Re: [asa] What's so hot about fickle science?

Lindzen is a well known 'critic' of global warming. As one finds so
often, these critics have 'objections' which on closer scrutiny are
plainly wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Thus we see the following quote:

<quote>
If "global warming" is real and if man is responsible, why then do so
many "experts" need to rely on obviously fraudulent data?

The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the planet's climate history as
basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on
the end. Completely false.
</quote>

1. No fraudulent data
2. No sole reliance on the hockey stick data
3. the hockey stick data, still seems correct

I have rebutted these flawed arguments about the hockey stick in the
past, so it is regrettable to see them repeated here uncritically.

http://timlambert.org/2005/02/clueless-2/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/khilyuk_and_chilingar_the_gift.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/nas_report_on_hockey_stick_rel.php

Now remember that Lindzen served on the NAS committee which validated
the IPCC report and the Hockey stick data.

It's important that we as Christians understand the issues and do not
get confused by irrelevant or erroneous arguments such as the hockey
stick.

http://timlambert.org/2004/03/soundscience/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/

Observing that:
<quote>In summary, Lindzen's testimony regarding on climate
sensitivity is idiosyncratic at best, and certainly not supported by
the literature.</quote>

Of course, in the end, the vast amount of data, model simulations and
observations have clearly established that humans contribute
significantly to the observed global warming patterns.
Let's not be confused by the poor logic in the article Janice links.
The fallacies should be obvious, even to those unfamiliar with the
extent of scientific support contradicting its more 'scientific'
sounding claims.
Indeed, the science is solid. So why are some still accepting
uncritically flawed arguments about global warming?
What is so scary about science being correct once again? If one
believes this to be scary, imagine how scary it could be when
Christians, as Augustine pointed out, are observed spouting scientific
nonsense?
We have a duty to our faith and to science to be critical, skeptical
and realistic about scientific facts. Anyone willing to point out the
more obvious logical flaws in the article quoted by Janice?
Or check out Janice's #52 comment. Is that the kind of behavior we
want to see people connect to Christianity ? It's one thing to not
understand climate science.

On the positive side of things, it seems that most contributors to ASA
have come to realize and appreciate the solid foundation of global
warming and are standing up to educate fellow Christians about these
facts.

Praise the Lord I say... Praise the Lord.

On 2/4/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> There are some great links and comments in the thread below. My main
> comment is here (# 45) ---- for those interested. :)
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1778980/posts?page=45#45
>
> Then I have a couple other comments here (# 50 and 52):
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1778980/posts?page=50#50
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1778980/posts?page=52#52
>
> ~ Janice
>
> Mark Steyn: What's so hot about fickle science?
> Chicago Sun Times ^ | February 4, 2007 | Mark Steyn
> Posted on 02/04/2007 7:48:09 AM EST by Tom D.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778980/posts
> [refresh browser]
>
> From the "Environmental News Network": "Science Is Solid on Climate Change,
> Congress Told." "The science is solid," says Louise Frechette, deputy
> secretary-general of the United Nations.
>
> "The science is solid," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
>
> "The science is really solid," says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. "The
> science is very solid."
>
> And at that point, on "Larry King Live" last week, Richard Lindzen,
> professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: "Heidi says the science
> is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's
> talking about."
>
> Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the
> Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting
> faster than a coed's heart at an Al Gore lecture.
>
> Alas, the science isn't so solid. In the '70s, it was predicting a new ice
> age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers "climate change." If
> it's hot, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's cold, that's a sign of
> "climate change." If it's 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need
> to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because "climate
> change" is accelerating out of control.

Logical and scientific fallacy

> The silliest argument is the anecdotal one: "You only have to look outside
> your window to see that climate change is happening." Outside my window in
> northern New England last week, it was minus 20 Fahrenheit. Very cold. Must
> be the old climate change kicking in, right? After all, December was very
> mild. Which was itself a sign of climate change. A few years ago, the little
> old lady who served as my town's historian for many decades combed over the
> farmers' diaries from two centuries ago that various neighbors had donated
> to her: From the daily records of 15 Januarys, she concluded that three were
> what we'd now regard as classic New Hampshire winters, ideal for lumbering
> or winter sports; eight had January thaws, and four had no snow at all. This
> was in the pre-industrial 18th century.
>
> Today, faced with eight thaws and four entirely snowless Januarys, we'd all
> be running around shrieking that the great Gaia is displeased. Wake up and
> smell the CO2, people! We need to toss another virgin into the volcano. A
> virgin SUV, that is. Brand-new model, straight off the assembly line,
> cupholders never been used. And as the upholstery howls in agony, we natives
> will stand around chanting along with High Priestess Natalie Cole's classic
> recording: ''Unsustainable, that's what you are.''
>
> As we say in the north country, if you don't like the weather, wait five
> minutes. And if you don't like the global weather, wait three decades.
>
> For the last century or so, the planet has gone through very teensy-weensy
> warming trends followed by very teensy-weensy cooling trends followed by
> very teensy-weensy warming trends, every 30 years or so.

Logical and scientific fallacy

> And, even when we're in a pattern of "global warming" or "global cooling,"
> the phenomenon is not universally observed -- i.e., it's not "global," or
> even very local.

Logical fallacy, scientific fallacy

> In the Antarctic, the small Palmer peninsula has got a little warmer but
> the main continent is colder. Up north, the western Arctic's a little warmer
> but the eastern Arctic's colder. So, if you're an eastern polar bear, you're
> in clover -- metaphorically, I hasten to add. If you're a western polar
> bear, you'll be in clover literally in a year or two, according to AlGore.
>
> And, if you really don't like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A
> thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now.

Logical fallacy

> Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland
> and thought, "Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?" So they started
> farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries.
>
> Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died.
>
> A terrible warning to us all about "unsustainable development": If a few
> hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance
> the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards' new house must be wreaking.

Logical fallacy

> The question is whether what's happening now is just the natural give and
> take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town's early settlers understood
> it.

Logical fallacy, scientific fallacy

> Or whether it's something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast
> resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their
> best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world
> access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings.

Logical fallacy

> To the eco-chondriacs that's a no-brainer. As Mark Fenn of the Worldwide
> Fund for Nature says in the new documentary ''Mine Your Own Business'':
>
> ''In Madagascar, the indicators of quality of life are not housing. They're
> not nutrition, specifically. They're not health in a lot of cases. It's not
> education. A lot of children in Fort Dauphin do not go to school because the
> parents don't consider that to be important. . . . People have no jobs, but
> if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day
> that that family smiles. Then I put you with a family well off, in New York
> or London, and you count how many times people smile. . . . You tell me who
> is rich and who is poor."
>
> Well, if smiles are the measure of quality of life, I'm Bill Gates; I'm
> laughing my head off.
>
> Male life expectancy in Madagascar is 52.5 years. But Mark Fenn is right:
> Those l'il malnourished villagers sure look awful cute dancing up and down
> when the big environmentalist activist flies in to shoot the fund-raising
> video.
>
> If "global warming" is real and if man is responsible, why then do so many
> "experts" need to rely on obviously fraudulent data?
>
> The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the planet's climate history as
> basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the
> end. Completely false.
>
> In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing
> power: As a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South
> Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than
> Americans. That's why the climate-change computer models look scary.
>
> That's how "solid" the science is: It's predicated on the North Korean
> economy overtaking the United States.
>
> Could happen. Who knows?
>
> But that's the point: Who knows? You could take every dime spent by every
> government and NGO and eco-group to investigate "climate change" and spend
> it on Internet porn instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference
> to what the climate will be in 2050.
>
> However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
> "climate change" jet set.
>
> Which is why, even before latest new IPCC doomsday scenario was released,
> the Associated Press was running stories like: "New Climate Report Too Rosy,
> Experts Say."
>
> The AP's "science writer" warns that even this "dire report" is the
> "sugarcoated version." It's insufficiently hysterical, in every sense.
>
> (c) Mark Steyn 2007
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 4 14:12:13 2007