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

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Thu Dec 03 2009 - 04:16:39 EST

  ----- Original Message -----
  Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Theology of AGW WAS The Climate Science Isn't Settled

  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.

    Michael says; This is both a misreading and misrepresentation of what Gore said. He was not New Age but considering how ALL faiths will respond to the climate crisis from their own perspectives. There needs to be a Muslim, Hindu etc response and giving the arguments on how to deal with climate change to their own beleivers.

    I am afraid you have used the old "New age" card to dismiss others and wrongly accuse Christians of being New Age.

    Please correct your opinions fivefree



    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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 3 04:17:37 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 03 2009 - 04:17:37 EST