More On Climategate

The more of this scandal that comes to light, the more shocking it becomes. The mainstream media are doing there best to ignore the story, but they won't be able to do so for long. Times have changed. Here are a few more prominent editorials.

Yesterday Rush noted that high temperatures during the Medieval Period were refuted by climate scientists on the basis of only three trees in Siberia, and those were cherry-picked! Meanwhile, Obama & Co. continue their march toward wrecking the economy and placing America under the thumb of world governing bodies, unabated and deaf to any and all dissent.

Also, have a Happy Thanksgiving! Thank the Creator for making such a resilient planet for us to enjoy.

Climate Science, Stolen Emails and Fraud

I don't know if this will pan out or not, but it looks like someone hacked into Britain's Climate Research Unit and stole some emails. They then posted those emails and files on the Internet. The documents seem to indicate a climate science cover-up of global proportions. Was stealing these documents illegal? Undoubtedly. But so is falsifying climate science, so . . .

More Global Warming Discussion

I want to thank Sarah, the astronomer, for her in-depth responses. One of the reasons I wanted to start this blog was to force myself to do more research and become better-informed. This recent episode has indeed pushed me toward that goal. Unfortunately, the subject of global warming poses some significant challenges to me.

First off, I am not a formally trained scientist. The literature of climate science gets very technical very quickly. This is not to say that scientists are always right. Even a cursory sifting of the available information reveals that opinions and theories differ widely between individual scientists, governmental agencies and international panels, as well as over time. To my eye (and to many other ordinary observers), climate science looks more like a work in progress than a masterpiece of scientific knowledge.

Second, the issue is about as politically charged as one can get. Conservatives cannot help but be skeptical when they hear avowed socialists proposing solutions to avoid a global warming doomsday that just happen to align perfectly with their dreams of ever-increasing social control. I suppose it is technically possible that the science does really indicate that our only hope for survival is to place our economic and individual freedoms in subservience to an international board of tyrannical dictators scientists, but I'm going to need a lot more convincing to take that deal. Global warming might be irreversibly harming the planet, but it sure feels like a scam.

I did manage to find this interesting site called Skeptical Science. It seems to be very damaging to my position, providing explanations for all the top arguments. I also found some interesting discussion in the comments section at the bottom of the article on that page. The number one argument against man-made global warming seems to be solar radiation. The standard answer seems to be that solar activity went flat around 1970 while global temperature continued to rise. This leaves CO2 as the only viable culprit. However, the estimates of solar activity might not be correct. The IPCC rates the Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) of solar irradiance as Low. NASA continues to learn more about the sun. Also, a recent study by Scafetta and Wilson (2009) suggests that solar radiation may account for nearly 65% of warming observed in the last 30-40 years.

Another promising argument seems to center around long-term hydrological cycles (see comment #6 on the Skeptical Science link above for more). These might also explain the past variations observed in Arctic ice. These would seem to be better predictors of droughts, etc., than global warming.

I will leave off with this. Sarah asked why I might object to global warming on theological grounds (as we are both Christians). In Genesis 8:22 (While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.), God promises that the earth will remain habitable until the end. God's promise to never again flood the earth follows soon after. I believe in a God that controls and maintains our planet. As a result, I'm not very worried about us damaging the planet in any significant way. I certainly don't think we should go around wasting and destroying for no reason, but it is clear from Scripture that the earth is here for us and not the other way around.

October Was the Third Coldest On Record

Today we get yet another strange bit of data for the global warming crowd. This gives me an opportunity to address a related issue. Recently, a few of my global warming-related posts attracted some negative comments from an astronomer who studies climate on a planetary scale. These can be read here. Some of the highlights are as follows:

"Global warming is a serious issue, even for just a 1 degree rise of temperature. Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is very worrisome as it most definitely will cause a rise in sea level, up to 7 meters. By some estimates, 1 meter rise in sea level is almost inevitable at this time. Consider, then, that 25% of the world's fertile growing regions are within 1 meter of sea level. Preventing 25% of our loss of food will take a huge effort and amount of money."

"On geological timescales (~400,000 yrs), yes the Earth does regulate climate. Solar luminosity (energy flux) has increased steadily since the formation of Earth yet the climate has been relatively constant. This is due to the Carbon-Silicate cycle which is controlled by biology and geology. So yes, in 400,000 the Earth should resolve whatever damage we cause now. But are you willing to wait that long? We need to do something now, as this issue will directly affect our children and grandchildren."

"I don't believe our planet will be 'destroyed' just that we are not being the best stewards of the resources and Earth God gave us. And we are causing ourselves undo harm. Ironically, the environmental movement was originally Republican and from Biblical teachings, I'd expect Christians to be the most staunch supporters of being 'green'. Materialism (which is a huge part of the Global Warming issue ) is sure not on Jesus' priority list."

"I would also like to mention that before I really understood more about climate science, I was also skeptical of Global Warming. Since it's become so politically charged, it's difficult to look at unbiased reports on it and everyone and their mother has their own opinion supposedly backed by 'science'. Climate is a very complex system, and there are many unresolved questions, such as the amount of predicted warming, the rate the ice sheets will melt etc. But there are a few things that remain sure 1) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It has in the past, it does so now, and it will warm the Earth and 2) human activity has added substantially to the carbon concentration since the industrial revolution. This is independent from volcanic activity or other non-human sources."

I have not included every argument here, but this makes a good jumping off point for a more public (front page) discussion. Again, I am forced to admit that I am not a scientist and have limited knowledge of climatology theory and research. As such, I depend on others to stay informed on the important and timely issue of global warming. The following sources are representative of those that have influenced my understanding of the science at hand:

Roy Spencer's website and blog - Spencer is a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and the official climatologist for Rush Limbaugh. He is the author of Climate Confusion.

The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science by John L. Daly - This is a thorough debunking of a chart made famous by Al Gore's venture into climate cinema.

The Great Global Warming Swindle - This documentary features quite a few scientists who doubt humanity's responsibility for global warming and discuss some of the non-science-related interests pushing the "conventional" view.

I will end this post by stating that, as a Christian, I am also opposed to the wholesale degradation of the earth with which God has entrusted us. I am also more than a little wary of the rampant materialism that seems to be choking our culture. However, I see the theory of man-made global warming as just another attempt by the left, making full use of alarmist scare-tactics, to usurp the rights and freedom of individuals and add yet more power to an ever-increasing government bureaucracy. I oppose materialism on a personal level; I do not wish to see our modern economy to collapse under the weight of arbitrary and onerous carbon limits and regulations. I also do not want our country to cede its sovereignty to the U.N. or any other world entity.

The environmental movement has produced very little of worth to our country, specifically, or to humanity at large. It has all but halted our ability to extract and refine fossil fuels, the life-blood of a modern standard of living. It has committed unspeakable harm to the third world by causing DDT to be banned. Malaria has killed millions since this dubious environmental "victory". Time and again, environmental regulations are used to punish one group while advancing the interests of others. They have kept the developing nations in their place, refusing them the basic tools of modernity, all the while propagating a false sense of guilt to further their aims. From celebrities who decry carbon footprints while flying their private jets to federal regulators blocking any attempt to become energy independent and punishing what little profits are made by energy producers, I simply don't have any confidence in them whatsoever. I believe man-made global warming is a terrible lie designed to destroy our economy and our place as the world's most powerful nation.

Laura Ingraham on NY-23

Have you been watching the unfolding drama concerning New York's special election in district 23? It seems like something very important is going on here. The rise of Doug Hoffman, the only conservative in the race, over the liberal Republican nominee and perhaps even over the Democrat is stunning. I think the lesson is not so much about third parties but about the electoral power of conservative principles. Laura Ingraham has some good commentary.

Transparency

. . . was promised again and again by Barrack Obama. It would be nice to get some even now and then. Instead, Republicans get locked out of committee rooms and bills are passed before they are written, let alone read. Don't expect things to get better--the Democrats cannot afford to have the public know what's really in their legislative proposals.

Nurture Shock

Karen and I just finished reading Nurture Shock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman. It's a collection of some recent (and counter-intuitive) advances in child development research. Entertaining and surprisingly conservative in places, the authors touch on a plethora of topics ranging from sleep to self-control to teen rebellion. While none of the areas are considered in any kind of an exhaustive way, the book manages to be quite thought provoking. Parents will definitely benefit from the experience. A few tidbits:

Telling your child he is smart will likely encourage less effort on his part. Instead, try praising specific achievements focusing on the effort applied. Self-esteem is a red herring.

Kids are getting somewhere between 30 minutes to an hour less sleep each night than they used to only a decade ago. Loss of sleep causes problems for adults but it absolutely destroys a child's ability to function academically, turning sixth-graders into fourth-graders. There is also an amazing correlation between sleep-loss and obesity in children (more so than between diet or exercise and obesity).

Kids lie many times a day, and parents can't always (or even usually) tell when. Smarter kids lie better than other kids. They mainly lie to please a parent or other adult, not to avoid punishment.

Tests to identify gifted kindergartners get it wrong about 73% of the time. IQ is not stable in children and testing is meaningless until at least the third grade.

A teenager's need for autonomy peaks around age 14 or 15. It is higher at 11 than at 18. When adults hear disturbing phrases like "swim with sharks" and "bite on a lightbulb" they experience an immediate emotional aversion. When teens hear these phrases, they weigh the decision in the cognitive parts of the brain--they actually have to think about it! Their brains do signal danger during experiments involving sharing their tastes and preferences with peers. Arguments between parents and teens tend to indicate a lower level of dishonesty in the relationship.

Children who watch educational TV shows (like Arthur and Clifford) exhibit a higher level of aggression--they're even worse than Power Rangers! 96% of all children's programming contains verbal insults and worse. Spanking, when done consistently and not as a "nuclear option" is effective (though the authors can't bring themselves to recommend it).

Infant language development is not driven by the number of words the baby hears, but by the number of times the baby gets a response for making sounds. Baby Einstein videos are useless at best and could even be harmful.

As you can see, the list of topics covered is large and diverse. Even so, parents or those who work with children are sure to benefit from the many insights provided.

All the World's A Stage

Shakespeare told us that "all the world is a stage and all the men and women merely players". I suppose we can now add "and all the boys and girls are too".

The drama of the Balloon Boy, aka Falcon Heene, has thrown in sharp relief just how reality and make believe can collide. Yesterday, as news organizations breathlessly reported every new (and often not new) development in the story, everyone with any decency surely hoped and prayed for that family and that little boy. How terrible, how tragic, the story could have ended.

As it unfolded, I too prayed for the little boy and his parents. However, when it was reported that the balloon had landed and no one was in it and that Falcon's older brother had been the one to claim his younger brother had gone up in the balloon, I turned to my husband and told him, "That little boy is hiding in his backyard." (OK, I was off by a few feet.)

Why would I say such a cynical thing? Oh, maybe I just know something about human nature in general, and children in particular. It sounded to me like a childish prank gone awry. The story seemed to be resolved fairly quickly after that, as the six year old was found hiding in a box, and everyone was relieved (if chagrined) and that should be the end, right? Wrong.

When questioned, our young would-be adventurer piped up, "It was for the show". Show? What show? Here it becomes important to note that the Heene family are, ahem, a bit quirky. And they've managed to turn that quirkiness into profit by posting You Tube videos and appearing on the ABC reality show, "Wife Swap". (Side note: perhaps reality show ought also to be in quotation marks?)

Uh, oh. Did the Heene family lead the entirety of the U.S. media on a Wild Falcon Chase as a publicity stunt? Or is the young man just confused, and understandably so, about what is and isn't reality?

Whatever the answer may be, our media must share the blame. The lines between reality and make-believe, news and entertainment, have become hopelessly blurred. What did it benefit anyone that the news of October 15, 2009 was wall to wall "Boy Lost in Balloon" coverage? Would the reporting of the story in any way have helped the little boy if the story had been true? What exactly could all those reporters and camera men have done for the Heene family, anyway?

Falcon Heene, in his childish statement, has indicted his parents, the media, and, really, all of us. The media runs after a story for awhile, be it Anna Nicole Smith's death, Michael Jackson, Jaycee Duggard, "Octo-Mom" or really, anything that will sell papers and make interesting news coverage, until we're so saturated with all the sordid details, we just don't, and couldn't possibly, care any more.

Remember the old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads"? "The play's the thing", to quote our old friend Shakespeare again. Maybe we should just substitute "reality show" for "the play" in our time.

For today, the Heene family and the media, all have egg on their faces. We can be relieved that no one was injured, including all those willing to sacrifice themselves to save a little boy. We can be relieved, but we ought to be chastened and sobered by what this story can teach us.

"It was for the show," is exactly right, no matter how young Mr. Heene meant it. And everyone knows, the show must go on.

Grassley on Health Care

Senator Grassley explains the latest CBO estimate on the Baucus bill.

Obama on Education

From Reason today (H/T: NRO):