Re: [asa] World sets ocean temperature record

From: Randy Isaac <>
Date: Fri Aug 21 2009 - 22:09:36 EDT

Can you help me understand what you are asking? What is it specifically that you fear crosses the line? Discussion of environmental issues and ethics is specifically one of the topics we list as items to cover.
Ted, Terry and I monitor the list for conformity to ASA policies. Granted, we give a lot of latitude but always try to draw the line where people are being attacked instead of ideas. Above all, we seek dialog in a spirit of respect and Christian love.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Schwarzwald
  Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 9:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] World sets ocean temperature record

  There's no such thing as a "non-partisan" site, Rich, particularly where politics are concerned. Why don't you point me at some "unbiased journalists" while you're at it? For that matter, there's no way to have a "non-political and non-partisan use of science for the public good", precisely because just what the "public good" is is something bitterly argued about on all sides. It's the human condition, God help us.

  I've never bothered responding to these GW threads on the ASA, in part because they seem to stick out like a sore thumb. I honestly don't know where any list of rules for the ASA mailing list (if there even are any) is posted, or even who decides what is and isn't allowed, but after seeing this response I'm going to have to ask. What ARE the posting/topic standards for this list? Are there any to speak of? And who decides what does and doesn't belong if so? Because a number of times in the past I've seen posts disallowed or discouraged on the grounds that they have nothing to do with Christianity & Science, or are bait for a political argument. I'm not going to say posts like these cross those same lines, but I'd like to know once and for all what's permitted and what's not on this list, or at least who calls the shots if there are no hard and fast rules.

  On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Rich Blinne <> wrote:

    On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Schwarzwald <> wrote:

      I'd have to agree with Dave Wallace, and I was just in the middle of writing a post along those lines.

      And the idea that there are two camps involved in the global warming/climate-change debate - the people who are correct, and the people motivated by politics - just doesn't wash. It is entirely possible for AGW claims to be true, yet for the people "demanding action" to be largely, even exclusively motivated by politics. There's such a thing as co-opting truth to an illicit end.

    As Christians and as scientists we should be standing for the truth and not be in the group that is motivated by politics. Even if the truth is co-opted for an illicit end should not be a reason to simply make stuff up. Everybody can have their own opinion but they cannot have their own facts. The sad truth is there are people who are more than willing to distort the truth and outright lie to serve a political agenda. Check out the non-partisan for their "pants on fire" rulings:

    This in turn has produced a hostility to the non-political and non-partisan use of science for the public good -- and not just in the area of climate change. It has come to the point where a simple proposal to use the National Academies -- as was intended by President Lincoln when he founded them -- to study the relative effectiveness of medical treatments and publish it on the Web is considered by some a sinister plot to kill Granny.

    Rich Blinne
    Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 21 22:10:19 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 21 2009 - 22:10:19 EDT