Search This Blog

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Global Warming is burning up my straw man!

Alas, I have been falsely accused of two things:

1) Abandoning my YEC point of view.
2) Failing to respond to a challenge/Dodging an issue .

Both of these are false. I will now try to bring reason to the debate and see if I can finally, FINALLY, open the eyes of those who are my accusers. Let us begin:

First point is relative to the second. It seems that I posted some information from a site and the author is not a YEC (young earth creationist). Some of his points made earlier in his treatise involved his belief in an earth of more than 10,000 years old. Good for him! However, I only used the portions of his assertions that dealt with more modern times, that is, the last 4,000 years or so. He and I were in agreement. I used him as a source. I was immediately accused of abandoning my YEC perspective. Yes, a massive straw man was erected for my commenters to assail as they began to rant against things I did not say and do not believe.

We have historical records that go back, reliably, well over 3,000 years. Unfortunately, beyond that point scientists must begin to look at things like ice cores and tree rings and speculate as to their message to us about past conditions. I stayed entirely away from that and only commented on more modern times. In fact, since temperatures have not been taken reliably since the end of the 17th century, we depend on written accounts of climactic conditions previous to that time.

That I would assert that the records we have available demonstrate a planet with cyclical temperature changes is sensible and based upon facts. It fell to commenters to try to disprove my assertions. Have they?

NO! Commenters instead have set up this straw man of YEC versus Old Earth to try to take the focus off of the issue. Also, rather than respond to my comments they have demanded that I present further proofs of what I say. This is not give-and-take but rather I do all the giving and they sit back and throw stones. Some of you who are reading this are numbered among said commenters, including a few with whom I have exchanged fairly long dialogues in the past. Why are they (you) evading the topic this time? Hmmmmmmm.

But I will be kind and present a bit more information and then I will re-issue my challenge:

From Climatic History of the Holocene by James S. Aber -

Climate of the last millennium

Contrary to the popular belief in climatic stability of recent times, the Earth's climate of the past 1000 years has changed significantly. Good historical documentation, particularly for western Europe, exists for this period. Based on comprehensive studies of both scientific and historical information, we now have a reasonably complete understanding of climate for this time interval (Le Roy Ladurie 1971; Grove 1988). Five major phases are now recognized:
  1. Medieval climatic optimum (AD 700-1200).
  2. Medieval glaciation (AD 1200-1460).
  3. Brief climatic improvement (AD 1460-1560).
  4. Little Ice Age (AD 1560-1890).
  5. Modern climatic optimum (AD 1890-2000).

Medieval climatic optimum

This was a time of extremely favorable climate in northern Europe. Harvests were good, fishing was abundant, sea ice stayed far to the north, vineyards existed 500 km north of their present limits, and famine was rare. This was the period of great Viking expansion from Scandinavia--see Fig. 19-7. In addition to their warlike image, Vikings were also colonists. Their settlements were based on cereal grains (wheat and barley) and dairy herds (goats, sheep, and cattle).

Oseberg Ship, a completely preserved Viking ship from a burial mound in southern Norway. The ship dates from about A.D. 1000. Ships of this kind were sailed across the North Atlantic to Iceland, Greenland, and North America.
Detail of ship's prow, showing construction technique and ornate wood carving. From the Viking Ship Museum, Norway.

Iceland was settled beginning in AD 874 and soon became an independent republic. Greenland was colonized in AD 985 by Erik the Red, and his son, Leif (the Lucky) Erikson, made a short-lived attempt to settle in Newfoundland (Vinland) around AD 1000. By the 12th century, two sizeable communities existed in southwestern Greenland, and the Norse colonies obtained their own Catholic bishop in 1126. Greenland was a viable European outpost.

Archeologic remains of Norse farmsted at Brattahlid, Greenland. This farm site presumably was founded by Erik the Red during the initial Viking colonization of Greenland in the tenth century. At that time, icebergs were not common in coastal waters. Photo by Preben Jensen; reproduced by permission.
The remains of a large barn for dairy cattle can be seen in foreground (just to right of previous view). In the right background stands Thjodhild's church and cemetery. Many graves are preserved from the latter part of Viking settlement, because permafrost conditions developed. Photo by Preben Jensen; reproduced by permission.

