My Photo
Name:
Location: United States

I am a 1967 graduate of The Citadel (Distinguished Military Student, member of the Economic Honor Society, Dean's List), a 1975 graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.Div., magna cum laude, member of the Phi Alpha Chi academic honor society); I attended the Free University of Amsterdam and completed my History of Dogma there and then received a full scholarship from the Dutch government to transfer to the sister school in Kampen, Holland. In 1979 I graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Churches of Holland (Drs. with honors in Ethics). My New Testament minor was completed with Herman Ridderbos. I am also a 2001 Ph.D. graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (Systematic Theology) in Philly with a dissertation on the "unio mystica" in the theology of Dr. Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). I am a former tank commander, and instructor in the US Army Armor School at Ft. Knox, KY. I have been happily married to my childhood sweetheart and best friend, Sally, for 43 years. We have 6 children, one of whom is with the Lord, and 14 wonderful grandchildren.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

We’re All Going to Burn Up—or Freeze to Death!

In the last three issues of Ethos, we have been discussing Donald Miller’s love affair with the Democratic Party and President O’Bama. Miller, and others like him, has decided that it’s conscionable for a Christian to vote for a man who believes that partial birth abortion is acceptable and, in fact, voted for it twice while an Illinois state senator. Moreover, it was a well-known fact during the campaign that Mr. O’Bama had the most liberal voting record in Congress. That’s right, our president’s voting record was even more liberal than those of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi. I mentioned in previous editions that Emergent church tribe member Miller believes matters such as global warming and poverty are more important currently than abortion or same-sex marriage.

Many in what is still called the “evangelical” church believe that Miller might have a point. Therefore, they want to appear to be on the cutting edge of modern church life, so they have jumped on the bandwagon of global warming. There are a number of issues facing the evangelical church such as universal health care, deficit spending, bailouts, government takeovers of banks and GM, but these are rather dull, drab, and dry issues. For some pastors, we need to be concerned about global warming—Oh, wait! I forgot. The new phrase is “climate change.” I wanted to use it quickly before the pundits and “experts” change it on us. There are some, who call themselves evangelicals, that have joined the ranks of “hand wringers” about certain “hot-topic” items in the evangelical community, such as poverty and global warming. For example, both Brian McLaren and Rick Warren are signatories on “The Evangelical Climate Initiative,” which bears the subheading: “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.” The only reason Jim Wallis didn’t sign it is because he was busy doing the “heavy lifting” exegesis on the issue and finding a way to blame Bush for killing Elvis and Michael Jackson.

Motivated by “consensus” and scientists who get big government grants to toe the party line, some evangelical leaders have been willing to get on board the junk science bandwagon. To hear these evangelicals talk, you’d think they were our elected officials, who believe that global warming is a “fact.” and that the debate is over. As Glenn Beck aptly points out, “‘The debate is over’ is a line that’s used only by those who realize they would never win a debate.”[1] But no one seems either to know or to care about what is really happening. For instance, in the January 19, 2009 issue of Human Events, Max Schulz wrote an article entitled, “Ignore Environmentalist Delusions About California.” He points out how President Obama has urged other states to follow California’s “green” policies. He continues, “Obama’s remarks naturally drew praise from environmental groups, which have long hailed California as a shining example of expanding the economy while protecting the environment.” (pp. 1 & 10.) Conveniently, environmentalists and “We the People” forget the rolling blackouts due to the fact that California cannot—or will not—produce its own energy. The dirty little secret about Green California is that it “imports lots of energy from neighboring states to make up for the shortfall caused by having too few power plants.” (p. 10.) The other dirty little secret is that when California imports its energy it does so from coal-burning plants in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Montana. (p. 10.) Businesses have fled California in droves due to the excessive and unreasonable taxes and restrictions placed on them and the high price of “green” endeavors.

But since Mr. O’Bama is our first truly green president, it is understandable that the certifiably insane measures of California would appeal both to him and to the Emergent church movement. Why, who wouldn’t want to live in the Golden State when we have a dam that is 95% complete, but work has been halted because the “greenies” have litigation pending because they fear that the smelt—a three inch fish!—would be endangered by this dam, even though they have been assured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that smelt are adequately protected.[2] But why should such silly things as facts deter an ideologue?

What is most disconcerting is that the New Evangelical Left is enamored of the likes of President O’Bama, Al Gore, and Rick Warren. Dr. Roy Spencer is a former-climatologist with NASA and an atmospheric scientist. In other words, Dr. Spencer knows almost as much as Al Gore and Michael Moore about these matters. Nobody knows more than President O’Bama, Tim Geithner, and Rick Warren though. In Spencer’s book, Climate Confusion, he chronicles a great deal of what is bogus, wrong, and just outright lies in the current climate debate.[3] The subtitle of his book is to the point.

Spencer contends that “Fear is gradually replacing reason as a motivating force for societal change…”[4] If the proponents of global warming/climate change expect us to follow them then reason dictates that they follow this maxim: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”[5] We have some hypotheses, but to date no one has presented the evidence. The notion of “consensus” doesn’t cut it. Some gullible folks might buy into such a notion, but it is not scientific.

One of Mark Twain’s aphorisms stated that “everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it.” Which is precisely why the so-called environmental movement has led to billions of taxpayer dollars being invested in “studies” on climate. In addition, the media is complicit in the sordid arrangement—and so are our good friends at the United Nations. The U.N. issued a consensus statement about global warming signed by 2,000 scientists. That’s pretty impressive until you discover that there were actually 31,000 scientists who thought it was all bunk.[6] Oh, well, what’s a 29,000 scientist difference among ideologues? Do you ever get the impression you’re being lied to? To the modern environmentalists’ credit, this is not a new thing. Ideologues have been lying to us for years. And to make matters worse, these “experts” always deliver their junk with authority, and where possible, in a movie. For example, Art Bell wrote a book entitled The Coming Global Superstorm. Someone in Hollywood was impressed—you know, like Sean Penn or Barbra Streisand—and soon a movie was made: The Day After Tomorrow. Both the book and the movie capture modern man’s fascination with global climate catastrophes and give the distinct impression that Bell’s book was based solely on irrefutable facts.

Spencer is convinced that fears about the environment have come to two related ideas. Together they have served to convince us that we’re dealing with rock solid facts. What are those notions? First, Spencer explains, there is the belief “that the Earth is fragile and needs to be protected, even to the detriment of humans if necessary. Many people feel like the climate system is being pushed beyond its limits, past some imaginary tipping point from which there will be no return.”[7] My, how could anyone have ever gotten such an idea? We’ll examine this in subsequent installments.

Second, Spencer contends that many are convinced “that the increasing wealth of nations is bad for the environment. Since technology and our desire for more stuff are to blame for environmental problems, we should renounce our modern lifestyle.”[8] Does any of this sound remotely familiar? It could have been extracted from a speech delivered by President O’Bama!

Therefore, in the ensuing installments we will lay a biblical foundation of the environment, paying particular attention to the pre-Fall situation in the covenant of works and how sin impacted all of God’s creation. We’ll also take looks at two doom-and-gloom “experts” from the past Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich and how their premises and predictions proved false, but were still accepted by the early environmentalists, including former-President Carter, who are not above making some bogus predictions of their own.

The question that will guide us is whether the modern evangelical is acting wisely by asserting that global warming is a more important ethical issue than abortion and same-sex marriage.


[1] Beck, Common Sense, 17.

[2] See Steve Milloy, Green Hell, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2009), p. 70.

[3] Roy Spencer, Climate Confusion. How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor, (NY: Encounter Books, 2008).

[4] Ibid., viii.

[5] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[6] Milloy, GH, 5-6.

[7] Spencer, CC, 2.

[8] Ibid.



Labels:

48 Comments:

Blogger Susan said...

So that is probably why many Emergents like Tickle are embracing a myth view of Genesis 1 - 11 and are clamoring to theistic evolution/pre-adamic race, there's no Fall/original sin, it's more of a collective. The personal or individual seems to be removed. I've actually heard a "gospel" presentation that man's broken relationship with God was due to man's not caring for creation as he should have???? There was no mention of personal repentance.

I'll be interested in reading your next post about this.

6:06 AM  
Blogger wordsmith said...

I am convinced that these loonies' real agenda is control, not environmentalism or global climate change or what have you. They want to bring about their marxist/socialist utopia, and the environmental nonsense is just a convenient vehicle for that.

6:23 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Susan,
Exactly! Tickle's tickle isn't funny at all. Yes, the argument has been put forward that if Al Gore had been around at Creation, we wouldn't be in this "mess." But wait, is the "mess" real? Is the mess made by Mother Earth or man? Steve Milloy's "Green Hell" is a great read.
Personal repentance is sooooo yesterday!! How can I engage the Neo-pagan culture and talk about repentance?

Wordsmith,
You nailed it! Exactly!

You see, folks, this proves my point: women are almost human. Now ladies, it's time to get back to the kitchen!
Seriously, if we had more women like you two ladies we would be a lot better off.

7:29 AM  
Blogger donsands said...

"Seriously, if we had more women like you two ladies we would be a lot better off."

Yep.

We have Sarah Palin, maybe as out next president?

Wonderful article. You nail it down. thanks for fighting the good fight of faith.
It all comes back around to the Scriptures, and the Gospel.

3:54 PM  
Blogger randy buist said...

Ron.
One. This is a political rant. It has very little to do with the biblical text.
Two. If you disregard science, you are a loony. You choose science when it works for your body and your doctor. You disregard science when it doesn't work with your theological position or your politics.
Three. Why is the only life that matters to you those who are unborn?

7:57 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

Randy,

You're a fine one to talk about ignoring biblical text. Besides, despite the keening of the left, global warming is NOT settled science. Plenty of climatologists, meteorologists and other scientists take issue with what's become a political bludgeon.

Some of us have actually taken the time to study leftist tactics in world history. The "crisis du jour" is always very, very useful in accomplishing your real agenda.

Read Saul Alinsky and you'll know what I'm talking about.

11:02 AM  
Blogger ScottO said...

Randy,

It is amazing to read your visceral and emotional reactions to what Ron writes which in most cases reveal more about your own presuppositions and biases than anything else. Let us dissect what you have written.

One - Ron states at the end of the post "in the ensuing installments we will lay a biblical foundation of the environment". Did you not read this? This post is an introduction that provides the thesis and opening statements. The Biblical text's and proofs are to follow in later posts. Job's advice in 13:5,6 would be good for you to apply.

Oh that you would keep silent,
and it would be your wisdom!
Hear now my argument
and listen to the pleadings of my lips.


Is it not possible for you to hold your tongue/comments until Ron has presented his argument? For whatever reason you seem to be incapable of restraining yourself to provide a rational and Biblical argument for your position. It would be good for you to take to heart Pro 17:28,

Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.


Two - This is poor argumentation which is full of assertions without any supporting proof. You state that "If you disregard science, you are loony." First in the particular you have provided no supporting argument that Ron disregards science. In fact he references science within the post therefore your proposition is unsupported by the facts. In addition, in the general you made no argument to support the conclusion. For instance, Jesus has no overt Biblical statements recorded about His regard for science. So by your own standard you would consider Christ loony. Do you still want to stand by that assertion?

Next you make a pair of accusations but I will deal with only the second. The thesis that Ron has put forth is exactly the statement that you made only flipped back toward the evangelical left. The evangelical left, which apparently you are a part of, "disregard science when it doesn't work with your theological position or your politics." Either you have not read the article thoroughly, comprehend it, or some combination thereof. In the unlikely event you were making an attempt to throw Ron's assertion back at him you have provided no supporting argument. Whereas Ron is building his argument, where is yours? At this point in time it is non-existent. You have not demonstrated that Ron disregards science when it disagrees with his theological or political position. Please provide the argument and proof.

Three - A loaded question that displays the narrative and framework that you are working from based on your presuppositions. The proof that Ron cares about the living is by virtue of the fact that he is pastoring a church (which reaches to the lost and provides sustenance to the elect), writing articles and books. He is demonstrating daily that that lives of the living matter to him. In fact your life apparently matters to him because he permits you to post on his site and attempts to persuade you and others of your ilk the folly of their errant theology. I find it fascinating that you are so wedded to your caricature of the religious right that you are blind to the fact that it is you that restricts your thinking to very small box. In addition I have to point out the arrogance of the question because it presupposes that you are in possession of the knowledge of what lives "matter" to Ron. Are you clairvoyant? Do you have a special window to Ron's heart?

As a suggestion, from now on when you read one of Ron's posts take a deep breath, use your mind and do not respond with raw emotion. Take the time to formulate a cogent argument so that you can contribute to the "conversation". If you can not do that then I would examine yourself and see if Biblically you are acting as a "great follower of Jesus".

9:06 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

Scott,

Enjoyed -- and agree with -- your rebuttal. However, I would remind us all of one thing. Postmoderns like Randy abhor logical, syllogistic argument. Their statements are not intended to actually engage in argument to find the truth of an assertion. As Phil Johnson says in his excellent series on postmodernism and the Emergent Church, that's not the point of the exercise. It would take more time to explain than I have this morning, but his comments are intended to do nothing more than throw a glob of gum in the fan. You could find a passage of Scripture, buttress it with other supporting Scriptures and reveal a crystal clear biblical truth, yet Randy and his cohorts will insist that it's not clear, and then bring up a whole host of non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with the original discussion.

8:07 AM  
Blogger sister said...

We should probably cut Randy a little bit of slack today. He's right about one thing: it is a political rant. A poorly written one. The thesis, which has very little to do with the rest of the article, seems to hint that the forthcoming doctrinal expostion will justify the preceding political and pseudo-scientific ramblings.

12:11 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Dr. Cynthia E. Rosenzweig, current Senior NASA Research Scientist (in other words, she knows almost as much as Dr Roy Spencer):

"There are multiple lines of evidence that human-induced climate change is happening now, and the impacts are being seen now."

"...we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents."




Dr. John R. Christy, University of Alabama, Huntsville, and co-winner of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, with Dr Roy Spencer (in other words, he knows almost as much as Dr Ron Gleason):

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties.
However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring."




Dr Roy Spencer, former Senior NASA Research Scientist (who, by the way, only a few years back, denied that global warming was occurring... a position that he has since reversed, and which caused him to be widely ridiculed in the scientific community, and to be largely ignored by many of his peers):

"A misinterpretation of cloud behavior has led climate modelers to build models in which cloud feedbacks are instead positive, which has led the models to predict too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions."


Solameanie, blogger extraordinaire:

"...global warming is NOT settled science."



So, it seems, the debate about whether or not global warming -sorry, "climate change" - has occurred IS over. The only remaining debate is about whether or not the cause is anthropogenic (moot), and about what it's forthcoming effects will be... and these guys can't even tell me with any certainty whether or not it's going to rain on the weekend. I can't wait for rattlesnake to settle the debate once and for all.

12:14 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Ps. Sorry I came to late to weigh in on your bit about health care. Truly disturbing. Next time, I suppose...

12:18 PM  
Blogger sister said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:18 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

Sister,

Nice to hear from you again. I can only say that for every climatologist etc. you can put up, I can find others with just as many degrees and titles who disagree with the global warming scenario. I really do believe this is more of a political issue to accomplish a political purpose more than anything else.

From my understanding, it's not necessarily that there haven't been cyclical warming and cooling trends. The question is: is it really human-caused, and is it really the crisis that they're making it out to be. One degree over a hundred years or however long its been seems hardly something to panic about.

5:38 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Solameanie,

That's the point. You got it. Again. We don't know. I quoted chose the three accredited scientists to show the contrasting opinions. The reason why I quoted you is because I agree with you. We just don't know. The smartest and best educated people in the world can't figure it out... how can I presume that we should be able to within the confines of Rattlesnake's blog?

We shouldn't.

On one side, people warn that the sky is falling. On the other, they reassure that there is no sky to fall. I think I'll go about my business... but in the interim, I might just carry an umbrella.

6:59 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

I can't help but be reminded of the Alar scare with Washington apples a few years ago. It fizzled. Back in the 1970s we were all going to be living in igloos due to a new Ice Age.

For me, I have to rely on what I can trust, which is God's Word, specifically 2 Peter 3:10. Now THAT's what I call global warming.

Sorry. My rather sardonic sense of humor leaps out no matter how much I try to keep it leashed.

7:06 PM  
Blogger ScottO said...

Sister,

I am not sure where you think you are going with your expert quotes because they do not prove the assertion that global warming/climate change is settled science or that temperatures are warming or cooling due to athropogenic causes. Dr. Rosenzweig's quote is only an assertion with no proof. Dr. Christy only states that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is presently increasing due to man which is not in dispute. Even though CO2 can cause a radiative increase in temperature the entire response of the climate to this radiative effect could be warming/no effect/cooling due to the negative feedback of the entire climate system. Some scientists believe the negative feedback to any increase in anthropogenic CO2 increases is minimal to known. Your quote from Dr. Roy Spencer also does not support the assertion because what is being stated is that the global warming proponents do not take into account negative feedback into the system or they make the feedback into the system positive or more positive in their models to predict a greater anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Cloudcover is a negative which provides cooling which can be an effect of greater CO2 concentration; as the temperature warms more cloud cover, temperature drops, the climate comes back to an equilibreum. One of the prevailing theories is that sun spot activity may be the equilibreum determiner but we are have not been able to precisely scientifically determine that for a fact because it is unsettled science.

