Two Quotes on Miracles and Natural Law

Guess who wrote this:

There are thousands of miracles performed today, wonders that would astound our grandfathers could they suddenly see them. These miracles are as great as turning water into wine, raising the dead or anything else. A miracle is not, as many believe, the setting aside or overruling natural laws. Every miracle performed in Biblical days or now, is done on natural principles and in obedience to natural law. The healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, giving eyesight to the blind, whatever it may be that is done by the power of God, is in accordance with natural law. Because we do not understand how it is done, does not argue for the impossibility of it.

Several years ago I was somewhat surprised to find this passage in Man, His Origin and Destiny (p. 484), by Joseph Fielding Smith. It's part of a long tradition in Mormonism, so in that sense it should not have been surprising. But I wasn't expecting President Smith to sound so naturalistic.

Compare it to this quote from Jesus the Christ (p. 139) by James E. Talmage:

Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized.... The human sense of the miraculous wanes as comprehension of the operative process increases. Achievements made possible by modern invention of telegraph and telephone with or without wires, the transmutation of mechanical power into electricity with its manifold present applications and yet future possibilities, the development of the gasoline motor, the present accomplishments in aerial navigation—these are no longer miracles in man's estimation, because they are all in some degree understood, are controlled by human agency, and, moreover, are continuous in their operation and not phenomenal. We arbitrarily classify as miracles only such phenomena as are unusual, special, transitory, and wrought by an agency beyond the power of man's control.

They are remarkably similar--so much so that you could swap them and nobody would know the difference.

---

Continue reading...

If I Had a Side Blog (#4)

1. How does the drought in Texas stack up against over one hundred years of history? The Texas state climatologist explains, and it's worth reading. He also explains what he thinks it has to do with global warming.

2. This mormon butterfly was half-female, half-male. What was its spirit?

3. Naming and shaming: The Dr. Oz Show claimed that apple juice it tested contained unsafe levels of arsenic. The FDA says that Oz is wrong, in no uncertain terms.

4. And while we're at it, there's no evidence that antioxidants are good for you. In fact they may even be bad.

5. By the way, did you know that Senator Orrin Hatch helped exempt the supplement industry from the oversight given to other drugs and health products?

6. It was 20 years ago this month:

---

Continue reading...

The Refutation of Roy?

The week before last, the resignation of the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing over the publication of a paper by Roy Spencer was the talk of the climate-oriented blogosphere. Last week there was a further development--climatologist Andrew Dessler published a paper critiquing claims made in publications by Spencer and Lindzen (both well known for skepticism of human influence in global warming).

I've been holding off blogging about this in order to let the dust settle somewhat. As I understand them, Spencer and Lindzen both think that changes in clouds can actually drive climate change, as opposed to the prevailing view that clouds are important secondary factors. Also wrapped up in the controversy is how much warming can be expected from a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels, which is referred to by the term 'climate sensitivity.'

Here is a quick re-cap of the mini-controversy as I understand it: Climate sensitivity has been inferred chiefly from paleoclimate sources, and is generally estimated to be around 3 degrees C. Spencer does not accept the paleoclimate estimates; he thinks they are too uncertain. At any rate, everyone would like a way to determine climate sensitivity in the present. Dessler previously published a paper that used satellite data to infer climate sensitivity. Spencer's latest paper argued that there are uncertainties that muddy the waters such that accurate sensitivity cannot be determined. In making his argument, Spencer's paper claimed that there is a discrepancy between satellite data and IPCC models. Although relatively modest in its claims, Spencer and the press talked up the paper as though it implied a low climate sensitivity and represented David slaying Goliath. Dessler's latest paper criticizes Spencer's for using an equation that potentially violates the first law of thermodynamics, and for using observations and models that maximize difference between the two. Other models and observations more closely mirror one another.

Spencer is defending himself on his blog and has levied his own criticisms of Dessler's paper. Unfortunately, Dessler does not have a blog so it's not clear what his take is on Spencer's comments. According to Spencer, the two have exchanged emails and may be coming to a better understanding of one another, though probably still disagreeing. It is clear that the drama will continue.

Actually, what's going on here is not unique to climate science. Every branch of science has its differing schools of thought that struggle for dominance. The difference here is that more of the general public is paying attention and choosing sides, so that what would normally be a nerd-fight that nobody cares about, has become a proxy for ideological and political battle.

If you want to dig in to the claims and counter-claims, it gets technical fast. So at this point I will kick it over to the following links, which help explain what's going on.

RealClimate has a calm reflection on the scene: Resignations, retractions and the process of science

Skeptical Science:

Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen

Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths

Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper

Barry Bickmore posts:

Roy Spencer Persecuted By Own Data

Roy Spencer Responds With More Shoddy Statistics and Excuses

Roy Spencer's response:

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study


Andrew Dessler's video explanation of his paper:

---

Continue reading...

It's a Shame About Roy

Several weeks ago climatologist Roy Spencer (prominent for his stance that humans are not important contributors to global warming) published a paper that was widely reported, especially in conservative media, as casting large doubt on global warming. One prominent LDS blog heralded it as a "major wrench" in global warming theory, and when I urged caution and suggested that they were overstating its conclusions and importance, I was thanked by being told that I am "a totalitarian." Now the editor of the journal in which it was published, Remote Sensing, has resigned. He concluded that the paper was flawed and should not have been published, and he also protested the way the paper was promoted as supporting conclusions that it did not in fact support. Spencer and his supporters are crying foul, and the drama will continue. Rather than dissect the whole thing, I will simply provide some links for people who want more information.

The Editor explains himself.

This BBC story gives the basics.

BYU geologist Barry Bickmore has a nice summary and roundup of links.

Media Matters has a great explanation of the controversy, along with critique of how the paper was reported by conservative media.

---

Continue reading...