date: Tue Dec  7 17:20:08 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: "Alex Kirby" <alex.kirby@bbc.co.uk>

    Alex,
      Of course, I'll still talk.  I was just looking at your items as the COP-10
    is coming up very soon - could have started.
      I managed to stop the World Service doing anything on this lot (see below).
    Julian could see it was just pre-COP propaganda, and all the issues are
    being dealt with, some better than others.
      The report is not worth getting involved with as it is all the same sort
    of rubbish that these groups peddle at this time.
    Cheers
    Phil
   From: Julian Siddle [[1]mailto:julian.siddle@bbc.co.uk]
   Sent: 07 December 2004 11:01
   To: c.young@uea.ac.uk
   Subject: Climate change
   Dear Cathy Young,
   Hi I was just speaking to Emma in your press office who suggested I send you
   an email.  I am a radio producer with the BBC World Service responsible for
   science news coverage.
   I have received a press release, copied below, from a group which
   fundementally opposes the conventional views of climate change. Please could
   you show this to your colleagues in the climate research unit, I would be
   interested in their views on the assertions put forward in the release.
   Unfortunately I do not have the full report at present.
   Please could they comment on the assertions which follow the paragraph
   'There are key issues that must be better understood if policy is to more
   closely match current knowledge levels. Examples of issues that are not
   adequately understood in the climate debate include:'
   I am hoping to produce a news report about this later today for broadcast
   after midnight.  Please do give me a call with any questions.
   Many thanks
   Julian
   Julian Siddle
   BBC Science Radio
   Bush House
   London
   WC2B 4PH

   Tel:          ++ 44 (0) 20 75572991
   fax          ++ 44  (0) 20 75573008
   email:  julian.siddle@bbc.co.uk
   web:     <[2]file://www.bbc.co.uk> [3]www.bbc.co.uk
           STRICTLY EMBARGOED: 00:01 Wednesday, December 8th, 2004
   News Release
   CLIMATE CHANGE CLAIMS UNDERMINED BY NEW ANGLO-AMERICAN RESEARCH
   New paper warns key scientific questions remain unanswered
   8th December 2004: As the Government's Chief Scientist, Sir David King,
   today discusses with MPs the next steps in UK climate change policy,
   scientists have published new research that calls into question many of the
   scientific assumptions driving global climate change policy.
           The report, produced by the George C. Marshall Institute in
   Washington DC and the Scientific Alliance in London, suggests that calls for
   global action on climate change are often based on poor or uncertain
   science. In particular, the report sets out nineteen key questions and
   assumptions underpinning the climate change debate and global climate
   policy, highlighting a number of important areas where scientific
   uncertainty remains, as well as those where sound scientific evidence throws
   the Kyoto process into doubt.
           Publication of the report also coincides with the 10th Conference of
   the Parties (COP) taking place in Buenos Aires this week - the first COP
   since the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
           Mark Adams, Director of the Scientific Alliance, said: "The debate
   over the state of climate science and what it tells us about past and future
   climate has been going on for at least 15 years. It is not close to a
   conclusion, in spite of assertions to the contrary. The purpose of our paper
   is to subject the fundamentals of climate change science to the highest
   level of scientific scrutiny and to highlight those areas where further
   research is still needed. "
           William O'Keefe, President of the George C. Marshall Institute,
   said: "Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and
   media rhetoric and as a consequence, the quality of science and rigors of
   the scientific process have suffered. The result is extensive
   misunderstanding over what we know about the climate system and what
   influences it, and the impact of human activity on future climate. The world
   will be ill served if global climate policy, planned out at events such as
   COP10, continues to be driven by politicized science instead of scientific
   facts and reality. The aim of our paper is to go some way towards restoring
   accuracy and clarity to the debate."
           There are key issues that must be better understood if policy is to
   more closely match current knowledge levels. Examples of issues that are not
   adequately understood in the climate debate include:
           - The assertion that there is a direct causal relationship between
   increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other green house gases, and
   increased temperature - during the 20th century, greenhouse gases CO2 rose
   steadily, while temperatures rose fell and rose in a pattern that showed no
   direct relation to increased greenhouse gases.
           - Whether global warming over the past century is unique to the past
   1000 years or longer - the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that the
   warming of the 20th century is unique to at least the past 1000 years was
   based on a study (by Mann, et al.) that has been shown to be incorrect by
   three studies recently published in peer-reviewed literature. These studies
   show that many parts of the world have experienced warmer temperatures at
   some time during the last 1000 years than they did during the later part on
   the 20th century.
           - The influence of the sun on global climate - new studies indicate
   that changes in the Sun's magnetic field may be responsible for shorter-term
   changes in climate, including for much of the 20th century.
           - The influence of human activity on the possibility of abrupt
   climate change - all available evidence indicates that 'ice ages' are caused
   by changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface rather
   than changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.
           - The accuracy of climate change modelling - the estimates from
   current climate change models are highly uncertain and large differences
   between the results from different modelling methods remain. No climate
   model has been scientifically validated
           - Understanding about major climate processes and their importance
   in terms of understanding future climate change - key uncertainties about
   the influence of ocean circulation, the hydrological (water) cycle, cloud
   formation and the properties of aerosols on the climate system remain. The
   cumulative effect of these and other uncertainties in our understanding of
   the climate system is an inability to accurately model the climate system
   and therefore accurately project future climate.
           - ENDS -
   Copies of the report can be obtained from:
   <[4]http://www.scientific-alliance.org> [5]http://www.scientific-alliance.org For
   further information and interviews, please contact:
           Mark Adams, Director, Scientific Alliance: 07963 834412
   William O'Keefe, President of the George C. Marshall Institute: 001 202 296
   9655
   Notes to Editors
   * The George C. Marshall Institute, a non-profit research group founded in
   1984, is dedicated to fostering and preserving the integrity of science in
   the policy process. The Institute conducts technical assessments of
   scientific developments with a major impact on public policy and
   communicates the results of its analyses to the press, Congress and the
   public.
           * The Scientific Alliance, formed in 2001, is a non-profit
   membership-based organisation based in London. The Alliance brings together
   both scientists and non-scientists committed to rational discussion and
   debate on the challenges facing the environment today.
           * The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select
   Committee is hearing evidence from Sir David King, Government's Chief
   Scientific Adviser at 15.00
           The terms of reference for the inquiry are as follows:
   to examine the policies of the United Kingdom Government to address the
   challenge of climate change, and also the Government's activities in the
   international arena to drive forward the international response to the
   issue.
           The Committee will focus on a number of points, including:
   - The forthcoming review of the UK Climate Change Programme during 2004-05,
   looking particularly at what new policies might be needed to keep the United
   Kingdom on track in reducing all greenhouse gas emissions.
           - The role that the Government will play in 2005 as Chair of the G8
   and as President of the European Council in driving forward the Kyoto and
   post-Kyoto agendas.
           The nineteen questions addressed by the report are as follows:
   1. How is the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) determined
   and how accurate are the measurements?
   2. How much of today's atmosphere is CO2?
   3. What has been the history of atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
   4. Do we know why CO2 concentrations are rising?
   5. What do we know about the relation between increases in the atmospheric
   concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and temperature?
           6. If temperature changes cannot be correlated with the increase in
   atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, what is
   causing them?
           7. What influence does the Sun have on global climate?
   8. What is known with a high degree of certainty about the climate system
   and human influence on it?
   9. What major climate processes are uncertain and how important are these
   processes to understanding future climate?
   10. What tools are available to separate the effects of the different
   drivers that contribute to climate change?
   11. How accurate are climate models?
   12. What is the basis for forecasts of large temperature increases and
   adverse climate impacts between 1990 and 2100?
   13. How accurate are the parameters used in climate models?
   14. How well have models done in "back-casting" past climate?
   15. Is global warming over the past century unique in the past 1000 years of
   longer?
   16. How much does the global climate vary naturally?
   17. What do we know about the extent of human influence on climate? To what
   extent has temperature increase since 1975 been the result of human
   activities?
           18. Could climate change abruptly?
   19. Will sea level rise abruptly?
   You have received this email on behalf of the Scientific Alliance, a
   UK-based a non-profit membership-based campaign organisation which brings
   together both scientists and non-scientists committed to rational discussion
   and debate on the challenges facing the environment today. If you do not
   wish to receive press releases or other information from the Scientific
   Alliance, please notify us by emailing
   <[6]mailto:media@scientific-alliance.org> media@scientific-alliance.org with
   the subject 'unsubscribe' and we will remove your address from our list.
           The Scientific Alliance
   Golden Cross House
   8 Duncannon Street
   London WC2N 4JF
   Tel: 07963 834412
    <[7]http://www.scientific-alliance.org> [8]www.scientific-alliance.org
   [9]http://www.bbc.co.uk/
   This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
   personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
   stated.
   If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
   Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
   reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
   BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
   Further communication will signify your consent to this.
   At 16:49 07/12/2004, you wrote:

             Oh Phil, what can I say? I haven't even read the damned piece
     yet. All I can say is I'm sorry -- I'm besieged by angry loonies at the
     moment, baying for my blood because of what I wrote. I'll send this on
     to my guvnor, who perhaps will have something more useful than me to say
     on this. I hope you'll still talk to me despite this.
     -----Original Message-----
     From: Phil Jones [[10]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
     Sent: 07 December 2004 16:42
     To: Alex Kirby
     Subject: something on new online.
       Alex,
       <[11]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm>
           I know it's a viewpoint, but what is said defies logic. It
     wouldn't
       be so funny if he hadn't said climatologists need to go on a logic
       course !
          How does he expect the Dutch to plan to move if they don't
       try to model the climate !  Let nature take its course. I thought you
       exercised some caution with crackpots.
       Cheers
       Phil
     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
     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     ----
     [12]http://www.bbc.co.uk/
     This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
     personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
     stated.
     If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
     Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
     reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
     BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
     Further communication will signify your consent to this.

   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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