You might want to go bone up on your science and read the abstract at the following website(s) which has 31,478 scientists signing it, which declares the following:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

"The computer climate models upon which "human-caused global warming" is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex. Figure 19 illustrates the difficulties by comparing the radiative CO2 greenhouse effect with correction factors and uncertainties in some of the parameters in the computer climate calculations. Other factors, too, such as the chemical and climatic influence of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modeled.
In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century – an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, hydrocarbon use has risen 6-fold. Yet, this rise has had no effect on the temperature trends, which have continued their cycle of recovery from the Little Ice Age in close correlation with increasing solar activity.
Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed experimental tests, it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to greenhouse gases nullifies the slight initial temperature rise."

"Thus, the 3,000-year temperature record illustrated in Figure 1 also provides a test of the computer models. The historical temperature record shows that the Earth has previously warmed far more than could be caused by CO2 itself. Since these past warming cycles have not initiated water-vapor-mediated atmospheric warming catastrophes, it is evident that weaker effects from CO2 cannot do so."

"The "human-caused global warming" – often called the "global warming" – hypothesis depends entirely upon computer model-generated scenarios of the future. There are no empirical records that verify either these models or their flawed predictions (96)."

7:32 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Scott,

You might want to go "bone up" on your reading comprehension skills if you're not sure where I'm going with those expert quotes, since you've essentially paraphrased, then expanded upon, the assertion that I made: these are theories that have been neither proven nor disproven.

You might want to "bone up" on your science too, since all three of the aforementioned accredited scientists seem to disagree with your assertion that anthropogenic causes have not contributed to or affected global warming. The remaining questions are (and I'll repeat): how much, and to what end?

"The computer climate models upon which "human-caused global warming" is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Try to stay with us, ScottO... Trust me, we'll find other stuff to fight about.

8:51 PM  
Blogger sister said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:01 PM  
Blogger sister said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:03 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Solameanie,

If you had the opportunity to read that last post before I deleted it, please recognize it for its triviality... as a subjectively clever joke that just didn't work.

Thanks!

9:59 PM  
Blogger ScottO said...

Sister,
I posted before I saw your post in which you clarify what you meant. I will try to keep up from now on.

But that being said you need to read the abstract in its totality and I posted the pertinent section for you but a layperson can grasp it:

"Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed experimental tests, it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to greenhouse gases nullifies the slight initial temperature rise."

Maybe it is you that need remedial reading. The data is there for you to read if you would take the time. Also it is not just my assertion but that of 31,078 scientists. Take it or leave it. But I guess you want to leave it, since you are convinced that anthropogenic causes are causing global warming/climate change. Again the quotes that you gave did not prove that Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy accept anthropogenic climate change. I explained why they did not. Try some others quotes or grab some other experts.

Now back to your previous post. You have created a straw man when you characterize those that reject the global warming/climate change hypothesis that we "reassure that there is no sky to fall." That is not the argument nor is it our point which is that the science does not prove the theory espoused. But even if it did it would not be catastrophic. We would and will accept the science where ever it leads because God is sovereign. In addition, when those on the other side stay wedded to the theory in the face of mounting evidence against them then we assert that it must be that they do so because what they truly desire is the political means and ends that they demand for the catastrophe that they claim they will divert. I believe you are also missing the point that it is the climate doomsayers and the evangelical left are the ones who claim it is settled science. At present the climate science is in fact unsettled and may never be 100% settled due to its complexity (that much we agree on). The preponderance of evidence at present does not prove their theory (we disagree here but you have the right to be mistaken). My position and I believe it will be Ron's is that God did not create a fragile earth that is hanging in the balance of man's actions. For instance if we really believe in a sovereign Triune God then how is it that we as man, a created creature are we going to throw a hiccup into His creation? (What is man that thou art mindful of him? Psa 8) Do we believe we can change God's will? Do we really think we have that power? Do we believe that we invented the internal combustion engine without his aid and He was unaware? Did Jesus forget to mention this evil sin of using too much carbon when He was here on earth? Did the Holy Spirit forget to inspire the writers of the canon on this important sin? I could go on......

Those of us on the religious right do acknowledge that there is a sky to fall and it does not come from climate change but it is that from sin, man's corrupt and sinful nature. That is the real scourge upon civilization. Since man is wicked he is always looking for ways that he can be god. Which is what I was attempting to point out in the previous paragraph. In addition we believe that one can "know", "presume" and determine much from Biblical exegesis foremost and the body of scientific evidence secondarily what is true to the degree that we see through a glass darkly. So yes, you as a christian can presume that there is an answer and it can be determined from within the confines of scripture and from God's revealed creation. The truth may become evident to you at Rattlesnakes blog. You might be surprised. I will leave the scriptural exegesis to Dr. Gleason to support his thesis and will throw my two cents worth in where appropriate unless someone would like me..., never mind:^)

10:10 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Scott,

Keep trying, 'cause you're not keeping up.

Indeed, it is you that needs remedial reading. The data is there for you to read if you would take the time. In fact, the data is there for all of us to read if we would take the time. The trouble is that everybody seems to interpret the data differently. This was the very reason why I chose those three accredited scientists: to demonstrate the contrasting opinions. It was Rattlesnake himself who introduced us to Dr. Spencer as his sole scientific reference. It's important to accentuate the varying opininons of his peers: indeed the person with the more current qualifications and stature, and the person who has worked most closely with him in his research. If it's such an open and shut case as you claim, how did they reach such different conclusions?

Thank you, though, ScottO, for the brilliant lesson is subjectivity. Please refer to this link for a dose of realism. When you pare down the high school teachers, the PhD's in, say, divinity or the effect of Beatlemania in Popular Culture, and those who were accredited within the last, i don't know, 30 years, you're left with maybe a couple hundred people who actually know what they're talking about... and those people wouldn't speak with the same certainty that you do about the subject.

Your profile says you're an engineer... ok, you might be qualified to help develop the controls (and that's a really, really big "might") , but YOU ARE MOST CERTAINLY AND EVIDENTLY NOT QUALIFIED TO INTERPRET THE DATA. (did I get enough accentuation in there?)

Let me be clear. Again. Dèja Vu.

I am NOT "convinced that anthropogenic causes are causing global warming/climate change."

My assertion has been, and continues to be that a)anthropogenic causes might have, in some way, contributed to global warming/climate change, and b) that noone, not even the illustrious Scott0 can claim to know what the effect of global warming will be (anthropogenic or otherwise). Are you still confused?

10:59 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

Sister,

I didn't see it, as I just now logged on to see what was going on in this meta. But I'll take your word for it. :)

All this talk about reading comprehension and remedial reading makes me want to go grab the closest Henry James novel and take a day at the lake.

7:31 AM  
Blogger ScottO said...

Sister,

My we are getting a bit touchy. Talk about a “rant”. Why don't you try to discuss this rationally?

The "trouble is that everybody seems to interpret the data differently." Not true. This is a hasty generalization. There are two primary camps, a group that believes the data points to anthropogenic global warming/climate change and a group that believes that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that at this time.

"Rattlesnake himself who introduced us to Dr. Spencer as his sole scientific reference." Not true. He referenced 31,000 US scientists. Now whether he is referencing this 31,000 in the Global Warming Petition Project or any of the other scores of scientists who do not believe the evidence to date points to anthropogenic global warming I am not sure.


"If it's such an open and shut case as you claim, how did they reach such different conclusions?" As I have previously stated you have not produced anything that shows that Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer disagree. Just because one says A and the other says B (I have explained why the quotes are not comparative and why they are different previously) it does not follow that they disagree on C. The two statements you provided from them are unrelated. In fact in Dr. Christy's 2009 published paper "LIMITS ON CO2 CLIMATE FORCING FROM RECENT TEMPERATURE DATA OF EARTH" references Dr. Spencer and the negative feedback from cloud formation. The conclusion of the paper is as follows:

"These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Um, let’s see what does all that mean? Uh Oh, THEY AGREE. I can go through the specifics of the paper if you wish but by your own standards YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO INTERPRET THE DATA.

"maybe a couple hundred people who actually know what they're talking about" A totally unsubstantiated assertion along with bit of ad hominem argumentation. Provide the evidence that their qualifications and knowledge are not adequate. But even better yet prove that their data is inaccurate or flawed.

"those people wouldn't speak with the same certainty that you do about the subject" Again another totally unsubstantiated assertion. What are you a mind reader? In fact their signing the petition belies your claim since they were and have put their name and credentials down on the side that the evidence to date does not point to anthropogenic global warming.

YOU ARE MOST CERTAINLY AND EVIDENTLY NOT QUALIFIED TO INTERPRET THE DATA. Let us have some fun with this ridiculous statement. Apparently you subscribe to the Church of Rome theory of science. Only the pope, bishops and priests of science can interpret the data. Let us say that the scientific consensus comes up with some evidence that all bloggers named “Sister” who are crotchety need to be euthanized because they lower the discourse on the Internet. I guess then no one but an accredited PhD statistician or scientist is qualified to evaluate their data and certainly not you. Do you want to still want to hold to that bit of emotional lunacy?

As to your assertion a) I have dealt with this fully previously and assertion b) a claim that I have not made as of yet. But as I previously stated God is in control, He does know and scripture has something to say about it.

Lastly, I am no longer confused about you because it is plainly evident that the only thing you can be certain about is that you are uncertain and that data/facts get into your way.

3:28 PM  
Blogger sister said...

"Lastly, I am no longer confused about you..."

Scott, it's a good thing you qualified that with "about you", because you are obviously still very, very confused. In fact, with that post you're pretty much romping around the realm of ridiculosity.

I just took the time to answer every one of your points, one by one, but I lost everything when the battery died on my Blackberry, and I've run out of time (and nerve endings in my thumbs) for tonight. Another time.

I'll try to come back and answer you again when I have either the time or the inclination, because I think it's important to show how incongruous your logic and thought processes are, how hypocritical your accusations, and how mendacious your implications.



"As to your assertion a) I have dealt with this fully previously and assertion b) a claim that I have not made as of yet."

Here's the funny thing: you haven't even addressed my assertion yet. Here's one more chance: answer these two questions directly and honestly (I'll be pleasantly surprised...), and you will have finally addressed them. Don't, and you'll have been wasting your time.

a) Do you believe that global warming/climate change has been affected, in any way, by anthropogenic contributions?

b) Can you confirm, with any degree of certainty, that mankind will or will not experience any direct or adverse effects from global warming/climate change, and if so, will the effects be positive, negative, or neutral?

One last thing. Do not paint me with your pomo brush. I ain't one. I don't think like one. You won't get anywhere by treating me like one. Ask around.

And you won't get far in this forum by arguing like one either. Believe me.

11:07 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

For what it's worth, I am beginning to have somewhat of an epiphany here. It largely has to do with earlier remonstrances about "political rants" versus "theological rants."

I'll have more to say on this later, perhaps on my own blog. But it seems we compartmentalize theology on one side, politics on another, and philosophy on yet another. For Christians, our theology ought to inform everything else. Liberal Christians like to cite certain Scriptures when advocating their views, while conservative Christians cite others. But both yell and scream at each other. How much of what we each believe and say is actual theology and biblical doctrine, and how much is simply philosophy?

I think that is the real orb we ought to seek in argument and discussion. True Christians ought to submit to the Bible as our final authority in doctrine, philosophy and practice. And I mean a fully orbed biblical view, not just cherrypicked Scriptures to advocate something.

I have a hunch if we were all to be completely, biblically faithful, we'd be surprised to see what our philosophy ought to be. I am conservative both biblically and politically for a reason. I tend to think my political views are informed by my theology. Yet I am open and teachable. If my theology is in error, fine. But if my theology is not in error, and my theology informs my political views, then I have a hard time thinking my political views are in error.

Hope this explains my brain on things.

11:25 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Sister,
Thanks for giving us all the opportunity to try to keep up with you. I'm not sure who you are or why you are so bitter, but it really is quite remarkable. Perhaps if you were willing to let us know your credentials it would help.
In any case, no one is really arguing that CO2 levels have increased. One of the major questions is whether they are manmade or not.
What might help in this is if you would give us a summary of how weather works. That would be a good introduction.
Then you might explain how with a current concentration of CO2 of about 380 ppm (parts per million)why we ought to be so concerned about global warming. For every 100,000 molecules of air, 38 of them are carbon dioxide. This truly small fraction reveals to us why carbon dioxide is called one of the atmosphere's "trace gases." To this, mankind adds on one molecule of CO@ to every 100,000 molecules of air every 5 years or so.

6:59 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Rattlesnake,

First, what bitterness are you referring to? I'm not bitter. Scroll up and take a look. There's no bitterness. Only criticism. Please don't confuse them, anymore.

What's really remarkable (and unfortunate), is that you interpret any dissenting opinion as "bitterness". This forum is full of rhetoric, sarcasm, and hyperbole,
but it's seems like it's only ok when it's you or your croneys who use it. Très strange.

I have no problems with respectful dialogue. As long as the barbs are being tossed around, though, it's easy to get caught up in the heat of the debate.

Take a step back and look objectively... you'll see I'm telling the truth.

Second, thanks for addressing me. The thing is, we don't disagree. We're on the same page. Surpised? Please read what I have to say before you discount me. I give you the same respect.

9:13 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Scott,

I'm disappointed that you haven't taken me up on my offer to talk about the real issue yet. Maybe you'll get around to it?

In the meantime, for perspective, here's what I could find on the credentials of the first 5 scientists of the 31,000 that you so readily endorsed:

1) Earl M. Aagaard, PhD - biologist; recently retired from Southern Advent University; holds an MA in biology, and PhD in Wildlife Biology

2) Charles W. Aami - I think this one was a mistake by the guy doing data entry when the card came in, since I haven't been able to track down anybody with the last name "Aami." I could be wrong, but I think the signature belongs to: Charles W. Fenning CBET, AAMI -Certified Biomedical Equipment Technician

3) Roger L. Aamodt, PhD - oncologist, National Cancer Institute, NIH

4) Wilbur A. Aanes, DVM, MS - Veterinary Equince Surgeon, Colorado SU Class of 1950

5) M. Robert Aaron - electrical engineer - BS, MS in electrical engineering from University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; unfortunately deceased

See where I'm going with this? No relevant training and experience beyond the basic Scientific Method, so far. Compare that to the credentials listed for the first 5 contributing members of the IPCC, and, with your mathematical qualifactions, you should soon recognize the ridiculousness of the compilation.

That's not even considering the language or the methodology of the actual petition.

By this evidence, you would be welcomed to sign the petition as an expert, Rattlesnake would be welcomed to sign, I would be welcomed to sign... I'm not qualified, and I know you're not either.

I'll be back soon (when I have more time) with more about your last post.

9:58 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Oh... the other thing to consider about this list:

If these samples are the kinds of credentials required to sign this petition, then the fact that 31,000 have signed is really not remarkable. It's really , really remarkable that millions more have not signed.


Here's what Scientific American reported:

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

The facts are really starting to get in the way, aren't they? I'll be back...

10:10 PM  
Blogger ScottO said...

Sister,
I have been busy and wanted to give your thumbs a rest. Judging by your previous posts you needed the time also to check on what Wikipedia has on the petition and signers thereof. More on that later.

I have answered a) but I will restate for you again and give more detail. We can discuss the specifics as you wish but my time is limited as is probably yours. I have listed them for ease of reference

First, here are my presuppositions:

I. God is sovereign and in control of all.
II. Jesus is Lord over all.
III. Nothing that we do as humans will stop, impede or change the return of our Lord Jesus Christ.
IV. Mankind is wicked, sinful and desires to be god.
V. Mankind does not have the capacity to destroy God's creation.
VI. I hold to the long day or day-age theory of creation.
VII. Climate Change happens regardless of humanity's actions.

"Do you believe that global warming/climate change has been affected, in any way, by anthropogenic contributions?

A. On a macro climate worldwide level by the burning of fossil fuels the answer is no. (See my previous posts.)

B. On a micro climate level (e.g. regional locales, close to the ground) the answer would be a qualified yes. (I can explain if you wish.)

C. You did not ask this but I volunteer it anyway. On a macro climate worldwide level by a man made catastrophic event e.g. large scale nuclear explosion(s) yes, but all would return to equilibrium over a period of years. (Refer to the climate effects of the eruptions of Krakatoa, El Chichon, Pinatubo, etc.)


Can you confirm, with any degree of certainty, that mankind will or will not experience any direct or adverse effects from global warming/climate change, and if so, will the effects be positive, negative, or neutral?

1. The climate warming trend that has been happening since the little ice age has certainly not been adverse and has been a positive effect on mankind.

