Friday, January 20, 2012

2092.txt

cc: Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>, "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>, Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>, Caspar M Ammann <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>, Raymond Bradley <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tom Crowley <tcrowleyatXYZxyze.edu>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Ben Santer <santer1atXYZxyzl.gov>, Steve Schneider <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>
date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:55:21 -0600 (MDT)
from: Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>
subject: Re: letter to Senate
to: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu>

Hi all:

I have been off for a few days actually on vacation and find an avalnche of
emails on this.

Just wrt the NRC/NAS: they will not carry out a study usually unless it is
funded somehow and that usually means it is requested and paid for by the
feds or others. Good ideas are not enough.
Kevin


On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Tom Wigley wrote:

> Michael,
>
> So we need to push for my second option -- a more general paleo review
> by NAS/NRC. There are already and soon to come such reviews, but this is
> not the same thing. NAS would rely on and also critique this literature
> to some degree (this literature includes BS).
>
> I agree that the Eos piece serves an extremely useful purpose, but it is
> too technical for politicians. It is, however, perfect for us when we
> need published support for our communications with the press and others.
>
> Re involving AMS, AGU and AAAS, I don't know how to do this. Any ideas?
>
> Tom.
> ++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
> > Tom, Mike et al:
> >
> > 1. Making the S B papers the sole or main subject of an NRC committee
> > would be a mistake.
> >
> > 2. But dispensing of them as a minor part of an NRC examination of
> > paleoclimate makes sense. Some of you may recall the Idso, Newell
> > contratemps of 20 years ago, and as I recall, this is how it was handled.
> >
> > 3. For the near term, the rebuttal paper in Eos is a terrific example of
> > what can and should be done in such cirumstances, and the AGU press
> > release is more than I would have expected. We've provided all the
> > necessary ammunition. The best you can do now is be responsive if
> > reporters or Congressional staff call.
> >
> > 4. For the long haul, in additon to the NRC committee route, some
> > thought needs to be given to more formal ways to respond to such
> > situations, which I expect to continue to arise indefinitely. This is
> > one role for IPCC and NRC, but both are painfully slow. Perhaps AGU and
> > AMS and AAAS need to see their roles as partly to provide a venue for
> > such clarifications. The key this time was rapid turnover. Maybe Don
> > Kennedy and Science could be engaged in this somehow.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > "Michael E. Mann" wrote:
> >
> >> Tom,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your email, and your (and Ben's) thoughtful comments on all
> >> of this...
> >>
> >> I think the Eos piece has gone a long way to discrediting the
> >> 'science' behind the "BS" papers (well, technically, "SB", but I
> >> prefer the reverse order too). The paper Phil and I have in press in
> >> GRL (hopefully to appear within a few weeks now) will reinforce this.
> >> But the BS papers certainly got a lot more mileage than they should
> >> have. The fact that the forces of disinformation were able to get that
> >> much mileage out of these two awful papers written by those clowns
> >> should remain a real cause for concern.
> >>
> >> Their ability to repeatedly co-opt the Harvard news office remains a
> >> real problem. Nobody I've talked to at Harvard is happy about this,
> >> and there's been talk of action on the part of various of the faculty,
> >> but nobody seems willing or able to mount enough of an effort to get
> >> anything done about this. Apparently there was a threat of a lawsuit
> >> against Harvard last time folks there tried to do something about
> >> Baliunas, and so they may have lost their nerve. But I know our
> >> Harvard colleagues are not happy about continually having their
> >> institutional name dragged through the mud. If someone has close ties
> >> w/ any individuals there who might be in a position to actually get
> >> some action taken on this, I'd highly encourage pursuing this.
> >>
> >> Re, an NAS committee--this is an interesting idea. But I wonder if a
> >> committee on BS would be overkill, perhaps giving these fools just the
> >> stage that they're looking for. An alternative would be, as you say,
> >> to take this on in the context of another more general NAS panel.
> >> Coincidentally, there is already a panel on "Radiative Forcing
> >> Effects on Climate" which convenes this falI. I believe the panel
> >> makeup is now in the public domain (or will be within days, on the NAS
> >> website) so there's no secret here. I'm on the panel. Daniel Jacob
> >> will be chairing it, and others on it are Jeff Kiehl, Francis Zwiers,
> >> Roni Avissar, Judith Lean, Stuart Gaffin, Lynn Russell. Also on the
> >> panel will be Ramanathan, Pielke Sr, Gerard Bond, Ulrike Lohmann, and
> >> Hadi Dowlatabadi (whom I don't know). Its a somewhat odd makeup, and I
> >> suspect that consensus will not be easy (there are at least a couple
> >> obvious trouble spots), but there is certainly a core group of
> >> reasonable folks on the panel, and this could be an opportunity to
> >> clarify the state of the science on long-term forced variability
> >> (including e.g. comparisons of model simulations and reconstructions
> >> of the past 1000 years). This, at least indirectly, would deal w/ the
> >> BS issue.
> >>
> >> I'm interested in the thoughts of others on any of the above.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >>
> >> mike
> >>
> >> At 08:13 PM 7/23/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
> >>
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> Here are some thoughts about the Soon issue, partly arising from
> >>> talking to Ben.
> >>>
> >>> What is worrying is the way this BS paper has been hyped by various
> >>> groups. The publicity has meant that the work has entered the
> >>> conciousness of people in Congress, and is given prominence in some
> >>> publications emanating from that sector. The work appears to have the
> >>> imprimateur of Harvard, which gives it added credibility.
> >>>
> >>> So, what can we as a community do about this? My concerns are
