Re: [asa] Level of certainty in science

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Tue Feb 06 2007 - 11:02:56 EST

At 12:27 AM 2/6/2007, James Mahaffy wrote:

At 10:33 PM 02/05/07, Janice Matchett wrote:

>[1] ...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 5:49:54
>-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"? ~ Janice

[2] In my reading, the chemistry was straightforward in the case of
ozone. I think this is fostered by the fact that Dupont that had
corner on the manufacture of Freon DID NOt fight taking it off the
market. My point was the climate models don't give us as much
certainty as what was ovvurring in ozone ~ James Mahaffy - Tues,
2/6/07 12:27 AM

@@ NASA released blatantly incorrect information. But because you
_trust_ pure-as-the-wind-driven snow "credentialed experts" you can
be "used". It's not good to put your brain on

Dupont didn't fight taking the R-12 off the market because they
already had the "heir apparent" more expensive replacement
(R-134a) for it waiting in the wings. Moline and Rowland came out
with their "ozone depletion theory" in 1974 and voila(!), Dupont was
magically ready to save the day. And 10 days later - even before the
ink was dry on the March 1988 "Montreal Protocol" (See International
Ozone Trends Panel of 5 scientists), Dupont committed to phasing out
their CFC products. More

@ 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
serve." ~ Janice

[2] When I hear from others that I am wrong I will gladly retract my
statement. But when your paragraph runs against what I have read or
heard from good scientist - I am sorry but I will not start with your
web page. But as I indicated at the start of the post I need to do
reading in good secondary sources before I engage in debating the
science. I don't currently have time try do that. ~ James Mahaffy -
Tues, 2/6/07 12:27 AM

@@ "To say in absolute and unequivocal terms that HF can only come
from manmade sources is an assertion refuted by scientific
literature. Not only is HF produced naturally, but most natural HF
is produced in the Antarctic. It is surprising that NASA was
surprised at this
"discovery!" (Don't be
__afraid__ to read it)

>[1] 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 5:49:54 -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. . :) ~ Janice

[2] Janice - you read me wrong. I think it is a bit dishonest to
fight for the spotted owl instead of the old growth. And I think
there should be a balance between lumbering and conservation.You
assume you know my position and you do not. ~ James Mahaffy - Tues,
2/6/07 12:27 AM

@@ So, tell me ---- what's the difference between you thinking that
"Unfortunately sometimes the only tool the environmentalists can use
[to advance our agenda] is the endangered species act" and people
accusing creationists of thinking, "Unfortunately sometimes the only
tool we creationists can use [to advance our agenda] is Intelligent Design"?

So unless you can provide a legitimate explanation for how the above
stances are different, I don't think I misread you. BTW - are you
one of those who accuse creationists of lying to advance their agenda?

"Claims of mass de-forestation are completely unfounded based on the
numbers. The United States grows 36 percent more trees than it
harvests. Some researchers believe tree numbers are larger today than
when Columbus arrived in 1492. In fact, less dependence on wood for
fuel and construction has led to a decrease in wood consumption by
half since 1900. Look to private conservation efforts, not federal
government, for the 86 percent increase in reforestation, which helps
create habitat for endangered species. Species like the California
Condor are becoming extinct and environmentalists tout the Endangered
Species Act for helping the condor and many other species. While the
ESA's sole purpose is to save species, in fact, not one recovered
species has been helped by the ESA, according to many experts. Like
the California Condor and the Wood Duck, countless species have been
saved through the hard working efforts of private individuals and
organizations." ~ Robert J. Smith, Senior Environmental Scholar.
April 18, 2005

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

[2] I would agree that a philosophy that makes no distinction between
man and other creatures is wrong.. But we are also supposed to be
stewards of God 's creation and I am not proud that my own state Iowa
gets noted as the state that has removed more of its native
vegetation than any other state. . ~ James Mahaffy - Tues, 2/6/07 12:27 AM

@@ We're to be _WISE_ stewards of God's creation.

"Vegetation" is a replaceable resource. The human beings who died
because of Rachael Carson's book ALONE are irreplaceable.

Rachel Carson's Ecological Genocide

A pandemic is slaughtering millions, mostly children and pregnant
women -- one child every 15 seconds; 3 million people annually; and
over 100 million people since 1972 --but there are no protestors
clogging the streets or media stories about this tragedy. These
deaths can be laid at the doorstep of author Rachel's Carson. Her1962
bestselling book Silent Spring detailed the alleged "dangers" of the
pesticide DDT, which had practically eliminated malaria. Within ten
years, the environmentalist movement had convinced the powers that be
to outlaw DDT. Denied the use of this cheap, safe and effective
pesticide, millions of people -- mostly poor Africans -- have died
due to the environmentalist dogma propounded by Carson's book. Her
coterie of admirers at the U.N. and environmental groups such as
Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund and the
Environmental Defense Fund have managed to bring malaria and typhus
back to sub-Saharan Africa with a vengeance.

"This is like loading up seven Boeing 747 airliners each day, then
deliberately crashing them into Mt. Kilimanjaro," said Dr. Wenceslaus
Kilama, Malaria Foundation International Chairman.

"[M]ost politicians today are more concerned about getting re-elected
rather than doing what is right. [M]any of them have very poor
scientific backgrounds and do not understand the impact of the policy
decisions they are making . [and] are not able to teach their
constituents that there will
be severe consequences to their decisions," said former Surgeon
General and retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Dr. Harold M. Koenig.

"These poor public policies [i.e. prohibiting use of DDT] are being
implemented because it is easier for politicians to go along with the
noise coming from the hysterics rather than to learn the whole story
and educate the general electorate that there are ways agents like
DDT can be used
safely," said Koenig, who is currently president of the Annapolis
Center, a nonprofit educational organization that "promotes
responsible environmental, health, and safety decision-making by
applying a science foundation" to the public policy process.

Although ... to continue reading click

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 6 11:03:33 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 06 2007 - 11:03:33 EST