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

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Wed Dec 02 2009 - 17:48:11 EST

All I can say in reply is that I understood what Rich wrote to be exactly as
he explained it. I think you misconstrued him.


On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Schwarzwald <> wrote:

> 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

Non timeo sed caveo
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 2 17:48:26 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 02 2009 - 17:48:26 EST