2. If a severe climate cooling trend would start and we were to descend into an ice age the effect would certainly be an adverse and have a negative effect on mankind.

3. Based on the evidence to date if the overall long term warming trend would continue the overall effect would be positive to a point. I am obviously skeptical and do not believe that the warming trend will continue for a number of reasons which I can answer if you wish.

Note: The data so far has indicated that over approximately the past four hundred years the earth is on a gradual warming trend. The data for the past two years the global temperature delta is -1 deg C.

4. If you are speaking directly to the anthropogenic causes (e.g. burning fossil fuels) theorized at the moment to cause global warming or climate change their effects long term are neutral and no adverse effects will be felt.

11:45 AM  
Blogger ScottO said...

Sola,
I agree with your last post on compartmentalizing. The compartmentalization you are referencing is covered in Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live?" and also Nancy Pearcy's "Total Truth". They are good resources for your series if you are not aware of them.

12:04 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Sister, Brother, Neuter,
Two quick things and then I'm done here:
First, I'm not basing my accusation of bitterness on only this post, so let's be very clear about that. I am not the only one who realizes this.
Second, why should we be surprised that millions have not signed? The U.N. trots out a few thousand and we know that there are 32,000 (plus or minus) who did not sign on because they thought it was junk science. That makes a lot of sense, but not to you. You're searching for millions who did not sign, even if millions either did not exist or had no interest in signing. It would have also been interesting to note how many that did sign received government grants to tell the government what it wanted to hear.

12:09 PM  
Blogger sister said...

"Sister, Brother, Neuter"

Honestly, Rattlesnake, you have to admit that tidbits like this serve no purpose whatsoever, but to provoke, ridicule, taunt and intmidate.

If I respond in similar fashion, it's called "bitterness".

Just an observation.

1:42 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Scott,

The work I did finding that information was my own. It's utterly dishonest of you to imply that you know that it's not.

I even admitted when I wrote it that I might have got some of it wrong, since it wasn't very thorough research. However, I did take the time to look up different publications and various about and by these guys, to try and confirm what I already suspected.

Incidentally, the only part of my post that's the same as the wikipedia entry, is a shared reference from Scientific American.

Interestingly, when I found this newsletter from South Adventist University, I was entirely amused to see the article about global warming 1 or 2 pages following the announcement of Dr Aargard's retirement. It's an easy read. You'll be delighted.

1:58 PM  
Blogger ScottO said...

Sister,

My you are sensitive. I am not being dishonest. I made a faulty supposition. That is what I honestly believed before you just corrected me. I agree with Ron you come off as bitter and I would add snarky. I have chosen to ignore your previous attacks at my character. I am big enough to admit when I make a mistake are you?

2:10 PM  
Blogger sister said...

This discussion just took a peculiar turn.

I actually agree with your "presuppositions"

Your 3 part answer to the first question is where we part ways. All 3 of the named scientists (Spencer, Christy and Rosenzweig) have admittedly recognized that the trend of global warming has occurred... and that it continues. This is not an obscure fact. The data is well documented. Reportedly, this is a recently perspective for Dr Spencer; it wasn't that long ago that he denied it altogether. Recent data has confirmed, however, that the warming trend has contined, even over the last 2 years. The fact that you are not aware of this development indicates that your reading material is slightly outdated, and that you are mistaken.

I'll return...

2:16 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Scott,

Yeah, "snarky" has a way of being synonymous with "right". When you can't attack the substance anymore, it's easier to attack the delivery. That's ok, it's generally accepted around here.

I appreciate your retraction, and it speaks a lot about your character. Thank you. I spoke directly about it. I wasn't trying to be defensive.

I hope you recognize that I have tried to tone down the rhetoric. I do think like I'm held to a higher standard around here because of past mistakes.

2:21 PM  
Blogger ScottO said...

Sister,

I have to run for now but the data I used for the -1 deg C delta is from UAH. It is recent and also is reflected in Dr. Christy's most recent paper. Also I concur that global warming is occurring but I disagree on the anthropogenic causes having an effect. Also go read Dr. Spencer's blog in which he denies anthropogenic causes effect global warming.

2:37 PM  
Blogger ScottO said...

Sister,

You do have tenacity for trying to go through the petition. Yes I appreciate the lowered rhetoric and I am doing the same. Yes I did appreciate the article and easy read after wading through a bunch of technical data today.

I do see and foresaw where you are going by attempting to evaluate the signatories’ credentials. I believe you are missing the forest for the trees searching to discredit the signers of the petition. Also it is tangent to what you might want to really discuss with me. The reason I pointed out the petition was to provide support to refute your claim that none of these guys can agree e.g. ”contrasting opinions”. I pointed out that the signers of the petition do agree with my assertion. You may not like their qualifications but the facts are they agree with my contention. Also, I can produce more who agree along with some interesting scientists who have done an about face (e.g. Dr. Claude Allegre). Your next statement that got us further down this tangent was that “all three of the aforementioned accredited scientists seem to disagree with your assertion that anthropogenic causes have not contributed to or affected global warming.” But one of your sources does agree Dr. Spencer (refer to his blog). And the second, Dr. Christy is evaluating data but so far his findings tend to support Dr. Spencer's and my assertion but not in toto (refer to his page at UAH along with his most recent published work).

You seem to be hung up on qualifications and/or accreditation. The science of climatology requires more than just climatologists. Electrical engineers, chemical engineers, chemists, physicists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists, mathematicians, statisticians, etc are required not only to produce but to evaluate the data and experiments. (If you wish I can break down why and what each discipline does.) That is why having an EE, CE or other non-climatologist scientific or engineering discipline as a signatory does not bother me in the least on either side of the issue. The scientific method requires transparency and data that can be reviewed by peers but also by other disciplines. Hence the discovery of the statistical problems in climatologist Dr. Mann’s hockey stick climate model found by a mathematician and an economist. That is one minor case but there many others that can be cited where a person(s) from outside a field discredits a prevailing theory or accepted thought and rocks the world. This occurs in all fields from science to theology to liberal arts. I contend that everyone including scientists, engineers and laymen alike need to evaluate the data. For one, you do not know when the next patent clerk will review the data and prove that the underlying thesis is incorrect even though the observed results appear to be correct. But primarily we need to interpret the science and data because man is wicked. I believe everyone, including you needs to evaluate, interpret and review the data to prevent being led astray.

