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

At 10:24 AM 1/3/2008, j burg wrote:

>On 1/2/08, Randy Isaac
><<mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net>randyisaac@comcast.net> 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? ~ Burgy

@ Not among the dupes and the cynical opportunists who use
them. For instance:

"...NASA has carried out an interesting manouever that has the effect
of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA's
own stated policies.

NASA says that it "employs the world's largest concentration of
climate scientists". It has plenty of opportunity to use product from
those scientists that has been produced in accordance with NASA
quality procedures and subject to the Data Quality Act. Instead of
doing so, NASA's webpage on global warming relies on non-peer
reviewed material, including material produced by one of its own
employees as a "private citizen" at a "personal" website where his
contributions have not been subject to mandatory NASA quality control
procedures. ..."

Peer Review Policy and NASA Policies: http://tinyurl.com/2twwm8

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 3 10:47:27 2008