Re: [asa] Level of certainty in science

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Mon Feb 05 2007 - 23:33:47 EST

At 05:49 PM 2/5/2007, James Mahaffy wrote:

>...While our best climate models about global warming are
>frightening and seem to point the finger at (among other things
>indicating that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing and are to a
>large degree caused by human activity) science based on climatic
>models (which are the best thing we have) [are] softer than knowing
>the chemical reactions of CFC's. And it makes little difference
>that it is published in peer reviewed journals (that does not
>strengthen the models). --James Mahaffy - Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:49:54
>-0600 [asa] Level of certainty in science

@ And the softness of the evidence that CFC's were responsible for
the "ozone hole" getting bigger was ZERO, so where does that leave
the "climate models"?

NASA did this nation a serious disservice by making false statements
about "the ozone hole". "It is a classic example of why Americans
have become disillusioned about self-serving bureaucracies that hurt
the citizens they are supposed to

>And it is also true that in the past environmentalist have sometimes
>shot themselves before the general public and there is some reason
>for the public to worry that they are crying wolf.... Unfortunately
>sometimes the only tool the environmentalists can use is the
>endangered species act. The environmentalists (I consider myself
>one) did not really care for the spotted owl, but that was the only
>legal way to protect the old growth forests that were being cut in
>the NW. There is also a problem that state and federal officials
>have to do things by the book, but sometimes that is stupid. I
>remember talking to a strip miner in northern Missouri who wished he
>could restore the land he was stripping for coal to flat land better
>suited to agriculture, but no he had to restore it to its original
>contours. I guess I am saying is that often the governmental rules
>were made for good reasons, but the public has to live with the way
>they are enforced, which is NOT always the best way. And George,
>even though I am an academic, I am still conservative and orthodox
>in my theology and NOT liberal in my politics (although deeply
>concerned about stewardship of the environment). --James Mahaffy -
>Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:49:54 -0600 [asa] Level of certainty in science

@ Some criticize "creationists" for lying about their agenda and
embracing a "the ends justify the means" to excuse it. At least
*you're* honest enough to admit what you have to do to advance your
agenda. . :)

I consider myself an environmentalist also, but the difference
between my environmentalism and that of the central planners, is that
I take my cue from God and consider human beings to be the most
valuable resource.

"Consider that from 9500 (the White House's number) to 85,000 jobs
will be abrogated by the Clinton owl plan. Lumber prices have nearly
doubled since the 1991 ban was imposed, adding roughly $5,000.00 to
the price of a new home. This increase is regressive, hitting the
working class much harder than the elite environmentalists class. If
it is eventually understood that affluent environmentalists destroyed
thousands of skilled-labor jobs in order to satisfy an ideology and
boost the returns of their own fund-raising drives, a long-lasting
political backlash against environmentalism will set in. ~ Gregg
Easterbrook - The Spotted Owl Scam

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 5 23:34:53 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 05 2007 - 23:34:53 EST