In North America, pollen and charcoal in sediments from Chesapeake Bay record climatic changes over the last 1000 years (Brush 1991). During the Medieval climatic optimum, large influxes of charcoal, sediment, and metals indicate more frequent forest fires and higher rates of erosion in the surrounding basin. Forest in the Chesapeake basin recovered, and erosion diminished, during the following few centuries of cold climate. In southern Florida, sea level was at least ½ m higher than now from the first through tenth centuries (Froede 2002).

False-color Landsat TM image of Chesapeake Bay and Potomac Bay vicinity, Maryland and Virginia. Washington, D.C. is blue spot near scene center. Changing character of sediment accumulation in Chesapeake Bay reflects vegetation and climatic conditions in surrounding land areas. From NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

For Pacific Islands, the period AD 750 to 1300 was a climatic optimum marked by warm temperature, high sea level, and probable aridity (Nunn and Britton 2001; Nunn 2003). This was the period of long-distance Polynesian migrations and colonization across vast oceanic distances. The Pacific climatic optimum during the 12th century is confirmed by tree-ring records of the Huon pine from Tasmania (Cook et al. 1991).

Medieval glaciation

Climatic deterioration began in the 1200s; glaciers expanded in Iceland and in the Alps. Vineyards had declined in Germany by the 1300s and had completely disappeared in England. Fishing replaced cereal grains as the main source of food in Iceland, and sea ice expanded southward between Greenland and Iceland. Around 1340-50 the more northerly of the two Greenland communities was abandoned to the native Inuits. In the 1347-50, bubonic plague swept through Europe and killed one in three people, but it is unknown whether the plague reached either Iceland or Greenland.

The last reliable account of Norsemen living in Greenland comes from 1408-10, when a wedding took place at Hvalsey Church--see Fig. 19-8. Based on archeologic evidence, it seems that Norsemen continued to live in the vicinity until about 1480. However, when the region was next visited, by German merchants in 1510, only Inuits were found living among the ruins. The harsh climate after 1300 was undoubtedly a factor in the demise of the Norse settlements. Cold climate reduced dairy production, and extensive sea ice hampered essential trade with Europe.

Stone walls of Hvalsey church, the best preserved of any Viking building in southwestern Greenland. At least twelve church districts were set up in the "eastern" settlement, including a cathedral at Gardar, and at least three more church districts existed in the "western" settlement (Krogh 1967). Photo by Preben Jensen; reproduced by permission.
Interior view of Hvalsey church. A wedding in 1408 at this church is the last recorded event in the history of Viking Greenland. Photo by Preben Jensen; reproduced by permission.

From the mid-1400s to the mid-1500s climatic conditions in western Europe improved somewhat. This episode was too little and too late, apparently, to save the doomed Norse settlements in Greenland. Elsewhere in Europe, life went on with no recognition of climatic change or its effects.

Across the Pacific Islands, the period AD 1270-1475 was a transition interval, often called the "AD 1300 event" (Nunn 2000). Sea level fell, perhaps in two stages by more than 1 m, and temperature declined an average 1½°C. El Niño increased in frequency, and precipitation increased. These climatic changes resulted in a serious decline in productivity for near-shore coral reefs, and significant shifts in human culture took place. Most notably, the long-distance voyages of the previous period came to an end.

Little Ice Age

Cold climate and glacier expansion during the Little Ice Age are documented from all continents (except Antarctica) and on major islands from New Zealand to Svalbard (Grove 1988). The best historical evidence comes from the Alps, Scandinavia, and Iceland. The Little Ice Age was not a single, uniformly cold climatic episode. Distinct variations in climate and in glacier activity took place on a regional basis. In Europe and North America, at least six phases of glacier expansion occurred and were separated by milder intervals.
  1. 1560-1610 Major advances by all glaciers.
  2. 1640-1650 Glacier maximum in Switzerland.
  3. 1670-1705 Glacier maximum in Austria.
  4. 1720-1750 Glacier maximum in Norway.
  5. 1816-1825 Minor advances by all glaciers.
  6. 1850-1890 Glacier maximum in Canada/Iceland.
These advances during the Little Ice Age resulted in adverse conditions for farms and villages located in mountain valleys below the glaciers. Many farms and some villages were destroyed by a combination of glacier advance, melt-water floods, landslides, and related disasters. Population in the affected mountain regions declined significantly, due to emigration and death, whereas population elsewhere in "lowland" Europe continued to grow in general during the Little Ice Age.

Glacier advances in the vicinity of Mont Blanc, France, destroyed three villages and heavily damaged a fourth between 1600 and 1610. The oldest of these villages had existed since the 1200s. Likewise in Norway, outlet glaciers of Jostedalsbreen ice cap advanced markedly in the 1700s and destroyed many farms--see Figs. 19-9, 19-10 and 19-11. The local population was reduced to eating bread made with a mixture of ground wheat chaff, straw, and pine bark. Taxes were reduced on farms that suffered physical damage--see Fig. 19-12, and many people were forced to migrate out of the region or become beggars.

Large lateral moraine of the Little Ice Age in vicinity of Hornsund, southern Spitsbergen, Svalbard. Photo © by J.J. Zeeberg; used here by permission.
Jostedalsbreen is the ice cap on the distant horizon. The deep valley is Jostedal, and a "summer farm" is seen to the right. Summer farms are used for tending dairy cattle that graze on the high pasture. During the Little Ice Age such summer farms were unproductive. Outlet glaciers of Jostedalsbreen descended into lower valleys in the distance and destroyed many farms. Photo date 6/87; © by J.S. Aber.

The Little Ice Age was a time of exceptional poverty, misery and suffering in Iceland, as a result of severe winters, major volcanic eruptions, and oppressive Danish colonial rule. Famine and pestilence ravaged the country. The human population of Iceland, which had reached about 70,000 around A.D. 1100, had dwindled to only 34,000 by 1708--less than half the Viking peak (Magnusson 1987). Following a huge volcanic eruption in 1783, there was serious discussion of evacuating the remaining inhabitants to live in Denmark, but this did not actually happen.

Climatic and human consequences of the Little Ice Age are best documented in western Europe. Therefore, some climatologists have concluded naively that this climatic episode was a regional anomaly, not of worldwide significance. This point of view is contradicted strongly by evidence from glaciers in tropical mountain locations. The Quelccaya ice cap in the Andes Mountains of southern Peru is one such site. Ice cores provide direct physical evidence for colder climate between AD 1500 and 1900 (Thompson et al. 1986). This record compares favorably with cooler northern hemisphere temperature and expanded glaciers during the same period. The climatic changes recorded in the Quelccaya ice cap correspond closely with prehistoric cultures of Peru. Farther south, Lake Titicaca rose significantly during the 16th-19th centuries as a result of more humid, cooler conditions (pers. comm. J. Argollo, 1996).

Ice-cores from Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru
Location map and ice-cap margin
Solar-powered drilling equipment and ice core
Oxygen-isotope and accumulation records
Climatic record and prehistoric civilization
The Little Ice Age was in fact a worldwide event with distinct regional variations (Nesje and Dahl 2000). It is documented from the southern hemisphere to Spitsbergen in the far north (Svendsen and Mangerud 1997). Based on many forms of historical, archeological and geological evidence, global average temperature was 1-2°C cooler than today (Grove 1988). This climatic episode was not recognized at the time; its true character has become clear only since the Little Ice Age ended.

Special lecture on Late Holocene climate.

Modern climatic optimum

The Little Ice Age ended in some parts of the world as early as 1860, in other regions not until the 1930s. A marked difference is apparent for climatic change in the northern and southern hemispheres--see Fig. 19-13. In any case, the 20th century has been noticeably warmer for most regions than for any time since the 12th century. However, 20th century climate did not recover to the level of warmth that existed during the Medieval climatic optimum a millennium ago. Such recovery may yet take place in the 21st century.

Glaciers and ice caps have experienced negative mass balances and have been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age. This is a general condition for glaciers of all types in nearly all geographic locations, with the possible exception of Antarctica. The local timing of deglaciation may vary considerably, however, depending on many factors as detailed below.

Table 19-2. Comparison of response rates for glaciers in different settings.
Rapid Response Slow Response
High altitude (mountains) Low altitude (lowlands)
Continental climatic zone Maritime climatic zone
Sea- or lake-based glaciers Land-based glaciers
Small glaciers & ice caps Large glaciers & ice caps
Atlantic Ocean regime Pacific Ocean regime
Northern hemisphere Southern hemisphere
The end of the Little Ice Age occurred earliest--mid-1800s--for interior mountains of northern mid-latitudes, such as the European Alps, and took place latest--early 1900s--on islands of the South Pacific, as in New Zealand. The end of the Little Ice Age is just beginning to have an effect in Antarctica. Meanwhile, the late 20th century has been a period of positive mass balance and expansions for small glaciers in many places, for example Iceland and Norway, as a result of increased winter precipitation (Nesje and Dahl 2000). Since the end of the Little Ice Age, glaciers have experienced many lesser periods of ice advance and retreat that happened at different times in separate parts of the world. This scenario indicates that global climatic change takes place with distinct regional variations, which are probably the results of lag effects caused by differences in heat transfer and storage at the Earth's surface.

~~~~~~~

Answers in Genesis presents a novel thought on this subject:

Could Global Warming Cause Another Ice Age?

Some climate scientists believe that global warming will slow or stop the northward oceanic heat flow in the Atlantic Ocean, causing an ice age. Northern Europe is significantly warmer due to this ocean heat. The stopping of this flow was the basis for the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow.

A new oceanic study, based on measurements over 47 years, claims that the northward heat transport has already decreased by 30%.1 Computer climate simulations suggested that such a decrease would require a global temperature increase of 7–11°F (4–6°C) after nearly a century.2 Some scientists believe that global warming will cause a more rapid climate change and that we need to act now.

So far, the reduced heat flow has caused no climatic effect in Europe. Moreover, Carl Wunsch of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) believes the climatic significance of the northward heat transport is greatly overblown and that it is difficult to stop it.3 The MIT professor further writes that there are many unknowns associated with ocean and atmospheric climatic interactions, and that climate simulations have many difficulties. Besides, the prevailing winds drive the ocean currents and are mostly responsible for the northward heat transport. The addition of fresh water on the ocean’s surface will not slow the heat flow, which is an unsupported assumption made in climate simulations.

  1. Bryden, H. L., Longworth, H. R., and Cunningham, S. A., Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N., Nature 438:655–657, 2005.
  2. Goss Levi, B., Is there a slowing in the Atlantic Ocean’s overturning circulation? Physics Today59(4):26–28, 2006.
  3. Wunsch, C., Abrupt climate change: An alternative view, Quaternary Research 65:191–203, 2006.
Could a period of warming cause another period of cooling?

~~~~~~~

Allow me to share a recent article from another YEC source, Creation on the Web:

Climate change & terrorism: a new political agenda?

by Emil Silvestru

Illustration Credit: wikipedia.org

Cyclone Catarina

Despite grim predictions in light of the 2005 season, the 2006 [Atlantic] hurricane season in the US came to an end without a single one making landfall in the USA. The providential ‘culprit’ this time was an early El Niño,1,2 a warm Pacific current that sometimes starts along the north-western coast of South America on Christmas Day (El Niño means The Infant [baby Jesus] in Spanish) significantly changing the weather patterns in the eastern Pacific. This changes the intensity of the easterly trade winds in the Atlantic, which in turn influences the paths hurricanes follow. In years with El Niño, the easterly trade winds in the Atlantic are stronger and they will tend to push hurricanes further east, thus diminishing the probability of landfalls.

The triggering of El Niño is still not well understood but seems to be linked to deep ocean water circulation in the Pacific Ocean, which is part of a global circulation system known as the thermohaline circulation system (THC). In years without El Niño, the westerly trade winds in the tropical Pacific push warm water westward, so that the ocean around Indonesia is about 0.5 meters higher than near the coast of Ecuador!2 Cold, nutrient-rich deep waters upwell off South America, massively increasing the bio-productivity of these waters. This cold water also limits the amount of rain in the Americas whilst the warmer water in the western Pacific causes rains and generally wet weather in south-eastern Asia and north-eastern Australia. During El Niño years the situation is reversed; rains and floods affect the Americas whilst drought afflicts the western side of the Pacific (the 1982–83 drought in Australia was due to this).

“ many sceptics are not deniers of global warming, only doubters of the significance of the role humans play in it. ”

The THC is far from being well understood and because of this, reliable long-term forecasts are still not within reach. It is however fairly well documented that this circulation system (which moves about 20 times more water than all the rivers on Earth) is the true engine that drives climate on Earth and is controlled by salinity (the amount of salts dissolved in the ocean waters). Events like the Lake Agassiz flood in North America at the beginning of the Holocene have significantly influenced it and triggered dramatic cooling during the episode known as the Younger Dryas. Another similar episode has been recently recognized as having as its source the catastrophic draining of a huge freshwater lake underneath the ice sheet in Antarctica.3 If significant amounts of fresh water are suddenly dumped into the THC, the system will be disrupted and intense climate cooling will ensue. Another such event could occur if Lake Vostok (larger than Lake Ontario) situated 3,600 m below the surface of the ice, would be suddenly drained into the ocean. Such an event is possible in the case of global warming but its occurrence would immediately trigger an opposite trend: a dramatic global cooling. This reveals one very interesting aspect of God’s creation: its ability to maintain homeostasis (constant climate conditions in this case) by way of dynamic mechanisms similar to feedback loops.

In a seminal paper from 1987, a team of researchers4 have revealed one such negative feedback loop. The vast majority of clouds on the planet form because of tiny sulphate particles (cloud condensation nuclei) generated by certain species of phytoplankton in the ocean. A global warming would increase the mass of phytoplankton which would produce more clouds. More clouds, on the other hand, would increase the albedo (the whiteness or reflectivity of the planet seen from space), which should, all else being equal, reflect a larger part of solar radiation back into space. This would then be expected to cause a global cooling, less phytoplankton, less clouds …

In light of all these, one cannot but wonder how some scientists can be so sure in their dark predictions of global climate change in the near-future? Their apocalyptic predictions uttered as certitudes have even led some politicians to adopt positions that undermine the basic principles of democracy. Thus the UK foreign secretary Margaret Beckett has recently compared climate-change sceptics with terrorists. One wonders what has been left of free speech? After all, many sceptics are not deniers of global warming, only doubters of the significance of the role humans play in it. It is fairly well documented that many natural causes are fuelling global warming. Christians have repeatedly been accused of dismissing global warming because they believe that God, being Creator and Master of the Universe, will take care of His creation and somehow limit the effects of global warming. Well, as we have just seen, God indeed has provided mechanisms in His creation that do control global climate. But this doesn’t mean Christians should not be concerned by the short-term effects of global warming. God has commanded us to subdue nature, but that doesn’t mean He has given us a carte blanche to destroy or disfigure the beautiful world He has given us! We are to be good and loving stewards. And that also means we need to learn more about His creation so that we would gain a better understanding of its complexity, and acknowledge with thankfulness that it does reflect God’s majesty.

References

  1. <http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/eln/def.rxml>.
  2. <http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html>.
  3. Lewis, A.R., Marchant, D.R., Kowalewski, D.E., The age and origin of the Labyrith, western Dry Valleys, Antarctica: evidence for extensive middle Miocene subglacial floods and freshwater discharge to the Southern Ocean,
    Geology 34(7):513–516, 2006.
  4. Charlson, J.R., Lovelock, J.E., Meinart, O.A., Warren, S.G. Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate, Nature 326:655–661, 1987.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, I persist in stating that we have records that clearly illustrate that the globe has been heating up and cooling down without any help from man in the form of carbon fuels or any other means. If mankind is causing the cycle to speed up in any way, and that is unclear, it also appears that the planet is designed to offset such "help" and balance out those factors. Scientific assertions that man is causing Global Warming and that GW is a disaster waiting to happen are not agreed upon within the scientific community, largely because they are highly speculative assertions that have not be proven by any means. Also, if it was so, if we knew that we were contributing to Global Warming, it would appear that any efforts to reverse the cycle would take many decades to have a significant effect...if indeed there would be a significant effect at all.

I am not against looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, nor looking into ways to reduce emissions into the atmosphere. I am against the frantic cries of the Al Gore crowd shouting, "Doom! Doom!" The ball was already in your court, people, but hopefully now you will have to admit that this is so and do something about it.........

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

”Global Warming is burning up my straw man!”

Have no fear – your straw man is alive and well, even in this very post. Man, this thing is so utterly and stunningly covered with mistakes, fallacies, holes... Whoa! You’ve outdone yourself, Radar – this is a bonanza!

”Alas, I have been falsely accused of two things:

1) Abandoning my YEC point of view.
2) Failing to respond to a challenge/Dodging an issue .

Both of these are false. “


Not so. You have many times failed to respond to challenges regarding your positions, and you have dodged a number of issues over the past year. Even now you dodge the question of how you can square adopting a YEC position on the one hand, denying that ice cores and tree rings show us what life was like on this planet far more than 6,000 years ago, with your position re. climate change, in which you rely on the evidence provided by ice cores and tree rings to paint a picture of cycles of climate change.

So 2.) above is not false. As for 1.) I don’t accuse you of abandoning your YEC point of view – I accuse you of holding two contradictory positions as a result of not having thought this through, and I’ve speculated out loud which position you would abandon. I very much doubt you’ll ever abandon YEC, but you’re going to have to figure out how to make that work out with the stuff you’re peddling with regard to climate change – which by itself for the most part isn’t objectionable at all to anyone who accepts an old earth, and actually your pretending that that’s what anyone on this board takes issue with is a colossal straw man by itself.

Actually, there is a third option – you can continue to evade the question, and that’s the one you’ve opted for so far.

”I will now try to bring reason to the debate and see if I can finally, FINALLY, open the eyes of those who are my accusers.”

To do that you’d have to be clear about what the disagreements actually are. From the looks of it, you’re mighty confused about this, and instead you’ve just defined your own straw men in order to avoid difficult questions.

”Let us begin:

First point is relative to the second. It seems that I posted some information from a site and the author is not a YEC (young earth creationist). Some of his points made earlier in his treatise involved his belief in an earth of more than 10,000 years old. Good for him! However, I only used the portions of his assertions that dealt with more modern times, that is, the last 4,000 years or so. He and I were in agreement. I used him as a source. I was immediately accused of abandoning my YEC perspective.”


False. It’s not just that the author was not a YEC, but that all of his conclusions – including those within the last 6,000 years – was derived using methods whose validity you have refuted in the past in order to prop up your belief in YEC. That is the problem that was very clearly pointed out to you, IIRC, more than one time, and in more than one comment section. The fact that you refuse to mention it now is just a continued evasion and not particularly honest of you.

”Yes, a massive straw man was erected for my commenters to assail as they began to rant against things I did not say and do not believe.”

I do believe that you believe in YEC. I do think that you haven’t thought through what this entails in terms of what data you cannot accept that anyone who believes in an old earth can readily accept – like tree rings, ice cores etc. that allow us to draw conclusions about our planet’s past.

”We have historical records that go back, reliably, well over 3,000 years. Unfortunately, beyond that point scientists must begin to look at things like ice cores and tree rings and speculate as to their message to us about past conditions.|

Think carefully, Radar: what are the historical records that go back, reliably, well over 3,000 years? Keep in mind we’re talking about historical records specific to climate here, not just any old historical record.

I stayed entirely away from that and only commented on more modern times. In fact, since temperatures have not been taken reliably since the end of the 17th century, we depend on written accounts of climactic conditions previous to that time.

That I would assert that the records we have available demonstrate a planet with cyclical temperature changes is sensible and based upon facts.”


A planet with cyclical temperature changes is sensible. It is based on facts. It also demonstrates an old earth. And it is based on facts that you deny in other discussions.

Still you are unable to square this circle – and still you evade.

”It fell to commenters to try to disprove my assertions. Have they?

NO!”


This is about as blatant a straw man argument as you can have, Radar. You pretend that anyone on this board disagrees that there have been cycles of climate change in our planet’s past, and declare some kind of victory when nobody disagrees with you.

As I pointed out to you in an earlier comment, it is not up to me to automatically oppose any viewpoint you take and pile up evidence to support it. I don’t disagree that there have been cycles of climate change in our planet’s past, and as far as I know neither do any of the other commenters that stop by here. But that alone is not a slam-dunk argument that climate change today is not an issue to be concerned about.

”Commenters instead have set up this straw man of YEC versus Old Earth to try to take the focus off of the issue.”

If the “issue” is that there were cycles of climate change in our planet’s past, then there is no issue. You can take it that we’re all agreed on that, and were before you ever started up about this. What even made you think that this was a point of disagreement? Can you point us to people who argue that there were no climate fluctuations in our planet’s past?

Bringing up YEC is far from a straw man, however, since YEC is not a position falsely ascribed to you, and you champion conclusions based on data that cannot be considered to be reliable if what you claim about YEC is true.

Do you get that contradiction?

”Also, rather than respond to my comments they have demanded that I present further proofs of what I say.”

Not so much further proof as much as proof that is actually consistent with your worldview. You’re practicing a massive mental disconnect and trying to pretend it doesn’t matter – that you can claim a thing is true in one argument and the very same thing is false in another. Bizarrely enough, you’ve chosen to completely exacerbate that problem in this very post, by digging up more and more evidence based on tree rings, ice cores etc.

So as far as that goes, you’re preaching to the converted, so to speak. We’re fine with the tree rings, the ice cores, the climate fluctuations, the old earth. The difficult questions are elsewhere, and not surprisingly you don’t seem that interested in them. For example, what kind of impact can carbon emissions really have on the atmosphere, the ozone layer, etc.?

”This is not give-and-take but rather I do all the giving and they sit back and throw stones.”

Asking you to practice intellectual consistency is hardly “throwing stones”, Radar. What you’ve been “giving” is inconsistency, with some intellectual dishonesty (okay, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt – maybe it’s genuine confusion) thrown in for good measure.

And what you have fundamentally failed to give are honest answers to reasonable questions regarding the contradictions in your positions.

”Some of you who are reading this are numbered among said commenters, including a few with whom I have exchanged fairly long dialogues in the past. Why are they (you) evading the topic this time? Hmmmmmmm.”

If the topic is “were there climate cycles in the planet’s past?”, then the obvious answer is that we simply don’t disagree with it to begin with. That’s hardly an evasion. It’s not very sexy, but hey – there’s simply not much of a disagreement here, get over it.

”But I will be kind and present a bit more information and then I will re-issue my challenge:”

Look, this is a lovely cut and paste job, nicely put together, but again, what you’re citing here all once again includes using methods that you allegedly find unreliable.

Let’s try this another way, Radar, maybe this’ll make it clearer to you:

Statement: “The claim that the Earth came into existence no more than 6,000 years ago is disproven by the fact that we have continuous tree ring records and ice cores that go back long before that.”

Radar, could you explain why this statement is false?


”Answers in Genesis presents a novel thought on this subject:

Could Global Warming Cause Another Ice Age?

Some climate scientists believe that global warming will slow or stop the northward oceanic heat flow in the Atlantic Ocean, causing an ice age. Northern Europe is significantly warmer due to this ocean heat. The stopping of this flow was the basis for the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow.”


This one almost made me spit out my coffee: “AIG presents a novel thought on this subject”??!! Radar, you really should try a slightly wider range of info input.

IIRC, this very idea was discussed at great length in a book published way back in the early 90s, and I’m not even sure if it was entirely new then. The book was called Earth In The Balance, written by a guy called Al Gore. That of course would make it anathema to you, Radar, but if you get it spoonfed with the label “AIG” on it, it suddenly becomes a “novel thought”.


” 1. Bryden, H. L., Longworth, H. R., and Cunningham, S. A., Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N., Nature 438:655–657, 2005.
2. Goss Levi, B., Is there a slowing in the Atlantic Ocean's overturning circulation? Physics Today59(4):26–28, 2006.
3. Wunsch, C., Abrupt climate change: An alternative view, Quaternary Research 65:191–203, 2006.”


Hmm, I wonder if these folks arrived at their conclusions while taking on board Radar’s previously stated views on dendrochronology etc.?

”Could a period of warming cause another period of cooling?”

Sure could – it could also cause a period of instability, or of one region getting very cold and another hot and arid. There’s nothing in this that indicates that our future’s going to be perfectly cozy and self-correcting for our benefit.

~~~~~~~

”This reveals one very interesting aspect of God's creation: its ability to maintain homeostasis (constant climate conditions in this case) by way of dynamic mechanisms similar to feedback loops.”

Weren’t you into catastrophism not so long ago? So now catastrophes are no longer possible? God has created the Earth as some kind of uniformitarian (by your definition) miracle?

”Christians have repeatedly been accused of dismissing global warming because they believe that God, being Creator and Master of the Universe, will take care of His creation and somehow limit the effects of global warming. Well, as we have just seen, God indeed has provided mechanisms in His creation that do control global climate. But this doesn't mean Christians should not be concerned by the short-term effects of global warming. God has commanded us to subdue nature, but that doesn't mean He has given us a carte blanche to destroy or disfigure the beautiful world He has given us! We are to be good and loving stewards. And that also means we need to learn more about His creation so that we would gain a better understanding of its complexity, and acknowledge with thankfulness that it does reflect God's majesty.”

Nicely put, Radar. Maybe there’s still a chance for you to find common ground with those whom you profess to hate.

-- creeper

Lava said...

I'll call my post: "The Pot Calls the Kettle Black" or " 'Global warming is burning up my Strawman!' is burning up my Strawman"

So, I decided to read up more on the Straw Man argument stuff-

Wiki:
"One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy)
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked."

To accuse the commentators of this when you have been doing this all along- ludicrous.

Here are some examples of you building the strawman over the last 2ish weeks:
1. Presenting a misrep of the other persons position- I think creeper covered this one.
2. this one you don't really do.
3. Presenting someone who defends the position poorly as the defender- how about that article from the trashy english paper(the english version of the NY post- about the polar bears)? Way #3 to build a strawman sounds exactly like what you did in refuting that piece of crap article. I called you out on choosing that article, but never heard a response.
4. Inventing a fictitous persona- well you didn't invent one, I'll give you that, but you tried to attribute the view that denying GW is as bad as denying the holocaust to all liberals and GW believers. Wow, this sound just like #4 above. Please don't attribute the views of the (way) far left to liberals- we don't all think that way, and frankly it takes some of the credibility away from you posts.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy- doesn't this sound familiar? Didn't you make an analogy about the boy sneezing and the car passing to one of my posts? Wow, didn't that oversimplify my argument into one of the simplest analogies to refute?

I submit, radar, that you have been building the strawman. Creeper has asked you some pretty straightforward questions. Do you need a list of questions in a separate post or something? Do you not see them in his long (and well written) arguments? He bolded them this time. I hope that helps.

Lava said...

A couple things:

1. I can't wait for your response on Gore's Oscar. Does the conspiracy deepen?

2. Re: "I am not against looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, nor looking into ways to reduce emissions into the atmosphere. I am against the frantic cries of the Al Gore crowd shouting, "Doom! Doom!"" I'm just wondering if you saw an Inconvenient Truth? If so, do you really think Al Gore was crying "Doom, Doom!"? (now, some people do shout "Doom, doom", but I wouldn't call that the majority) I think he presented some pretty logical ways to reduce emissions- not, "sell your cars, shut down the factories or we die"-- this last statement would be what I call crying "Doom Doom!"

loboinok said...

1. I can't wait for your response on Gore's Oscar.

Will mine suffice?

I'm just wondering if you saw an Inconvenient Truth?

I haven't. Have you seen the new version?

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.


Tennessee Center for Policy Research


Is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. "Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses." Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream-colored center that most people want. “They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it,” Heymann says. “So we bought all this throwaway stone. It’s fabulous. It’s got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.”

Univ. of Oregon


I think he presented some pretty logical ways to reduce emissions

Do you take advice from someone who is "all hat and no cattle"?

You buy the 'sizzle' and I'll buy the 'steak'!

cranky old fart said...

Radar,

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, no?