Beisner: Subduing and Ruling the Earth to the Glory of God - say what?

The Cornwall Alliance tells us they speak for the God Almighty of time, creation and life - then they use their God as justification for rejecting hundreds of years worth of Earth observations and increasing climate knowledge.   Curiously their God does happen to totally embrace the neo-Republican/libertarian "free" market ideal.

This Cornwall Alliance document reminded me of the beautiful babes and tough cowboys used to sell cigarettes, only Beisner is using God to sell his attack and denial of solid scientific knowledge.  Tragically such superficial media campaigns seem to be quite successful at wooing an all too apathetic public.

Even though rational communication with such people seems next to impossible it's important to take the time to point out their base misconceptions, misrepresentations and out'n out lies, even if only to let other's know that the truth is out there.  

{Still working on getting this introduction right, edited Thursday evening, 10/2/14}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

The Biblical Perspective of Environmental Stewardship: Subduing and Ruling the Earth to the Glory of God and the Benefit of Our Neighbors

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/the-biblical-perspective-of-environmental-stewardship-subduing-and-ruling-the-earth-to-the-glory-of-god-and-the-benefit-of-our-neighbors/

1. We affirm that the Earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof (Psalm 24:1).  We deny that the Earth or anything else is the result of impersonal, blind chance over time.

~ ~ ~
This is a misrepresentation.  Evolution isn't about "blind chance" it's about dynamic processes of selection that can be observed, studied and increasingly understood.  Trying to portray it as "pure chance" is pure dishonest!

Of course, as we experience in our own lives, seeming "blind chance" does indeed play a part that can profoundly alter the flow of events, but it still occurred within a framework that is no chance.

I imagine Dominionist would probably claim that there is no chance and instead God directs everything, but that makes no sense thinking of God spending eternity watching his clock work ticking away.

Beisner's Cornwall Alliance's God

This post is at a new location:
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/09/beisner-subduing-earth-glory-god.html

Oily operators behind The Cornwall Alliance

One thing leads to another and after reading this article and looking at some of it's links, it seems to me I'd be remiss if I didn't share it as background to an upcoming series of posts that will be dedicated to a skeptical examination of The Cornwall Alliance's various claims.

With many thanks to ThinkProgress.org for all their efforts to keep us informed.

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

The oily operators behind the religious climate change disinformation front group, Cornwall Alliance

BY CLIMATE GUEST CONTRIBUTOR POSTED ON JUNE 19, 2010 AT 7:27 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/06/19/206237/the-oily-operators-behind-the-religious-climate-change-disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance/

The Cornwall Alliance appears to be a creation of a group called the James Partnership, a nonprofit run by Chris Rogers and Peter Stein, according to documents filed with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Rogers, who heads a media and public relations firm called CDR Communications, collaborates with longtime oil front group operative David Rothbard, the founder and President of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Jacques Villarreal, a lower level staffer at CFACT, for his James Partnership group. In the past, Rogers’ firm has worked for the Bush administration and for the secretive conservative planning group, the Council for National Policy.

According to public records, the following entities are all registered to the same address, 9302-C Old Keene Mill Road Burke, VA 22015, an office park in suburban Virginia:
- Rogers’ consulting firm, CDR Communications
- Rogers’ nonprofit hub, the James Partnership

- The Cornwall Alliance

- The new “Resisting the Green Dragon” website

In late 2005,

Hotwhopper's peek at the Cornwall Alliance

{Sou,  I've been working, on and off, on a detailed review of the way too long Cornwall Alliance's A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming.  You've given me renewed incentive to get back to it and finish it.  Thanks for posting this look at the Cornwall Alliance and their assault on rational learning. CC  }

Until I finish my next project I want to share this article that was posted at Sou's Hotwhopper.com, the blog that does the best job of tracking Anthony's Watts' nonstop flood of increasingly disconnected claims and insinuations.
(I've shared three more links to other interesting articles about the Cornwall Alliance at the end of this.) 

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

Sou - September 27, 2014 @wattsupwiththat 
Evangelical Deniers: The poorest and most vulnerable and the lowest of the low

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/evangelical-deniers-poorest-and-most.html

You know how Anthony Watts on occasion has criticised other people for using photoshopped images or "fake" photos to illustrate a point, while at the same time faking images of his own. Well, he's done it again. This time pinching a photo from a company bringing cleaner energy to Africa (and South America), to argue that his readers should instead pollute "poor people" out of existence.
{on a related note also see:  June 27, 2013 Dr. Nils-Axel Morner's Maldives Tree - what's up with that?}

Compare and contrast - WUWT touting dirty energy (and religion), while using a photo about how a company helped a family in Rwanda move to cleaner cooking! (Scroll to the bottom.) 

Today WUWT and CFACT (archived here) are touting support for the pseudo-religious cult, the Cornwall Alliance. (I've written about that organisation before.) The WUWT article has the headline: 

Protect the poor – from climate change policies 

Surely you're joking Mr. Weingarten - updated with invite

Back by popular demand a reposting of my January look at the base insanity of Ben Weingarten's defense of Mark Steyn*, the reporter who believes there's no place for honesty or integrity in today's media or political landscape.  
{"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH"  Ben Weingarten | The Blaze | Jan. 27, 2014 }

Steyn, Weingarten and friends are fighting a tooth and nail PR campaign against one of the world's experts on paleoclimate studies - {which alone is a good enough reason for the Republican/libertarian machine to make him enemy number one - despite the fact that recognized experts in the field, who actually understand the details of Dr. Mann's work consistently side with Dr. Mann's interpretation rather than the disjointed rhetorical attacks of the science rejecting, faith-based Republican crowd}.

I've shared some links to further information about court developments since this was originally written.

*  (Wednesday evening) 
Over the course of the day I've been wondering about my words: 
"the base insanity of Ben Weingarten's defense of Mark Steyn" - was I too extreme, could I support it? 

After much deliberation, YES, I can support the insanity claim.  Here's my defense.  

To begin with Weingarten assumes that truth doesn't matter.

Think about it, Weingarten and Steyn's and the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and in fact, the entire Republican/libertarian political machine's argument (for way more than denying climate science ! ) is built on the demand that truth doesn't matter - faith and a good story is enough for them to reject down-to-Earth-facts and believe what they want, rather than what the observed facts are telling us.

...

...

I actually had further "points" written up, 
but you know . . .  what's the point?

Until that main insight is appreciated and plugged into how we/you deal with them, the rest won't make sense.

The bottom line is that to the Republican/libertarian crowd the truth of scientific fact doesn't matter.  

All they care about is winning their power-political games.  Nothing else in our world, nor our children's actual future living planet matters to them - they got their ancient beliefs and their fortunes to defend - to hell with the real world surrounding us.

That is the enemy you young ones are up against, watch this:

I challenge Weingarten, Steyn, or any 'champion' to explain in a rational good-faith manner where any of what I have written in this post is wrong. 

Objectively, rationally...  we don't need to like one another to have a civil dialogue.

~ ~ ~ 
{Here's my prediction, you will hear nothing but the sounds of silence to my challenge, another failure to get through.

Fortunately, I'm almost 60 and on my way out, but I do worry about younger generations and I wonder do you have what it takes to crack that Republican/libertarian/evangelical faith-based shell of willfully imposed ignorance???  Lordie knows my generation failed big time.  

PS. you are welcome to grab anything I've written and rework it and make it your's.  Sharing and spreading information and ideas is what it's all about. }

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

If you are trying to understand the "right wing" approach to learning about critically important climate science issues and the concept of an "even playing field" - here's an article that highlights their contempt for a civil and honest exchange of information.  

It relates to Dr. Mann's lawsuit against author Mark Steyn, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for claiming he's guilty of scientific fraud.  In response to another ruling in the plaintiff's favor, one Ben Weingarten wrote an artfully crafted plea for sympathy, wherein he transforms the perpetrator(s) into the victim(s).  But, do his claims stand up?

Here's my review, along with links to further information.

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

"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH"

Ben Weingarten | Jan. 27, 2014

Why bother to vote in USA's Nov 4th election ?

{Check out the informative links at the end of this article}   
                                          

Recently I received a call from a local Democratic Party worker that went something like this: Hey Pete, how’s it going? Haven’t seen you around this campaign, we could really use some help at the office, any chance we can count on you coming down to lend a hand?

You see I’d been a slightly active Democrat, particularly the past decade, even attending the State Assembly and Convention thrice, twice as a delegate representing Hermosa, La Plata County, but this year nothing.

My friend was curious why the depression and lack of interest, what happened to me?

Well, Obama happened, yet another crushing disappointment for those who believed in his campaign talk. The man made assurances to We The People, but seldom fought for them once in office.

Admittedly, I believe that had we the people - I’m talking about regular educated citizens who possess humanist and rationalist instincts - been busy putting pressure on the President, he’d have acted more valiantly.

After all, it’s the votes and vocal grassroot voters who put The Backbone into our representatives but it seems we the people abandon our newly elected leaders as fast as our government abandons it’s peaceful commitments. Reminds me of the saying, “we get the government we deserve.”

Of course there’s also the Republican Party to consider, our one time loyal opposition which has morphed into some malicious hulk possessed by the single-minded desire to wreck Democratic Presidencies and to heck with our nation’s problems.

Think I’m exaggerating? For an introduction to the GOP’s disregard for our nation’s best interests you’ll find Robert Draper’s “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives” an interesting read.

Well then… having written all this, why am I not marching down to the Democratic Office to lend a hand and some cash?

Forget about the 97% consensus, focus on the 99.999% scientific certainty !

{edited 9/20/14}
In "the beat goes on" department.

Another study, this time, reevaluating data, incorporating information from multiple studies, using refined modeling approaches to crunch the numbers from all that extra data.  These authors make clear that humanity is having an ever greater impact on our global climate engine.  

And what is the reaction of our Republican/libertarian friends and fellow citizens?  Dig in deeper and allow their level of disconnect from understanding our life sustaining biosphere to drive them to down right crazy levels of claims. 

Think I'm exaggerating, spend some time reviewing the increasingly bizarre posts by our Mr. Anthony Watts, {which are then spread like astro-turf throughout the blogosphere in order to confuse an apathetic public}.  Sou at HotWhopper.com has been doing an excellent job of documenting Anthony's on-going war on rational learning. For instance, http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/anthony-watts-gets-slam-dunked-in.html.  Or consider Anthony's recent disingenuous claims against the National Geographic Magazine's reporting
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/09/anthony-watts-attacks-national.html

But this post is about a new study that once again reconfirms what everyone who's been paying any sort of attention knows, we are seriously impacting our climate system.

I'll let the report speak for itself,  followed by the thoughts of some others:

Climate Risk Management

Volume 3, 2014, Pages 1–12

A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes

Philip Kokic, Steven Crimp, Mark Howden

Disruption Climate Change film

I received an email this morning worth sharing, if you can help please do:

Jamie Henn - 350.org <350@350.org>

Click here to watch Disruption now!

Disruption is a short film about how we can change the world -- before the fossil fuel industry irreversibly changes the climate. It looks at how social movements of the past mobilized at decisive moments to shift the course of history, and applies those lessons to the decisive fight of this generation.

It features author and filmmaker Naomi Klein, CNN host and movement leader Van Jones, MSNBC's Chris Hayes, plus many more, including some of the key scientific voices sounding the alarm.

The film just went live -- click here to watch it online now: watchdisruption.com
Here’s the most exciting part of this story: it’s not finished yet. The next act will be written in the streets on September 21st, when the People's Climate March takes over New York (and cities across the globe).

This is the history we'll tell the next generation -- about the end of fossil fuels, about how the world was in crisis, about how we started to turn it around together.
Click here to see the first act … and get ready to write the next.

Onward,
Jamie

97 hours of climate scientists courtesy of SkepticalScience - the rational folks

I look at plenty of folks who love telling us what the scientists have been saying, unfortunately too many of those folks are telling you what they think, or what they want you to believe scientists are saying.  How can anyone be sure what's what?

Why not listen to the actual scientists?

Here's a chance to learn about what actual scientists are saying about the consensus surrounding manmade global warming?  

Check it out:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

Posted on 7 September 2014 by John Cook

Climate scientists from across the globe feature in our 97 Hours of Consensus campaign addressing one of the most significant and harmful myths about climate change. Each hour, beginning at 9am Sunday EST, September 7th, we'll publish a statement and playful, hand-drawn caricature of a leading climate scientist. Each caricature lists the scientists’ name, title, expertise and academic institution.

97 Hours of Consensus communicates the fact that 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are causing global warming. The research, conducted by scientists at The University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, University of Reading, Michigan Technological University and Memorial University of Newfoundland found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorsed human-caused global warming. The paper was published in the academic journal Environmental Research Letters in May 2013.

In contrast, less than 10% of Americans are aware of the 97% consensus on climate change. This ‘consensus gap’ matters. When the public aren’t aware of the overwhelming scientific agreement on global warming, they’re less likely to support action to mitigateclimate change. 97 Hours of Consensus seeks to close the consensus gap.

