cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk
date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:52:26 +0000 (GMT)
from: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI <andlug@btopenworld.com>
subject: Re: CII sceptics
to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk


    A couple of points of information.

    1. the CII did not publish my letter, because the sceptics threatened them with an action
    for libel, which the CII's lawyers said could be justifiable. I would be interested to know
    if CRU has access to legal advice, and what they think?See attached final version.

    2. I have been appointed a member of the UK Subcommittee on Adaptation under Lord Krebs,
    for a period of 5 years, wef from 22nd June (under embargo till then). It is a part-time,
    paid post, and will not stop me being a Visiting Research Fellow at CRU, and may indeed be
    very useful, though of course I will be bound by the Official Secrets Act.

    Andrew
    --- On Sat, 2/5/09, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk> wrote:

      From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>
      Subject: [Fwd: Re: CII sceptics (fwd)]
      To: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" <andlug@btopenworld.com>
      Cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk
      Date: Saturday, 2 May, 2009, 5:55 PM

    Andrew,
       The CII should be shocked by the sceptical article.
    I was in Geneva last week and talked to experts in CO2
    and sea-ice measurement.
       On the latter, the map Monckton shows is a comparison
    of winter days!  I'd really emphasize the Arctic sea-ice
    decline in summer, as they can't expain this decline.
    In a footnote to the time series plot of sea ice
    amounts, there is mention of a underwater volcano.
    This is the Mid-Atlantic ridge !  This is spewing out
    heat from Iceland right down to Tristan da Cunha!
    This is a complete red herring!
       I'm attaching a couple of plots about CO2 increase
    and a recent paper.
      Monckton is assuming a linear increase in CO2 increase.
    This is wrong it is exponential. So we are above the IPCC
    SRES scenarios in terms of emissions.
    Cheers
    Phil
      ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
    Subject: Re: CII sceptics (fwd)
    From:    "Philip Jones" <[1]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>
    Date:    Fri, May 1, 2009 12:56 pm
    To:      [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:38:32 +0000 (GMT)
    From: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI <[3]andlug@btopenworld.com>
    To: Phil Jones <[4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
    Cc: [5]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, [6]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, [7]m.agnew@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: CII sceptics
    Phil (et al)
    I have done a thorough letter to the Chartered Insurance Institute. I
    think they are really shocked at the defects in the sceptical article they
    sponsored naively (see attached).

    One aspect I did not cover was trends in CO2 as there were so many other
    obvious errors.
    Can you say what the errors or misrepresenations are in the graph on page
    4 of the attached pdf by Monckton please.

    Finally, CII have decided they will make the full CII report 'Coping with
    Climate Change' publicly accessible on their website after I badgered them
    . I will tell you when it actually happens.

    Thanks again
    Andrew Dlugolecki



    --- On Tue, 21/4/09, Phil Jones <[8]p.jones@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
    From: Phil Jones <[9]p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
    Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics]
    To: [10]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, [11]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI"
    <[12]andlug@btopenworld.com>
    Cc: [13]m.agnew@uea.ac.uk
    Date: Tuesday, 21 April, 2009, 3:41 PM
     Andrew,
        Presumably you have found all these links. If not sit down before
     looking at them.  I've pasted a number of links below. In some of them
     you will see very familiar diagrams.
      [14]http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
     This one seems very useful. It might be a way to respond. Your responses
     so far seem to be in this type of format.
     What I think has happened in CII is the Monckton has put together most of
    the
     text from things he already had, and a paragraph has been added at the
    front and
     one at the beginning to give the CII context.
     In one of the ones below is his address
     Monckton of Brenchley
    Carie, Rannoch, Scotland, PH17 2QJ
    30 December 2008
     Brenchley is in Kent, but he lives up your way!
      [15]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/


    [16]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gore_testimony.pdfhtt
    p://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconside
    red.pdf
        [17]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/warming_not_happening.html

    [18]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/warming_not_happening
    .pdf
    Cheers
     Phil
     Dear Andrew et al,       Clare has been away in Vienna, but she should be
    back later today.
      We see things like this all the time - mainly on blog sites though. It is
     difficult to know how to respond to them. When they appear in print, they
     probably should be responded to, but we all have many things to do.
     The points you make are all sound, and there are many more that we
     could also make and add. Most will be technical, so not that relevant to
     almost all readers of CII.
        Here are a couple of relevant recently (or soon to be) published papers.
     The ones M&M select are just the ones to make their arguments. They miss
     hundreds on the other side.
     Maybe a brief response pointing out their main mistakes?
     Cheers
     Phil
    ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
    Subject: CII sceptics
    From:    "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" <[19]andlug@btopenworld.com>
    Date:    Sun, April 19, 2009 4:39 pm
    To:      "maureen agnew" <[20]m.agnew@uea.ac.uk>
             "Clare Goodess" <[21]c.goodess@uea.ac.uk>
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Maureen and Clare
    subsequent to launching the report, CII has published a ridiculous article
    which undermines their own position and discredits our report implicitly.
    I think it was as a result of pressure from an internal sceptic at a
    senior level, in order to show 'balance'.

    I attach the scanned article ( which looks OK if you open it in Word
    Office), and also my proposed rebuttal. I would welcome your thoughts
    urgently.
    Cheers
    Andrew
    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich                          Email    [22]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJ
    UK
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       & nbsp;

   Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\sceptics.letter.afd.may1.doc"

