Re: [asa] AGW discussion

Dave,

Right now I am looking at the "ethics" debate here as being very premature
considering no authorities have investigated for possible misuse of
government funding. The idea of
 anybody trying to hide possible misuse of government funding bothers me.
(just as it rightly bothers John Walley). I think the only thing that will
clear the names of the folks involved would be a full investigation. And the
last thing a non-conspirator would claim is a right to privacy.

Maybe I am naive but I cannot see any contract administrator who is about
to write a check for a next round of funding doing so until all parties are
cleared of wrongdoing.

Right now I am wondering if there has been adequate oversight of federal
funding in certain areas. Otherwise these mistakes would not have taken
place in the first place. Oversight mechanisms seem more important than
whether someone inadvertently did something stupid.

So, how many parties actually own the intellectual property that was leaked?
Under what spending authority? People on the list act as if the IP was
personal property. I cannot see how a case could be made for that unless
all the IP was transmitted privately, never traversed the internet, and is
owned only by private individuals. And I have heard no such claim. Did I
miss it?

So a debate about ethics seems off in the weeds because it is based on
some unspoken assumptions. I think its basically unethical to not have
good oversight.
Good oversight means good government.

Thanks,
Dave C

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:57 PM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>wrote:

> Dave,
>
> This possibly explains why some folks who are rabidly anti-GW have tended
> to be uncivil to folks off-list. They may have been thinking they were
> pestering some Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates. Which in my case
> is definitely not true.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dave C
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> David Clounch wrote:
>>
>> I took the following from a website dealing with acronyms.
>>
>> Acronym Definition
>> ====== ===================
>> AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
>> AGW Anti-Global Warming
>>
>> So, which is the definition used on this list? I always took it to mean
>> the second one.
>>
>>
>> I took it to mean the 2nd as well but found that the more generally
>> accepted usage was the first. Unlike some I tend to adopt whatever becomes
>> common usage, possibly with regrets. I meant the first in my note.
>>
>> Dave W
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
>> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 27 16:00:43 2009