From: Tom Wigley <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Klaus Hasselmann
<firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jill Jaeger <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Mike Hulme <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it.
Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions."
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it.
However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper.
This is contrary to your
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment.
What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted.
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible.
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
-- when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
Let me remind you of the science.
The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU.
Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action -- and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue.
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx