Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Science News, Science history and the pagan religion of Climate Alarmism

I love to point out great resources on the internet.  Yesterday I highlighted the Creation-Evolution Headlines site.  Cre-Evo gets their news from the very latest findings in the world of science and worldviews and publishes things of interest to us.   It was funny to see all the Darwinists posting old material in an attempt to reply to the latest findings on the subject of chirality.   Or maybe not funny, sad might be better?   Well, another thing that the site does is point out great Christian scientists of the past and present.  In this case we'll depend on the ICR website to present one of the great ones who passed away within this generation after a quick look at the scientists beginning to lose touch with actually doing science, realizing mistakes have consequences and...well...read on.  1) News.  2)Profile of Scientist. 3) Then finally a newsletter you may not have heard of but you will have now...

~~~~~~~~

1) Scientists Debunk Scientists     01/12/2011    
Jan 12, 2011 — What do you know?  We look to science to tell us about reality, but how confident can we be when they keep changing the tune?
  1. Undermining cosmologyScience Daily tells us today that “Cosmology Standard Candle Not So Standard After All.”  Results from the Spitzer Space Telescope show that Cepheid variables shrink as they age, “making them not quite as standard as once thought.”  One co-author of the paper in Astrophysical Journal warned, “Everything crumbles in cosmology studies if you don’t start up with the most precise measurements of Cepheids possible.”  He is confident that “This discovery will allow us to better understand these stars, and use them as ever more precise distance indicators.”  But isn’t that what they told us last time?
  2. Through a glass distortedly:  Another thing undermining cosmology is the distorting effect of gravitational lenses.  PhysOrg reported that lensing can bias counts of distant objects 10 to 30 times.  “Future surveys will need to be designed to account for a significant gravitational lensing bias in high-redshift galaxy samples.”  Unfortunately, the Hubble Telescope can’t do the job, “because at Hubble’s resolution one literally can no longer see the forest for the trees at these extreme distances.”  We’ll have to wait for the James Webb Space Telescope, “if it gets finished as designed,” to tackle this problem that is of “crucial importance to the optimal design of surveys for the first galaxies.”  See also Space.com, “Cosmic Lenses May Spoil Count of Ancient Galaxies.”
  3. Through the looking glass:  Meanwhile, be sure to calibrate your telescope carefully.  Science Daily reported, “Telescope Calibration May Help Explain Mystery of Universe’s Expansion,” suggesting it hasn’t been done yet.  When dealing with one-of-a-kind ultimate things, though, what does one calibrate it to?  John Woodward, who is working on calibrating the Pan-STARRS telescope in Hawaii, doesn’t seem so sure: “because this is one of the first-ever such calibrations of a telescope, it is unclear just how much effect the team’s work will have, and part of their future work will be determining how much they have reduced the uncertainties in Pan-STARRS’s performance.”  Before he can measure the distortion of known uncertainties like gravitational lensing, maybe he needs to worry about the unknown uncertainties.
  4. Define asteroid:  We all know what asteroids are, right?  But did they exist before William Herschel invented the word?  While pondering that, Space.com argues that it was Herschel’s colleague Stephen Weston who invented the term.  OK, then, once humans agree on the term, all is settled, right?  Space.com told about a space rock undergoing an identity crisis.  Astronomers can’t decide if it is a comet or an asteroid.  It’s in the main asteroid belt, but has a tail (see picture on National Geographic).  Now they’re suggesting a new class of solar system objects: “main belt comets” – unless, that is, it turns out they’re seeing debris from a collision of two asteroids.
        NG indicated that some scientists are excited to find main belt comets because it brings special delivery trucks closer to earth for their : “If you try to hit the Earth from the Kuiper belt, that’s a hell of a long shot,” David Jewitt [UCLA] said.  “But if you try to hit Earth from the asteroid belt, which is ten times closer, it’s much easier, because Earth is a bigger and closer target.”  Do any of you remember being told on the Discovery Channel that delivery of earth’s water via comets was a hell of a long shot?
  5. Genes aren’t everything:  Size up this statement from PhysOrg: “We’ve been taught that DNA is everything, but you could equally well say packaging is everything.”  Results of a massive survey called ENCODE (ENCyclopedia of DNA Elements), “to develop an encyclopedia of the epigenome, that is, of all of the many factors that can change the expression of the genes without changing the genes,” emphasizes the roles chromatin and chromosome packaging have on the resulting organism.  Codes are everywhere, including the code of silence: “Zen-like, she [Sarah C. R. Elgin, Washington University] concludes that silence may be as important as expression.  ‘It’s like sculpture – what you see depends not on what you add, but on what you take away.”
  6. Good cholesterol not so good:  We’ve been told that HDL is the “good cholesterol” that promotes heart health.  Not so fast, reported Live Science: “ Not All ‘Good’ Cholesterol is Good at Unclogging Arteries.”  According to new research at the U of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, “heart disease risk may be better assessed by measuring HDL’s ability to remove artery-clogging plaque, rather than the HDL levels themselves.”  In fact, there may be another substance that determines HDL’s ability to remove plaque.  Unfortunately for us all, “The test is too labor-intensive as it is to be used clinically, [Dr. Daniel J.] Rader said.”
  7. Human-caused climate error:  Scientists have tracked penguins as indicators of climate change.  Now they are finding out that the act of banding penguins both harms the birds and invalidates the measurements.  Banded penguins have 44% fewer chicks, not so much because of climate change, but due to the damage to their lifestyle.  “Banding may have skewed the data,” PhysOrg said, “but climate change is still harming and will harm penguins,” hedging its bets about validity of global warming.
        Live Science, though, said, “Because the approach diminishes survival and reproduction, Le Maho warned that climate change studies relying on banded birds are biased and produce questionable results.”  OK, so let’s just band something else.  Whoops: “[Rory] Wilson [Swansea University] said that the repercussions of banding would ‘absolutely’ carry over to other penguin species, and possibly even seals and sea turtles.”  Did we ever know what climate tune the band was playing?  If not, what should be the response to scientists like William Nordhaus telling politicians that “carbon taxes are the best approach to achieve significant emissions reductions”? (PhysOrg).
Steven Shapin is at it again, upsetting our notions of scientific truth (see 11/02/2010).  We want to believe scientists are impartial, unbiased seekers of truth, but in Science last week,1 Shapin [Harvard] reviewed a book exploring commercial influences on science, asking, “Commerce at the Helm?”  He pointed to scholars who believe that due to commercial interference, and the desire to please funding sources, “scientific integrity is being disastrously undermined.”  Here are his concluding remarks:
Despite pervasive myths of an ivory tower past, universities have always served their social masters and have always molded their internal cultures to those of the powers surrounding and sustaining them.  They have never done so completely, but neither have they ever been as contemplatively disengaged as legend implies.  Our whole society has become shot through with econometric sensibilities and corporate patterns of organization.  Why ever should we expect universities to be much different?  It’s a good question, meriting a considered and informed answer.  We’ve heard from the humanists and the social scientists; it’s time to hear a lot more from the natural scientists and engineers.  If the inhabitants of the modern research university cannot collectively agree that they want to push back, then the further alignment of research and teaching with econometric sensibilities is likely to be the future.

1.  Steven Shapin, “History of Science: Commerce at the Helm?”, Science, 7 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6013 p. 33, DOI: 10.1126/science.1198434.
If scientists keep changing their stories about things easily accessible to the senses in real time, how much can we expect confidence in their pronouncements about the unobservable past?
Next headline on:  Stars and AstronomyCosmologySolar SystemGeneticsPolitics and EthicsPhilosophy of Science
2)  Biography of a great Christian scientist



Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer

Ernst Chain and his colleague Howard Florey are credited with "one of the greatest discoveries in medical science ever made."1 Together with Sir Alexander Fleming, they were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. What is less well known, however, is that this preeminent biochemist openly opposed Darwinism on the basis of his scientific research.

A Brilliant Career

Ernst Boris Chain (1906–1979) was born in Berlin, Germany, where he obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology. Although he became a highly respected scientist, as a Jew he foresaw what was coming and left his home country soon after Hitler came to power.2 He worked in England as a research scientist at Cambridge, also studying for a Ph.D. there, and then at Oxford University until 1948.3

After Oxford, Chain worked in research and as a professor at several universities. The promise of better equipment lured him to Rome, but Britain, conscious of its loss, soon enticed him back by building him a new research laboratory.2 His lifelong work was "all about the mystery of life,"4 and during his 40-year career he accomplished "amazingly diverse achievements"5--even feats once considered impossible, such as the production of lysergic acid by the deep fermentation process.6

A Major Founder of Antibiotics

In 1938, Chain stumbled across Alexander Fleming's 1929 paper on penicillin in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, which he brought to the attention of his colleague Florey.7 During their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. It was largely this work that earned him his numerous honors and awards, including a fellow of the Royal Society and numerous honorary degrees,8 the Pasteur Medal, the Paul Ehrlich Centenary Prize, the Berzelius Medal, and a knighthood.9

Chain was selected as a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize specifically for his research that demonstrated the structure of penicillin and successfully isolated the active substance by freeze-drying the mold broth to make its use practical.10 When Chain was doing his research it required 125 gallons of broth to produce enough penicillin powder for one tablet! Now the same tablet is mass-produced for a few cents.

An internationally respected scientist, Chain is widely regarded as one of the major founders of the whole field of antibiotics. Aside from sanitation, the discovery of antibiotics was arguably the single most important revolution in medicine in terms of saving lives. Chain later wrote a leading text on the subject. 11 In 1940 he also discovered penicillinase, an enzyme that is used by bacteria to inactivate penicillin, negating its effectiveness.12 Chain knew that bacteria had become resistant to the drug and had already started working on the problem at this early date.

Other important scientific work by Chain included the study of snake venom, specifically the finding that its neurotoxic effects are caused by destroying an essential intracellular respiratory coenzyme.

A "Hypothesis Based on No Evidence"

One of Chain's lifelong professional concerns was the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution, which he concluded was a "very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy, "mainly of morphological and anatomical nature," that "it can hardly be called a theory."13
This mechanistic concept of the phenomena of life in its infinite varieties of manifestations which purports to ascribe the origin and development of all living species, animals, plants and micro-organisms, to the haphazard blind interplay of the forces of nature in the pursuance of one aim only, namely, that for the living systems to survive, is a typical product of the naive 19th century euphoric attitude to the potentialities of science which spread the belief that there were no secrets of nature which could not be solved by the scientific approach given only sufficient time.14
A major reason why he rejected evolution was because he concluded that the postulate that biological development and survival of the fittest was "entirely a consequence of chance mutations" was a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."15
These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.15
Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism.13 Chain's eldest son, Benjamin, added: "There was no doubt that he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection--he disliked theories...especially when they assumed the form of dogma. He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation--and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view."16

Problems with Evolution

Another reason he did not consider evolution a scientific theory was because it is obvious that "living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive."15 Chain recognized that the problem was not the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest, and that mutations do produce some variety:
There is no doubt that such variants do arise in nature and that their emergence can and does make some limited contribution towards the evolution of species. The open question is the quantitative extent and significance of this contribution.15
He added that evolution "willfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species."15

He was especially aware of how the research in his own field pointed to problems with evolution. In particular, Chain noted our modern knowledge of the genetic code and that its function in transmitting genetic information seems quite incompatible with classical Darwinian ideas of evolution.17

Evolution, Morals, and Faith

Another concern about evolution that Chain expressed was evolution's moral implications. In a 1972 speech he presented in London, he stated:
It is easy to draw analogies between the behavior of apes and man, and draw conclusions from the behavior of birds and fishes on human ethical behavior, but ...this fact does not allow the development of ethical guidelines for human behavior. All attempts to do this...suffer from the failure to take into account the all important fact of man's capability to think and to be able to control his passions, and are therefore doomed to failure.18
Chain did not accept some scientists' estimation that "religious belief" did not deserve serious consideration, countering that scientific theories themselves are ephemeral.
In a lecture which Crick, who, together with Watson and Wilkins, discovered the bihelical structure of DNA, gave a couple of years ago to students at University College...he said...that it was ridiculous to base serious decisions on religious belief. This seems to me a very sweeping and dogmatic conclusion...scientific theories, in whatever field, are ephemeral and...may be even turned upside down by the discovery of one single new fact....This has happened time and again even in the exactest of sciences, physics and astronomy, and applies even more so to the biological field, where the concepts and theories are much less securely founded than in physics and are much more liable to be overthrown at a moment's notice.15
One might dismiss Chain's view on Darwinism as simply a result of his faith, but Clark stresses that how "directly such views were linked to his religious beliefs is open to endless argument."18 Chain's eldest son wrote that his father's concerns about evolution were not based on religion, but rather on science. Chain, though, made it clear that he was very concerned about the effect of Darwinism on human behavior.
Any speculation and conclusions pertaining to human behaviour drawn on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theories...must be treated with the greatest caution and reserve....a less discriminating section of the public may enjoy reading about comparisons between the behaviour of apes and man, but this approach--which, by the way, is neither new nor original--does not really lead us very far.... Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals.19
Clark concluded that Chain wrote with such flair against Darwinism that his writings "would do credit to a modern Creationist rather than an accomplished scientist."13 Chain made it very clear what he believed about the Creator and our relationship to Him. He wrote that scientists "looking for ultimate guidance in questions of moral responsibility" would do well to "turn, or return, to the fundamental and lasting values of the code of ethical behaviour forming part of the divine message which man was uniquely privileged to receive through the intermediation of a few chosen individuals."19

Conclusion

Sir Derek Barton wrote that there are "few scientists who, by the application of their science, have made a greater contribution to human welfare than Sir Ernst Chain."20 His work founded the field of antibiotics, which has saved the lives of multimillions of persons. Chain is only one of many modern scientists who have concluded that modern neo-Darwinism is not only scientifically bankrupt, but also harmful to society.
References
  1. Masters, D. 1946. Miracle Drug, the Inner History of Penicillin. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 7.
  2. Asimov, I. 1972. Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. Garden City, NY: Double Day and Company, 712.
  3. Schlessinger, B. and J. 1986. The Who's Who of Nobel Prize Winners. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 93.
  4. Lax, E. 2004. The Mold in Dr. Florey's Coat. New York: Henry Holt, 63.
  5. Mansford, K.R.L. 1977. Profile of Sir Ernst Chain, in Hems, D.A. (ed.). Biologically Active Substances--Exploration and Exploitation. Chichester, NY: John Wiley and Sons, xxi.
  6. Barton, D. 1977. Introductory Remarks, in Hems, D.A. (ed.). Biologically Active Substances--Exploration and Exploitation. Chichester, NY: John Wiley and Sons, xviii.
  7. Lax, The Mold in Dr. Florey's Coat, 79.
  8. Ibid, 253.
  9. Curtis, R. 1993. Great Lives: Medicine. New York: Scribner, 77-90.
  10. McMurray, E. 1995. Notable Twentieth-Century Scientists. Detroit, MI: Gale Research Inc., 334.
  11. Chain, E., H. Florey and N. Heatley. 1949. Antibiotics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  12. Barton, Biologically Active Substances, xxiii.
  13. Clark, R. W. 1985. The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond. New York: St. Martin's Press, 147.
  14. Chain, E. 1970. Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society. London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 24-25.
  15. Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist, 25.
  16. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain, 147-148.
  17. Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist, 25-26.
  18. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain, 148.
  19. Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist, 26.
  20. Barton, Biologically Active Substances, xxvii.
* Dr. Bergman is Professor of Biology at Northwest State College in Ohio.
Cite this article: Bergman, J. 2008. Ernst Chain: Antiobiotics Pioneer. Acts & Facts. 37 (4): 10.

~~~~~~~

Darwinism still "is a typical product of the naive 19th century euphoric attitude to the potentialities of science which spread the belief that there were no secrets of nature which could not be solved by the scientific approach given only sufficient time."

3)  One of the best things on the internet that people don't know about?  The Cornwall Alliance!

Newsletter

Wednesday, January 12, 2011


Having trouble viewing this newsletter in email? View online here
.

Environmentalism as Religion: The New Holy Wars


Dr. James Tonkowich
(IRD Photo)
by James Tonkowich
Senior Fellow
Cornwall Alliance

Human beings crave meaning and direction in their lives and religion supplies that meaning and direction. Today, writes Dr. Joel Garreau, the Lincoln Professor of Law, Culture, and Values at Arizona State University, “For some individuals and societies, the role of religion seems increasingly to be filled by environmentalism.”

Writing in “Environmentalism as Religion,”
an article published in the New Atlantis, he notes that, “In parts of northern Europe, this new faith is now mainstream,” and that if we are to understand the debate over climate policy in particular, “we must understand where ‘ecotheology’ has come from and where it is likely to lead.”

Garreau’s article focuses in part on “The Greening of Christianity.” “To the extent that evangelicals and environmentalists are in fact reaching out to one another, there can be benefits for each side,” he writes. “For churches with aging congregations, green issues reportedly help attract new, younger members to the pews.” Environmentalists get reliable “foot soldiers” in return.

The catch is that evangelicals are being recruited to a different kind of religion, one that “increasingly sports saints, sins, prophets, predictions, heretics, demons, sacraments, and rituals.” It is a religion related not to historic Christianity, but to historic paganism.

And it is precisely the religious nature of much environmentalism that makes the debate so difficult. Disagree with the received environmentalist orthodoxy and you will find that you are not wrong with rational arguments to follow, but a heretic with non-rational—yea, even irrational—condemnation to follow.

One of the great dangers of this, says Garreau, is “the expansion of irrationalism in the making of public policy.” While very little public policy is made in an entirely rational manner, it is nonetheless important to use facts rather than sentiment and non-rational faith.

“A strict focus on facts and reason whenever possible can avert error and excess in policy,” he writes. “But can someone who has made a faith of environmentalism—whose worldview and lifestyle have been utterly shaped by it—adapt to changing facts?” And climate science, a scientific field in its infancy, is particularly subject to changing facts.

Joel Garreau’s article is a good overview of the issues and of what is at stake when science abandons reason for blind faith.

Garreau is one of a growing number of scholars to recognize that environmentalism not only has religious elements but has itself become a new religion. Another is Robert Nelson, who examines it in The New Holy Wars: Economic Religion vs. Environmental Religion in Contemporary America
. Another is Peter Jones, whose Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America
documents the prevalence of revived Gnostic, pagan, animist, and polytheist religions in much environmental thought.

For more on environmentalism as religion, watch “Resisting the Green Dragon
,” a twelve-part video curriculum that includes two lectures by Peter Jones, and read James Wanliss's new book (to be released January 17), both from the Cornwall Alliance.

Recent Significant Developments

Science & Ecology

Yes, Virginia, You do Have to Produce Those "Global Warming" Documents.
(Christopher Horner, David Schnare, & Robert Marshall; The Washington Examiner)
The University of Virginia spends hundreds of thousands to fight a Freedom of Information Act request in Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's investigation of Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann's use (or misuse) of tax-funded research grants.

The Met Office Fries While the Rest of the World Freezes
(Christopher Booker; The Telegraph)
As the Met Office desperately tries to salvage its reputation, another of this "warm" winter's ice disasters is unfolding in the Sea of Okhotsk.

Economics & Energy

Congress Should Rein in EPA
(William Shughart II; The Independent Institute)
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has done, is doing, and will do much harm to the economy if the new Congress does not rein it in.

"Clean Energy Standard:" Bad Solution to a Non-Problem (Lindsey Graham Rides Again)
(E. Calvin Beisner; Master Resource)
The call for "clean energy standards" or "renewable energy standards" fails by the standards of both science and economics.

Religion & Ethics

Mere Environmentalism: A Biblical Perspective on Humans and the Natural World
(Steven F. Hayward; American Enterprise Institute)
American Enterprise Institute Scholar Steven Hayward, who lectured on "A Brief History of Environmentalism's Exaggerations, Myths, and Downright Lies" for Resisting the Green Dragon
, provides a clear, concise, Biblically insightful introduction to environmental ethics and policy.

IPCC Professor Calls for "Elite Warrior Leadership" to Rule Over Eco-Dictatorship
(Paul Watson; PrisonPlanet.com)
Prominent United Nations scientist says new green religion should replace traditional faiths as part of shift towards authoritarian tyranny.

Politics & Debate

Met Office "Kept Winter Forecast Secret from Public
(Steven Swinford; The Telegraph)
The Met Office knew that Britain was facing an early and exceptionally cold winter but failed to warn the public, hampering preparations for some of the coldest weather on record. In a letter
to the Transport Select Committee, Dr. Benny Peiser inquires if the purpose was to push the Cancun Climate Summit.

The Icy Grip of the Politics of Fear
(Brendan O'Neill; Spiked)
The snow crisis of December 2010: a striking snapshot of the chasm that separates the warming-obsessed elite from the rest of us.

Meet the Critics: Piers R. Corbyn


Landmark Documents from the Cornwall Alliance


E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Founder and National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation


Information in this newsletter is for scholarly and educational use only and may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.


Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
If a friend forwarded this to you, you can subscribe at www.CornwallAlliance.org
.



So if you still believe in Anthropic Global Warming despite all the record low temperatures and heavy snowfalls in the Northern Hemisphere and the leaked CRU emails and the debunked "hocky stick graph" which might still land some people in jail?   You are a religious zealot who doesn't care much for evidence or logic.   So there is a very good chance you are also a Darwinist.   But I am not going to give up on you...

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/19/the-oily-operators-behind-the-religious-climate-change-disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance/

link posted for the 6th time after being removed

Anonymous said...

In the comment section three posts down you were asked for the evidence behind the first model that you pasted. Actual evidence FOR the creation model as opposed to the usual attempts to peck away at evolution etc.

You got anything?

Anonymous said...

"if you still believe in Anthropic Global Warming despite all the record low temperatures"

What's the hottest year on record, Radar?

Seriously, do you only read propaganda?

radar said...

The hottest year on record is 1934. If you don't know that, then YOU only read propaganda...

Oily operators? Seriously? Talk about being propagandized!

If you believe in man-made climate change you are, sadly, and I do not say this lightly, a fool. Al Gore and his cohorts have already made a killing on carbon offsets and they hope more of you ignore the faked evidence and support measures that kill off industry and keep third world countries poor. AGW and Eugenics work hand-in-hand at the UN.

The world is in a cooling phase right now, for crying out loud! Temperatures are primarily driven by the Sun. We need climatology kindergarten for the media and I hope the lawsuit for fraud against the hockey stick guy makes the headlines...

Your name wouldn't be Phil Jones, would it?

~

Ad nauseum. I keep telling this one commenter to go to Tas Walker's blog and website for details on the flood geology model.

radar said...

And I do not remove comments that I disagree with. Climate Progress is an absurdly religious "green wingnut" website. I have a few scientific sites that I have recommended like Roy Spencer's site and Anthony Watt's site.

Don't you understand the AGW information was faked?! Or are you like Dan Rather and his "faked but true" Bush military records, you don't care if it is true or not as long as someone prints it?
Julian Assange is not my favorite character but his release of all the CRU emails should have put an end to all the IPCC and CRU nonsense. Or do you like your science intentionally faked to fit your politics?

radar said...

May I remind readers of the climate station audits done by Anthony Watts and his team of investigators? Climate stations in North America have been systematically changed to put temperature recorders in front of air conditioner outlets, on top of flat asphalt roofs, at airports near runways, and basically (against regulations) they have been moved to heat wells so that the temperatures they give will be artificially higher. Also, the average temperature readings are no longer being taken from a wide range of sites, instead the ones that read consistently warm are used and other sites are "estimated" in order to produce faked data.

So we get record snowfalls and crops failing in Florida from freezing and Atlanta gets hit by snow and you really expect us to believe this last year was a record WARM year? Care to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge? I am astounded at the naivete of you commenters!

Anonymous said...

I love it how Radar gets all nasty and emotional when confronted with hard facts LOL.

And by the way: no one said YOU removed comments. So cool your jets...

radar said...

I am not going to get mad at you so might as well quit trying? :-)

Anonymous said...

Who cares if you'd get mad at me?

Anonymous said...

"Oily operators? Seriously? Talk about being propagandized!"

Thanks for admitting that The Cornwall Alliance is all about propaganda.
It must have been a shock for you to realise you've been used as a tool...

radar said...

Exactly. It makes no difference. Evidence is evidence.

Anonymous said...

"It makes no difference. Evidence is evidence."

Let me remind you of a statement you made earlier:

"You will find that Al Gore has lied and misled people because he and many other government figures have invested in carbon offset companies and people associated with IPCC and CRU deliberately faked graphs and calculations to scare the world into supporting offsets. This is a great evil! Poor countries and the common man in richer countries would all suffer greatly to make a few rich people richer!"

from your article 'The lies of Global Warming are exposed!'

So you accuse Al Gore of telling lies because of ulterior motives, yet when TCA is shown to have ties to oil companies it doesn't matter evidence is evidence! (which evidence by the way; I only see appeals to emotion).

Oh Radar, you really should think twice before making such statements; sooner or later they come back to bite you in the hindquarters.

Double standards - the Radaractive way!

radar said...

I guess you missed the "tell lies" part of the statement? Wikileaks has helped us see clearly (along with the hockey stick and other faked data) that AGW is built on lies and runs on ignorance. I am going to show you commenters what actual climatologists think and the truth about climate and CO2. Although you really should have already understood that the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not enough to impact temperatures already, if you actually knew what you were talking about.

Anonymous said...

Which faked data?

Anonymous said...

2nd attempt:

If you're referring to those hacked e-mails, that's been investigated by independent panels, and here's what they found:

Science Assessment Panel:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

Independent Climate Change Email Review

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty

No evidence of scientific malpractice of deliberate misleading was found.

But of course they're lying too, and YOU know the truth. Right?

radar said...

I just presented evidence about why the 2010 claim is wrong. It isn't even the hottest year in the last 20 years, let alone in the last century. 1998 beats it, for one and 1934 beats everyone. But long term information tells us we are nowhere as warm as we were before industry started and furthermore we need CO2 increased, not decreased. You, uh, actually have to READ the posts?

rajni said...

nicely done

Jon Woolf said...

Unfortunately, to a skeptical eye those three 'investigations' are less than convincing. The 'Climategate' material included thousands of emails and a great deal of other material, such as source code for computer programs. All three investigations were strictly limited affairs that looked at a handful of the leaked emails, shrugged and said "there's no definite evidence of wrongdoing, so they must be innocent." They didn't talk to any of the serious climate-change skeptics, and (far more important, to my mind) they didn't do anything with the leaked source code.

