0880476729 - From: Tom Wigley...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.ucar.edu> To: jan.goudriaan@staff.tpe.wau.nl, grassl_h@gateway.wmo.ch, Klaus Hasselmann <klaus.hasselmann@dkrz.de>, Jill Jaeger <jaeger@iiasa.ac.at>, rector@iss.nl, oriordan@enviro.uct.ac.za, uctpa84@ucl.ac.uk, john@pik-potsdam.de, mparry@geog.ucl.ac.uk, pier.vellinga@ivm.vu.nlam.de Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto. Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST) Reply-to: Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.ucar.edu> Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>, t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk Dear Eleven, 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." In contrast 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 cost-effective options. 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 statement. This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. 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. In 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 scientific research. 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. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! 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 the subject. 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. Emissions reduction timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/16/2009 for the course CLMT 0032456 taught by Professor Ellison during the Spring '09 term at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College.

Page1 / 10

0880476729 - From: Tom Wigley...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online