Re: [asa] Theology of AGW WAS The Climate Science Isn't Settled

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Wed Dec 02 2009 - 17:27:59 EST

Heya Iain,

I'll happily supply the quotes to back up my claim. These are the words,
from me, that Rich was replying to:

*"There's something innately humorous about suggesting no one read,
distribute or discuss the content of those emails owing to, of all things,
professional ethics. The violation of which these emails, if they are
accurate, are exposing in great detail."*

Rich's response, with my emphasis added:

*Excuse me. This is a Class A Felony. On the BBC World Service I heard a
Cato Institute spokesman issue a deafening "no comment" on how these e-mails
were obtained when asked whether it was "dirty". This shocked me since I
thought libertaria ns were supposedly worried about protecting people's
privacy rights. Anyway, quoting from the e-mails is in essence trafficking
in stolen goods and as such has no place on this or any other Christian
forum. *

Quoting my talk of reading, distributing, and discussing the content of
these emails had Rich reply with 'This is a Class A Felony'. Now, Rich is
suggesting that he meant stealing the emails was the felony - I think that's
anything but clear from his reply, and this is the first time I recall him
making that clarification. Even if I were to grant that, there's the second
bolded portion: Quoting from the e-mails is in essence trafficking in stolen
goods. But now, well, that's mostly if they're doing so in a way that "bears
negatively", and other people may disagree.

Now, Rich just now offered an explanation: He didn't mean reading,
distributing, or discussing the content of these emails was a felony - he
just meant the way they were obtained, if they were. And also, sure, it's
trafficking in stolen goods.. but only in his opinion, and then mostly if it
"bears negatively", and sure other people may disagree with this, he's not
saying his is the only right view here. That's great.

In turn, I'm going to say: This is the first time I recall Rich backing off
his statement about "trafficking in stolen goods" and backing off/qualifying
what he meant by "Class A Felony", and I haven't exactly been all quiet
about this. So no, I didn't write what I did in the heat of the moment,
without thinking about it. I wrote what I did precisely because of what Rich
said both at the time and the moments following, and I think the quotes
amply show why I did so.

As for "honest folk" living under that kind of pressure - gee Iain, if it's
that bad for honest folk, think about how bad it must be for dishonest folk!

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Iain Strachan <>wrote:

>> Except charges of corruption or worse are rife in this debate anyway, with
>> far less evidence. Notice the pattern of accusing people who are skeptical
>> of global warming of being "denialists" (let's see if that word pops up
>> right on this list), in the service of businesses that are actively trying
>> to obscure what they know is the truth, etc. That certainly doesn't mean the
>> tone of these debates should not improve, or that two wrongs make a right,
>> etc. But I will stress a point that seems to be quickly getting thrown down
>> the memory hole here: The immediate response to these leaked emails by some
>> people, including some people on this very list, was to label people as
>> thieves and felons for discussing their contents or distributing them.
> I'm very sorry to keep chipping in like this, but I really feel that this
> last statement of yours about what people on the list have supposedly said
> cannot go unchallenged.
> I do not recall ANYONE on the list saying that someone who discussed the
> contents of the emails or distributed them was a "thief or felon". If I am
> wrong about this, then please point me to the email in question. All I
> remember was that Keith Miller suggested strongly that it was unethical to
> redistribute stolen private emails. That is not the same as calling folks
> who discuss it "thieves and felons". Please explain how you got to that
> statement. I'm willing to retract this if you can point me to the exact
> email where this was said. If you can't then you should retract the
> statement because it is maligning people on the list.
> I also recall that I very strongly stated that the people who had STOLEN
> the emails were criminals and I stand by that statement. Much has been
> discussed about the Ninth Commandment and what it means - how one interprets
> it; is the Westminster Confession correct etc. But not one mention has
> been made of the fact that the availability of these emails has been because
> someone broke the Eighth Commandment. Thou Shalt Not Steal.
> I'm not accusing anyone on the list of stealing - but it is as clear as
> anything that the emails were stolen. I seem to recall somewhere Jesus
> saying something about a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Yet with all the
> crowing that is going on one might get the impression that the thieves
> (whoever they were) are being hailed as heroes.
> Now, for the moment, Schwarzwald, I am willing to believe that you wrote
> the phrase "thieves and felons" in the heat of the moment, without thinking
> about it. This is precisely the thing that got the CRU scientists into
> trouble and got them accused of conspiracy etc.
> As it happens, one of the women who attends my church home group works in
> the Geography department at Oxford University in a section researching
> Climate Change. She knows Phil Jones extremely well. The Communications
> manager at their department has instilled into them the following: "Every
> time you write an email imagine what it would look like on the front row of
> the tabloid newspaper". It's appalling that honest folk have to live under
> that kind of pressure.
> Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 2 17:28:26 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 02 2009 - 17:28:26 EST