Re: [asa] Climate change & Christianity

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Mon Nov 02 2009 - 18:14:10 EST

Agreed John, the case for GW is totally clear except to the myopic like the
wonderful Senator Inhofe, whom I wrote about negatively in my book two years
ago as the problem in the wood pile.

Also look at Beisner's ramblings, they are scary

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burgeson (ASA member)" <>
To: "Cameron Wybrow" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Climate change & Christianity

> On 11/2/09, Cameron Wybrow <> wrote:
> "I loathe all remarks made in the debate, on both sides, which are
> politically partisan, and I don't exempt some of the scientists
> themselves (on both sides) from joining in the political fray. My
> impression is that most of the people on this list who write about AGW
> have chosen to dismiss all criticisms of AGW models, even those coming
> from very competent earth scientists (which is surprising to me, as
> it's unclear to me whether any AGW-supporter here has any formal
> training in any of the earth sciences, and without such training, I
> don't know how anyone could be sure whether or not the AGW models are
> sound). The critics of AGW may be completely wrong, but I don't like
> the way they are dismissed; it smacks too much of the way that critics
> of Darwinian mechanisms are dismissed. Theoretical arguments should
> be met with theoretical criticism, not with ridicule,"
> I mostly agree with those remarks, Cameron. I hope I am not among
> those who "dismiss all criticisms." I don't mean to be.
> Nor do I claim expertise as a cimate scientist. That simply means I
> know I do not have the expertise to DO climate science.
> I do claim some expertise, however, in the examination of evidences /
> arguments / data on the subject. Maybe I claim too much; I don't think
> so although some others (our beloved Janice, for example.) think so.
> <G> Some of my comments were directed at her; I thought her emails
> were coming from the ASA list since Gmail collects incoming stuff by
> subject line. I intend not to do that again.
> I have read a lot of the ant-AGW stuff. Here are the top three reasons
> I discount it:
> 1 I have been reading three journals, SCIENCE, NEW SCIENTIST and
> NATURE, at the local college library for about six months now. So far
> I have come across no -- zero -- nada -- articles in any of these
> three that even hints that AGW,as claimed by the 619 scientists who
> make up the IPCC is incorrect in their five base findings --
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas --
> humanity emits a lot of it --
> CO2 is building in the atmosphere
> The "new" CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels, oil, coal, etc.
> The planet is warming
> The IPCC claim, based on those five irrefuable pieces of data, is that
> the planet will definitely warm up as a result.
> I'd like to find a scientific peer-reviewed article which would shake
> any of the above.
> There are various views on how bad it will get and how much damage to
> civilization will occur. The worst scenario suggests it is already too
> late and we will all die. The best says will will enter an "Eden" of a
> warmer and more productive planet. The middle outlooks generally say
> that humanity will survive; about 1,000,000,000 people on the
> seacoasts will either drown or have to migrate inland.
> 2. I have read a number of anti-AGW articles and books. They seem to
> all be cherry picking the data -- sometimes they flat out lie.
> 3. I wrote my own short article on the science of AGW for a Colorado
> newspaper. A copy of this is at I have
> challenged a number of people (including Janice BTW) to read it and
> tell me where I have erred. To date the number that have responded is
> -- you guess it -- none. Zero. Nada.
> So -- to this science-educated person, the conclusion seems pretty
> obvious. To ignore the IPCC findings is to risk the lives of billions
> of people. The cost to do it is pretty small in comparison, even if
> you believe the far out financials of the American right.
> Blessings
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 2 18:14:52 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 02 2009 - 18:14:52 EST