Different Interpretations of the Same Climate Data

      Hyperbole and obfuscation are terms that routinely describe the Climate Change Debate.  It is hard to dig through all the BS and politicizing associated with this reporting. The same information is often used to substantiate diametrically opposing positions.  An example, of this dilemma follows.
     William Bigelow reported on Jan 29, 2013 in U.N. Report Says Global Warming Predictions Overstated Problem  that

The draft of a U.N. climate change report due to be published in 2014 has been leaked, and it shows that the four temperature models the U.N. used from 1990 to 2012 vastly overestimated the warming of the earth during that time.

He added that Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, said

Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted. Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate. It is evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming.

That post follows a Jan 28th report on Fox News Draft UN climate report shows 20 years of overestimated global warming, skeptics warn, which presents a graph to demonstrate the issue.

However, a Nov 17, 2012 research paper, Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 looking at the identical data (also shows a graph of temperature anomalies) reports

We analyse (sic) global temperature . . . for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability.

Lastly, on Dec 15, 2012 ABC News offers a different perspective of the "leaked" report, IPCC draft climate report leaked by sceptics

A draft of the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been leaked on climate sceptic websites. The 14-chapter draft report was posted on a US-based blog site called stopgreensuicide and then posted on another site critical of climate science.

The leaker and other climate sceptics have isolated one section of the draft to suggest that cosmic rays such as those of the Sun may have a greater influence on warming than had been claimed.

In our opinion one should not give credibility to any DRAFT reports, stolen or otherwise.  They are still subject to review and redaction.  That is why they a called DRAFTS.

Cyber-Pearl-Harbor FUD

     The media is at it again with claims of a cyber attack equivalent to Pearl Harbor.  Others claim it is just an attempt to offset major cuts to the military budget that is likely as a result of the looming sequester.  Whatever, it is just plain FUD!
      Remember Y2K scare that had planes falling from the sky, Y2K shelters, and every business demanding Y2K preparedness letters from their associates.  What happened? Nothing!
      RSA/EMC Executive VP Arthur Coviello said the need to analyze Big Data for a better picture of a company's security situation is more important than ever, in light of the damaging disruptions companies face at the hands of DDoSers, but he added "I abhor the term Cyber Pearl Harbor.It's not security awareness we need, but a higher level of understanding. Language like 'Pearl Harbor' doesn't get us that understanding."
      He noted that the outright destruction of the Internet from an attack is unlikely.

For other comments follow this link, Cheers to Coviello for 'Cyber Pearl Harbor' rebuke

What is Skepticism?

In 2007 Don Loxton addressed the question of what is skepticism in his article, "Where do we go from here? Has classic Skepticism  run its course."  In it he identifies skepticism as follows:

Skepticism is not humanism, nor atheism, nor libertarianism. Individual skeptics may or may not agree about any given belief or portfolio of beliefs, about religion or politics or ethics or anything else — that’s all neither here nor there. What unifies us is a commitment to a way of finding out, not a set of conclusions. We’re here to promote methodological doubt and the other tools of scientific inquiry.

He has followed up with a challenging and provocative new project, “Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?”. Almost two years in the writing, it examines the roots, founding principles, and purpose of scientific skepticism. He challenges today's skeptics to “appreciate that they’re caretakers for the work of those who have come before.”

On the Religion of Atheism

      On February 4'th the Christian Post reported on a live 90-minute debate between atheist philosopher Dr. Alex Rosenberg and Christian theologian Dr. William Lane Craig titled, "Is Faith in God Reasonable?", It was hosted and sponsored by Symposia Christi at Purdue University, Biola University, and Craig's apologetics ministry group called Reasonable Faith.
      The results were reported by a "formal" debate panel as 4-2 victory for Craig, in a vote by those in attendance with 1,390 votes for Craig to 303 votes for Rosenberg as well as online as well with garnering 734 votes to Craig vs 59 for his opponent.  It is certainly impossible to interpret the inherent meaning of these results. I suspect that the majority of the people who read this article assume that Dr Craig was right and D. Rosenberg was wrong.  That would hardly be a correct conclusion.

      A friend David Irvine responded more reasonably to this article as follows:

My first quick read of this makes me wish the article had included a link to the full transcript of the debate; I'd love to know what Dr Craig's 8 proofs are.  Interesting article but a couple of issues about it have already come to mind; the first one being the nature of the statistical population that evidently thought Dr Craig was by far the "winner" of the debate and Dr Rosenberg definitely the "loser"; namely, how many completely unbiased listeners were tuned in to a debate like this?  One might suspect Dr Craig was "preaching to the choir".  I'd think for an impartial evaluation one would have to have a debate about "Christianity vs Atheism" held before an ideal audience that was neither one nor the other which would be problematic in itself.  Another issue for me is how debates are evaluated by many if not most people; is the debate scoring based on the perceived validity of each point made, or is the scoring biased in favor of the one with the better speaking style and delivery? 

Attempting to arrive at a fair analysis, David went on to say,

I still remember listening to the JFK vs Nixon debates on the radio while stationed in France, and thinking Nixon made more sense than JFK but at the dawn of the television age in electioneering where appearance and style trumps content, JFK "won" that debate hands-down and the rest is history. 

      My read on such debates follow.  How do you judge winners of debates?  The common approach is to survey the observers before the debate regarding the topic of the debate and the repeat that survey after the debate.  The winner is the person or team that shifted opinions in their direction.

      I have sat through many of these debates. Michael Shermer has placed several on the web.  He was once a devote Christian who was heading toward the ministry, but along the way he detoured and now is committed atheist.  He is exceptionally intelligent, but I think he likes to engage in these debates because he is still searching.  He would never admit it.  Many devote theists or deists who become atheists also become aggressive and sometimes antagonistic.

      I used to subscribe to publications by secular humanists, but found many of the articles disgusting because of the vehemence and general intolerance toward those who did not believe as they.  The one thing that disgusts me most about the three major religions is the intolerance of dogmas of each.  The religion of atheism engages in this same practice

   As a final observation David stated:

Another issue already for me is the appearance of bias in the author's choice of words; one person's "truth" can be another person's "absurdity"; the (I think it's Hindu) concept of the world being stacked on the backs of an infinite vertical stack of turtles being a convenient example.  I think the term "belief" rather than "truth" may be more appropriate.  Of course the issue of how does one define "truth" in this context apparently was not part of this debate.  Having been on both sides of this debate over the past six decades, my present perception is that from a metaphysical standpoint all religions and atheisms begin with a blank slate regarding objective evidence; the determining factor for me is: What viewpoint or thesis offers the most spiritual value and utility and examples for me today in forming and upgrading my ethical values and perspectives and relationships with others?  

      Instead of simply saying "Amen," I offered. I have read numerous claims of proofs.  My recommendations to everyone is -- if s/he is comfortable in his/her beliefs, are tolerant and respectful of those who do not share them, and are not trying to impose them on others, then don’t search.  They have nothing to gain.  

      The existence of a God cannot be proven and has never been proven or dis-proven.  I am a Ph.D. physicist who has spent many long years studying and has been humbled by the laws and observations of the universe from the infinitely small to the infinitely large.  I have come to realize that the universe is beyond the ability of humans to comprehend.  It logically follows that if such an entity as God exists, it must be beyond the ability of humans to comprehend. I find the simplistic concept exemplified as the God of Abraham to be no less absurd than the Hindu turtle belief.  Throughout history the image of creation and God reflects the comprehension limits of the believer.

Comments by David Irvine were reprinted with his permission.  He has been evaluating his beliefs for a while.  I found a 2006 letter he submitted as a 1980 graduate of Vanderbilt University to the Spire which is a publication of the Vanderbilt School of Divinity, Graduate Department of Religion.

