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

From: <>
Date: Thu Dec 03 2009 - 00:55:14 EST

Usually I am lurker and glance occasionally at threads here. However, Rich
Blinne, as a committed AGW has played fast and loose (as most AGW's do, to
my observation) with a few facts. I fact checked him on a few points and
would like to show to all. I have snipped for brevity.
In a message dated 12/2/2009 11:39:27 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, writes:


Al Gore isn't a proponent of Gaia theory. That's James Lovelock.
( Al Gore's a Baptist.


From "Earth in the Balance"
"The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history
is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often
afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own system
of belief. But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves
freely and almost instantaneously through the world has ... spurred a renewed
investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious
perspective may prove especially important where our global civiilzation's
responsibility for the earth is concerned." (pp. 258-259)
This is not Baptist theology. I could quote more if you want. I would say
the statement above classifies him as a syncretist or New Age adherent.


No. But there is and was a political ploy. Starting in the late 60s and
early 70s the tobacco companies had a problem with the science that was
reaching a stronger and stronger consensus that cigarette smoking causes cancer.
So, they hired people like Fred Seitz to spread the message that the
science was uncertain to keep the tobacco companies from getting sued. The very
same people moved into organizations like the Marshall Institute. During
the 80s this organization focused on attacking physicists who were skeptical
that SDI would work. After the Cold War ended the focus turned to
environmental issues and the same M.O. of saying the science is uncertain and
therefore we shouldn't regulate any companies and by the way CO2 is actually good
for you. This constellation of groups started receiving money from the oil
and coal companies, for example the Western Fuels Association and
ExxonMobil. These organizations have interlocking boards of directors. Other groups
closely associated are the Heartland Institute, the Greening Earth
Society, and Friends of Science. The people that show up multiple times on the
boards or advisors in these are include Tim Ball, Sallie Balliunas, Willie
Soon, Pattrick Michaels, and Fred Seitz.
All of these organizations have one goal, keep industry completely
unregulated. Two weeks before the Nobel Prize in chemistry was issued on work that
showed that CFCs destroy the ozone hole these groups said that the science
was uncertain and we shouldn't be regulating any companies. The ban on
CFCs was a smashing success which had also a little known beneficial side
effect on global warming because CFCs are the worst kind of greenhouse gas.

Yeah, weren't CFC ozone damage found out to be off by 60-75%? More in
inline with established science?

I also googled the WSJ article this letter inspired and found it to be
rather tame, saying that possibly the data was being made to fit the
conclusion, among other things. Possibly a prophetic statement the current scandals
gong on.
Not telling both sides is typical from the political left as I assume you
are and an ardent AGW (technocrat?) employee who's own professional
reputation is tied to AGW.
I once started a dialogue with PVM sometime ago but gave up when he
appeared to be lazy and hazy with opposing thought and documentation and ended
most statements with positive confession assertions that made me believe he
was trying to make it so by saying it was so.
Quite simply AGW doesn't pass the 'smell test' for a lot of
people...including me because of half truths, here are some, viciousness against
skeptics and a lack of original data. This I brought to PVM in a WSJ op-ed by a
researcher at Woods Hole, I believe, who asked Anglia for copies of their
data when they stated that some year was the hottest on record. He was emailed
back a statement that to me was middle finger reply. Now we see why.. and
this was several years ago.
One other thing. What if all of you are wrong? Are you going to go on a
stage somewhere and publicly ask for countries forgiveness for wanting to
cause hardship and suffering to million here not to mention around the world?
I want to know what is the consequence should be for you if you are wrong.
The IPCC was progressing quite fine in 1996 when Fred Seitz (of the
tobacco lawsuits fame) did a hit piece in the WSJ on 2 June 1996 accusing
Benjamin Santer of malfeasance. This prompted the following official communication
from the American Meteorological Society