The campaign begins on 9/7 (the date itself reinforcing the 97% consensus). An interactive webpage featuring the quotes and caricatures is available at http://sks.to/97

How You Can Help

• Retweet our tweets, sent out via @skepticscience every hour for the next 97 hours. Tweet excerpts from your favourite quotes, using the #97Hours hashtag, or retweet your favourite caricatures (Raymond Pierrehumbert is a personal fave)
• Share our Facebook posts, also published on the hour every hour.
• Share our images posted on skepticalscience.imgur.com.
• Blog about #97Hours and embed our quotes/caricatures (which are all creative commons licenced and free to be republished)

Acknowledgements

97 Hours of Consensus began as a whim when I thought it might be cool to caricature 97climate scientists. I fast learnt what a big task I was taking on. This project was made possible by a dedicated collaborative effort by the Skeptical Science team. Tracking down short, pithy, stand-alone quotes from climate scientists is not as easy as it sounds and required digging through interviews, articles and long YouTube talks. Many thanks to Dana, Things Break, Rob Painting, Bob Lacatena, Sarah, John Hartz, Baerbel and Kevin C for helping track down the quotes. The task of posting a new cartoon every hour for 97 consecutive hours was made substantially more manageable by Doug Bostrom who automated much of the process. The amazing interactive webpage at http://sks.to/97 was coded by Bob Lacatena. And this whole project wouldn't have been possible without the tireless collection and organizing of information by Baerbel.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

Since Anthony Watts took up a bunch of my time recently, I figured it would only be right to add this glimpse into who the man's brain operates.

Talk a look, you'll understand why I include the link here:

Conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts counting down to "sue the pants off" SkepticalScience.com

Sou - September 6, 2014 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/conspiracy-theorist-anthony-watts.html

Anthony Watts attacks National Geographic Magazine

Or, Anthony Watts steps through the looking glass. 

National Geographic’s Warming Warning – 10 Years Later 

Anthony Watts / August 31, 2014 

Geoff Sherrington writes: National Geographic Magazine had a Global Warming issue in September 2004. New instruments have given new data. By planning now, NatGeo can make a revised issue 10 years later, in September 2014. 

The 2014 edition should aim to correct what is now known to be wrong or questionable in the 2004 edition. We can help. Here are some quotes that need attention. The first three have some commentary, as is suggested for the remainder.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I find it ironic that Mr. Watts gets super offended when rationalists use the term "denier" to describe him, yet he shamelessly attacks the National Geographic magazine implying they made tons of mistakes in their 2004 feature issue on the coming dangers of climate change, or more accurately the global warming that is triggering significant climate changes.

As the informative links I share prove, an objective investigation reveals that he's plain wrong with his vague insinuation about how the National Geographic got it wrong.  I've already looked at the first three items of his list (here, here and here) - the only ones he managed to comment on, leaving it up to his troops to fill in the rest.  

Please notice the tactic being employed here - Anthony doesn't actually say or explain anything, except to imply most everything scientists have learned about our climate is wrong.  

Worse he does it with a malicious sales pitch that sends his Wattzers off into all corners of the blogosphere to spread this craziness with a disconnected certainty that's truly frightful, since it underscores the seeming hopelessness of reasoning with the Republican/libertarian mind.

I don't comment on most items, (I don't have forever to squander on the man), I've simply added links that will lead the curious student to up to date authoritative information regarding said items.

Also see: 

Deluded deniers: Will WUWT correct all its errors about National Geographic?

September 1, 2014

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/deluded-deniers-will-wuwt-correct-all.html

4. “But the recent rate of global sea level rise has departed from the average rate of the past two to three thousand years and is rising much more rapidly – a continuation or acceleration of that trend has the potential to cause striking changes…” P.19

Anthony Watts about that Sea Level Rise

I had a chance to look at Anthony's next item sea level rise (SLR).  It appears Watts thinks because new satellite data is giving the closest look ever at the complexities of sea level rise, including unexpected surprises, that it somehow negates the measurements of the past century's documented sea level rise.  It doesn't make any sense to me, but I've learned that the creative science skeptic is an intellectual acrobat.

Consider the absolutism of their tactic: Expect perfection and impossible standards, reject everything that falls short of those expectations, then disregard everything that was learned.

That's the nut to crack.

National Geographic’s Warming Warning – 10 Years Later

Anthony Watts / August 31, 2014

Geoff Sherrington writes: National Geographic Magazine had a Global Warming issue in September 2004. New instruments have given new data. By planning now, NatGeo can make a revised issue 10 years later, in September 2014.

The 2014 edition should aim to correct what is now known to be wrong or questionable in the 2004 edition. We can help. Here are some quotes that need attention. The first three have some commentary, as is suggested for the remainder.

~ ~ ~

August 31, 2014 - 3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19  

This estimate was conventional wisdom until the specialist satellite era, when measurement technology improved. 

~ ~ ~

Measurement technology improved and now we have real time information down to minute day by day variations, but none of that changed our basic understanding of the past century's sea level rise.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Anthony Watts / As the NOAA figure shows, Jason 1 (data from 2002) and Jason 2 (2009) have complicated the story, with data showing ocean levels falling at times. The Jason instruments were specifically designed for ocean level measurement. More time is needed before the modern estimate of ocean change can be calculated. 

