Re: [asa] Creation Care

On 1/19/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> At 01:12 PM 1/19/2007, PvM wrote: On 1/19/07, Janice Matchett
> <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> @ The whole "global warming" thing is a political movement full of people
> trying to cash in on the latest "scare". ~ Janice

> Indeed, we have seen some good examples of political rather than scientific
> arguments about global warming based on cherry picking of data. I believe we
> all agree that we should avoid such fallacies. Of course global warming is
> also the findings by a well established scientific consensus based on
> extensive modeling and data. ~ Pim

> @@ You cherry-pick and quote the arrogant "scientists" who attempt to BS
> the uninitiated into swallowing the lie that "consensus" = "science", and
> I'll cherry-pick the intellectually honest, humble ones, to quote:

I hear your sentiment which seems to be lacking in supporting
evidence. I am sorry to hear that you are still struggling to
understand the science behind global warming and as a Christian I am
reaching out to you to help you 'see the light' so to speak. You
certainly have picked an interesting candidate to quote mine from.
More after his quote,

> "My lifetime study of Earth's climate system has humbled me. I'm convinced
> that we have greatly underestimated the complexity of this system. The
> importance of obscure phenomena, ranging from those that control the size of
> raindrops to those that control the amount of water pouring into the deep
> sea from the shelves of the Antarctic continent, makes reliable modeling
> very difficult, if not impossible. "
> http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/broecker/broecker.html
> (11 of 13) [02/12/2003 10:05:30] Wallace S. Broecker, "Will Our Ride into
> the Greenhouse Future be a Smooth One?" GSAΩToday 5/97 ~ Janice

Yes, it is remarkable that the more science uncovers, the more it
realizes that it understands so little. However, Broecker is hardly a
friend of those confused about global warming and has pointed out that
the risks may be amplified by the the fact that small changes may have
abrupt consequences, such as shutting off the conveyor belt. Now I am
sure that Janice is familiar with Broecker's work and since she seems
to be quoting him as an honest scientist, I am sure that she accepts
his position on global warming?

<quote>In 1975, Wallace Broecker published a paper entitled: "Climate
Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" (#1). The
opening sentence of the abstract reads "If man-made dust is
unimportant as a major cause of climate change, then a strong case can
be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so,
give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide." </quote>

> @ Those who insist that "consensus" is "science", are the same people who
> insist that "ID" isn't "science". ~ Janice

> ID isn't science because it is based mostly on our ignorance. And of course
> ID is just a minority position based mostly on poor science and cherry
> picking of data. ~ Pim

> @@ Your "scientific consensus" is based on IIIO (Ignorance In and
> Ignorance Out). Now THAT is ignorance and "cherry-picking of data" in the
> first magnitude. Dr Broecker again: "The climate record kept in ice and in
> sediment reveals that since the invention of agriculture some 8000 yr ago,
> climate has remained remarkably stable. By contrast, during the preceding
> 100,000 yr, climate underwent frequent, very large, and often extremely
> abrupt shifts. Furthermore, these shifts occurred in lockstep across the
> globe. They seem to be telling us that Earth's climate system has several
> distinct and quite different modes of operation and that it can jump from
> one of these modes to another in a matter of a decade or two. So far, we
> know of only one element of the climate system which has multiple modes of
> operation: the oceans' thermohaline circulation. ..Perhaps the mode shifts
> revealed in the climate record were initiated in the sea. This discovery
> complicates predictions of the consequences of the ongoing buildup of
> greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.. "
> http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/BroeckerWS1997.pdf

Wonderful, you quote Broecker in response to my factual observation
about ID. Can we say 'avoidance'.

> May I also ask Janice to refrain from name calling. Such as in the part she
> quotes [a parrot]. [snip] ~ Pim
> @@ You may... although I think you'd be embarrassed to be cherry-picking
> your "outrages" again.

So far, contrary to Janice, I have yet to be shown to be cherry picking.

> For instance, I didn't see you protesting the name-calling Michael engaged
> in at # 102797 on Panda's Thumb. LOL
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/yet_another_ver.html#comment-102797

Why should I be protesting this instance when it was not even my
thread at PT? Are you now holding me responsible for things I am not
even aware off?

>
> In fact. other than Fumento's quote, I have not been able to find an
> independent verification of Wirth's statement. Perhaps Janice can point us
> to such a source? After all the accusation of Wirth deserves some real
> supporting evidence. But maybe I am old fashioned. ~ -Pim
> @@ "Old fashioned"??? Maybe just plain "old" and confused . LOL I
> provided what you say you can't find in my previous post. Here it is again:

Same reference but not an independent one. Nevertheless, as I have
shown Wirth's quote hardly excuses you calling him a liar...

So Janice, now that I have documented so many examples of your cherry
picking of data, including Broecker, I am curious as to what your
position is on ID? Would be interesting to see you support your
assertions with some facts for once.

Despite the hard work and research, I appreciate the opportunities
Janice has presented to me and others: By researching and uncovering
the vacuities of her 'quotes' I have learned a lot about the topic of
global warming that leads me to conclude that global warming deniers'
case is one mostly build on smoke and mirrors. Pacific decadal
oscillations, solar components to heating, and many more myths or
confusions have been effectively laid to rest thanks to Janice's
postings. Now I can accept that she was unaware of the sloppiness of
the research she was quoting and I hope that my warnings will help her
find the truth behind global warming. That's the least I can do as a
fellow Christian
As Christians we should worry affiliating ourselves with poor science
like this, unless we insist on violating the wise warnings by St
Augustine. If Janice has any more issues that may confuse her or that
she questions, I am more than willing to do the research to provide an
in-depth response.

In Christ

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 20 00:07:40 2007