25 July 1996
Dr. Benjamin D. Santer
PCMDI, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-264
Livermore, CA 94550
Dear Ben:
On behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Meteorological Society
 and the Trustees of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR), we take this opportunity to support you and the other scientists who
have participated in the preparation of the recent IPCC report, Climate
Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. We are aware of the tremendous
effort you and other climate scientists from many countries around the world
have put into this document, and the thought, care and objectivity which
have characterized the process throughout.
We believe that attacks on the IPCC process in general, and you in
particular, such as occurred in the editorial-page piece in The Wall Street
Journal by Frederick Seitz (Attachment 1), have no place in the scientific debate
about issues related to global change. Dr. Seitz is a prominent scientist,
but his expertise is not atmospheric sciences and he was not involved in
the IPCC process. The Wall Street Journal essay is especially disturbing
because it steps over the boundary from disagreeing with the science to
attacking the honesty and integrity of a particular scientist, namely yourself.
There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort by some individuals
to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many
scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real
possibility that humans are modifying Earth's climate on a global scale.
Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate through the
peer-reviewed literature, they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign
against scientific results with which they disagree.
We believe that it is important to separate two issues. The first one is
the scientific question of how and why climate changes. The second question
is, if the climate is changing and humans are causing part of this change,
then what should societies do about it. The appropriate arena for debating
the first, scientific question is through peer-reviewed scientific
publications--not the media. However, the appropriate arenas for debating the
second question of public policy are the media and political fora, because
answering the second question is inherently a public and political process. And
it is the responsibility of the scientific community to participate in the
public and policy processes as well as in the scientific process.
The recent exchange in The Wall Street Journal is an example of why
attempting to carry out a scientific debate in the media is inappropriate. In
response to the Seitz opinion piece, you and 40 other scientists prepared a
careful, thoughtful response, which is reprinted in its entirety below
(Attachment 2). This letter was printed in The Wall Street Journal with minor
changes, but without the names of the 40 distinguished scientists who
supported your rebuttal, including the other three lead co-authors of Chapter 8.
More significantly, a letter supporting you (Attachment 3) from Dr. Bert
Bolin, Chairman of the IPCC, and Co-chairs of IPCC Working Group I Drs. John
Houghton from the United Kingdom and Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho from Brazil
which strongly supported your letter was edited so severely that less than
half of the original letter was published. Eliminated from the original
version was the crucial part explaining the IPCC review process (which was the
stated basis for the Seitz attack) and the key, reviewed and agreed-upon
conclusion "our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is
currently limited....nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that
there is a discernible human influence on global climate."
This example illustrates why essays based upon opinion and other
communications in the media or other forms of popular public debate are
inappropriate mechanisms for legitimate scientific debate. Letters and opinion pieces
can be written by any individual, and one opinion piece can carry as much or
more weight in the public's mind as a letter signed by 40 scientists who
have passed scientific muster over many years by publishing on the topic in
the peer-reviewed literature. By necessity, letters and opinion pieces in
the public media must be short, simple and non-technical, and supporting
scientific data or theories cannot be provided. Contributions to the public
media are not reviewed by scientific experts and can make assertions and
statements that are totally without scientific foundation. And finally, key
parts may be edited or removed altogether, leading to the possibility that
serious changes to the meaning of the contribution may be introduced.
The larger debate related to what actions should be taken by the nation and
 the world in response to global change will take place in the public and
political fora; and it is our responsibility as scientists to take an
appropriate role in that larger debate, as you and others have done. What is
important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy
debates is an important part of our jobs. We appreciate your efforts in this
respect as well. That is, after all, the very reason for the mix of science
and policy in the IPCC.
In summary, we restate our strong support for the integrity and openness of
 the IPCC process and for you and the many other scientists of diverse
views who have participated objectively and in good faith in providing this
valuable assessment of the state of our knowledge about climate change.
Dr. Susan K. Avery
UCAR Board of Trustees
Dr. Paul D. Try
American Meteorological Society
Dr. Richard A. Anthes
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Dr. Richard E. Hallgren
Executive Director
American Meteorological Society
cc: Dr. Frederick Seitz
See my bolded paragraph. What happened almost 15 years ago continues today.
 By undermining the science the true costs and benefits of the various
alternatives get obscured. Then policy makers don't have good advice what is
best for all the citizens they represent. Furthermore, the goal of the group
of no regulation at all costs is patently unbiblical.

And wouldn't that be consistent with the anti-christ's agenda? Don't we
have to wary of that in our rush to get on the AGW bandwagon? I think that
is why we need to decouple our AGW beliefs from the religious fervor it is
often accompanied with and look at this rationally and with reason.

The anti-christ's agenda is to get Christians to accuse Christians and it
seems to be working very well right now. I agree that this should be looked
at rationally. You have legitimate concerns -- like all Christians do --
about how much any policy would cost, particularly to those who can least
bear them. Scientists and particularly scientists who are Christians need to
provide the best information possible so that we don't just have "feel
good" policies but policies that actually help people. My concerns is the
organizations I discussed above are feeding the fears and not contributing
positively to solving this difficult and complicated problem.

Thanks to those that have indulged me in this.


Rich Blinne
Member ASA

Jack Jackson

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu, 3 Dec 2009 00:55:14 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 03 2009 - 00:56:03 EST