[Global Warming] Re: U.S. Climate Change Science Program
- Geez Shotsky, dont lay an egg. In case you dont remember you and I
corresponded about a year ago and I agreed whith a lot of your views.
After doing my search on Wojick, I discovered that he promotes the
use of coal for energy production as does this administration. Even
that wouldnt trouble me IF he supported stringent cleaning technology
for coal fired power plants.
Now, you may think I have copped an attitude and indeed I have.
Asthma can kill. Coal fired power plants produce pollutants that
affect asthmatics. My children and grandchildren are in that group.
Mercury is poisoning the fish where I live. 571 rivers, lakes and
streams in Florida are so polluted from coal fired power plant
emmissions we cant eat the fish we catch more than once a month.
The trees in the Smokey Mountains are dying from the acid produced
by these plants.
I resent the h**l out of someone who places the bottom line profits
of corporations and stock owners dividends over the health of people
and the health of nature. And anyone who supports they`re theories
will be guilty of killing millions of people.
There is NO room for biased science if we are going to do what is
necessary to make our earth healthy and sustainable, we need to pay
attention to the signals she is giving us. Those are the signals I am
If those of us in this group who believe in global warming were to
prevail and global changes were made to avert it, what is the worse
that could happen? (your turn)
Whats the best that could happen? Clean air, clean water, new
technology, new jobs, big bucks for stock investors. WIN WIN
--- In email@example.com, "John Shotsky" <jshotsky@c...>
> Another one. If you don't believe as I believe, you are the stupidone. Guess
> what, Agnes - we feel the same way about you and yours. There aretwo opinions,
> and neither has been proven, so you might save your name callinguntil we know
> which side is right. If there was proof that you were right, mostof us
> 'skeptics' would convert to believers. We are not believers becausethere is no
> proof, and there is ample evidence that CO2 is not a (or THE)culprit. Because
> nothing is proven, it behooves us all to look at all claimsskeptically, until
> such time as there is proof one way or another.following the flock.
> Choosing one side and simply supporting it is like a sheep
> No leader, none needed. But they stay together for the commonbelief that there
> is safety in numbers. Sorry to inform you that lots of people canbe easily
> misinformed. Hitler was a master of this. Smart people willevaluate evidence -
> real evidence - not simple correlations that could be a result ofmost anything.
> ~ John
> From: agnes_w_32132 [mailto:agnes_w_32132@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 17:52
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [Global Warming] Re: U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> I would surmise (after doing a search on David E. Wojick) that this
> is exactly the kind of person this administration needs to prevent
> any possible meeting of the minds by scientists dealing with the
> complex issue of global warming.
> --- In email@example.com, "P. Neuman self only"
> <npat1@j...> wrote:
> > David E. Wojick has urged that people submit their comments on
> > "proposed guidelines for ensuring scientific integrity and
> > public engagement", as shown in the April 1, 2004 letter below
> > director of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program(CCSP), James
> > Mahoney, Ph.D., of NOAA.http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/ccspstratpla
> > According to the official letter,
> > ...
> > >Your comments should be submitted electronically to
> > < comments@c... >
> > > ...
> > > All comments submitted by 7 May2004 will be given
> > > serious consideration in revising and finalizing the
> > > process for producing the reports. The comments
> > > received by this date will be posted on the
> > > CCSP website <>www.climatescience.gov>.
> > David E. Wojick is a long time public skeptic on global warming.
> To view
> > Information on some of the activities by David Wojick see:
> > http://www.climatechangedebate.org/ .
> > Can anyone explain to me why the U.S. Government asked David E.
> > for help in evaluating the "effectiveness of the proposed
> guidelines in
> > ensuring scientific integrity and facilitating public engagement"?
> > Pat N
> > The forwarded message and official letter follows.
> > --------------- Forwarded message -----------------
> > CCSP Public Comment Period -- y'all come.
> > From: David E. Wojick
> > Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:18:34
> > ...
> > I urge people to provide comments. The underlying
> > issue is uncertainty versus predictability. Science
> > versus the scare. The key list of proposed topics
> > and "products" is here--
> > 03-chap2.htm#3
> > Be there or be square.
> > David
> > -------------
> > >Washington DC
> > >1 April 2004
> > >
> > >CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM
> > >
> > >DRAFT GUIDELINES
> > >CCSP SYNTHESIS AND ASSESSMENT PRODUCTS
> > >
> > >Public Comment Period:
> > >29 March 2004 - 7 May 2004
> > >
> > >Dear Colleague -
> > >
> > >You are invited to provide comments on the draft
> > >guidelines for the synthesis and assessment
> > >products being prepared by the Climate Change
> > >Science Program (CCSP). Refer to
> > <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap-guidelinereview-
> > >
> > >for a brief overview, the draft Guidelines
> > >themselves, and instructions on how to submit
> > >comments by the 3 May deadline.
