Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: [Global Warming] Justification for Bush to withdraw from Kyoto

Expand Messages
  • P. Neuman self only
    ... Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:58:34 -0500 Justification for Bush to withdraw from Kyoto ... Re: Dec2-6 climate conference From: David E. Wojick Date: Mon, 16
    Message 1 of 1 , May 5, 2004
      --------- Forwarded message ----------
      Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:58:34 -0500
      Justification for Bush to withdraw from Kyoto

      --------- Forwarded message ----------
      Re: Dec2-6 climate conference
      From: David E. Wojick
      Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:09:00

      The following article sums it up pretty well. 1300 people talking and
      nobody listening. You can download the Plan and make your own comments at

      My pitch was the beginning of a campaign. In the last few years a new
      view has emerged, a revolution really. Multiple natural variation
      mechanisms have been identified, any one of which can explain all of the
      20th Century climate change. So GHG warming is now just one of many
      plausible theories, not an explanation. We need to sort this out before
      we take any action whatever.

      They gave me the counter argument that the models cannot explain the late
      20th Century warming without GHGs. So I pointed out that the models do
      not include the new mechanisms, so that argument is invalid. So are the
      models. They shrugged me off but I am gong to beat them up with this.
      Climate is a new game.

      "Patchy", the IPCC's new head, embarassed himself, in my view. He gave a
      keynote address using a bunch of scare slides from the Union of Concerned
      Scientists. This to a bunch of top real scientists, who must regard the
      UCS as the green activists they are. Did not speak well for the
      objectivity of the IPCC. I predicted he would screw up like this.

      I caught NSF head Rita Colwell saying something she shouldn't have, but
      she made me promise not to tell. She seems a nice lady.

      The head of NOAA told me there will not be a National Climate Service.
      Good decision.

      David W

      --------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: "David E. Wojick"
      Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:25:18 -0500
      Subject: My science milestone report is up

      Dear Listers, I have a new report just out--

      Wojick, David E., 2003. Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the CCSP.
      An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science
      Program. December 2003. Online go to <http://www.api.org> and search on

      My basic point is that the CCSP Strategic Plan gives many time-estimated
      milestones for resolving key scientific uncertainties. These must be
      resolved before we can determine whether or not humans are in fact
      influencing climate. This definition of milestones is a major step
      forward, for which the CCSP is to be commended. What remains is to
      network the critical dependencies between these milestones, to find the
      critical path to resolution. Then do the research to work thru that path.

      Many of the key time estimates are "beyond 4 years," and some have to
      wait for others to be resolved along the critical path. Therefore, it
      will likely be a decade or more before the science is settled, one way or
      the other. This in itself is an important finding. Comments welcome.

      Critical path scheduling is a well known project management method. it
      should be applied to climate research.

      Happy New Year,

      David W.

      --------- Forwarded message ----------
      Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003),
      Wojick'sAssessment of Plan (D 2003)
      From: David E. Wojick
      Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 07:37:37

      ... I have no idea how much influence I had on the CCSP StratPlan. One
      never does in massive gov't efforts like this. On the one hand, they
      certainly know who I am. When the CCSP was first formed I criticized the
      warminess of some of its statements. The CCSP boss -- Asst. Commerce Sec.
      Jim Mahoney -- met with the Cooler Heads, including me, to hear our
      concerns. I then made an invited presentation on my New View study at
      their Stratplan workshop (my pictures are still up as far as I know --
      lucky panel 13). The New View study circulated pretty widely on the Hill
      and I discussed it with Inhofe's people. I presented it a NAM, who posted
      it, etc., etc. That's about all I know. I like to think I made the case
      for uncertainty.

      On the other hand, except for the milestones, the StratPlan is pretty
      warm. As I point out
      in the new study, they systematically blur the distinction between
      natural climate change and human induced change, even though that is the
      fundamental scientific issue. They also have a bunch of near term
      milestones on predicting regional climate, ignoring the fact that whether
      this is even possible depends on resolving some of the long term
      milestones. That's why I want to see the CPM network. They shouldn't
      promise what can't be done by their own numbers.
      David W.

      public archives at:

      The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
      Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
      Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.