~ ~ ~
For your contrarian types no measurement will ever be accurate enough.  Still a rational evaluation of the graph does indicate continued rising sea levels, which isn't surprising considering the cryosphere keeps melting and ocean keeps warming.

Anthony Watts about those Glaciers on Kilimanjaro

This is the second installment in what might be a new series looking at Anthony Watts latest cynical lashing out at the National Geographic magazine in his continuing campaign of creating divisiveness and confusion in order to derail all attempts at a rational learning process aimed at confronting anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  

Anthony always goes for the sensational, the polarizing, the fabricated scandals, misrepresenting clear evidence and facts, displaying a certitude about his opinions that indicates a faith-based attitude towards this planet and humanity's place in it - 
a mentality not in keeping with good faith learning, which is what the practice of science is all about.

Now Anthony's picking on Al Gore, with that Mt. Kilimanjaro canard, but I'll let Anthony speak for himself.  I'll follow him with a few links and quotes from informative articles that will help the interested student understand what kind of game is being played by the Wattzers.

National Geographic’s Warming Warning – 10 Years Later

Anthony Watts / August 31, 2014

Geoff Sherrington writes: National Geographic Magazine had a Global Warming issue in September 2004. New instruments have given new data. By planning now, NatGeo can make a revised issue 10 years later, in September 2014.

The 2014 edition should aim to correct what is now known to be wrong or questionable in the 2004 edition. We can help. Here are some quotes that need attention. The first three have some commentary, as is suggested for the remainder.

1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14 

This might have been correct at the time of writing pre-2004, but by 2008 Ms Shamsa Mwangunga, the minister for Natural Resources and Tourism in Tanzania wrote ”contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing”." 

~ ~ ~
That is still correct.  80% of the glaciers have melted - no glacial mass has been added !

Anthony Watts about those Himalayan Glaciers

A character I'm familiar with dropped in for a moment to brag about Anthony Watts attacking the National Geographic magazine yet again with his August 31, 2014 blog post "National Geographic's Warming Warning - 10 Years Later".

Anthony's has a big list claiming National Geographic failed miserably in projecting into the future, but even a first reading indicates a few games of misrepresentation being played.  Weirdest was when Anthony was tossing down the gauntlet: "To the Editor of National Geographic, we are a third of that way to that very different world and many can’t pick the difference yet." Anthony apparently doesn't notice any changes in the world around him, an incomprehensible statement that can only be made by someone deliberately ignoring Earth observations and other global news.

For starters I wanted to look at this Himalayan glacier mistake, since the echo-chamber has been bouncing around the news that Himalayan glacier melt rate seems to be reduced recently - as though a reduction in melt rate means global warming is not happening.

This post is for those who want more information at hand when confronting the crazy-makers like Anthony Watts so I'll be sharing links to a few informative reports examining this question of IPCC's 2035/2350 error and various aspects of how a warming world has impacted the Himalayan Mountain region.  

National Geographic’s Warming Warning – 10 Years Later

Anthony Watts / August 31, 2014

Geoff Sherrington writes: National Geographic Magazine had a Global Warming issue in September 2004. New instruments have given new data. By planning now, NatGeo can make a revised issue 10 years later, in September 2014.

The 2014 edition should aim to correct what is now known to be wrong or questionable in the 2004 edition. We can help. Here are some quotes that need attention. The first three have some commentary, as is suggested for the remainder.

~ ~ ~

2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14 

This arose from a brochure from India to the World Wide Fund for Nature, not peer reviewed, which eventuated in year 2350 being replaced by 2035 in the IPCC 2007 report – and missed by the peer-review process. The correction process by the IPCC was tortuous and lamentably acrimonious when a single direct statement should have sufficed."

OK, the IPCC made a big mistake, one that needed to be examined, explained and avoided in the future.  Still, I wish there was more awareness that the mistake was made by social scientists in Working Group 2, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability - 

Not by the Earth and climate scientists of Working Group 1, the ones who study and explain the science of climate change, or global warming if you will!

No serious errors have been found in Working Group 1's section on glaciers and the state of that geophysical science.   Below are some papers and articles relating to the 2035/2350 mistake, but more importantly I conclude with other articles that are looking at new studies, including "State and Fate of Himalayan Glaciers" which some tout as if it were another 'nail in the coffin' of global warming, though it's no such thing, just another piece of the learning process
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I'll begin with, IPCC's admittedly inadequate public statement:  

IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers

Geneva, 20 January 2010

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf