RCEC Email 2.25.03
1 like375 views
The George Marshall Institute commends the National Academies' review of the Administration's draft Climate Change Strategic Plan. The Institute agrees with the Academies that the Administration's outreach to the scientific community shows interest in developing a responsive plan. The Institute also reviewed the draft plan and submitted comments recommending improvements. Both the Academies' review and comments from a workshop reinforce that current knowledge is limited, improving observations is key, and models must be based on facts, not unvalidated hypotheses. The Institute stresses the need to prioritize climate research.
![- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2of 57
indicate a strong interest in develop ng a plan that is responsive to
national needs," Marshall Institute President William O'K~eefe said.
The George Marshall Institute also examied the Administration's draft
plan in detail. Based on comments sub itted to the 'Department of
Commerce in mid-January, Climate Change Science: Marshall Institute's
Review of the Draft Climate Change Science Program 'Strategic Plan, the
Institute lays out its recommendations for improving the draft Strategic
Plan (available at http://www.marshall.org).I
The Academy comments also reinforce those made by a majority of the
participants at the Workshop convened last December to engage
stakeholders in the planning process.
In convening that Workshop, Assistant Secretary Mahoney provided a
valuable context by indicating that t edraft had been designed to
provoke discussion and comment. His measure of success for the effort
was the extent of change made to the draft. By omitting this context,
the Academy risks a widespread misunderstanding of its review and the
Administration's efforts.
In the end, the Academy report, as well as others from the scientific
community, reaffirm a few basic facts:
* Our current state of knowledge is inadequate for distinguishing
human impacts from natural variability,
* Progress in improving our state of knowledge is tied to a
commitment and funding to improve our observational data system, and
* For models to be more useful, they must be based more on confirmed
scientific facts and less on unvalidated hypotheses'.
The George Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c) (3) non-profit
organization founded in 1984 to encourage the use of sound science in
making public policy. Decisions and conclusions about many public policy
matters are shaped by advances in science and technology. For that
reason, unbiased and scientifically accurate assessments of the
significance of these advances for policy are critical.
George Marshall Institute
1625 K St, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/296-9655
info~marshall .org
- nas2-26rpt.pdf
---- ATTACHMENT 1 ==----------
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert NSREOP0102:[ATTACH.D59]SREOP01300E6J8G.001 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
file://D:SEARCHJ7903-.CEQ006j4-8j6e O3sceq.txt 8/14/2003](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/arms6-091021113928-phpapp02/85/RCEC-Email-2-25-03-2-320.jpg)
RCEC Email 2.25.03
- 1. 6 ~~~~Pagel1of 57 RECORD TYPE: FEDERAL (NOTES MAIL) CREATOR:Dana M. Perino ( CN=Dana N. P rino/OU=CEQ/O=EOP [ CEQ CREATION DATE/TIME:25-FEB-2003 19:33:C8.00 SUBJECT:: Re: Pwd: George Marshall Co ments on NAS Report TO:Frank Naisano <fmaisano(?PCGPR.~COM> ( Frank Maisano <fmaisano~PCGPR.CON>[ UNKNOWN READ: UNKNOWN TEXT: thanks for sending, Frank Maisano <fmaisano@PCGPR. ON> 02/25/2003 07:09:58 PM Record Type: Record To: Dana M. Perin0/CEQ/EoP@Eop CC: Subject: Fwd: George Marshall Comments on NAS Report Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:46:11 -0500 From: "Frank Maisano", <fmaisano@PCGPR. OM> Subject: George Marshall Comments on NAS Report To: "Frank Naisano" <fmaisano@PCGPR.COII> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary=" Boundary (ID MsGdRf/MZ~lX2NlE9IwJlw)" Friends, Here are comments from the George Mars all Institute, who commented extensively to the NAS. .. .Nany of their comments wereincorporated into this report. You may wish to contact Bill O'Keefe c. (202) 251-4625 Best, Prank Maisano c. (202) 297-1502 February 26, 2002 MARSHALL INSTITUTE COMMENDS NATIONAL AC DEMIES' CLIMATE SCIENCE REVIEW: Stresses Need to Prioritize Climate Research Today's National Academies report, Planaing Climate and Global Change Research, provides a valuable service b, providing a' constructive critique of the Administration's draft _limate Change Strategic Plan. "We join the Academy in commending the Administration for its outreach to the broader scientific community and agree that these efforts file://D:SEARCH_7_9_03_CEQ006jfg8j6e003 ceq.txt 8/14/2003
- 2. - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2of 57 indicate a strong interest in develop ng a plan that is responsive to national needs," Marshall Institute President William O'K~eefe said. The George Marshall Institute also examied the Administration's draft plan in detail. Based on comments sub itted to the 'Department of Commerce in mid-January, Climate Change Science: Marshall Institute's Review of the Draft Climate Change Science Program 'Strategic Plan, the Institute lays out its recommendations for improving the draft Strategic Plan (available at http://www.marshall.org).I The Academy comments also reinforce those made by a majority of the participants at the Workshop convened last December to engage stakeholders in the planning process. In convening that Workshop, Assistant Secretary Mahoney provided a valuable context by indicating that t edraft had been designed to provoke discussion and comment. His measure of success for the effort was the extent of change made to the draft. By omitting this context, the Academy risks a widespread misunderstanding of its review and the Administration's efforts. In the end, the Academy report, as well as others from the scientific community, reaffirm a few basic facts: * Our current state of knowledge is inadequate for distinguishing human impacts from natural variability, * Progress in improving our state of knowledge is tied to a commitment and funding to improve our observational data system, and * For models to be more useful, they must be based more on confirmed scientific facts and less on unvalidated hypotheses'. The George Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c) (3) non-profit organization founded in 1984 to encourage the use of sound science in making public policy. Decisions and conclusions about many public policy matters are shaped by advances in science and technology. For that reason, unbiased and scientifically accurate assessments of the significance of these advances for policy are critical. George Marshall Institute 1625 K St, NW Suite 1050 Washington, D.C. 20005 202/296-9655 info~marshall .org - nas2-26rpt.pdf ---- ATTACHMENT 1 ==---------- ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00 TEXT: Unable to convert NSREOP0102:[ATTACH.D59]SREOP01300E6J8G.001 to ASCII, The following is a HEX DUMP: file://D:SEARCHJ7903-.CEQ006j4-8j6e O3sceq.txt 8/14/2003
- 3. MG~EORG Chal I N S T I T U T B February 26, 2002 Contact: Mark Herlong (202/296-9655) MARSHALL INSTITU E COMMENDS NATIONAL ACADEMIES' CLIMATE SCIENCE REVIEW: Stresses Need to Prioritize Climate Research Today's National Academies re ort, Planning Cl imate and Global Change Research, provides a valuable service b providing a constructive critique of the Administration's draft Climate Change Strategic Plan. "We join the Academy in conrn ending the Administration for its outreach to the broader scientific community and agree that these efforts indicate a strong interest in developing a plan that is responsive to iational needs," Marshall Institute President William O'Keefe said. The George MarshalllInstitute iso examined the Administration's draft plan in detail. Based on comments submitted to the Department of Commerce in mid-January, Climate Change Science: MarshallIn, titute 's Review of the Draft Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan, the Institute lays out its recommendations for improving the draft Strategic Plan (available at htt ://www.marsha~llorg) The Academy comments also r ~inforce those made by a majority of the participants at the Workshop convened last December to engage stakeholders in the planning process.
- 4. In convening that Workshop, As istant Secretary Mahoney provided a valuable context by indicating that the draft had been designed to provoke discussion and comment. His measure of success for t e effort was the extent of change made to the draft. By omitting this context, the Acac emy risks a widespread misunderstanding of its review and the Administration's efforts. In the end, the Academy report, is well as others from the scientific community, reaffirm a few basic facts: a Our current state of knowledge i inadequate for distinguishing human impacts from natural variability, * Progress in improving our state of knowledge is tied to a commitment and funding to improve our observat onal data system, and * For models to be more useful, they must be based more on confirmed scientific facts and less on unvalidated hy otheses. The George Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984 to encourage the use of sound science in making public policy. Decisions and conclusions about many public policy n atters are shaped~ by advances in science and technology. For that reason, unbiased and scientifically accurate assessments of the significance of these advances for police are critical. George Marshall Institute 16: SKStNW nite 1050 Washin rton, D.C. 20005 2( 2/296-9655 info a,nmarshall~or2 http:/ w.marshall.oru 2