Re: [asa] Ottawa Citizen: The Skeptics Are Vindicated

From: John Walley <>
Date: Wed Nov 25 2009 - 15:54:35 EST

To my knowledge no one has contested that the content I mentioned  "hiding the decline", "fixing" data, ensuring someone wouldn't be selected for peer review etc., was not authentic. That does speak for itself in my opinion.

If you don't want to accept that those are the actual emails and you don't want to dl them yourself for fear of Rich's virtual moral felony charges, then you are just stuck. However I am quite satisifed that I have seen enough.

Mind you I have never been an AGW denier and this is not just feeding red meat to my prejudices as some would like to believe. In fact I have recommended and forwarded to this list a presentation by an Atmospheric Scientist from GA Tech that came and spoke to our RTB CHapter and she clearly concluded that AGW is supported and I have accepted and endorsed that. A quick scan of the archives would verify that.

What has done it for me and pushed me over the edge however is the shameless and unconscionable double standard of those on this list that would try to protect their anti-science ideology by this childish refuge of quoting Christian ethics to those that threatened their desire to be sheltered from obvious reality . This in my mind casts serious doubt on the individual's scientific credentials as well as their claim to represent truth as a Christian. If this is allowed to stand by the ASA then I am in the wrong place. In my opinion this is just as shameless and disgraceful to the Body as Ken Ham or Henry Morris.

I suspect there are many more that share at least some of these sentiments but are reluctant to say so. I for one however feel compelled to say it.


----- Original Message ----
From: Murray Hogg <>
To: ASA <>
Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 3:20:22 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Ottawa Citizen: The Skeptics Are Vindicated

Sorry John, but I have to contest your analysis here.

Personally, I would say it's a stretch to claim that "we all saw the *actual* e-mails" or that they "speak for themselves".

What *I* saw  were a few excerpts - carefully selected and edited by a journalist with a known anti-GW bias and who - according to qualified scientists I know and trust personally - himself routinely engages in a touch of poetic license when it comes the facts on GW.

Now, before you understand me too quickly let me state very clearly: I am NOT arguing here that Bolt has misrepresented the situation, I am merely pointing out that Bolt's blog amounts, in essence, to commentary - that commentary may be dead on the money - it's not the accuracy of it I'm questioning.

What I AM arguing is that it is simply naive to claim that such commentary is a case of allowing the documents to "speak for themselves."

Indeed, if they were even capable of doing so, the Herald-Sun would simply have published the documents without comment - rather than get one of their staff columnists to to tell us what they mean.

And, again, given that the Ottawa Citizen article doesn't deal with the actual e-mails it merely cites the opinions of a few people who are supposed authorities on the matter to say it "vindicates" claims of impropriety is a stretch.

Again, I'm not saying that the authors of the e-mails are pure of heart and clean of hands - I'm only expressing an observation that people seem to have drawn some very strong conclusions, in a very short period of time. And whilst I could well be a buffoon ideologue living in denial (I'm pretty sure I'm not an ideologue) an awareness of that possibility doesn't help me to see things any more clearly.


> My buffoon idealogue comment wasn't directly due to anything in the Ottawa Citizen article. That article was just further vindication of the incredulity of rational people over the defense tactic of selectively hiding behind propriety when it suits the defenders.
> We all saw the actual emails and what I saw was enough, "hiding the decline", "fixing" data, ensuring someone wouldn't be selected for peer review etc.
> I think those that are defending this are the ones not engaging in the actual tect of the emails. They speak for themselves unless you are in denial.
> John

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 Wed Nov 25 15:54:54 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 25 2009 - 15:54:55 EST