc.

Which is as may be. Nevertheless, faced with an argument/statement/action by an individual, to assume that it can be explained by nothing more than his past job or jobs rather than, oh, I don't know, that it's just something he believes in personally, is unwarranted and based in fallacious thinking.

Is it possible that, like you and I or anyone else, this man could simply be acting on personal convictions or personal foolishness or arrogance or even orders from higher up, rather than because he is a puppet of Big Oil or a brainwashed drone in their service in all things?

Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) applies only when the circumstances have no bearing on the syllogism.

No, when the circumstances have not been SHOWN to have a bearing...which in this case they have not. It is possible that they do, but not certain. It wants proof.

At any rate, there are all sorts of reasons to decry the action which are logically defensible. Recourse to circumstances is unnecessary.

I thought the prior actions we were talking about were his editing of the report, his policy actions as a member of the Bush cabinet and his advocacy actions as a lobbyist.

That's not the impression I got. The argument, boiled down to its simplest, was IMO "This action because he's an oil man". No pattern of specific acts has been adduced...you're positing assumed acts under a series of circumstances, eg "Bush cabinet" and "lobbyist". If you mean to say that the actions taken were BECAUSE he was in those positions, then we have two more ad hominems. They multiply!

To be clear, what's the act under discussion? I believe that the initial post was to add evidence to the assertion that the decisions of the President are biased towards the interests of Big Oil despite protestations to the contrary.

The editing of the report was the act; the circumstances advanced as "explanation" of the act were his former jobs. No argument built on such shifting grounds can fairly be used to buttress yet another argument, ie "Bush is biased toward oil interests". The first allegation must be proven first, not just waved out there and assumed to be valid.

[Inquartata]

this article gives a few examples of edits he made. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0608-05.htm

Thanks, that was exactly what I was interested in seeing. Here's the text, with some commentary:

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
by Andrew C. Revkin

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.


The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman."

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.

But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. "I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration," he said.

Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who met with President Bush at the White House yesterday, has been trying to persuade him to intensify United States efforts to curb greenhouse gases. Mr. Bush has called only for voluntary measures to slow growth in emissions through 2012.

Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying, "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

The American Petroleum Institute, where Mr. Cooney worked before going to the White House, has long taken a sharply different view. Starting with the negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty in 1997, it has promoted the idea that lingering uncertainties in climate science justify delaying restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases.

On learning of the White House revisions, representatives of some environmental groups said the effort to amplify uncertainties in the science was clearly intended to delay consideration of curbs on the gases, which remain an unavoidable byproduct of burning oil and coal.

"They've got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science," said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

Mr. Cooney's alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning. For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of "Our Changing Planet" originally read, "Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change." In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, "Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."

A document showing a similar pattern of changes is the 2003 "Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program," a thick report describing the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Mr. Bush in his first speech on the issue, in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the administration's research plan, but they warned that the administration's procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science.

Another political appointee who has played an influential role in adjusting language in government reports on climate science is Dr. Harlan L. Watson, the chief climate negotiator for the State Department, who has a doctorate in solid-state physics but has not done climate research.

In an Oct. 4, 2002 memo to James R. Mahoney, the head of the United States Climate Change Science Program and an appointee of Mr. Bush, Mr. Watson "strongly" recommended cutting boxes of text referring to the findings of a National Academy of Sciences panel on climate and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that periodically reviews research on human-caused climate change.

The boxes, he wrote, "do not include an appropriate recognition of the underlying uncertainties and the tentative nature of a number of the assertions."

While those changes were made nearly two years ago, recent statements by Dr. Watson indicate that the admnistration's position has not changed.

"We are still not convinced of the need to move forward quite so quickly," he told the BBC in London last month. "There is general agreement that there is a lot known, but also there is a lot to be known."

So most of it is indeed just a matter of wording, and he wasn't deleting data or altering conclusions.

Most of those changes don't strike me as beyond the pale for an editor. And I don't really agree with the "clear changes in meaning" angle, either.

[Inquartata]

Its the interjecting of uncertainty that shouldn't be trusted. The report was written by people who's job it is to study that. And this guys job was apparently to reshape the information gathered to fit what the president wanted it to say. He is not a scientist, he wasn't on the project , he has no business editing it.

Nor are scientists administrators or policy-makers, they have no business pushing agendas.

Let me introduce an opposing allegation, no more firmly grounded than the "former oil man hence current servant of oil interests" one.

Some scientists adopt beliefs which may be unwarranted and twist or invent or selectively omit their evidence to support their desired conclusions...and then they advocate for policies based on those conclusions. ( There was an article just last week about a study of the number of scientists who do such things. ) And scientists too are employed by people---people who want their interests served. Therefore, these scientists may have overstated the global warming evidence based on their own beliefs and those of their groupthinking peer groups and their employers and previous employers. Their report cannot be trusted because it was probably tendentious, due to the fact that they are scientists and hence creatures of Big Science.

Now, does that argument fly with anyone? I hope not...

[Inquartata]

This is also not a class in formal logic. In real world situations it is quite reasonable to so evaluate a person's testimony.

Yes, indeed. Evaluate away. But if you go astray logically, your evaluation cannot be trusted.

Too, you did not begin by "evaluating testimony", you began by evaluating his past employment and concluding something therefrom about the motives for his actions. This was not warranted on the facts. Hence the ad hominem.

You're wrong.

It is within the realm of possibility.

I received instructions along these lines in a recent trial in which I served on the jury. To be precise: the judge did not tell us his opinion of witnesses, and confined his remarks to matters of law, but he told us that we should address the issue of witness credibility. In fact, it was a central part of our responsibilities.

Ah. This is another matter, is it not? He did not tell you HOW to assess credibility, or which facts to note in doing so...

Judging credibility is of course what juries do. I have no problems stipulating to that. But I would hope they do not do it by using illogical methods such as looking at what witnesses did for a living prior to the time in question.

It's not a fact that it's a fallacious argument - that's merely your repeated, counterfactual claim.

Your argument, then, is perhaps with Aristotle. The fallacy is quite well known and long discounted as a reasoning tool. Insisting that it isn't is, well, I can but shrug and lift my palms again. I cannot force logic upon you if you refuse to consider it.

It's quite reasonable and incorporated in all kinds of rational behaviors. In business, in law, elsewhere, to determine if a counter party has a conflict of interest or is untrustworthy for the post. Planning to let Michael Jackson babysit at your house any time soon?

Not quite the same thing, is it? Let's recast it in the same form as the fallacy which began this thread:

"Michael Jackson has done X. It's because he was a singer and entertainer."

Indefensible ad hominem ( circumstantial ).

Now, a documented pattern of acts can inform the judgement of the future probability of another such act. But mere circumstances cannot.

If you claim this is Ad Hominem and fallacious, then I call your attention to the numerous instances on this board in which you refused to consider any proposition in which someone cited material from Michael Moore. You made it clear that you felt he was such an unprincipled and biased source that any material from him was of no value

Based on past ACTS, Jeff. Not on his past work history or even his adherence to the Democratic Party.

Can you tell a hawk from a handsaw?

- even if it was a bald presentation of factual material.

Yes. That'll happen some day.

You said so explicitly, even to the extent that you refused to read anything of his or see his movie, on that basis.

Yep. I also said I just don't find him entertaining or fun to watch. Which is mere personal opinion. It isn't advanced as an argument to explain his conduct.

Jeez.

Since your refusal to treat with anything Moore said was Ad Hominem, I suggest you either cede the point here that "who says it matters" in the context Cooney "enjoys", or retract the arguments you made consequent to denying validity of material presented by Moore, and cede the debates they were part of.

No, and no. Sorry 'bout that.

Otherwise, you're just trying to have your cake and eat it too: Ad Hominem only when it suits your purposes, otherwise piously pretending it's invalid.

And that you say so makes it true, hmm?

[jeff]

I saw a photographic image of amended text, and a transcript, and it was multiple changes, not just the one listed above. I saw all of this in print before seeing the thread here, so your assumption of ad hominem judgement is wrong. I learned of Cooney at the very moment I saw his handiwork: easily a half-dozen changes in two paragraphs, all softening or eliminating statements of environmental danger. I did not begin by looking at his Cooney's employment, as you incorrectly assumed.

Changing "is" to "may be" is not a significant change in your book? The former, attached to "guilty" is a conviction, the latter acquittal. It makes a big difference. There were multiple changes. I read them. They markedly weakened and changed the document.

Speaking of guilty vs. innocent, I see you now understand what I stated previously about jury instruction. Again, you assumed incorrectly.

I have no argument with Aristotle; in fact I feel bad that his logical lessons have been so poorly applied in partisan discussion, albeit with Latin quotes instead of his Greek. Above, in the material you seem to have ignored, you see where I say what is or is not intended as a statement of proof. Aristotle and I are on comfortable grounds together, but I think he might not like your misusing his work.

Saying so makes it true? Gee, you seem to like that method in your Socioeconomic posts: assertions repeated over and over again must be true, eh?