Proof Positive

      The quote "Extraordinary Claims demand extraordinary proof" has widely been attributed to Carl Sagan, a key contributor to the modern skeptical movement.  However, this thought precedes Sagan by a couple of centuries.  Daniel Loxton in the Skepticblog post, "Wonderful Phenomenon demand wonderful evidence," Dec 11, 2012 traces it back to David Hume (1739) and Pierre-Simon Laplace (1814).
      Religious and paranormal history is replete with claims of miracles.  However, such claims have become significantly fewer in modern times when the ability to make controlled examination has advanced beyond mere anecdotes from biased observers, who often have become hypnotized by their desire to participate in the phenomenon. 
      Often, yesterday's miracles have evolved into today's scams.  A corollary to the above might be the adage, "If it appears to be too good to be true, it probably is."

Fun Political Quotes

''Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.''

—Ambrose Bierce

''As Americans, we must ask ourselves: Are we really so different? Must we stereotype those who disagree with us? Do we truly believe that ALL red-state residents are ignorant racist fascist knuckle-dragging NASCAR-obsessed cousin-marrying roadkill-eating tobacco juice-dribbling gun-fondling religious fanatic rednecks; or that ALL blue-state residents are godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts?''

—Dave Barry

Political Page Launched

With the following quote we launch our Political Page

All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, 
for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, 
which has so unfortunately divided man.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

Initial topic is Conservatives vs Liberals. 

A Mother's View of Morality

      Deborah Mitchell's essay on CNN iReport, “Why I Raise My Children Without God,” drew 650,000 page views, the second highest for an iReport, and the most comments of any submission on the citizen journalism platform. Lots of people disagreed with her. They flagged her iReport as inappropriate and criticized CNN for linking to her essay on the CNN.com homepage. But there were plenty of others who wrote thoughtful rebuttals, respectfully disagreeing with Mitchell while not foisting their own beliefs on her.
      As iReport reaffirmed, if you want to bring out the "crazies" just post an essay about non-belief in God. Comments are frequently harsh, hateful, and demeaning.  
      Ms Mitchell is a rarity in that she presents her opinions in a soft motherly way and consequently her blog deserves permanent reference on our Religion Page.

Americans Love a Good Apocalypse

Over the last five decades I have read prophecies of colossal doom for the human race. We have had catastrophic warnings of population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, ozone holes, acid rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow disease, killer bees, sex-change fish, HIV, and climate change.  They all have one common feature -- their prophesy of ultimate doom never happens.

We have had these notable prophets of doom: Thomas Malthus, Al Gore, Racheal Carson, Bernhard Ulrich, Laurie Garrett, Richard Preston, Margaret Chan, Paul Watson, William and Paul Paddock, Harrison Brown, and now Rajendra Pauchuri.  They profitably stroke American's desire for a good scare story. 

Matt Ridley a columnist for The Wall Street Journal and the author, most recently, of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves has a more realistic perspective.

Humanity is a fast-moving target. We will combat our ecological threats in the future by innovating to meet them as they arise, not through the mass fear stoked by worst-case scenarios.

To read his view in more detail click here 

A Deluded Narcissist Responds

Our narcissist acknowledges:
- Millennial Generation, Generation Y or Generation Desperately Seeking Attention
- Famous millennials Tweet like it’s their job. 
- Simply the product of a fast-paced, media saturated, fame obsessed culture that covets exposure.
- A vicarious life on the Internet where self-worth is measured by numbers of “followers.” 
- Seek self-validation via Facebook and Twitter.
- "I Facebook, therefore I am."

She goes on to recommend schoolds should offer a course in "Think before Tweeting 101: A Way to Save Yourself Public Embarrassment and/or Loss of Employment."  She misses that time when personal lives were personal.

Read her comments at: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/message-from-member-generation-deluded-narcissists/#ixzz2IKZ9VLoo

Gun Violence

Everyday a Republican legislator opens his/her mouth and advances the party’s march to extinction. In interviews when asked which of Obama’s 23 Exec Actions do they agree with, their response is “None of them.” I thought these actions must be bad so I searched them out. See below.

