Re: [asa] Creation Care

At 09:08 AM 1/19/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:

>"....Finally, I think it's fair to point out that there are politics
>involved in this science. This isn't to suggest that the people
>publishing in this field are purposefully misrepresenting results or
>engaging in any kind of unethical activity. It is to suggest,
>however, that the politics might influence funding opportunities,
>doctoral and post-doc work, research choices, departmental hiring
>and tenure decisions, and peer review, perhaps in subtle
>ways. Maybe this sounds like some kind of attack on the scientists
>working in this field, but it shouldn't sound that way. Everyone,
>everywhere, in every occupation, is influenced to some degree by
>social and political pressure. With a highly charged political hot
>potato like warming, it defies experience to believe that the
>science is pristinely objective.
>
>Of course all of the above sounds like the criticisms ID folks raise
>against evolutionary science. I guess there's an extent to which I
>have some sympathy for those criticisms on the sociological
>level. Consensus should always be subject to challenge. Even
>scientists with the best motives are influenced by social and
>political factors. Where warming is different from ID/evolutionary
>science, I think, is in the extent of the conclusions that
>legitimately can be drawn from the science to date and in the
>breadth of the consensus. The volume of work done, the
>cross-disciplinarity, the correlation with predictions and
>observations, all are far more extensive in evolutionary science
>than in the science of climate change at this point in the
>respective research programs. At the end of the day, it seems like
>apples and oranges to me. ~ David

@ The whole "global warming" thing is a political movement full of
people trying to cash in on the latest "scare".

Those who insist that "consensus" is "science", are the same people
who insist that "ID" isn't "science".

Who is kidding whom? What you have going on here is "pop-science"
that appeals to the vacuous "pop-culture", which is so easily
manipulated by slick advertising campaigns that it's downright
embarrassing for the circumspect (ALWAYS the minority) to
behold. History shows that "conventional wisdom" is hardly ever
right, but who ever learns from history?

Any time you see the opportunists and their mad-cap hysterical
"useful idiots" screaming the sky is falling and blowing things
WAAAAAY out of proportion - follow the money - pure and simple.

Want some laughs, read the comments
here: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html in response to
this "global warming" parrot:

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
U. S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ^ | January
17, 2007 | Marc Morano
Posted on 01/17/2007 9:09:32 PM EST by rottndog
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769286/posts [refresh browser]

~ Janice .... PS:

This latest go-round is merely the resurgence of the sorts of
organizations that were formed in the 1970s and lay dormant for
years, such as the Alliance to Save Energy and the Solar Lobby
(renamed the Fund for Renewable Energy and the Environment). They
give their agenda away here:

Saturday, Aug. 13, 1988 - Here's Timothy "lie about it if we have
to" Wirth :

".."What we've got to do ..is try to ride the global warming issue ..
"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong," said Sen. Timothy E.
Wirth, D-Colo., the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's point
man on that issue and chairman of the Alliance to Save Energy.

"The debate this time is going to be much more __sophisticated__,"
said Ken Murphy, executive director of the Environmental and Energy
Study Institute.

MARKET MANIPULATION

Energy efficiency or energy waste, whichever occurs, will happen in
the marketplace. The question for federal and state policy makers --
and the advocacy groups that try to sway them -- is whether and how
much to try to manipulate market forces.

"I don't think $(market manipulation$) makes a great deal of sense,"
said Donna R. Fitzpatrick, associate Energy undersecretary and
assistant secretary for conservation and renewable energy. "I don't
really understand the rationale for trying to do to ourselves what
we're afraid the Arabs might do to us."

Continue: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/839012/posts?page=5#5
Global Warming Treaty Costs for the U. S. http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba213.html

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 19 12:24:37 2007