Once again, Janice continues to smear scientists and yet fails to
acknowledge the science. In fact, other than making some unsupported
accusations about Enron, a letter of Ken Lay et al to Clinton and a
report which was commissioned to Hansen, she presents no evidence to
even support these accusations. Other than a Cato article, I have been
unable to find much of anything supporting these assertions.
Not that it matters, but in addition to ad hominem arguments, Janice
also seems to be repeating some uncorroborated rumours.
It's sad to see Janice sink so low. What should we as Christians do
when confronted with such behavior? Forgive? She hardly seems to
repent though.
So perhaps she can explain the following?
<quote>
We urge that the Kyoto Protocol not be submitted to the Senate in the
near future, where pre-emptive rejection would remove the U.S. from a
political leadership role and put America at a competitive
disadvantage as the world develops a sustainable energy system in the
21st century.
This is not, however, a call for inaction. Pending submission of the
treaty, the U.S. should move quickly to establish bilateral carbon
reduction programs with key developing countries; to increase research
and development on lower carbon and carbon-free fuels, technologies,
and systems; to establish the rules for crediting early, voluntary
emission reductions; and to remove environmental, tax, and regulatory
barriers to the adoption of less carbon intensive technologies.
As these steps are being taken, national and international mechanisms
and policies for achieving long-term goals must be developed and
tested. These should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to changing
scientific knowledge and to experience with implementation.</quote>
Signed by many, including Kenneth L. Lay
Chairman and CEO
Enron Corporation
Can Janice reproduce the letter which according to Cato rumors
<quote>"...a 1998 letter, signed by Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay (and a
few other bigwigs), asking President Cl*nton, in essence, to harm the
reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global
warming was an overblown issue.
</quote>
The open letter was sent not just to Clinton but to House and Senate...
Full letter
Dear Mr. President:
We write on our own behalf as individuals and to convey what we
consider to be the conclusions of 100 energy experts convened recently
by the Aspen Institute to discuss global climate change. We are
sending a virtually identical letter to the Speaker and Minority
Leader of the House and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the
Senate.
Preventing or limiting global climate change is a marathon, not a
sprint. It requires a long-term approach and a national consensus that
will not change with the results of every election. We recommend a
high priority effort to increase public understanding of the issues,
to moderate the political aspects of the debate, and to develop public
consensus. One option for doing so would be the establishment, in
consultation with Congressional leaders, of a bi-partisan, very high
level, Blue Ribbon Commission.
This educational effort, and the subsequent policy actions, should be
focused primarily on the long-term threat -- unsustainable
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Aspen group
agreed not to debate the science of climate change, and many disagreed
about the value and cost of substantial early emissions reductions,
but we agreed on the importance of preventing unsustainable
concentrations and of the need to begin action now.
We urge that the Kyoto Protocol not be submitted to the Senate in the
near future, where pre-emptive rejection would remove the U.S. from a
political leadership role and put America at a competitive
disadvantage as the world develops a sustainable energy system in the
21st century.
This is not, however, a call for inaction. Pending submission of the
treaty, the U.S. should move quickly to establish bilateral carbon
reduction programs with key developing countries; to increase research
and development on lower carbon and carbon-free fuels, technologies,
and systems; to establish the rules for crediting early, voluntary
emission reductions; and to remove environmental, tax, and regulatory
barriers to the adoption of less carbon intensive technologies.
As these steps are being taken, national and international mechanisms
and policies for achieving long-term goals must be developed and
tested. These should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to changing
scientific knowledge and to experience with implementation.
The participants in the Aspen dialogue were a diverse group with very
different backgrounds and different views on climate change. We were
encouraged to speak for ourselves and not to be bound by our
organizations' positions, and we were surprised at the level of
consensus we achieved. We believe a broad bi-partisan majority of
Americans could also agree on these positive steps. The Aspen
recommendations are attached.
Once again, when digging a little deeper, reality shows quite a
different picture.
Seems that Janice could have benefitted from researching her accusations.
On 3/25/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> At 11:17 PM 3/25/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Janice Matchett wrote:
>
>
> At 09:56 PM 3/25/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>
> Earlier in Hansen's career he attempted to do the same and identify any
> policy recommendations as his personal opinion. Starting with the GHWB
> administration that option was removed from him.
> @ He made his bed. Let him sleep in it.
>
> That was done by OMB under the GHWB administration. They wanted to edit his
> sworn congressional testimony even when he was testifying as a private
> citizen. He went along with the edits and then faxed then Senator Gore to
> ask him during testimony if that was his actual opinion. The exchange that
> followed was captured in passing during An Inconvenient Truth. You were
> outraged when you thought politicians modified science in the IPCC. Are you
> outraged now? The late Senator Heinz (R-PA) was outraged and wrote a letter
> to the administration to get them to reverse themselves. This was the start
> of a long relationship that was a reason that the Heinz Foundation later
> gave Hansen an award. It has nothing to do with Teresa's current husband.
>
> @ He's your hero.
>
> I know a weasel when I see one.
>
> ~ Janice
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 26 00:22:49 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:22:49 EDT