Climate Debate Daily

> Editors: Douglas Campbell and Denis Dutton
> Douglas Campbell is currently completing a Ph.D in philosophy at the University of Arizona while teaching philosophy at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.  He has degrees in computer science and biology, and has worked as a wildlife ranger with endangered species.  His areas of philosophical expertise include logic and the philosophy of science.  He is impressed by the breadth and depth of the scientific evidence supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and thinks that to the extent that the science remains uncertain the Precautionary Principle still justifies even relatively costly mitigation measures.  Like Prof. Dutton, he is, however, open to being led by logic and good evidence to whatever the truth may be.  His optimistic hope is that Climate Debate Daily will help focus minds on the very best arguments from both sides of the debate and help put the poor arguments (of which there are many!) to rest.
> Denis Dutton is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.  He founded and edits the Johns Hopkins University Press journal, Philosophy and Literature, and the well-known website, Arts & Letters Daily.  At the University of Canterbury he has recently introduced a new course on the distinction between science and pseudoscience.  Dr. Dutton is skeptical about the degree to which human activity has contributed to the general warming trend that began in the 1880s. He adds, however: "Working at the university where Karl Popper taught in the 1930s and 40s, I am more than a little aware of the way that good scientific hypotheses must always be open to falsification. The best way for science and public policy to proceed is to keep assessing evidence pro and con for anthropogenic global warming. That is the idea behind Climate Debate Daily." Denis Dutton's personal website is here.

        The scientist who pointed out this Climate Debate Daily to me added:-
                this has done nothing to reduce my confusion on the matter.

        The answer to that is: you were not meant to become less confused.  The smokescreen of overwhelming amounts of very confusing pseudo-science has now overwhelmed even the most diligent inquirer.  Confusion suits the purposes of the coal, oil, gas etc industries as well as your aligning with the deniers.
        In this case the inquirer is a mature, accomplished scientist, M.Sc and then successful in computer programming (the fate of many promising scientists of my generation).
        A study group of retirees ('U3A') on ecology recently viewed a very polished DVD 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' produced by a PR agency I'd not heard of (safely assumed to be funded by large coal &/or large oil &/or large nookuluh, and other industries who desire confusion about climate change).  I remarked to that group of a dozen how sorry I am for those not trained in science who are struggling to make sense of the IPCC and its critics.

        The enterprise CDD® is stated to be controlled thusly:
 Editors: Douglas Campbell and Denis Dutton
        I know nothing of D Campbell except his modest declaration (above) which aligns with what I'd say about myself.
        But I would like Dutton's record in editing to be better known, and so I circulate the following note as I have repeatedly for  years without Dennis' responding (I have inferred that he concedes its truth). 
        Some recent MannGrams have emphasised the crucial role of experts in democracy: especially on arcane technical matters, science should provide disinterested advice.  The world needs, more acutely than ever, reliable scientific description, predictions, and interpretations of not only climate change but also nuclear power, LNG, and of course gene-tampering.  But the past few decades have degraded scientific advice to the status of a commodity.  Millions flow thru PR agencies which most citizens have never heard of, hiring mercenary experts and setting up pseudo-grassroots fronts for propaganda.  Some people qualified in science emit very sophisticated deceit in this corrupt scene.  In such a context it matters crucially that editors be honest.  I again challenge editor Dutton to desist from his 'honest editor' pose, and I would like to hear more on how Campbell's finely-stated ethical posture is working out.

                                12 Sep 1993
Dr D Dutton, NZSCIOP
c/ University of Canterbury
Christchurch 1

Dear Dennis Dutton,
            You'll recall the main facts leading to my quitting your
organisation.  You published Vincent Gray's ignorant and thoroughly
source-free polemic against science-based conservationism; to which I sent
a brief response whose small list of sources was then purged before
publication.  Since one of my main criticisms of Gray was his failure to
refer to any respectable scientific sources (he can't), you will at least
understand my resentment at being made to appear as if I similarly can't
(having mentioned sources - e.g  Ehrlich & Ehrlich  -  which have been edited out, without my knowledge).
        What I want to know therefore is who framed me in that way.  The
obvious possibilities are yourself and entrepreneuse Viki Hyde ['technical
editor' at the time]; but, for all I know, someone less obvious may have
done it.  Is it important who at the time bore the title 'editor' [viz
  In any case I would of course be interested to learn your own view
of this matter.

       I think it best to let you know that I am contemplating various
uses of this case-history in my continuing work on reconciling science with
Christianity.    Scientism  -  the ludicrous pretence to believe that the
scientific method is the sole means of knowledge   -   evidently exerts
much influence in the group which you publicly represent; it is in my
opinion no mere coincidence that such science as I observed within the
group was poor, Brockie being only one extreme case.

       The recent TV screening of 'South Pacific', my favourite musical,
rivetted me with the plantation-owner's ultimate question, which the yanks
couldn't answer: "what are you for ?".   Apart from its crucial
application to the monstrous decadence from which you are a refugee [Dutton
is from Calif], I believe it can usefully be applied by each to himself.
     Therefore I am happy to commend to you William Temple's notion of
'dialectical realism'.  He disavows intention to found a school of
philosophical thought, but I think he deserved to achieve that, and for me
he did.

        [Dutton gave no written reply but only phoned me in response, and evaded the central q.   I assume he was covering up for Hyde, who soon afterward deep-sixed by dishonest methods an article of mine on DNA structures.  These are just a couple of glimpses of the vindictiveness & dishonesty of militant atheists & feminazis such as have now become v influential in governing our country.]


        Dutton has sought a role of active promotor of gene-tampering, at least for a period in the NZ media.
        This man can not be trusted as an objective editor of the climate-change smokescreen.

L. R. B. Mann  M.Sc  Ph.D
applied ecology
22a Ardern Ave., Stanmore Bay 0932, New Zealand
(9) 424 0808