cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk
date: Sat, 2 May 2009 17:55:13 +0100 (BST)
from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
subject: [Fwd: Re: CII sceptics (fwd)]
to: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" <andlug@btopenworld.com>

 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" <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>
Date:    Fri, May 1, 2009 12:56 pm
To:      p.jones@uea.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:38:32 +0000 (GMT)
From: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI <andlug@btopenworld.com>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: CII sceptics

Phil (et al)
I have done athorough 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 <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> wrote:


From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics]
To: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI"
<andlug@btopenworld.com>
Cc: 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.

 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!




 http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/




http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gore_testimony.pdfhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsidered.pdf

 http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/warming_not_happening.html


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" <andlug@btopenworld.com>
Date: Sun, April 19, 2009 4:39 pm
To: "maureen agnew" <m.agnew@uea.ac.uk>
 "Clare Goodess" <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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Plots for Philip.ppt"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Hofmann 2009 Atm Env_final 20090311.pdf"
