Stones Cry Out

A few thoughts, in the form of the dread bullet list, on AGW and climate in general.

• If one uses a variable ? to represent the time-scale in which one is considering making predictions (about the weather), then we can identify a number of regimes for?. If ? is in minutes or even seconds, often we have difficulty predicting weather as gusts of wind move from our local point of view very unpredictably. If ? is in the day/week regime again weather forecasters have difficulty predicting more than 24 hours out in great accuracy temperature, wind, and precipitation. Apparently, as the recent almost decades long downturn which was … unpredicted is anyindication as well, if ? is in the time-scale of a year or a dozen years again climate scientists fail to predict accurately into the future. Yet, they would have it that if? is in the quarter century to century regime … there, and apparently only there the science is easy and they have that figured out. And they’ve both made their prediction and want us to stake the farm on their result. Now in the above conversation if one moved from weather to the market and discussed the various regimes of market, which is similarly unpredictable at any number of time scales, and suggested that based on my computer model of past events I’ve got it nailed down. I have a good model for quarter century market movement. Furthermore I am now trying to convince you to bet your entire life savings on your model. You’d rightfully point out that only several million other yokels have used past markets to predict future market behaviour and have all failed … and that such models are worth not a whole lot more than a bucket of spit. So the question is, is why you think one chaotic dynamical system is so far different from another. If you’re going to really make the claim that when ? is a half-century then that needs to be tested. And that claim that your methods and models work well for that time period will be proven … in about 200-300 years … if you can correctly predict trends now and watch the climate track your predictions. 30 years ago climate science was warning of impending ice ages. Today, it’s warming. Tomorrow?
• One of the claims of those who would call those sceptical of AGW, “climate deniers” are quick to attempt to label the objectors as anti-science Luddites. Yet that claim doesn’t really fly. There are indeed some anti-science people on the right, and others can argue about the numbers or percentages and compare cricket race results. But there is a problem, which is people like myself. There is another problem. There are strong social idealogical reasons why those on the left are receptive to AGW where they should be perhaps (see the prior remarks) more sceptical.The left is conditioned to find fault with America and the corporate culture and behold, AGW fits right into that idea. Given then that there are secondary (and perhaps in many cases dominant) non-scientific reasons why many would be receptive to AGW … that strikes me as problematic.
• Computer modeling has also been described as computer aided story telling. Computer modelling has been used as a shortcut in design and engineering successfully these days in automotive and aerospace design. Yet, consider for a few moments that these applications are backed up by many decades engineering, wind tunnel testing, materials/structural testing and so on. That level of testing and detail, frankly, has no way of having been matched by climate scientists. Furthermore AGW proponents desire the results of their work to have a large and costly public impact. So, are their data sets, algorithms and methods clearly and publicly accessible? Consider the deletion of files and emails in an illegal response to an FOI request? See this post for remarks on how open the AGW people have been.
• Finally, I’m embarrassed to admit another reason that I’m sceptical about AGW … is that I was trained as a Physicist. In Physics the best and brightest move, especially in theory, to the “hot” topics. In programming, (see Mythical Man Month) there exist orders of magnitude in productivity between the very best programmers and the average (and the poor). Likewise this is true in Physics as well … at least in theoretical Physics. And here’s were the bias (or perhaps bigotry) of which I will admit to holding. I don’t think climate or meteorology is a hot topic and as a result I’m of the mindset that climate scientists are, well, second rate.This perhaps not a good reason, but for me I suspect it remains a factor.

1. Recession and taxation.
2. War and the left.
3. UAVs in Afghanistan.
4. A film noted.
5. The kicking and swimming things.
6. AIG, conflicts of interest, and the Fed.
7. Homosexuality, as lightning rod, and a interesting response.
8. Evangelism of the first kind.
9. A Holy man.
10. A Lutheran considers incense.
11. Grandmothers = footballers?
12. WWP(utin)D?
13. How will the left defend this without “losing their credibility?”

The CRU mini-scandal has gotten an lot of press, at least in the slice of the blogs regularly read by myself, two examples here and here are not unrepresentative. There are two facets of this little kerfuffle that might be noted. Read the rest of this entry

President Obama announced yesterday evening that he’s authorizing 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan.  Reactions to it have been just about what you’d expect. 

The NY Times headline is, "Qualified Support From G.O.P.; Skepticism From Democrats", and the article quotes Democrats upset at it and Republicans with guarded approval, with some concern over a specific timetable. 

Bruce McQuain at the Q&O blog expounds more regarding the timetable.  Bruce is a military man, and so he speaks with some authority on the subject.  When it comes to how quickly they will leave, and how quickly they will come home, he doesn’t quite understand the possibility of the speed going out and the purpose of the speed coming back.

Obama says these troops will deploy by fastest means possible. Additonally he said:

Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.

Well let me be clear – deploying troops to a theater of war takes a long lead time. Preparation and training are key. While it is probably true that there were no calls for deployments before 2010, a 3 month delay means 3 months in which the alerted units are shorted vital training time. And now the deployment cycle is going to be speeded up because he’s trying to cover his tail? Guess who suffers to make him look better?

To this point, I’ve laid out a plausible but complex military mission. But it moves from “plausible and complex” to impossible with this line:

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

Even getting the deployment cycle initiated as quickly as possible, the troops (most likely 3 BCTs, a Marine MEU, 4,000 trainers and a command and control element of 7,000) will take 12 to 18 months to complete their deployment. So how is this a surge if as the last unit arrives in country as the first leaves?

He also notes that, if he were part of the Taliban, who have been fighting since the 80s, holding out for 18 months is a cakewalk.

But going from those who think we need more troops to properly get the job done (especially if you include building infrastructure) to those who want less, we start with a blistering opinion piece in Der Spiegel.

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

[…]

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

This left-leaning periodical, from one of those countries that was going to love us once we jettisoned Dubya, is more polite than other domestic Democrats who are throwing their guy under the bus.

Well, OK, that last link is to a blog post discussing the chatter on Democratic Underground, a rather bottom-feeding, though very popular, site.  How about the reaction from Christians who are Democrats?  Lemme tell you, Jim Wallis ain’t happy.  And neither are most of the commenters to the post.  But this one comment, from someone disappointed in Obama’s move, puts it best.

Obama supported this war from the beginning. During his campaign, he called it a "good war" and promised to put more resources into it. He has kept his promise.

All of you who supported his candidacy while claiming to be pro-peace should be doing some major rethinking. I hope you don’t make the mistake of supporting pro-war politicians again in the future.

Reading comments from the Left today, you’d think they expected that he would break that promise; that it was just made to get enough votes to win.  Is that the way to get more honesty in Washington?  Hmmm.

But when all is said and done, I’m with Don Surber who says that, since politics stops (or, well, should stop) at the water’s edge, we should support the President’s decision, and pray for the troops who will be deployed.  We should anyway, of course, but an event like this can bring more attention to this need. 

Actually, some links will be more than a day old as I missed getting this out yesterday.

1. On belief and free will (or at least the freedom to believe).
2. Hmm.
3. On Mary, Theotokos … two opposing views.
4. A Saint noted (and celebrated in my family as she is my eldest daughter’s name-saint as well and a fine choice for a budding intellectual).
5. On the recently departed Patriarch.
6. Two thoughts on Dubai, here and here.
7. On the religious landscape of Battlestar Galactica.
8. Law and morals.
9. Watching Rifqa?
10. Ouch ouch ouch … (warning just slightly nsfw … no graphics just text).
11. An extraordinary journey by an apostle called the first-called … and a homily on the same.
12. Economic data.
13. Of progressives and their different treatment of Islam and Christian … and a related post.
14. Church, state, and witness.

…they won’t release the data from which they drew that conclusion, nor the analysis showing how they got there.  They say they have their reasons…

A spokeswoman from the CDC told CNSNews.com that it is standard procedure for the agency not to release the complete data used by the task force to make recommendations on a range of issues, including adolescence health.

“Before CDC releases information to the public, it must go through the CDC’s scientific clearance process to ensure not only that the underlying data are accurate, but also that 1) it is presented in a manner that is clear and not prone to misinterpretation, and 2) any inferences drawn from the data are defensible,” spokeswoman Karen Hunter said.

She also said that all of the data will eventually be released when it is published in a “peer-reviewed journal,” which can take as long as one year.

Which begs the question, helpfully asked by CNS News:

When asked by CNSNews.com how recommendations can be made before the data are proved to be “accurate” and “defensible,” Dr. Jonathan E. Fielding, chairman of the task force and county director of Public Health, and health officer for the county of Los Angeles Department of Health Services, said he is “very comfortable” with the recommendations.

Well that make me feel better, or comfortable, eh?

There are a couple of folks on this 15-member task force, however that don’t support the findings.  They’ve come out against the non-release of the data and the methodology.

“We are concerned that the study averaged together the results of [Comprehensive Sex Education] programs that were very different from each other, such as programs in STD
clinics and programs in school classrooms, without identifying which kind of programs were effective,” [Irene] Ericksen told CNSNews.com.

