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

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Tue Jan 15 2008 - 12:33:39 EST

At 01:48 PM 1/5/2008, Michael Roberts wrote:
>Why do you have to be so obnoxious to fellow Christians like John
>Houghton and those on this list? I bet you know few scientists of
>the calibre of John Houghton ~ Michael.

@ Why do you have to change Rich's subject from "prominent"
scientists to "fellow Christians" and attack me?

If a "prominent" scientist, a "fellow Christian", or a "prominent
scientist who is a fellow Christian" makes a ludicrous statement and
I quote him, why do you have to ignore the statement, change the
subject, and engage in ad hominem by calling me obnoxious?

You're in the habit on this list of accusing creationist leaders of
"lying for Jesus."

What do you call this leaders statements, merely "misleading for Jesus'?

'Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen. ... human
induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as
dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more
people than terrorism." ~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003

~ Janice ... who should not be expected to have confidence in the
opinions of anyone, "prominent" or otherwise, who is deliberately
lying to or misleading others "for a good cause" (Jesus).

----- Original Message -----
>From: <>Janice Matchett
>To: <>Rich Blinne
>Cc: <>asa
>Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 5:52 PM
>Subject: Re: [asa] Teaching ID and teaching that Gobal Warming is not real
>At 12:15 PM 1/5/2008, Rich Blinne wrote:
>>Yeah. Makes you REAL confident in these "prominent" scientists.
>@ Yeah. Speaking of having confidence in "prominent" scientists:
>The John ('Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen' )
>Houghton: "human induced global warming is a weapon of mass
>destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological
>weapons that kills more people than terrorism." ~ John Houghton
>Monday July 28, 2003
> "The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic
> climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the
> pitfalls of partisanship.".. Scientists ... reputation for
> impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of p
> olitical diversity among American academics, who suffer from the
> kind of group-think that develops in cloistered
> cultures. Until this profound and well documented intellectual
> homogeneity changes , scientists will be suspected of
> constituting a leftist-think-tank." "On the left, an argument
> emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their
> findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public...
>"Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might
>derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France;
>thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of
>responsibility for today's most critical environmental
>problem." ~ K Emmanuel - MIT
> "I don't believe God is going to condemn a person who is ignorant
> of the scientific facts and simply chooses to believe a
> ...assertion ...... However, lying about what science actually
> "proves" is not something a Christian should do. If one is going
> to claim a scientifically verifiable explanation (or even invoke an
> unproved hypothesis), then there needs to be a forthright
> acknowledgement of the scientific evidence or lack thereof. .." ~
> Jon Tandy Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:30:19 RE: [asa] Denver RATE
> Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6 & The End
>"The scientists who are convinced that global warming is a serious
>problem....need to distance themselves from the environmental
>movement, who have turned conservatives off with their socialist,
>pantheistic and oppressive government ways. If they will do that
>perhaps some intelligent discussion can take place, which will lead
>to real solutions. ~ Bill Hamilton Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:05 (PST) Re:
>[asa] Why the opposition to global
>"One point that keeps coming up that bothers me is "The consensus
>view is ..." or "99% of climatologists say ..." I have tried without
>success to get Pim Van Muers to state what would be the consequences
>of doing nothing. If the problem is real, policymakers need to
>undersatand what would be the likely consequences of various
>actions. Basing actions on the precautionary principle is not
>wise." ~ Bill Hamilton Wed, 17 Jan 2007 6:24 PM (PST)
>Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and Social
> "..there are "scientists" in abundance who ...are not shy about
> arguing "junkscience," citing only favorable evidence while
> ignoring the contrary, thereby risking not only their own
> reputations, but also that of the profession we all love. The
> authors cite an abundance of instances, some involving scientists
> of nationwide stature. Frankly, I felt sick as I read this book. ..
> The authors show how easy it is to buffalo the media, and by
> extension, the public, by pseudoscientific claims made by "real"
> scientists whose intellectual heritage is that of nineteenth-
> century snake oil salesmen. To conclude this review, I will
> illustrate its disturbing message by telling an old, stale
> joke. Why do they bury scientists twelve feet down? Because, deep
> down, they are really good people. Oops! Not funny! That should be
> some other profession, not "scientists!" .... Other professions
> have their share of shysters. So does the scientific profession.
> The public just has not picked up on us yet. It is clear that far
> too many in our profession have lost their way. Are they a small
> minority? I would like to think so. Do they have a bad influence in
> our society? Yes. Is this a good thing? Clearly, no. .." ~ J. Bu
> rgeson reviewing TRUST US, WE'RE
>~ Janice ... "The climate modelers have been cheating for so long
>it's almost become respectable" (Richard Kerr, discussing
>adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 15 12:34:30 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 15 2008 - 12:34:30 EST