Over 90% of Americans support enhanced and universal background checks. Isn’t it about time the Republicans start working FOR America rather than constantly AGAINST America?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/16/list-obamas-23-executive-actions-on-gun-violence/

Why I Raise My Children Without God

The essay referenced in this POST appeared in CNN.  It was prefaced by a warning that it might contain inappropriate material.  I read it and thought, "Inappropriate to whom?"  I assumed I would see vulgar or violent comments or I might see overly exuberant rants that sometimes accompanies anti-religious essays.  But nothing like that.

CNN PRODUCER NOTE     TXBlue08, a mother of two teenagers in Texas, blogs about raising her children without religion. She said she shared this essay on CNN iReport because 'I just felt there is not a voice out there for women/moms like me. I think people misunderstand or are fearful of people who don’t believe in God.'

When my son was around 3 years old, he used to ask me a lot of questions about heaven. For over a year, I lied to him and made up stories... Like most parents, I love my child so much that ... I wanted him to feel safe and loved and full of hope. But ...I would have to make stuff up...I would have to brainwash him into believing stories that didn’t make sense.  One day...he would know that I built an elaborate tale—not unlike the one we tell children about Santa...I thought it was only right to be honest with my children. I am a non-believer... 

Read the entire essay at  http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282?hpt=hp_c3

New Study Thoroughly Debunks (man-made) Global Warming, Will Media Notice?

I was recently sent an article with the the title on this blog post and asked to comment.  I chased down the source as http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice for those who wish to read it.  My reply was . .

I think it is important not to let personal biases cloud one’s judgment of the science or not to let the misguided exuberance of such people as Michael Mann or James Hansen or ignorance of Al Gore detract from the actual science.  As I continue to read reports on both sides of this argument, it evident that neither is addressing the valid issues.  As often the case in such political discourse, the combatants are talking past each other.  

A Generation of Deluded Narcissists

. . FACEBOOK certainly highlights what many people suspect, we are raising a generation of narcissists.  Do people who post several status updates daily really believe they are that important?  Probably.  These narcissists also have TWITTER on which to share an infinite stream of 140 words of wisdom to an adoring following.
. . For the past 47 years the American Freshman Survey has been accessing 9 million college students and find them more likely now to consider themselves to be gifted and success-driven, even though their test scores and studying time show no evidence of that.
. . Lead psychologist Jean Twenge has found the tendency toward narcissism in students is up 30 percent in the last thirty-odd years.  He said, "This data is not unexpected.  I have been writing a great deal over the past few years about the toxic psychological impact of media and technology on children, adolescents and young adults, particularly as it regards turning them into faux celebrities—the equivalent of lead actors in their own fictionalized life stories."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/08/are-raising-generation-deluded-narcissists/?intcmp=features#ixzz2HyHVhW26

In the past generations children earned their keep. They did not feel entitled to allowances; they worked and often contributed to the family income.  Back in the "horse and buggy days" children never expected to be GIVEN a car at age 16 and often a vehicle better that their parents were driving. They got a job and bought what their meager wage could afford.  These children expected to move out of their parent's house after graduation and start the a life for which they had been training.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team warns, "We had better get a plan together to combat this greatest epidemic as it takes shape.  Because it will dwarf the toll of any epidemic we have ever known. And it will be the hardest to defeat. Because, by the time we see the scope and destructiveness of this enemy clearly, we will also realize, as the saying goes, that it is us."

Separating the Gold from the Dross

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams dated October 13, 1813 said:

In extracting the pure principles which he [Jesus] taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.

Jefferson cut out the superstitious parts of the Bible, and it was sent to new Congress members for over 50 years. Now the American Humanists Association is continuing the tradition by sending a newly revised "A Jefferson Bible for the 21st Century" to the 113th Congress.

Climate Model Status

The last and fourth report by the IPCC was in 2007.  They are getting ready to issue their fifth report in September.  The major question is how well have their models and hypotheses matched actual temperature anomalies.

