[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo previously]
Scholarly publication is a system designed to filter out an individual's bias.
Its not a perfect system, but over time it appears to work. I'm not sure what
an alternative would be. Suggestions?

[Platt]
Eternal vigilance.

[Arlo]
What you're promoting here is critical thinking. :-) And I wholeheartedly back
the idea that we should, under our own investigations, critically analyze as
much information as possible. But, I'd also say, there is simply too much out
there for me to research, review, interview, synthesize, and analyze all on my
own. When I read that Anna Nicole was found dead, I don't want to fly to LA (or
wherever), investigate the scene, talk to coroners, etc. We need to outsource
our agency on occasion. That seems unavoidable. The question remains, to whom?

[Platt]
Investigation of as many resources as possible with a skeptical attitude toward
all. Trust must be earned, not assumed.

[Arlo]
Yes, agreed. But what of, for example, that study I cited that showed that we
have a tendency to ignore or dismiss information that does not conform to our
prior assumptions. Pirsig called this the Harbor Effect, but the study
demonstrated that the more ideologically partisan a person was, the more s/he
failed to use reason in her/his discernment. How do we break people out of the
Harbor Effect? Can we? Should we?

[Platt]
But, the question you raise is an important one. Who can we trust when bias,
including our own, is part and parcel of the human condition?

[Arlo]
As I said, scholarly publication was designed with the forethought to eliminate
bias. And, as I've said, its not a perfect system, but it does appear to work
better than anything else I've seen. In other words, I trust the process of
scholarly research and publication. Its the best we've come up with.

[Platt]
So far on this site, Wikipedia seems to be widely accepted as a source. It's
articles appear to be fair and balanced, subject to change. That's the criteria
I use in choosing sources of information.

[Arlo]
I agree that Wikipedia is a valuable source, but for many things I'd recommend
looking for external support material. 

[Platt]
When a controversy arises, such as with global warming, I look to the minority
of the "experts" and investigative reporting to provide a balanced view. But,
as always, I can be wrong.    

[Arlo]
The problem is a "minority of experts" can be found to support any preconceived
view. You could find scientists who blame global warming on alien activity, or
others who believe the earth is only 6000 years old, still others who believe
the world is flat. So finding experts that match what we already want to
believe is quite simple, and one reason why critical thinking (which could be
reworded as skeptical analysis) is so important.