> >>> two-fold, and I think these echo all of our concerns. The first is
> >>> the fact that the papers are simply bad science and the conclusions
> >>> are incorrect. The second is that the work is being used quite openly
> >>> for political purposes.
> >>>
> >>> As scientists, even though we are aware of the second issue, we need
> >>> to concentrate on exposing the scientific flaws. We also need to do
> >>> this in as authoritative a way as possible. I do not think it is
> >>> enough to speak as individuals or even as a group of recognized
> >>> experts. Even as a group, we will not be seen as having the 'power'
> >>> of the Harvard stamp of approval.
> >>>
> >>> What I think is necessary is to have the expressed support of both
> >>> AGU and AMS. It would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate
> >>> themselves from the work. Most importantly, however, we need the NAS
> >>> to come into the picture. With these 4 institutions, together with us
> >>> (and others) as experts, pointing out clearly that the work is
> >>> scientific rubbish, we can certainly win this battle.
> >>>
> >>> I suggest that we try to get NAS to set up a committee to (best
> >>> option) assess the science in the two BS papers, or (less good, but
> >>> still potentially very useful) assess the general issue of the paleo
> >>> record for global- or hemispheric-scale temperature changes over the
> >>> past 1000 years. The second option seems more likely to be acceptable
> >>> to NAS. This is arguably an issue of similar importance to the issue
> >>> of climate sensitivity uncertainties which NAS reviewed earlier this
> >>> year (report still in preparation).
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure how to fold AGU and AMS into this -- ideas are welcome.
> >>> Similarly, perhaps some of you know some influential Harvard types
> >>> better than I do and can make some suggestions here.
> >>>
> >>> The only way to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can
> >>> muster. The Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS
> >>> (even above IPCC) as a final authority, so I think we should actively
> >>> pursue this path.
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>> Tom.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear All:
> >>>> Since several of you are uncomfortable, it makes good sense to step
> >>>> back and
> >>>> think about a more considered approach. My view is that scientists
> >>>> are fully
> >>>> justified in taking the initiative to explain their own work and its
> >>>> relevance in
> >>>> the policy arena. If they don't, others with less scruples will be
> >>>> heard
> >>>> instead. But each of us needs to decide his or her own comfort zone.
> >>>> In this case, the AGU press release provides suitable context, so it
> >>>> may be that
> >>>> neither a separate letter nor another AGU statement would add much
> >>>> at this time.
> >>>> But this episode is unlikely to be the last case where clarity from
> >>>> individuals
> >>>> or groups of scientists will be important.
> >>>> Michael
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom Wigley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am inclined to agree with Peck. Perhaps a little more thought and
> >>>>> time
> >>>>> could lead to something with much more impact?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tom.
> >>>>> _____________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not
> >>>>>> sign -
> >>>>>> at least not without some real time to think it through and debate
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful
> >>>>>> discussion first.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other
> >>>>>> scientific org to do this - e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU
> >>>>>> statement
> >>>>>> (or whatever it's called) on global climate change.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the
> >>>>>> Senators, then we respond, then...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> the AGU etc to do it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can
> >>>>>> imagine a
> >>>>>> special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other
> >>>>>> political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as
> >>>>>> individuals?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing
> >>>>>> anything with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of
> >>>>>> co-authors in support.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers, Peck
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some
> >>>>>>> on Capitol Hill, Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to
> >>>>>>> send
> >>>>>>> this letter to various members of the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a
> >>>>>>> copy of our Eos article.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing
> >>>>>>> your preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get this
> >>>>>>> out ASAP.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Michael M and Michael O
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Professor Michael E. Mann
> >>>>>>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> >>>>>>> University of Virginia
> >>>>>>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> e-mail: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434)
> >>>>>>> 982-2137
> >>>>>>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc
> >>>>>>> (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jonathan T. Overpeck
> >>>>>> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
> >>>>>> Professor, Department of Geosciences
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mail and Fedex Address:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
> >>>>>> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
> >>>>>> University of Arizona
> >>>>>> Tucson, AZ 85721
> >>>>>> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
> >>>>>> fax: +1 520 792-8795
> >>>>>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html
> >>>>>> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> Professor Michael E. Mann
> >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> >> University of Virginia
> >> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> >> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> e-mail: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
> >> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
> >>
>
>
>


---------------
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbertatXYZxyzr.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO 80301
*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment