cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , ethompso@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:02:56 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: letter to Senate to: Jonathan Overpeck , Michael Oppenheimer Thanks Peck, These are interesting thoughts to mull over. Perhaps Ellen can comment at some point about whether it would be possible to get AGU to take a more active role. I realize this could be a tricky issue... Re, Michael contacting Donald Kennedy about some possible activity on AAAS' part, that seems like a great idea too. Now, back to putting out some fires (not the AZ kind, but the DC kind), mike At 09:24 AM 7/24/2003 -0700, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi all - the debate on whether or not our author team should send letters/reprints directly to members of Congress is a tough one for sure. I think the ideal thing would be if AGU would be willing to send a copy of our paper, along with their stand on climate change, and an affirmation that this stand is even stronger now than it was x years ago when it was first taken. The good press release was positive, but it's only part of what I think their responsibility should be. I, for one, would be willing to co-sign a letter to the AGU pres and whomever, to do just this. Then, it's not just a couple scientists who wrote a paper, but the largest professional society in the field sending a message to Congress. I feel that is their job. I've cc'd this to Ellen Mosley-Thompson as someone who might have thoughts and influence. I agree that we, as individuals have a responsibility too. But, would it make a difference? Enough so to balance out doing something that is mostly w/o precedent. AGU could have a much larger impact. Have you seen... [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40912-2003Jul10.html This is a well written piece that should have impact. Although I do understand that some in Congress really don't understand where the science stands, I think more of them are smart enough to know (or have staff who know). The problem is less science, and more politics - policy. The Anderson op ed piece hits the mark. Focusing on the science is only a diversion in some respects (although, I think we need more science on the issue too). I am not closed to the idea of action - indeed, I admire all of you for being leaders in this area. However, I really want to make sure we've thought it all out before doing something that is pretty rare. Let the political interests lobby Congress. In the meantime, the science gets more and more rock hard on this issue thanks to the hard work of people like you. I could be wrong... (not about the hard work ;)) One idea - it would help to have feedback from a conservative Congressman (they are all men, right?) on this, or his staffer. I have one such friend, and he wouldn't like the idea. I've tried to give him a balanced view of the issue, but he views it as political pressure. This guy is very smart, so you see, the issue isn't all about the science. Any positive feedback from the intended audience - not from Democrats (they already know that Soon et al was politically motivated poor science). cheers, Peck Dear All: Since several of you are uncomfortable, it makes good sense to step back and think about a more considered approach. My view is that scientists are fully justified in taking the initiative to explain their own work and its relevance in the policy arena. If they don't, others with less scruples will be heard instead. But each of us needs to decide his or her own comfort zone. In this case, the AGU press release provides suitable context, so it may be that neither a separate letter nor another AGU statement would add much at this time. But this episode is unlikely to be the last case where clarity from individuals or groups of scientists will be important. Michael Tom Wigley wrote: Folks, I am inclined to agree with Peck. Perhaps a little more thought and time could lead to something with much more impact? Tom. _____________________________ Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign - > at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the > issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me. > > > My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion first. > > I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other > scientific org to do this - e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement > (or whatever it's called) on global climate change. > > Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the > Senators, then we respond, then... > > I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for > the AGU etc to do it. > > What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a > special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other > political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals? > > Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing > anything with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of > co-authors in support. > > Cheers, Peck > > > >> Dear fellow Eos co-authors, >> >> Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some >> on Capitol Hill, Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send >> this letter to various members of the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a >> copy of our Eos article. >> >> Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing >> your preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Michael M and Michael O > >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Professor Michael E. Mann >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall >> University of Virginia >> Charlottesville, VA 22903 >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 >> [2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > >> >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc >> (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF) > > > > -- > > Jonathan T. Overpeck > Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > Professor, Department of Geosciences > > Mail and Fedex Address: > > Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor > University of Arizona > Tucson, AZ 85721 > direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 > fax: +1 520 792-8795 > [3]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html > [4]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="omichael.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Michael Oppenheimer Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="omichael.vcf" Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:omichael 1.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (0005693F) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [5]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html [6]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [7]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml