Richard L. Noel, DMD

Herb has hit the nail on the head about how humans in general function in groups.  We also need to take a look at ourselves and guard against the same mistakes in the church.  If we chose to simply crawl in a cave with our friends who agree with us, we will end up with a great surprise at the return of Jesus.  Our cave may just fall on us.  I thank AT for having a forum to allow us to interact in a constructive way on all issues affecting the SDA church and our mission in this sinful world.

Good article Herb.

regards,

pat

Jeff shows his more than sophomoric interest in the issue of "global warming." Of course, the spin has changed to "climate change."  Jeff's  reference to the IPCC 2007 "Summary" is more than interesting--it surely appears most creditable. But the IPCC reports in previous years, as well as 2007, have been exposed as cleverly biased by the final writers's governmental or business predilections. I have been following Dr.Richard Lindzen's appraisals, himself one of the lead contributors to the IPCC reports. For instance, Lindzen's Wall Street Journal's  article, "Climate of Fear," April 12, 2006, opened my eyes:

"How can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translale into unlikely claims about future catastrophe?

"The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. . . . The success of climate alarmist can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol, and clean, coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse.  Consequently, lies about climate chanae gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposely is their basis.

"Alarm rather than genuine scienfitic curiosity, it sppears, is essential to maintaining funding.  And only the most senior scientists yoday can stand up against this alarmist gale and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

A few month's later, Lindzen wrote another article for WSJ (July 2, 2006), "Don't Believe the Hype" in which, among other insights, he warned that the media specializes in misinformed "hype" as seen in CNN's response to the IPCC report: "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is gettting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." !!

I guess this is what I mean by my concern in rewarding "consensus of specialists" (whether in scientific or theological circles) over against "creditable" research.  Thanks, Jeff,  for your thoughtfulness. Cheers, Herb

I thought Michael Mann was the film maker who directed "Heat" and "Miami Vice."  Who knew he also did statistics?

A good article about the IPCC's "hockey stick" graph is here:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf.

Mann was using the thickness of tree rings as a proxy for temperature, the idea being that in warmer years, the trees grow more, creating a thicker ring.  The problem with such a proxy, however, is that any number of things could cause a tree to grow more during a particular growing season, including CO2, which is essentially tree fertilizer.  Of course, the whole thesis of global warming in that CO2 causes temperature increases.  But if CO2 would also cause an increase in tree ring thickness, and everyone acknowledges that it could, and you had an increase in CO2, then you could have an increase in tee ring thickness without an increase in temperature.  Does anyone else see a logical problem with using tree ring thickness as a proxy for temperature?  A scientist I was talking to last week confided to me that scientists often "are not good at basic logic."  No kidding. 

But, believe it or not, that wasn't the fraudulent part.  Mann data-mined to find one sequence of tree ring measurements on California Bristlecone pines that showed a pronounced uptick in thickness during the 20th Century, then he weighted these measurements about 400 times as heavily as any other measurement in his statistical study, and that created the hockey stick graph.  But the people who studied those pines had already indicated in their original paper that the Bristlecones were not suitable climate proxies:

"These trees . . . all turned out to exhibit a 20th Century growth spurt that has not been fully explained but is likely to be at least in part due to CO2 fertilization and is known not to be a temperature signal since it does not match nearby temperature records.  The original authors (and others) have stressed that they are not proper climate proxies."

So when the unsuitable Bristlecone pine rings were removed from Mann's numbers, poof, there went the hockey stick: 

"Without the Bristlecone pines, the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the mid 15th Century."

As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies:  lies, damn lies, and statistics.  The "hockey stick" graph is great example of "statistics" in the Twainian sense of that term.  

Herb, 

Luther noticed the same dynamic among his critics. He referred to it as "Mules scratching each other."