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

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Wed Nov 25 2009 - 16:39:43 EST

Hi John,

I was worried, let me say, that my words might suggest that the material
cited by Bolt was not authentic - so let me put that to rest by being
very clear that it was not my intent to question the authenticity of the

What I was trying to get at is simply the same sort of difference that
one might see existing between "reading the *actual* Bible" and reading
a quotation from Scripture in the setting of an exegetical treatment.

That such a distinction even exists is only my perspective, of course -
obviously you wouldn't have spoken of having seen the actual e-mails if
you agreed. So I acknowledge that we're not quite on the same page in
this respect.

Other than that, I think quite enough said. Short of engaging with the
actual documents themselves I don't know that I can penetrate any
further into the issue.

> 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.
> John

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 25 16:39:55 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 25 2009 - 16:39:56 EST