Response to Randy

From: Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
Date: Tue Feb 07 2006 - 12:55:30 EST

Randy Isaac wrote, in part: "Maybe you and I were too conscientious,
Burgy. Haven't you noticed how the stock price has made no progress
since you and I left the company??"

Yeah. Did we make a difference? Sometimes I wonder. <G>

Randy also wrote: "I think we need to make a clear distinction between
corporate employees speaking on behalf of the company and a government
funded agency that is
missioned to publish accurate and objective data on which policy will be
based. Yes, it might be an ethics issue, but not one in which the
employees
are required to say only that which is approved by the administration.
Rather, one in which the employees have an ethical obligation to show the

implications of the data, whether or not it meets anyone's pet policies."

This is, as you imply, a tough call. One needs to be able to make clear
that he is speaking only for himself and not for his employer. That is
sometimes hard to do.

I had written:
> 4. A United States senator has warned against "far-left"
> environmentalists he claimed are trying to dupe the National
Association
> of Evangelicals into adopting a policy statement on global warming.
>
> Burgy's comment: Seems to me that the NAE has little business adopting
> policies that are clearly outside their areas of expertise. I holler at
> my PC(USA) headquarters on similar grounds from time to time. Ethical
> issues are in a different category, of course. Religious organizations
> SHOULD have a voice in them.
>

Randy commented: "Are you saying there are no ethical issues connected
with
policies regarding global warming and therefore religious organizations
have
no business commenting? And no biblical perspective on stewardship of
our
planet?"

No, but I am saying that the NAE, in this instance, does not have the
necessary expertise to take a position. For them to comment on the issue
with the proviso that it is yet not fairly shown, is an ethical issue and
OK. IMHO of course.

Thus: Global Warming is now well established (I think) as factual. What
the chief contribution to Global Warming is (natural cycles vs
human-made) is still at issue (I think). Finally, what can be done about
it is very much in contention. The NAE should have its comments on the
last part; not on the first two.

Burgy
Received on Tue Feb 7 13:04:19 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 07 2006 - 13:04:20 EST