A minor correction to my posting. The letter by Ken Lay and various
others indeed exists, but it does not seem to support the various
accusations. Indeed, the omission of detail is striking
Remember what the Cato article claims:
<quote>But what's not run-of -the-sty is a 1998 letter, signed by
Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay (and a few other bigwigs), asking President
Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of
scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue.
Apparently they were standing in Enron's way.
</quote>
A simple paragraph with so many questions. Such as the letter was not
sent by Enron but rather by the Aspen Institute.
<quote>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.</quote>
In fact it was an open letter which did not ask Clinton to harm the
reputation and credibility of scientists.
On the contrary
<quote>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. </quote>
<quote>
The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public
scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In
particular, it requested Clinton to "moderate the political aspects"
of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan "Blue Ribbon
Commission."</quote>
Again the letter
<quote>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
P.J. Adam
Chairman and CEO
Black & Veatch
J. Bennett Johnston
Johnston & Associates
Former Chairman
Energy and Natural Resources Committee U.S. Senate
Thomas R. Casten
President and CEO
Trigen Energy Corporation
Jonathan Lash
President
World Resources Institute
Charles B. Curtis
Partner, Hogan & Hartson
Former Deputy Secretary of Energy
Clinton Administration
Kenneth L. Lay
Chairman and CEO
Enron Corporation
John H. Gibbons
Former Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
Clinton Administration
Amory B. Lovins
Director of Research and Vice President
Rocky Mountain Institute
Jan W. Mares
EOP Group
Former Assistant Secretary of Energy
Reagan Administration
Philip R. Sharp
Lecturer in Public Policy
Harvard University
Former Chairman
Energy and Power Subcommittee
U.S. House of Representatives
Roger W. Sant
Chairman, The AES Corporation
Chair, World Wildlife Fund
Eric R. Zausner
President
Energy Asset Management, L.L.C.
Former Deputy Federal Energy
Administrator, Ford Administration
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.614067/k.9DB4/An_Open_Letter.htm
The 1998 Forum, "After Kyoto: Are There Rational Pathways to a
Sustainable Global Energy System?", was chaired by AES Corporation and
World Wildlife Fund Chairman Roger W. Sant. It addressed a number of
major energy questions and challenges surrounding the Kyoto Protocol
and the broader issue of how to achieve a sustainable global energy
system. Although participants disagreed on the adequacy of the
scientific basis for strong early actions to reduce greenhouse gases
and on the wisdom of the Kyoto Protocol, there was widespread
agreement on the need to take a long-term approach, to accelerate
research and development in low-carbon and non-carbon fuels and
technologies, to remove barriers to technological innovation, and to
depoliticize the climate change debate. An open letter from several
Forum participants transmitted these and other conclusions to the
President and to Congressional leaders.
Other Conclusions:
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.614069/k.B716/Other_conclusions.htm
Such conclusions as
De-politicize the issue and educate the public.
U.S. political and intellectual leadership should undertake a high
priority effort to increase public understanding of the issues,
moderate the political aspects of the debate, and develop public
consensus. One option for the Administration to consider is the
establishment, in consultation with Congress, of a bi-partisan, very
high level, Blue Ribbon Commission to lead in the development of a
national consensus.
Increase R & D.
To reduce the cost of eventual stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations, public and private spending for research and
development of lower carbon and carbon-free fuels, technologies, and
systems, including sequestration and end-use efficiency, should be
increased significantly now. Coordination between public and private
efforts should be enhanced. Commercial deployment should be left to
market choices.
In the mean time I am still looking for this elusive in house study by
Enron by James Hansen.
Anyone have any ideas what this may be referring to as there appear to
be no references I have been able to locate wich describe this study.
I find it shocking how some have treated people like Hanson and
others, who have often bravely spoken out in favor of good science,
only to be smeared with insinuations.
Why not address Hanson's claims, and even those claims have been
abused by some.
What is it that some find so threatening about people speaking up
about scientific issues that they have to ignore the science and
resort to such name calling. And why have we seen this behavior
intensify in the last 5-7 years with an almost full blown war against
science, not based on the merrits of science but based on the
requirements of a few.
I just do not understand. Neither as a scientist nor as a Christian.
Sigh.
In Christ
Pim
On 3/25/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 06:10:55 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 06:10:57 EDT