Likewise, several climatologists that disagree with claims of the IPCC have made projections of their own.  How well have they done?  The following article answers those questions.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/03/1378431/contrary-to-contrarian-claims-ipcc-temperature-projections-have-been-exceptionally-accurate/?mobile=nc

The bottom line is -- models based on CO2 as a primary driver are fairly accurate.  Those based on other drivers, such as sun spots, have failed rather significantly. 

Religious Intolerance in America

. . According to a Gallup poll released in June, only 58% of Americans would vote for a “generally well-qualified” Muslim candidate, and only 54% would vote for an atheist. (This is the first time that number has been above 50% for an atheist candidate.)  By contrast, 91% would vote for a Jewish candidate, 94% for a Catholic and 80% for a Mormon.
. . This year, Congress welcomed the first Buddhist senator and first Hindu elected to either chamber of Congress, and the Pew Forum noted that this “gradual increase in religious diversity … mirrors trends in the country as a whole.” But Pew also noted one glaring deficiency: Religious “nones” were largely left outside the halls of Congress, despite one in five Americans now saying they don’t affiliate with a religion.
. . Since 2008, the percentage of Americans who identify as religious "nones" has grown from 14.6% to 17.8% in 2012, according to the Gallup survey. That number grew nearly one percentage point every year from 2008 to 2011.
. . The Gallup study also found that 27% of Americans age 18 to 29 identified as religious nones, making that group the largest subgroup in the study. It is consistent with other studies on religious nones, which have found the the most notable growth among the religiously unaffiliated has been among these young adults.
. . Maybe we are on trend to see the end of the social intolerance of the Religious Right and its associated hypocrisy and ignorance.

Limits of Science

. . The Scientific Method requires falsifiability of a hypothesis, but recent "theories" in Physics are introducing concepts outside that requirement.  On the large scale physicists talk about multi-verses that can't be observed.  In the smallest scale physicists argue multi-dimensional string theory which also can't be validated through experiment.  Why? Because that is where the mathematical formulation of the theory of everything seem to be heading.
. . The problem is human inability to visualize the infinite -- both the infinitely large dimension of the universe in which humanity resides and the infinitely small dimensions that goes on immeasurably past sub-atomic particles.
. . Science seems to be on a course to merge with religion which accepts based on faith alone and does not require falsifiability.  

High Cost of Pork

More Congressional hypocrisy for spending cuts (see link below).

Why do the majority of Americans support Tax Reform?  Because that equates in their simplistic logic. That SOMEBODY ELSE will pay the bills, certainly not them. 

Don’t get caught up in all the finger pointing as to who is “not leading.” Its more hypocrisy from a Congress that totally lacks such leadership within its ranks.  It is Congress that decides what gets spent and on what.  It is their responsibility ALONE to rein in that out of control spending.

Why is Boehner having such difficulty controlling his caucus?  The answer is simple.  The House Republicans have agreed not to “buy votes” with earmarks and other forms of pork.  It’s a discipline that the Senate Democrats have not yet seemed to have learned.  The Senate’s Sandy Bill is reported to have 35% pork!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/03/pork-holding-up-senate-sandy-relief-bill-funneled-into-the-troughs-of-gop-deficit-hawks-you-betcha/

God Fearing

. . Based on what priests who claim to have insight into the "nature" and the "personality" of God, whom would you believe would be more welcome into "heaven"?  Those who do good without belief or those those who do good because they expect to be rewarded and avoid doing bad to avoid punishment.
. . "Being God-fearing" is lauded by the faithful as a positive attribute identifying a good person.  That should clearly be a worrisome quality for a person that is not by nature trustworthy. 
. . What are the chances of a non-Christian, especially one that can't be identified as "God Fearing," be elected to high office in America? It is hard to believe that the militant intolerance of the Religious Right did not contribute to Mitt Romney's loss in the Presidential election?  Why was it even an issue?  EVERYTHING in his life indicated he was an exceptional moral man.
. . Can anyone imagine the outcry if noted atheists and philanthropists Warren Buffet or Bill Gates chose to run for high office?