CAMPOS: Expertise comes with biases

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

June 11, 2008

6:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike846 writes:

Paul, a lot of these Leftist whacko ideas are driven by "moral imperatives". Its the same old "we know better than you whats good for you" theme. We're too stupid to do something about our weight ourselves, so the government needs to do it for us. We're too stupid to accept that man is the cause of global warming, so the government will mandate our response to the changes in climate. Of course, that means to tax the hell out of us as punishment for doing something the elitists find morally offensive (see: smoking debate for tactics). Its social engineering by fear and often not-so-good science. You're right when you say the true answer to a lot of this stuff is: we simply don't know. But then, not knowing has never stopped the nanny state before; why should anything change? Sadly, Mike
June 11, 2008

6:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

Alright, who kidnapped Campos did his piece for him?
June 11, 2008

6:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

ItsJustme writes:

An obvious ghost writer in for PC today. Who knew PC can actually be objective? Maybe he's trying out for that CU conservative spot.
June 11, 2008

7:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

Sure, blame science and scientists for the fact that plenty of important people form opinions and mold facts to fit their agenda, then force it onto the public as "scientific fact". It isn't that difficult to get informed about any subject, if you know how to search for actual scientific papers and have the patience to read them. The problem is that people expect messages to be regurgitated to them instead of figuring it out for themselves. Scientists are the first people who will tell you they don't know. It is part of their process that skepticism always prevail. Saying that scientists' bias is the problem is not putting the blame on the people who are doing the actual disservice. People like Al Gore who won a Nobel prize for propaganda, and all those who hoist him on their shoulders without reading both sides of the argument are to blame for exercises in futility, and will cause much more hardship than any actual crises.
June 11, 2008

8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Roader writes:

Dang...an almost perfect column from Campos! He did an admirable job presenting both sides of the obesity debate, but presented only one side of the global warming debate. Just one sentence would have clinched it:

"In other words, supposed environmental concerns about global warming are often actually moral objections to what those who voice such concerns consider a symptom of market economies and economic freedom."
June 11, 2008

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Madre2 writes:

I'm constantly amazed by people who weigh in on hardcore scientific issues from *political* standpoints. There is plenty of scientific data and visual/physical evidence to support global warming, including an internationally acclaimed body of work by scientists in Boulder working at CU and NCAR. But this evidence will never be enough for the flat-earthers whose opinions are based on a perverted sense of denial, scientific ignorance and political naivete.
June 11, 2008

8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

Holy my gosh! Professor Campos CAN write a thoughtful piece without resort to ad hominems and silly sports analogies.
This column could easily lead to a conversation about the modern identification of morality with health ...
June 11, 2008

9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

I'm constantly amazed by people who weigh in on hardcore scientific issues from *political* standpoints. There is plenty of scientific data and visual/physical evidence to support global warming, including an internationally acclaimed body of work by scientists in Boulder working at CU and NCAR. But this evidence will never be enough for the flat-earthers whose opinions are based on a perverted sense of denial, scientific ignorance and political naivete.
by madre2

You do not have to be a "flat-eathers" to question your great scientists...theories. Yes they are theories madre2.

If I am to believe that global warming is caused by man. Let the scientists tell me how the Ice Age melted by itself. Oh, it must have been man and his CO2 campfires warming the air and melting the ice.

The Earth has had global warming and global cooling going on since it's creation. Oh but man is sooo smart that he can cause the warming and now through the "green economy" solve the warming problem. (that they claim is a problem caused by man)

Third, what are presented as purely scientific positions are often moral judgments in disguise.

For once..Mr. Campos says it correctly.

Nuff Said!
June 11, 2008

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Science has proved that "global warming" ended 6-7 years ago, as global temperature first flat-lined then decreased, despite increased anthropolic CO2 emissions.

So why hold onto the failed Man-Made Global Warming theories?