9:05 PM  
Blogger sister said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:06 PM  
Blogger sister said...

(Disclaimer: When I wrote "Even Dr Christy seems to be distancing himself from Dr Spencer, I was only offering my opinion based on recent observations. I don't know this to be true... it's just apparent.)

12:10 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Oops. It was pointed out to me that a very important correction (a name) was required here. I'm reposting, with the necessary correction.

Scott,

I truly believe you have misunderstood, and misinterpreted.

To borrow from your formula; just because they agree on A and agree on B, it does not follow that they must agree on C.

All three of the mentioned scientists agree (and disagree with your assertion) that anthropogenic reasons have contributed to global warming. Let me clarify:


-Dr. Rosenzweig believes that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming has been significant, and the effect will be devastating
-Dr. Christy believes that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming has been moderate, and is only sure of the fact that we don't know what the effect will be
-Dr Spencer belives that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming has been moderate, and will have no significant impact

You see, Scott, they do have contrasting opinions.

I (and many others) are skeptical of Dr Spencer's assurances mostly because he's the one who has changed his position most often (as evidenced and supported by the fact that you referenced contrary information). It wasn't that long ago that he denied global warming altogether. Even Dr Christy seems to be distancing himself from Dr Spencer; I don't know if it's mainly because of his unwillingness to accept Dr Spencer conclusions, or an aversion to his very vocal, highly publicized flip-flopping on the issue.

Maybe I am a little hung up on qualification. The thing is, we should be a little hung up on qualification. There's a lot of truth in what you wrote, but it doesn't support your conclusion. As you say, there are a lot of people involved in climatology, each with his own role to play. The electrical engineer that you use as an example is not the guy who should be interpreting the data that he helped to collect. You must surely understand that.

Let's use Dr Aanes for example. He's a pretty smart guy. Very well educated, highly experienced, and apparently well respected in his field (vetrinary surgery). It would be foolish of me to count on Dr Aanes to diagnose my heart condition, though: or to perform my triple bypass. Wouldn't it?

Everybody has their role to play - and I agree that everyone should do their best to stay informed - but there are only a few who are qualified to draw conclusions with any certainty. The thing is, those who are qualified are drawing different conclusions, which should make us think that the science itself is not certain... so how can we be, either way?

3:22 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Randy,
What "science" are you referring to?
Al Gore?

Sister, Brother, Neuter,
It is partially interesting to name names. Dr. Richard Lindzen, for example, (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at M.I.T.) says, "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century's developed world went into hysteric panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basic of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of th industrial age." I'm just sayin'. In other words, scientists disagree, because scientists are fallible human beings.
There is a place for common sense, and yes, Randy and SBN, my "rant" was political precisely because environmentalism is a political issue, with attendant economic features.
It would be an interesting exercise to discern how many of those favoring global warming are receiving fat grants and endowments to come up with those conclusions, like, say the biologists who refuse to entertain the notion of Intelligent Design instead of evolution.

Randy,
You are such a political theological hack. If Wallis or Pope Bri pontificate, you kiss the ring. If anyone disagrees, they're "ranting." BTW, this is merely the early stages, so the exegesis will be forthcoming.

4:47 PM  
Blogger sister said...

"In other words, scientists disagree, because scientists are fallible human beings.

Indeed... also the reason why we allow silly old men to chase their political white whales while spewing bombastic babblings in a lame attempt at provocation.

Again, with the "sister, brother, neuter" talk. Is there a point but to pique? Take your fingers out of your ears for only a moment, and it will be patently obvious to you that your last post contained nothing contrary to what I have to say. You're blinded by your prejudice. Ignorance is, as they say, bliss.

12:03 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

My, my! Please excuse Sister, Brother, Neuter from gym today. Listen, you're the one who choose to play the silly Internet bravado game hiding behind your anonymity. It's your choice. It's like if one of my kids wants to dye his or her hair blue. Fine, go ahead, but don't come whining to me if people criticize you.

10:05 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Silly Old Man,

Again, I'm entirely ok with that. I'm perfectly willing to take responsibility for what I write. Whether I agree with you or not, it is usually well thought ou, well articulated, and worth hearing, even to your proud ears. I'm not, however, willing to put up with your bullying (as evidenced by the preceding post), and anonymity provides me. Some protection from that. Like I said before, it doesn't make what I have to say any less TRUE.

Anyway... How telling it is that you don't address my questions or positions with any seriousness, and resort to petty taunting to try to make your point(s). Honestly, you're as bad as your worst emegent counterpart. Don't worry, though, because if you don't know my name, I can't take it personally. :)

5:35 PM  
Blogger sister said...

Silly Old Man,

Again, I'm entirely ok with that. I'm perfectly willing to take responsibility for what I write. Whether I agree with you or not, it is usually well thought out, well articulated, and worth hearing, even to your proud ears. I'm not, however, willing to put up with your bullying (as evidenced by the preceding post), and anonymity provides me some protection from that. Like I said before, it doesn't make what I have to say any less TRUE.

Anyway... How telling it is that you don't address my questions or positions with any seriousness, and resort to petty taunting to try to make your point(s). Honestly, you're as bad as your worst emegent counterpart. Don't worry, though, because if you don't know my name, I can't take it personally. :)

5:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home