Re: [asa] Teaching ID and teaching that Gobal Warming is not real

From: Randy Isaac <>
Date: Sun Jan 06 2008 - 09:10:04 EST

The answer to that question depends on whether any "anti-GW theories" have been published in any relevant technical peer-reviewed journal and what the technical response has been. Fred Singer's work is published in his own books, not the technical literature. A list of 400 names doesn't comprise a technical publication. Nor does an article posted on a website like I don't know of any significant publications of that nature in the last five years but I'd be interested to hear of any. So far no one on this list has provided any such references. Often the explanation offered for such absence is bias and conspiracy among mainstream scientists and funding agencies, which is usually a sign that the technical arguments are too weak. Evidence for such bias seldom goes further than the absence of anti-GW publications, leaving us with a neat circular argument.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: j burg
  To: Randy Isaac ;
  Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Teaching ID and teaching that Gobal Warming is not real

  On 1/2/08, Randy Isaac <> wrote:
    Independent of the topic, the controversies that should be taught in a science class are those that are ongoing in the scientific literature. In active research fields where one or more theories are still competing for acceptance by those working in that field, then the controversy should be taught. When "evidences" in any field have not been vetted through the peer-review process and published in the technical literature, then it can be mentioned as such in order to help put those controveries in perspective. But in that case, it should not be "taught" as science.

  I agree. The question is -- are there anti-GW theories still in contention?


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: j burg
      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:56 PM
      Subject: [asa] Teaching ID and teaching that Gobal Warming is not real

      There seems to be some similarities betweeen these two very different science teaching issues.

      If one opposes teaching the "evidences" of ID in a science class, should he also oppose teaching the "evidences " against global warming?

      What differentiates the two?


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jan 6 09:11:35 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 06 2008 - 09:11:35 EST