Because it fits an agenda.
June 11, 2008

12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

That's funny, because I have yet to see any evidence that man influences global warming. The fact that global warming itself is questionable doesn't help. I've seen plenty of climate prediction models that say we're all doomed, but my palm reader disagrees and her evidence is more tangible. I've seen articles twisting scientific papers on end to make a completely unrelated point. I've even seen global warming on titles of articles discussing papers that have nothing to do with temperature, climate change, or man made emissions. Sadly, all it takes to forward an agenda is repetitive lies and name calling to silence those who might fight back. I for one am not willing to flush my children's future down the global warming toilet, hamstringing our economy, stagnating development, sacrificing freedom, and ending the American experiment.

I deal with these issues daily from an industry perspective, from a realized technology perspective, and from an economic perspective, and understand exactly how the "solution" will be forced down our throats by idiotic people who routinely equate coal power to oil independence, nuclear power to some movie they saw in the 70's, and scientific fact to Al Gore's smoke and mirrors. The fact that these sheep are so willing to feign moral indignation over something they probably couldn't understand, even if they put in effort into finding out for themselves, proves that humans as a species are incapable of accepting the concept of freedom. The majority prefers to be force fed, and will be more influenced by the number of smiles on a politicians face than the facts (or more appropriately the lack thereof) behind underlying issues.
June 11, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

...a well-written, surprisingly neutral column from...Campos of all people! Maybe he is starting to open his eyes.

I mean, I am a global warming naysayer...but for him to admit neutrality and suggest global warming might be an emotionally-based hoax is a start.
June 11, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

In other news, that makes three posts in a row (that I've seen) by froward69 that are either conservative or neutral.

The sky is falling.
June 11, 2008

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

VVVV, you just proved Paul Campos' point: You come to the global climate debate with a set of values and beliefs and derive your conclusions from them. Business and industry has as big a set of moral values and beliefs as the environmentalists you despise. If you think 6 billion people with their agriculture, animal husbandry, industry and technology have no effect on the global environment, you are being as arrogant as the environmentalists some of your allies accuse them of being. Of course, the earth has warming and cooling cycles, but to believe that we are too puny to affect those cycles is stupid. We are creating methane, CO2, and other warming gases in enormous quantities, while we are making the rain forests and other oxygen generators disappear. Globally, we use 85 million barrels of oil, approx. 10 million metric tons of coal, and aprox. 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. That's a lot of CO2 being added to whatever homeostatic systems govern climate.
June 11, 2008

4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

MrPeabody writes:

OMG. I column by Campos that I can agree with. Has hell frozen over or is it April 1st?

Perhaps you should stick to writing columns like this one where you actually are even handed in your approach and acknowledge things that some on both sides of the HCGW debate would rather leave unsaid - agendas drive most people.

FWIW, Campos is actually not the only one that has his suspicions about "conventional wisdom" on obesity or a host of other health and medical related topics.
June 11, 2008

5:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

One of Campos's best yet. Yes, even a blind squirel finds an acorn ones in a while. I do not suffer from obesity, and I am thankful for that. As most obese people do NOT want to be that way, they do NOT need a nanny to tell them what to do about it. Sometimes it is an eating disorder (the HARDEST to correct, as unlike alcohol, you cannot quit eating) sometimes it is metabolism or gland issues, sometimes it is an emotional problem and I am sure many more. I dont weigh in on homosexuality being a sin or not, as it is not an issue for me. Amazing how the PC liberal left accuse the Christians of hate behaviour when their nannyism is just as radically extreme.

I am a smoker and do wish the nannies would stay out of my smoking area, bedroom and wallet.

I do believe there are climate changes going on, but it is arrogent to think man has much to do with it. The facts just dont back that up.
Once again, if a nanny wants to walk everywhere or live 'green' wooot, go for it! Just dont blast me about global warming and what car I drive as I pop up to Aspen this weekend in my Hummer to get some surprise skiing in.
June 12, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

rjnova writes:

What's with Campos, this is his first even handed and thoughtful piece I have ever read. He is usually for Democrat social engineering and state nannyism. Who woulda thunk he questions global warming. The obeisity think is no ones business but a personal decision if a problem at all.

Obama says we use too much energy and eat too much and the current runup of costs is good for us. But I think we pay for every thing we use and do not recall anyone giving us oil or food or us stealing it. Both cost increases are the result of Democrats and their Enviro-Nazis supporters keeping us from our domestic oil and refineries.
June 13, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

Not a bad effort...a little obvious in its positions but simply and concisely stated. I would observe that he couldn't help making one unsupported assertion: "...it took me several years to develop genuine expertise about the relationship between weight and health." I don't agree that he has achieved genuine expertise other than in his own mind.

But that doesn't lessen the overall article, which was quite good.

On matters of science, I tend to follow the 'Scientific Method,' as unavoidable leveraged through the infrastructure of Big Science--primarily university, government, and business-sponsored R&D centers doing the work; with results captured and disseminated through hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Acknowledging hiccups at times, it usually works pretty well. Most people tend to agree...until the outcomes of acknowledged science conflict with their deeply held beliefs and prejudices.

Let's consider four current topics that have been the object of considerable and continuing scientific interest and research: 1) Climate Change, 2) Nuclear Energy, 3) Intelligent Design/Evolution, and 4) 9/11 Conspiracy. I chose those four because, as settled science, they range from substantial continuing debate, to absolutely slam-dunk decided.

Lets start with 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. The physical evidence put forth in its support has been thoroughly tested and absolutely debunked. The peer-reviewed results are demonstrable and repeatable, and explainable through the Laws of Physics and the principles of Materials Science. On a 0-100 scale, it gets a credibility rating of 0. (Yes, topic is not strictly straight science but selected because its evidence can tested through the scientific method, and because very few topics in science can ever be as absolutely settled).

[hmmm, just getting into this but am going to exceed the 3000 character limit. OK, will post, then continue]
June 13, 2008

9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

[…continued from previous]

Second, Intelligent Design (ID) and Evolution form an interesting pairing.

- ID, while it does have the support of a few actual scientists, exhibits the characteristics of Philosophy more than science. Indeed, it does not itself try to do science--it uses the terms and jargon of science in attempts to cast doubt on any evidence supporting Evolution, but provides no testable alternative explanations of its own. We'll give it a credibility rating of 0.09% (because, while there's no evidence for it, it can't be disproved through the scientific method either).

- On the other hand, Evolution is strongly supported as the fundamental explaining theory of the biological sciences. As is the case with all actual scientific theories, its evidence is constantly being challenged and tested, and the theory revised as better explanations are demonstrated. While the explanation of its processes and mechanisms continually evolve, Evolution's basic tenets and principles are as accepted in science as, say, the fundamental principles of the Theory of Gravity. On our 0-100 credibility scale, we'll put Evolution at 80 (not higher because there's still a lot to be explained).

Third, Nuclear Energy involves the most settled core science (nuclear physics) but it also has some of the most meaningful debate because of the long-term impact to society and the environment, plus the horrifically severe potential consequences for getting it wrong. And, while its direct science is testable, the extremely long time ranges involved in storage of nuclear waste (tens of thousands of years) mean direct proof of some of its most important postulates cannot be obtained by simple experimentation. Still, most of its problems are simply matters of physics, engineering, and materials science and, as such, they’re describable and solvable to a relatively high degree of assurance. Science credibility rating: 90. [continued…]
June 13, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

[…continued from previous]

I saved Global Climate Change until last until last because it’s the topic at hand. Compared to the rest of our topics, the theory of human-caused global climate change is fairly recent as a discrete field of study (dating from about the 1970s). Because it involves the interrelationships among of very large scale, very complex chaotic systems, its hypotheses are hard to demonstrate through simple experimentation. Thus, climate change shares the techniques of other fields with the same problem (i.e., particle physics, cosmology, etc.) --cycles of direct observation and analysis, followed by predictive modeling, followed by more observation to assess the reliability of the models, followed by further modification of models, followed by more observation, etc. (I’ve greatly simplified what actually happens of course).

The combination of these factors means the theory of human-caused global climate change has not yet approached the certainty of some of the other simpler and more mature sciences. Nonetheless, it has gained the support of most serious scientists in the field, changing from one possible hypothesis to by far the most likely theory that accounts for the evidence. As with all good science at this stage, there are serious and substantial alternative theories under test. These are being played out as new studies are published in the journals and debated.