See, emails can be misinterpreted. Source code, never. It either runs or it doesn't; it either produces accurate results, or it doesn't. If it doesn't give results you know to be right, then you have to assume it's wrong. The picture that came out of the leaked material was of code that was not well-written and had never been properly tested, meaning that there's no way to verify its results.

Radar will no doubt pounce on this comment as support for his position: 'see, see even Jon agrees with me!' Don't believe it. I don't agree with, or support, either side. The fact is that both sides use an awful lot of questionable 'science,' and neither does a very good job of proving its claims. I don't know which claims I can trust, so I trust none of it.

Anonymous said...

"Ad nauseum. I keep telling this one commenter to go to Tas Walker's blog and website for details on the flood geology model."

Yep, did that, and surprise surprise, Walker has no evidence for creation and disregards truckloads of evidence that contradict YEC for no adequate reason.

Same old story. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that YECs are simply morally and intellectually bankrupt. The conclusion is all that matters, regardless of how or whether the evidence supports it.

Now, Radar, do you have any actual evidence FOR creation or don't you?

Anonymous said...

"So we get record snowfalls and crops failing in Florida from freezing and Atlanta gets hit by snow and you really expect us to believe this last year was a record WARM year?"

Logic fail, Radar. You do understand how averages work, no?

scohen said...

John,

The researchers involved in the CRU 'scandal' were accused of deliberately manipulating data in order to advance their beliefs (fraud), and as such, I'm going to disagree with a couple of the things you said above, namely:
1. "It either runs or it doesn't; it either produces accurate results, or it doesn't" implies fraud

and
2. "The picture that came out of the leaked material was of code that was not well-written and had never been properly tested" also somehow implies fraud.

If I've misstated what you're saying then accept my apologies, but if not read on.

Programs are terribly difficult for even trained programmers to write and test. Most programs fall into the middle category, ignored above, of 'mostly working'. This means that for many or most inputs, a correct output is produced. However, an unexpected input can create incorrect outputs. This doesn't mean that the programmer was acting maliciously or with dishonest intent --most commonly used programming languages are inherently immune to testing by proof. Because of this, we make do with less than rigorous testing and bugs happen. That the people writing these programs aren't even computer scientists by nature should make the lack of code quality even more understandable.

Calling code 'not well tested' is true for virtually all the code in the world since there's no established measure of what 'well tested' means unless your name is Don Knuth. You might have 100% branch coverage, but still have bugs that are data-specific. Not being well tested can also speak more to the difficulty of testing than it does to the intent of the programmer. For example, tests are easier to write in Ruby than they are in Java or C, so while it's common for Ruby code to have hundreds of tests, it's rare for Java. Add amateur programmers to the mix and it's even less likely.

Lastly, there are literally thousands of programmers that have had a very long time to access the CRU code, and we've heard nothing from anyone along these lines. The lack of a gotcha in there is telling.

I also think that you're mistaken about the following:
[The CRU code] "had never been properly tested, meaning that there's no way to verify its results"

That's not correct, anyone can write tests for software. You don't have to be the original author to write a test.

To sum up, shoddy code is not the same as fraud. Not even in the same league, actually.

As an aside, in my career, I've seen many physicists switch over to software engineering. Almost to a one, they're fantastic programmers, but are extremely 'hacky'. Their solutions work, but are difficult to work *with*. I would certainly call their code "not well written".

I hope this makes some kind of sense to you.

Jon Woolf said...

scohen:

Fraud is certainly one possible explanation. But it's not the only one. I don't know what actually happened, I only know what seems to have resulted. I believe the investigations should have been two-pronged:

1) was the research coming out of the CRU trustworthy? The leaked material was (and is) evidence for that line of questioning.

2) if the answer to question 1 was no, then why not? Did the CRU researchers simply make a lot of mistakes, or did they commit fraud? Some parts of the leaked material is also evidence for this question.

I still haven't seen an investigation that tried hard to answer question 1, much less question 2.

Jon Woolf said...

You wrote: Programs are terribly difficult for even trained programmers to write and test.

I know. Testing programs, both my own code and others', has been part of my job for many years.

Lastly, there are literally thousands of programmers that have had a very long time to access the CRU code, and we've heard nothing from anyone along these lines.

I have. One of the files that made a big stir in the blogosphere was called HARRY_READ_ME.txt. A copy of the actual file is here:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

A post that talks about some of the contents is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

Long story short, it's a status report on some sort of analysis or survey of the data sets and program code then in use at East Anglia CRU. To a programmer, it's frightening reading. I don't know who Harry is or exactly what code he was looking at, but it seems clear that it was production code (no one would invest months studying prototype or discarded code) and it was full of the kind of mistakes that makes good programmers cringe.

Jon Woolf said...

There were also a couple of people who actually tried to compile and run some of the leaked source code. I saw one or two of the resulting blogposts, although right now I can't seem to relocate them.

I also think that you're mistaken about the following:
[The CRU code] "had never been properly tested, meaning that there's no way to verify its results"

That's not correct, anyone can write tests for software. You don't have to be the original author to write a test.


That's true, you don't. But you do have to know something about the specific program you're dealing with. And you need a program that really can be rigorously tested. Not every program can be. To my mind, there's only two ways to really fully QA-test a program. One way is to sit down with pencil and paper and a code printout, follow it step by step, and prove that it does what the spec says it's supposed to do. The other way is to generate a complete set of input data for which the output data is already known, feed that input into your program, and see if it produces the right output.

Neither one of those things is possible with a climate model. We don't know exactly what the program should be doing, not down at the line-by-line level, so we can't use method 1. And we don't have a clean, complete set of input and output test data, so we can't use method 2. Do you know of a third method?

scohen said...

John,
I read the blog posts and the readme file, and it's exactly what I would expect from a non-programmer writing code. I don't speak fortran, nor do I want to (it's ugly as sin) so I can't just sit down and understand the whole thing. It's a big job and will take a proficient programmer at least several weeks to get comfortable. I'm curious as to what condition the code was in as well--was it the most recent version? The delivery method (email) would seem to indicate that it's not.

Furthermore, I'm a bit put off at the tone of the post which highlights normal programmer speak in a gotcha fashion. What's obvious to me is that there's a good programmer stepping in after a terrible programmer has done their 'work'.

"To my mind, there's only two ways to really fully QA-test a program"

You've highlighted white-box and black-box testing in broad strokes. There's also the theorem proving method, which is not applicable here, due to the code being in fortran.

"Neither one of those things is possible with a climate model."

I'm not so sure about that. You don't need to test every *possible* permutation of data in order to have a fair amount of confidence in your code. The skeptics could write enough tests until they feel that the model does what the CRU people think it does.

I was going to go into this before, but the model is the important thing here. The code that makes the model is much more important than all the data-loaders and normalizers (which were discussed in the blog post). If the model has intentional flaws, then we have fraud, failing that it's sloppy, which is fine.

It reminds me of the time that several government programs were de-funded in the early 2000s. I'm a whitewater kayaker, and we relied on the USGS's online river gauges, which were shut down. The army corps of engineers also ran gauges, though their data was much worse quality than USGS. I made a website to replicate the USGS graphs with the Army's data and I was constantly running in to bad data. There were sporadic readings, incorrect values from 'phantom' gauges, malfunctions and duplications. All of this needed to be accounted for in order to get the true read on a river's level. My problems were very similar to those described in the readme files.

When someone looks at those expecting to find a conspiracy, the words

"Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"


look like a smoking gun. When I read them, I just see a programmer complaining about a problem that hasn't been specified enough.

If you want to have an offline sidebar conversation, I'm game. Radar's blog isn't the best place to talk about stuff like this.

my email is scohen at the domain linked in my name above.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The hottest year on record is 1934. If you don't know that, then YOU only read propaganda..."

Source?

radar said...

Frankly scohen's typical tone doesn't work here. No one cares if you can write or read code. We know that the CRU/IPCC researchers did NOT want the cooling period included in their data and Mann's hockey stick graph is so blatant that he is being sued for misuse of government funds! Large numbers of climatologists have jumped off of the AGW bandwagon but of course the UN will push this until the bitter end.

AGW econuts do not want you to know that weather stations have been tampered with (hundreds) and that the formula used to average North American temperatures has been gamed to produce higher temperatures, as I asserted back during the Climate Station Audit days. They do not want people to know about the Medieval Warming Period which was beneficial to mankind or the Little Ice Age as fluctuations that have had absolutely nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere in any way, shape or form. BS is BS whether you can write in assembler's code or not. Read the subsequent blog posts.

scohen said...

"Frankly scohen's typical tone doesn't work here. No one cares if you can write or read code"

Didn't the entire blog post John directed me to deal with both the quality of code and the intentions of those writing it? Yes it did, and the ability to understand code and programmers is relevant.

Perhaps Radar's typical tone of boundless ignorance isn't helpful here?

Anonymous said...

Radar,

Source for your statement that 1934 is the hottest year on record?