> > >
> > >The CCSP synthesis and assessment products
> > >are described in detail in the Strategic Plan
> > >for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program,
> > >released in late July 2003. The products are
> > >intended to provide useful information
> > >for a variety of end users. The products
> > >include reports, data sets, and evaluations
> > >of the uses and limits of climate information
> > >in decision support. See Chapter 2 of the
> > >Strategic Plan for a description of the
> > >products
> > >
> > 03-chap2.htm>).
> > >This chapter is also available for
> > >download as a PDF, or you can order
> > >a CD of the CCSP Strategic Plan via
> > <http://www.gcrio.org/orders/>.
> > >
> > >Your comments are requested on the effectiveness
> > >of the proposed guidelines in ensuring scientific
> > >integrity and facilitating public engagement.
> > >Your comments should be submitted electronically
> > >to ><comments@c...>. Please refer
> > >to the instructions for formatting comments to
> > >facilitate preparation of a collated set of
> > >comments for review by the CCSP. If you have
> > >any questions regarding the draft Guidelines
> > >review process, please contact Sandy MacCracken
> > >at>1-202-419-3483 (voice).
> > >
> > >All comments submitted by 7 May2004 will be
> > >given serious consideration in revising and
> > >finalizing the process for producing the reports. The
> > >comments received by this date will be posted
> > >on the CCSP website <>www.climatescience.gov>.
> > >
> > >We appreciate your participation
> > >and constructive comments.
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >
> > >James R. Mahoney, Ph.D.
> > >Assistant Secretary of Commerce
> > >for Oceans and Atmosphere
> > >& Director, U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> > >Ari Patrinos, Ph.D.
> > >Associate Director of Science for Biological
> > >and Environmental Research, Department of Energy &
> > >Acting Director, U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> > >___________________________
> > >Climate_workshop mailing list
> > >Climate_workshop@j...
> > >http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/climate_workshop
> > ---
> > David E. Wojick, Ph.D., P.E.
> > -------------
> > 03-chap2.htm#3
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > 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!
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
"Nobody simply picks a side and supports it, no matter what. We look
at evidence and decide. You have decided your way. We are all free
to decide our own."
Do, in fact, people look at evidence and decide? That is the
rationalist model of human behavior but today even the economists are
starting to move away from this model. It is probably more correct to
say that, most of the time, people discover or invent reasons to
justify what they already believe on "instinct" (that is, emotions).
Down deep, GW's potential consequences are scary. Down deep, it is
not in the vested (short term) interests of fossil companies to
promote sustainable development (SD). Hence, resons are discovered to
maintain the to deny GW and maintain status quo in energy use
I support my thesis by pointing to the very flimsiness of the
arguments used to put down both SD and GW. Examples: 1- the claim -
utterly unsubstantiated but robotically repeated as if Gospel Truth -
that SD will somehow "kill jobs" or 2- the cynico-hypocritical
linkage made between GW and SD (The postulated non-existence of GW is
used to torpedo SD although the two issues are really separate). Such
flimsiness of argument suggests to me that MANY (not all) anti-GW,
anti-SD arguments are a screen for short term maintenance of the
status quo. Once again, "finding reasons for what one believes on
instinct (incuding the "instinct" of self-interest)."
Even the question of "freedom to decide" is often dubious in
practice. Is a child brainwashed with anti-GW, anti-SD propaganda by
fanatical parents really all that "free to decide"? (The same
argument would apply to ultra-left wing parents who brainwashed their
kids into hating the bourgeoisie to the point of inciting vandalism
and worse.) The same question of de facto decisional freedom applies
to a population receiving auto-censored, one-sided news from an over-
concentrated and co-opted media establishment..
> There was nothing insulting in Agnes' post. She did her research
> made a civil comment. What is so offensive about that?
> --- In email@example.com, "John Shotsky"
> > Another one. If you don't believe as I believe, you are the
> one. Guess what, Agnes - we feel the same way about you and yours.
> There are two opinions, and neither has been proven, so you might
> save your name calling until we know which side is right. If there
> was proof that you were right, most of us 'skeptics' would convert
> believers. We are not believers because there is no proof, and
> is ample evidence that CO2 is not a (or THE) culprit. Because
> is proven, it behooves us all to look at all claims skeptically,
> > such time as there is proof one way or another.
> > Choosing one side and simply supporting it is like a sheep
> following the flock. No leader, none needed. But they stay together
> for the common belief that there is safety in numbers. Sorry to
> inform you that lots of people can be easily misinformed. Hitler
> a master of this. Smart people will evaluate evidence - real
> evidence - not simple correlations that could be a result of most
> > ~ John
> > _____
> > From: agnes_w_32132 [mailto:agnes_w_32132@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 17:52
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: U.S. Climate Change Science Program
> > I would surmise (after doing a search on David E. Wojick) that
> > is exactly the kind of person this administration needs to
> > any possible meeting of the minds by scientists dealing with the
> > complex issue of global warming.