There’s a sub-field of climate change probably best described as Climate Change Denial. This is analogous to Intelligent Design in that its primary purpose is more to challenge the evidence of an existing theory than develop support for a theory of its own. It does, however, have far more credibility than ID in that is has serious supporters, defensible hypotheses, and depends (at least the honest part of it) on the scientific method.

Rated separately on our science credibility scale, Human-Caused Global Climate Change is about 65-70. Climate Change Denial is about 10 (that is, a 100 times more credible than ID).

To summarize, our Science Credibility Ratings are (higher = greater credibility):

...00.00 -- 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
...00.09 -- Intelligent Design
...10.00 -- Climate Change Denial
...65.00 -- Global Climate Change
...80.00 -- Evolution
...90.00 -- Nuclear Energy (physics and engineering)

Sorry for the lengthy background explanation but I want to get all the info out there (and congratulations if you managed to stick around this long). So, it's simply my judgment and opinion(and I'm not presenting it as "Truth") that over the last ten years, the consensus of valid scientific opinion has settled on Human-Caused Global Climate Change as the most likely explanation for the measured shift in observed climatic conditions. It isn’t close to a certainty but, in the way science works, it is a solid consensus. [continued…]
June 13, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

[…continued from previous]

I’ve been spending a little time lately on issues around the Yucca Mountain National Nuclear Waste Repository (for the record, I’m for it as the best realistically achievable alternative...there are problems but it’s a lot better to bound those problems in one relatively isolated location than spread them around to dozens of locations, many in major population centers, around the country). There is thoughtful, science-based opposition to Yucca Mountain but, unfortunately the loudest volume is the least credible, coming from the far-left anti-nuclear-anything environmental movement (supported by assorted Nevada NIMBYs).

In tone and support, they exactly duplicate Climate-Change Deniers, ID'ers, and Paul Campos on Obesity. That is, they argue primarily by assertion, stating minority scientific opinions as the only scientific opinion, and granting no possibility of the legitimacy of opponents’ evidence and positions. By the way, there are also certainly many global warming absolutists (considerable overlap with the anti-nuke crowd) who share these characteristics... primarily by not admitting there’s a valid science against their favored 'Global Warming is Gonna Kill Us All!' position.

Oh well, time to wrap this up. While I’m an engineer familiar with and dependent on the scientific method, I wouldn’t describe myself as a scientist, and I certainly don’t claim personal expertise in atmospheric, meteorological, or climate studies (do you?). Likewise, I don’t claim expertise in Nuclear Physics or Biology (I do have substantial qualifications in materials science, statistical risk assessment and modeling, and information technology). Nonetheless, I do like to survey the scientific literature and keep up to date on current events and progress in a lot of different areas. Therefore, I consider myself qualified to make a layman's judgment on the relative merits of different claims about nuclear energy, evolution, and climate change (hmmm, and sometimes on health issues like obesity).

I often like Campos's contrarian views--adds interest and occasional insight to the debate. It's too bad his judgment of the evidence he'll accept to seems based more on how strongly he supports a position, than on the relative quality of the science. [End!]
June 16, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

oatis writes:

Paul: Don't get bogged down in the veracity of the "science" it is a given that fatness and climate change are highly polarized topics, made ever cloudier by the asinine prattle of advocates on all side of those issues.

Deal instead with solving problems.

Type 2 diabetes occurs much more often in sedentary fat people than in the rest of the population. What is the point of arguing about the latest "science" on obesity? If you are fat, lazy and eat poorly, you don't need a PHD to know you'll have to change.

It is established (yes, it really is) that carbon emissions contibute to the warming of the atmosphere: it is also established that the results of a warmer atmosphere will be terribly injurious to life on the planet. So the finer points of whether or not this is part of a "natural" cycle or not become moot. It is irresponsible to contribute to it, period.

You don't fret about why the creek is rising--you fill sandbags.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

CAMPOS: Expertise comes with biases

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links