Denys writes:

> I read Wirt's early April's Fools posting.  It was very funny.

One of the things about making a hard prediction is that it doesn't matter if
you are for or against the thing predicted, if it occurs, it doesn't require
much ex post facto interpretation. The resignations of Whitman and Powell are
binary events: they will either occur or they won't.

There are very few times that I feel certain enough about predicting
something this far in advance -- regardless of what the topic is -- that I
feel comfortable in potentially making a fool of myself, but these two items
seem like something worth betting on.

One of my primary reasons for my predicting Whitman's resignation is that she
felt so uncomfortable at Montreal that she excused herself early, not staying
for the final day and final day's press conference, citing "pressing demands
elsewhere."

Reuters reported the meeting this way:

=======================================

PACT "SERIOUSLY FLAWED"

"It is seriously flawed, and with only one of the 55 signatories having
ratified it, we're not the only ones that have trouble with it," Whitman
said.

She noted unhappiness on the part of Bush, as well as most of the U.S.
Senate, that emerging countries had no emissions targets.

"He is confident, though, that we can work together with our international
friends and allies and neighbors and come up with market-based incentive
solutions," Whitman said.

The U.S. cabinet is now reviewing its position, but the decision appeared
acutely embarrassing for Whitman, who had written Bush a memo on March 6
urging him to demonstrate his commitment to cutting greenhouse gases.

=======================================

In a professional environment, no one wants to appear foolish in front of
their peers, especially on topics of high importance, but Whitman has been
put in that position several times now.

Wirt Atmar