Re: [asa] Channel 4 on global warming

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Tue Mar 13 2007 - 13:41:14 EDT

To think of Sir John as a 60s type radical / alarmist zealot simply makes me giggle in pity. Those on the CIS listserve will snigger as well.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Janice Matchett
  To: Michael Roberts ; ;
  Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Channel 4 on global warming

  At 05:02 AM 3/13/2007, Michael Roberts wrote:

    ...John convinced me of global warming some 10 years ago and I get impatient with those who don't want to see the problem. ~ Michael

  @ If I hoped to have any credibility with those capable of rational thought, I wouldn't run around bragging about being convinced by the "arguments" of 60's - type - radical / alarmist-zealots preaching stuff like this

  QUOTE: "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen .. Global warming is now a weapon of mass destruction. It kills more people than terrorism.." ~ Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC Monday July 28, 2003,2933,93466,00.html

  You may want to reconsider and take Burgy's advice about those who deliberately peddle junk science in order to scare people into accepting their agenda:

  QUOTE: "..there are "scientists" in abundance who ...are not shy about arguing "junk science," citing only favorable evidence while ignoring the contrary, thereby risking not only their own reputations, but also that of the profession we all love. The authors cite an abundance of instances, some involving scientists of nationwide stature. Frankly, I felt sick as I read this book. .. The authors show how easy it is to buffalo the media, and by extension, the public, by pseudoscientific claims made by "real" scientists whose intellectual heritage is that of nineteenth- century snake oil salesmen. To conclude this review, I will illustrate its disturbing message by telling an old, stale joke. Why do they bury scientists twelve feet down? Because, deep down, they are really good people. Oops! Not funny! That should be some other profession, not "scientists!" .... Other professions have their share of shysters. So does the scientific profession. The public just has not picked up on us yet. It is clear that far too many in our profession have lost their way. Are they a small minority? I would like to think so. Do they have a bad influence in our society? Yes. Is this a good thing? Clearly, no. .." ~ John W. Burgeson reviewing TRUST US, WE'RE EXPERTS...

  Or Wayne's caution:

  QUOTE: "..Science is dazzling, and you can bamboozle all sorts of smart people with a few whizz bang proofs and a lot of nonsense equations. If you have some fancy gadget to show, that's even better. Pretty soon, people are like a bunch of dumb dogs staring at flashing lights and loud noises. Who wouldn't envy such glitter and want to emply its tinsel shine to their apologetics. Proof, by science. It's just so inviting that the temptation is irresistible! Religion is just difficult to add that pizzazz, but we surely hunger for it, because science is so powerful and impressive. .." ~ Wayne Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:34:04 EST Re: Self-deception, faith, and scepticism

  QUOTE: "The problem is that greed, lust of the world with its the trappings of power and influence, and the ability to find all manner of specious pretext to exploit and abuse out brothers and sisters in Christ, all conspire to tempt even those who have some fear of the Lord to sin." ~ Wayne Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:43:15 EST Re: The Left Hand of God or "is God a [s-word]"

  Or Don's advice:

  QUOTE: "Scientists who buy unhesitatingly into climate models are playing a high-risk game. They could lose big. How will Christians look if they eagerly buy in and then the climate models prove to be wrong for whatever reason? The wiser course is to hedge bets. ~ Don Winterstein - Tue, 6 Feb 2007 - 6:58 PM Re: [asa] Level of certainty in science

  ~ Janice .... "..Our chosen environment is liberty, and liberty is the central organizing principle of America. To be consistent with our most cherished principle, our environmental policies must be consistent with liberty. Restricting liberty not only denies Americans their chosen environment, but also constrains environmental progress.

  Liberty has powerful environmental benefits. Freedom unleashes forces most needed to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for the future. It fosters scientific inquiry, technological innovation, entrepreneurship, rapid information exchange, accuracy and flexibility.

  Free people work to improve the environment, and liberty is the energy behind environmental progress."

  Excerpted from:

  Posted on 03/12/2007 [refresh browser]

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 13 13:48:32 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 13 2007 - 13:48:32 EDT