“Doing this had the effect of glossing over the lack of results for the CSE programs in the schools, which is the setting where most teens receive sex ed,” Ericksen added.

“These programs did not significantly increase condom use, or reduce teen pregnancy or STDs,” Ericksen said. “To avoid comparing apples and oranges, a more meaningful study would have been a meta-analysis of school-based programs.”

This is almost like ClimateGate with doctors instead of climate scientists.  No transparency, just findings. 

I’ve saved a boatload of links about the whole Climate Research Unit e-mail and document leak, but today I came across an article by the aptly-named author Christopher Booker that distills the issue down to 3 salient points.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

Read the rest of this entry

The occasion of the Manhattan declaration has been one in which a number of evangelicals, the very active Frank Turk at Evangel, has decided that the primary reason he will not sign is that it was done in concert with Roman Catholics, and apparently even worse than that, with the Eastern Orthodox. His point of view, and in fact his very reason for not signing has a number of prominent bloggers and those who self-label as Evangelicals who share his point of view. He writes:

I’ve said it elsewhere, so it should be no surprise when I say it here that I am sure there are Catholics who are saved, and likewise for the occasional Eastern Orthodox you may run into who exercises an Evangelical (large “E” intended) understanding of Jesus and the consequences of Him; but to throw out the wide blanket and just call all of these groups “Christian” in an overly-broad sociological sense, and to call all of them “believers” in the sense required to make the rest of the reasoning in this document is much.

This, to my ears, sounds very Pharisaic. Here we have Mr Turk standing in judgement of the whole of Catholicism and Orthodoxy and finding them wanting … except those few who secretly are “Evangelical.” Well, fortunately (apparently) for me, Mr Turk is not my judge, for I have a Judge already. It seems to me the Gospel has a few things to say about those trying to put themselves in the place of that Judge. Read the rest of this entry

As part of our homeschooling endeavors, my wife and I will have our children keep journals while we are on road trip vacations. Besides being a method to keep them busy, the exercise also helps them learn about the various places we visit, as well as to hone their writing skills. Typically, we’ll have them keep a daily journal, encouraging them to be verbose and expressive as they relate the details of our trip.

On a recent trip, however, I asked them to take their journal writing in a slightly different direction. Instead of having them write from a perspective which relied heavily on feelings (i.e., expressing their thoughts and opinions about what we were doing), I instructed them to give an essentially historical and factual account of what transpired on the trip. They didn’t have to try and include everything that had happened each day, but only that which they considered most important or most unusual. As an added bonus to this alternative approach, my wife and I also kept trip journals.

After the trip, the journals were polished off and printed. I then had each family member read the entire set of journals. Once that task was completed, we all gathered for a group discussion. As expected, the journals were written in a chronological manner (e.g., Sep. 21, Sep. 22, Sep. 23). And, as expected, while the journals contained many of the same trip events, they were not equally comprehensive in their coverage of the trip. Descriptions varied, numerical values were sometimes rounded, specific events were ignored, etc. Due to the type of experiment I was conducting, I purposely varied the style of my journal from that of chronological to topical. I also crafted my account to include rounding, and exclude extraneous information of events that none of the other family members were a part of.

During our discussion I brought up these various differences in each of the journals. I asked what the differences might indicate (e.g., error, difference of opinion, omission). I asked if any of the differences indicated a direct contradiction or whether the differences were simply paradoxical. Essentially, I took our children through the process of harmonizing the four accounts of our trip. This was possible because the harmonization was being done on events they were eyewitness to, and the analysis was being made on data they had a direct part in producing.

Lastly, I then asked if they were aware of any other examples, of multiple accounts of the same events, having a different appearance in the forms we had just discussed. Our oldest quickly answered with, “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,” and our youngest even piped in with the statement that Mark does not include any mention of Jesus’ birth. This, of course, was the point of my exercise: To show our children, brought up in the midst of a 21st century Western culture which prides itself in recording data comprehensively, that historical narratives can (and do) vary, and that such variances are not, in and of themselves, indicative of contradictions or errors.

I think that an exercise, such as this, is important for our children (and for some adults) to understand. During our discussion, I told our children that there are critics of Christianity, and the Bible, who will attempt to convince believers that there are irreconcilable contradictions within the text of the Bible. As this exercise hopefully demonstrated, we have the means to intelligently respond to the critics.

And, like most tantrums, it won’t change a thing.  John Hinderaker notes that the media just can’t seem to bring themselves to admit that a course of action has failed (and predictably so).

You almost have to laugh at the way the media cover the "international community’s" kicking of the Iran can down the road. The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which a few days ago acknowledged that its policy toward Iran had "reached a dead end," has passed a resolution criticizing Iran for flouting U.N. resolutions and demanding that it stop work on nuclear weapons. The Associated Press risibly declares this a "blow" to the mullahs.

This assumes that the mullahs actually care about world opinion.  Recent history does not tend to suggest this is true (to put it mildly).  What is true, as documented by The Israel Project, are these facts and figures:

President Barack Obama recently warned that time is “running out” for Iran to join international negotiations over its nuclear program.[1] The Islamic Republic, the world’s leading state-sponsor of terror, has been deceiving the international community about its nuclear activities for almost a decade, prompting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to declare that “the international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand” regarding Iran’s nuclear aspirations.[2]
Following are facts and figures relating to Iran’s nuclear violations, terror sponsorship and domestic and international affairs.

Nuclear Activity
• 5,412: Centrifuges Iran is operating for uranium enrichment as of February 2009. Another 125 have been installed but are not currently being used.[3]
• 2.75 kilograms (6.1 lbs): Amount of low-enriched uranium (LEU) Iran was reportedly producing daily as of June 5, 2009. At this rate, Iran would have enough weapons-grade uranium to create two nuclear weapons by February 2010. If all reported 7,052 centrifuges were used, the weapons could be developed as early as mid-December 2009.[4]
• 4: UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions calling for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program which Iran is currently defying: UNSC resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747 and 1803.[5]
• 3,000: Number of centrifuges IAEA inspectors confirmed the once-secret Qom nuclear facility is capable of housing; enough to produce material for nuclear weapons but unsuitable for the production of fuel for civilian purposes.[6]
• Approximately 6: Countries—including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey—which would also pursue nuclear technology if Iran’s nuclear program continues to develop, initiating a Middle East arms race and destabilizing the entire region.[7]

When you’ve dithered for almost a decade, how much more time do you give them?  Enough time to build a bomb and start an arms race?  As I’ve said before, sometimes when diplomacy fails, it’s not necessarily a failure of those trying to prevent conflict.  Some people/countries will simply not be negotiated with.  Iran, I believe, has proven itself, quite clearly, to be one of these. 

1. When a philosopher says, “your meaning is not clear” … his meaning apparently is also somewhat guarded.
2. An academic philosopher offering unintelligent remarks.
3. We can hope.
4. Memory, has a year passed already?
5. Theology and a question of continuum or distinct category.
6. This was settled once a thousand years ago … but I guess not for good, the return of the iconoclast.
7. Controlling costs of healthcare.
8. Yet another reason to distrust what passes for wisdom in the White House.
9. Culture of death noted.
10. Of worship and song.
11. A poem.
12. Heh.
13. Odd robot news.
14. The fate of America’s poor.
15. For the AGW faithful.

I try to stay aware of current cultural motifs. Yet I was surprised by the furor over the recent Twilight movie, New Moon. It was at work, a couple of weeks ago, when I caught first glimpse of the phenomenon. A co-worker complained that his wife was dragging him to a movie which, as he put it (in referring to me), “your teenage daughter is looking forward to.” When I asked what movie that might be, he referred to something about a “New Moon”. I must admit that my first inclination was that the feature was actually a documentary on certain astronomical events, however a Google search quickly dashed my hopes.

As point of fact, though, I must say that “no, my daughter is not interested in this movie” (note: I made it a point to ask her whether or not she was interested in the movie and whether any of her friends were, and her answers were very reassuring).

That being settled, I pretty much forgot about the release, save for the obligatory TV or web news items showing adolescent girls, and their moms, queued-up for the midnight showing. However, a curious thing happened upon release of the movie. I began seeing various posts, mainly on Facebook, from otherwise sane Christian females, celebrating the fact that they were attending or going to attend the movie. Likewise, those that had seen the movie were enthralled by what they witnessed. It was also interesting to note that the age range of those commenting spanned from pre-teen to 40+.

Why all the squealing adoration? From IMDB.com, a “plot” synopsis,

Bella Swan is still very much in love with vampire, Edward Cullen. The rest of the vampire coven who call themselves the Cullens, especially Alice, decide to throw Bella a private party for her eighteenth birthday. Things go wrong when Bella slices her finger and thirst overcomes the vampires. As a result of the danger Bella was put through, the Cullen family decide to leave Forks, Washington. At first Bella exempts herself from all social activities, until she realizes she can coexist with childhood friend, Jacob Black. As usual for Bella, things aren’t what they seem. Something is happening to Jacob that he can’t explain to Bella, and their friendship starts to deteriorate. But when someone from Bella’s past comes back to haunt her, everything will change again.

It used to be the vampires were the one the woman ran away from.

In Top 20 Unfortunate Lessons Girls Learn From ‘Twilight’, John Scott Lewinski provides us with a funny / sad list of secular impacts that derive from an obsession with entertainment such as New Moon. Some excerpts,

1. If a boy is aloof, stand-offish, ignores you or is just plain rude, it is because he is secretly in love with you — and you are the point of his existence.
…
3. It’s OK for a potential romantic interest to be dimwitted, violent and vengeful — as long as he has great abs.
…
6. When a boy leaves you, going into shock, losing all your friends and enduring night terrors are completely acceptable occurrences — as long as you keep your grades up.
…
10. Even though you have no intention of dating an alternative male who expresses interest in you, it is fine to string the young man along for months. Also, you should use him to fix things for you. Maybe he’ll even buy you something.
11. You should use said male to fix things because girls are incapable of anything mechanical or technical.
12. Lying to your parents is fine. Lying to your parents while you run away to save your suicidal boyfriend is an extremely good idea that shows your strength and maturity. Also, it is what you must do.
…
14. If the boy you are in love with causes you (even indirectly) to be so badly beaten you end up in the hospital, you should tell the doctors and your family that you “fell down the steps” because you are such a silly, clumsy girl. That false explanation always works well for abused women.
…
18. When writing a book series, it’s acceptable to lift seminal source material and bastardize it with tired, overwrought teenage angst.
19. When making or watching a major feature film, you should gleefully embrace the 20 minutes of plot it provides in between extended segments of vacant-eyed silence and self-indulgent, moaning banter.

Is the adoration that evangelical girls (and women) give for a movie like New Moon indicative of how we, as the evangelical church in general, lavish praise on the secular world? In what other areas do we, men, women, boys and girls, soak up the sugar water the world feeds us, at the expense of what is good?

We can do better.

This summer I had a class in theology which I sometimes discussed. This class was part of the “late vocations” program offered by in our area by the OCA. Currently, I’m taking the second of these classes, and true to form the reading/work load has been somewhat larger than expected. We’re taking a “great books” approach to the Old Testament, and in our 8 week class … reading and discussing the entire Old Testament …. and for the technically minded, using the Codex Alexandrinus for our canon … which means that the books we read are somewhat extended from the standard Protestant even Catholic set of books. In the below, I’m going to explore a question/point raised in class which I would like to explore in more detail.

Throughout the Old Testament, but certainly notable in Judges through Kings IV (the Orthodox church uses the Septuagint as its basis for the Old Testament, Samuel I and II and Kings I & II become Kings I-IV) there is constant influence from external polytheistic religions. There is not just military conquest and battle back and forth between nations being portrayed, but we find priests contending and confronting those following other gods and abandoning those of other religions. There is a marked contrast between how, for example, Elijah deals with the priests of Baal (Kings III 18) and how today we confront those who believe differently in this modern age. Read the rest of this entry

While one could easily dismiss the Obama Party Crashers incident as administration ineptness, let’s hope that officials within the administration treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

An inept guard was responsible for Lincoln getting shot as he allowed Booth to approach the unsuspecting president. Is it so unreasonable to think that either or both of these two individuals could have harmed President Obama had that been their intent?

Despite who might happen to occupy the White House, the office of the Presidency of the United States should not be treated with flippancy. State events should not be viewed as challenges to crash as if it were some “reality TV” contest.

Our culture may view the incident as mildly humorous. Our enemies, I fear, may see it in a completely different light.

What if Abe Lincoln had tried to make Thanksgiving a federal holiday in 2009?  Scott Ott has a hilarious take on it. 

Leading congressional Democrats see in President Abraham Lincoln’s so-called "Thanks-giving day" declaration not only "a disturbing streak of irrational mysticism," as one senator called it, "but a view of human nature inconsistent with the modern enlightenment understanding."

Reporters and columnists from the New York Times, among others, recently expressed confusion at Mr. Lincoln’s claim that he can see blessings in the midst of the trials brought on by what most experts call the "quagmire of a war for cotton" between the Confederacy and the Union.

Read the whole thing, but fair warning; swallow any liquid you may have in your mouth beforehand.  Otherwise it could be all over your computer screen.