Friday, May 11, 2012

4151.txt

date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:17:03 -0700
from: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>
subject: brief question
to: Ben Santer <santer1atXYZxyzl.gov>, "Karl E.Taylor" <taylor13atXYZxyzl.gov>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Jerry Meehl <meehlatXYZxyzr.edu>, Jerry Mahlman <jmahlmanatXYZxyzr.edu>, Steve Smith <ssmithatXYZxyz.gov>, rrichels <rrichelsatXYZxyzi.com>, Richard Moss <richard.moss@pnl.gov>, Steve Schneider <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>, Bob Harriss <harriss@ucar.edu>, Bob Watson <RwatsonatXYZxyzldbank.org>, Bill Gutowski <gutowski@iastate.edu>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, Alan Robock <robockatXYZxyzsci.rutgers.edu>, Caspar M Ammann <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>, Chick Keller <cfk@vega4.lanl.gov>, covey1@llnl.gov, DANNY HARVEY <Harvey@geog.utoronto.ca>, Dave Schimel <schimelatXYZxyzr.edu>, Haroon Khehsgi <haroon.s.kheshgiatXYZxyzonmobil.com>, "James A. (Jae) Edmonds" <jaeatXYZxyz.gov>, Jane Leggett <Leggett.Jane@epamail.epa.gov>, Joel Smith <JSmithatXYZxyzatusconsulting.com>, Linda Mearns <lindamatXYZxyzr.edu>, Martin Manning <mmanningatXYZxyznoaa.gov>, Martin Parry <parrymlatXYZxyz.com>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>, Marty Hoffert <mih1atXYZxyzlatlantic.net>, "Michael E. Mann" <mem6uatXYZxyztiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.edu>, Michael Schlesinger <schlesinatXYZxyztma.atmos.uiuc.edu>, Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccracatXYZxyzcast.net>, Peter Backlund <backlund@ucar.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Raymond Bradley <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "tim.carter" <tim.carteratXYZxyz.fi>, Tim Carter <Tim.Carter@ymparisto.fi>, Naki Nakicenovic <nakiatXYZxyzsa.ac.at>, Hugh M Pitcher <hugh.pitcheratXYZxyz.gov>, Warren Washington <wmwatXYZxyzr.edu>, Ron Stouffer <rjsatXYZxyzl.gov>, Steve Fetter <sfetter@wam.umd.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackleyatXYZxyzst.ac.uk>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu>

<x-flowed>
Dear all,

I have had a disagreement with someone about a statement they made in
which
I was mentioned. When I read this, I thought it implied that I was
endorsing their
view. The statement is given below together with two questions. For each
question
all I want is a YES, NO or MAYBE answer .....


>For the record, while we think TAR erred in allowing new storylines
>rather than new science (as Tom Wigley has pointed out) to drive a
>new upper limit to the temperature range ...


Q1: Do you think this implies that I endorse the claim that the TAR
(i.e., IPCC)
erred?

Q2: Do you think this amounts to an accusation that the TAR (IPCC) used the
SRES scenarios because they produced a higher upper-bound warming
than
previously?


In question 2, I am not asking about the truth of the 'accusation', but
whether or
not the statement could be construed as an accusation. The key word in the
statement is 'allowing'.

Thanks for your response,

Tom.


</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment