Re: [asa] Subglacial Water System Moving Faster Than Previously Thought

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Fri Feb 16 2007 - 13:58:04 EST

I think something you said was misinterpreted. The water under glaciers
was recently discovered. This does not mean that it has been there all
along. As I understand the situation, the glaciers have been probed
thoroughly in the past without finding much water except at the melting
ends. Now they are finding water along with much faster motion because of
the lubricant effect.
Dave (not O.)

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:19:40 -0700 "Rich Blinne" <>

On 2/16/07, David Opderbeck <> wrote:

I think you'd agree that the epistemic imperative must be different when
it comes to a scientific consensus -- right?

You miss my point. I am saying using uncertainty to avoid dealing with
some possibly very nasty consequences is as lame as the excuse recorded
in Acts 17. If you're acting as legal counsel and warn your client of a
potential but not certain consequence of an action, and your client
rejects it because of an anonymous comment to a blog is your client being
wise? People seem to easily reject expert counsel and conservative
Christians seem to be especially prone to this. The other group that
seems to be especially prone to the I am not a -- fill in the blank,
lawyer, scientist, etc. -- but I will reject expert advise without
evidence is middle management. Pardon my bluntness, but this attitude
betrays a profound hubris. Note: I am not saying you have this attitude
but it is all-to-common amongst evangelicals. Scientists and engineers
are very up front when there is or is not consensus. My detailed study of
the climate change issue shows that your question about evaluating
consensus as a layman is that you should take such statements by the IPCC
at face value and not play junior detective trying to find hidden
agendas. The same would hold true for me if I hired you as my legal
counsel. If I have to constantly second guess you then I should hire
someone else. If the governments are not satisfied with the quality of
scientific advise, then they should have nominated other, more qualified,
scientists for the IPCC work when they were given that opportunity. The
truth is that the governments did nominate qualified individuals and when
I look at the results of their work I find that they were worthy of the
trust of the governments that nominated them.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 16 14:54:49 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 16 2007 - 14:54:49 EST