date: Fri Sep 25 10:53:32 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: [Fwd: CCNet: The Sun Could Be Heading Into A Period of
to: santer1@llnl.gov, Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>

    Ben, Tom,
       Seen this one - we picked it up several days ago.
    Michaels won't still have his 9 Track mag Tape with all the pressure data on!
    So much else wrong with this piece. CRU wasn't set up to develop the global temp record
   etc.
    I have stopped sending data out to anybody after the stupid comment on Climate Audit by
   Peter Webster.
    We've had over 60 FOI requests for data. They are varied - many can be answered by telling
   people to read the literature. We're refusing those for the data. We're going to send an
   email to all NMSs thru MOHC and then release those where countries are happy for us to do
   so.
    It is just a pain having to respond to them - someone else at UEA does this though.
    I did send one of the requests to Myles as it was from one of his fellow profs in Physics
   at Oxford! Myles knows him well and he has never talked about climate with Myles - or
   expressed any views. Myles can't understand why he's getting his climate education from
   Climate Audit and not from colleagues in his own dept!
    This annoys me too. I'd read up and talk to people if I were to ever attempt moving to
   another field! It is just common sense. Neil Adger has taken over the running of  First
   Year course here in ENV. He asked Alan Kendall for the ppt for 2 lectures he gives. He sent
   them and 40 slides are taken from Climate Audit! A student asked Neil why Alan was saying
   things opposite to what Neil and Tim Osborn were saying!!!

    Alan is retiring at the end of this year....thankfully.
    Phil

   At 00:54 25/09/2009, Ben Santer wrote:

     Dear Tom,
     This is a vicious and unjustified attack - not only on Phil, but also on you and on CRU.
     Please let me know if there's any way I can help in responding to Michaels. I'll do
     anything I can.
     Cheers,
     Ben
     Tom Wigley wrote:

     See the item by Pat Michaels.
     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Subject:
     CCNet: The Sun Could Be Heading Into A Period of Extended Calm
     From:
     "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk>
     Date:
     Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:26:30 +0100
     To:
     "cambridge-conference" <cambridge-conference@livjm.ac.uk>
     To:
     "cambridge-conference" <cambridge-conference@livjm.ac.uk>
     CCNet 149/2009  24 September 2009 -- Audiatur et altera pars

     >

     THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM
     -------------------------------------------------------
     Researchers in the US may have discovered further evidence that the Sun is heading
     towards an extended period of quiet activity, the like of which has not been seen since
     the 17th century. The impact this may have on climate is poorly understood but it would
     be good news for satellite communications, which would continue to avoid the harsher
     impacts of space weather.     --James Dacey, Physics World, 23 September  2009
     Estonia and Poland have scored deeply significant wins in their battle with the EU over
     carbon quotas. In a decision that threatens to scupper Europe's cap and trade scheme,
     the Court of First Instance annulled the European Commission's decision to lower the
     carbon emission quotas of both countries.
         --EurActiv, 23 September 2009
     The Europe-wide carbon trading market suffered a severe blow yesterday when a European
     court issued a ruling that will weaken carbon prices and undermine efforts by the
     European Commission to curb carbon emissions further. The decision is expected to weaken
     prices in Europes troubled carbon market and undermine efforts by the Commission to
     impose a stricter regime on carbon polluters.
        --Carl Mortished, The Times, 24 September 2009
     Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy
     debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this
     point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be
     spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal
     in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed
     to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
       --Patrick J. Michaels, National Review Online, 23 September 2009
     Viewed macroscopically, environmentalism is usurping state power. Entirely for
     self-aggrandizement an oligarchic party is imposing a policy platform. Environmentalism
     isn't about mutant tadpoles and melting ice-burgs. Its about economic containment. It's
     an oligarchy bringing uppity capitalists to heel. This is a repeat performance. A
     classic rendition was given at Athens 400 BC.
         --William Kay, Environmentalism 400 BC
     (1) THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM
         James Dacey, Physics World, 23 September  2009
     (2) TWO EQUINOX SUNSPOTS
         Nancy Atkinson, Universe Today, 23 September 2009
     (3) COURT DECISION THREATENS TO UNRAVEL EUROPE'S CARBON MARKET
         EurActiv, 23 September 2009
     (4) EUROPEAN CARBON TRADING MARKET TAKES HIT (YET AGAIN)
         Carl Mortished, The Times, 24 September 2009
     (5) YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP: UK FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY CONCERNED ABOUT GREEN FUNDING
     CUTS
         Tom Young, BusinessGreen, 24 September 2009
     (6) U.S. SENATORS MOVE TO REIN IN EPA WHILE OBAMA TALKS TOUGH ON CLIMATE
         Stephen Power, WSJ Environmental Capital, 23 September 2009
     (7) STUDY REFUTES CONNECTION OF GLOBAL WARMING AND STORM INTENSITY
         South Carolina Network, 23 September 2009
     (8) OPINION: THE DOG ATE GLOBAL WARMING
         Patrick J. Michaels, National Review Online, 23 September 2009
     (9) CO2 TRACKING TEMPERATURE DURING PERIODS OF COOLING
         Julian Parker <julian@tayhope.com>
     (10) PLATO AND THE ANCIENT ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FASCISM
          William Kay <williamwkay@yahoo.ca>
     (11) RE: GLOBAL WARMING SUITS ARE A HARD SELL, ATTORNEY ADVISES
          Colin Hunt <huntc@CNA.CA>
     (12) I THINK PEAK OIL IS DEAD
          Mark Lawson <mlawson@fairfaxmedia.com.au>
     (13) SPACE TRAVEL MATHS
          Stephen Ashworth <sa@astronist.demon.co.uk>
     (14) SPACE TRAVEL MYTHS
          Robert Redelmeier <redelm@sbcglobal.net>
     (15) RE: HUMAN PROGRESS IS A (POSSIBLE) CALAMITY
          Mark Duchamp <save.the.eagles@gmail.com>

     (16) ORCHESTRATING VOLUNTARY CURBS ON REPRODUCTION  DEMOCRATICCALLY
          Peter Salonius <petersalonius@hotmail.com>
     (17) DICTATORSHIPS, POPULATION AND PEAK OIL
          Richard Wakefield <jrwakefield@mcswiz.com>
     ==============
     (1) THE SUN COULD BE HEADING INTO A PERIOD OF EXTENDED CALM
     Physics World, 23 September  2009 <[1]http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40456>
     James Dacey
     Researchers in the US may have discovered further evidence that the Sun is heading
     towards an extended period of quiet activity, the like of which has not been seen since
     the 17th century. The impact this may have on climate is poorly understood but it would
     be good news for satellite communications, which would continue to avoid the harsher
     impacts of space weather.
     Scientists have long known that the Sun's magnetic activity varies over a cycle of
     approximately 11 years. Greater magnetic activity leads to more "sunspots", or darker
     patches visible on the solar surface. These sunspots are regions where the magnetic
     field lines have become twisted due to differential rotation in the outer layers of the
     Sun.
     Particularly violent sunspots can result in the sudden release of magnetic energy in the
     form of solar flares, which cause the outpouring of protons and electrons into space.
     Some of these particles can reach the Van Allen radiation belt of Earth  the outer
     region of Earth's own mmagnetic field  where they are accelerated to speeds approaching
     the speed of light. During the solar maxima, when sunspot numbers are at their peak, the
     abundance of particles shooting around in the radiation belt can become a real hazard to
     the satellites that reside there.
     Extended calm
     We were expecting to reach the next solar maxima around 201120012. However, space
     weather experts have been surprised over the past few years to report very few signs
     that the number of sunspots has been picking up since the last solar minimum in 2006.
     This has prompted some space scientists to forecast that we are heading towards another
     prolonged spell of quiet sunspot activity, the last of which was observed between 1645
     and 1715 in a period called the "Maunder Minimum".
     In this latest research, Sarah Gibson at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
     (NCAR) in Colorado and her colleagues focused on another process by which the Sun
     discharges energy. They looked at the lower-energy streams of plasma that carry protons
     and electrons towards the Earth at a steadier rate than the storms associated with
     sunspots. Scientists had previously thought that these streams largely disappeared
     during periods of quiet sunspot activity.
     The researchers found that the Sun's effect on the Van Allen radiation belt was three
     times greater in 2008 than the effect recorded in 1996 during the previous solar
     minimum. The result comes as a surprise given that the current solar minimum has fewer
     sunspots than any minimum of the past 75 years.
     Strength a sign of weakness
     Gibson told physicsworld.com that it could be the current "weakness of the Sun" that
     could account for the strengthened solar streams. This is because during solar maxima,
     when sunspots appear in abundance, the strong solar magnetic field acts to contain the
     solar streams. However, when sunspot activity is very quiet, this is a sign that the
     field is significantly weakened and this can allow stronger solar streams to escape
     through "coronal holes". "The solar wind can hit Earth like a fire hose even when there
     are virtually no sunspots," she said.
     The particularly strong solar streams of 2008 could, according to Gibson, be another
     sign that the Sun is in an unusually weak state at the moment. The study also raises
     questions about how the streams may have affected Earth in the past when the Sun went
     through extended periods of low sunspot activity. Steven Schwartz, a space and
     atmospheric physicist at Imperial College in London agrees that space weather and
     climate models could benefit from an improved understanding of the Sun's magnetic
     activity and its impact on Earth. "This research shows that while we know a lot about
     the Sun and its impact on the Earth, there are still important elements we don't really
     understand yet," he said.
     In terms of day-to-day threats to satellites from space weather, these latest findings
     could be good news for satellite communication companies that feared that they may have
     "had it too good" in recent years. As the space weather conditions for satellites were
     assumed to be glorious, there had been little assurance that the technology could still
     function properly as conditions get harsher when we move towards the next solar maximum.
     "This technology managed to pull through the peak in this solar stream, which is now
     subsiding, so it should be okay as solar flare activity increases," said Doug Biesecker,
     a space weather scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
     Copyright 2009, physicsworld.com
     ==========
     (2) TWO EQUINOX SUNSPOTS
     Universe Today, 23 September 2009
     <[2]http://www.universetoday.com/2009/09/23/two-equinox-sunspots/>
     by Nancy Atkinson
     Two sunspots appeared on old Sol yesterday just as Earth's orbit ushered in the Autumnal
     Equinox. Two sunspots showing up at once hasn't happened in more than a year, and over
     80% of the days in 2009 have been "sunspotless" during this deepest solar minimum in a
     century. Spaceweather.com had a great picture, below, of the first sunspot that
     appeared, #1026, taken by astrophotographer Peter Lawrence. Lawrence said there was a
     lot going on around the new sunspot. "The spot's dark core is surrounded by active
     fibrils and a swirling magnetic filament that gives the region a nice 3D appearance."
     Check out [3]www.Spaceweather.com for more (and new images) of the new sunspots.
     ===========
     (3) COURT DECISION THREATENS TO UNRAVEL EUROPE'S CARBON MARKET
     EurActiv, 23 September 2009
     <[4]http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/court-decision-threatens-unravel-europe-ca
     rbon-market/article-185715?Ref=RSS>
     Estonia and Poland have scored deeply significant wins in their battle with the EU over
     carbon quotas. In a decision that threatens to scupper Europe's cap and trade scheme,
     the Court of First Instance annulled the European Commission's decision to lower the
     carbon emission quotas of both countries.
     The court said setting carbon limits is a matter for member states rather than the EU.
     The ruling  could force the European Commission to review its quotas and undermine the
     fledgling carbon market.
     Estonia and Poland have been fighting for more generous national caps on industrial
     carbon emissions, arguing that their industry would be hamstrung under the EU scheme.
     A Commission spokesperson said the EU executive would consider appealing the decision,
     which was described as "extremely disappointing". An appeal process could take more than
     a year.
     Under the scheme countries get a certain allowance of carbon emissions rights which they
     apply to industry, such as power plants and steel mills.
     "The Commission exceeded its powers" by imposing a ceiling on carbon emissions, said the
     EU Court of First Instance, Europe's second highest court, in its statement.
     Poland, Estonia and other East European countries argued that the Commission had
     unfairly trimmed their quotas, or national allocation plans (NAPs), under the second
     trading phase of the scheme from 2008-12.
     Concern for future of carbon market
     The news sparked concern among EU carbon market participants that the ruling, if upheld,
     could cause an unravelling of the market, which depends on a tight cap on emissions.
     If their cap is raised, as Poland and Estonia want, the price of EU allowances (EUAs)
     could tumble. In addition, several more countries have objected to their quotas,
     including Czech, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania.
     "It is certainly a big issue as far as other outstanding national allocation plan
     decisions are concerned," said Graham Stuart, partner at the law firm Baker & McKenzie.
     Prices for EUAs were down 3.9% at 13.20 euros ($19.54) a tonnee in the wake of the
     decisison. "It's bearish news. It sets a precedent for other countries," Reuters quotes
     one trader as saying.
     The Commission had cut by 27% Poland's original request for 284.6 million tonnes of EUAs
     annually from 2008-12, and had cut Estonia's requested quota by 48%.
     EU member states alone had the power to take final decisions fixing the quota, the court
     said on Wednesday. The Commission only had powers to review the quotas, and was wrong to
     dismiss these solely on the grounds of unreliable data, it added.
     Copyright 2009, EurActiv
     ===========
     (4) EUROPEAN CARBON TRADING MARKET TAKES HIT (YET AGAIN)
     The Times, 24 September 2009
     <[5]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6846674.ece>
     Carl Mortished, World Business Editor  The Europe-wide carbon trading market suffered a
     severe blow yesterday when a European court issued a ruling that will weaken carbon
     prices and undermine efforts by the European Commission to curb carbon emissions
     further.
     In a landmark decision, the European Court of First Instance ruled in favour of an
     appeal by Poland and Estonia for the right to be more generous in granting carbon
     emission allowances. In its surprise annulment of a Commission decision to cut the
     carbon quotas of the two countries, the court said: The Commission exceeded its
     powers.
     The decision is expected to weaken prices in Europes troubled carbon market and
     undermine efforts by the Commission to impose a stricter regime on carbon polluters.
     The court said that the Commission had no right to impose a lower cap on the emissions
     of Estonia and Poland when it rejected the national allocation plans (NAPs) submitted by
     the two countries.
     Under Europes Emissions Trading System (ETS), each state submits a plan setting out how
     many carbon allowances (EUAs) it will issue to industry each year.
     The courts ruling astounded carbon traders in Europe yesterday and the price of EUAs
     traded on the ETS fell 60 cents a tonne before recovering to 13.40 a tonne.

     >

     Carbon traders said that there was a risk of a further 50 million tonnes in EUAs coming
     on to the market as the two countries exploited the courts ruling against the
     Commissions authority.
     It means two things possibly more allowances in the  market and more uncertainty,
     Emmanuel Fages, a carbon analyst with Société Générale, the investment bank, said.
     Its another blow because people will say the market doesnt work.
     FULL STORY at <[6]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6846674.ece>
     ============
     (5) YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP: UK FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY CONCERNED ABOUT GREEN FUNDING
     CUTS
     BusinessGreen, 24 September 2009
     <[7]http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2250011/industry-warns-goverment-cc
     s>
     Tom Young,
     The carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry has expressed grave concerns at reports
     the government is considering scaling back its £10bn plan to fund a series of CCS
     demonstration plants in the UK as part of its efforts to restore health to the public
     finances.
     The Guardian reported yesterday that Treasury officials have warned that the government
     plan to fund the development of up to four CCS plants could be cut as a result of
     renewed spending constraints.
     Luke Warren, International Policy Executive at the Carbon Capture and Storage
     Association, warned that any such cuts could jeopardise both the UK carbon emission
     targets and the health of the country's emerging CCS industry.
     "If these report are true they make for dismal reading," he said. "The UK government has
     been a leader on CCS but it is now in danger of falling behind the pack in the race to
     develop this crucial technology."
     The government is officially committed to funding one plant entirely through its CCS
     competition  an award expected to be worth around  £1bn.
     In addition, earlier this year climate change secretary Ed Miliband said the government
     would fund between one and three further CCS plants and that no coal power plant would
     be given the go-ahead in the UK without CCS attached.
     A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change attempted to dopwnplay the
     reports insistig there had been no official change to the government's CCS funding
     plans.
     "The UK has set out bold proposals for coal and CCS  they are  a world first  and our
     ambitions remain firm," she said. "We're  determined to drive the development of CCS as
     part of the transition to a low carbon economy."
     However, industry sources noted that the government had never officially committed to
     funding all four proposed plants and that as a result it could cut the number of
     demonstration plants back to two without technically reneging on its promises.
     FULL STORY at
     <[8]http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2250011/industry-warns-goverment-cc
     s>
     ========
     (6) U.S. SENATORS MOVE TO REIN IN EPA WHILE OBAMA TALKS TOUGH ON CLIMATE
     WSJ Environmental Capital, 23 September 2009
     <[9]http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/23/awkward-senators-move-to-rein-i
     n-epa-as-obama-talks-tough-on-climate/>
     By Stephen Power
     Hows this for awkward timing? Even as President Obama tries to persuade other countries
     gathered at the U.N. climate confab and upcoming G-20 meeting that the U.S. will take
     action on climate change, senators from both parties are moving to limit what his
     administration can do to fight climate change.
     At issue are two amendments to a huge government spending bill nearing a vote in the
     Senate that would pare the Environmental Protection Agencys authority to regulate
     various industries greenhouse-gas emissions.
     One amendment, drafted by Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) and backed by ethanol companies,
     would limit how the EPA could measure the global-warming impact of growing corn and
     other crops for fuel. It would prohibit the agency from considering the emissions that
     are said to result when farmers overseas clear grasslands and cut down forests in
     response to higher food prices. What do those farmers decisions have to do with ethanol
     production in the U.S.? Well, according to some researchers, there are some nasty ripple
     effects when farmers in the U.S. convert their farmland to growing corn for fuel.
     Still, why would the EPA want to go down this road, given the U.S. governments
     traditional support for ethanol? Because a 2007 energy law says it has to! More about
     this debate here and here.
     Another amendment, being circulated by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), would prohibit
     the EPA for one year from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants,
     factories and small businesses. Sen. Murkowski says shes worried about the economic
     toll of any regulations that EPA might set; environmental groups say her measure would
     render the EPA toothless and undermine U.S. efforts to convince other countries to
     reduce their emissions.
     Not surprisingly, the Obama administration is speaking out against Sen. Murkowskis
     proposal. We dont think trying to legislate on an appropriations bill is a good idea,
     Carol Browner, the Presidents assistant on energy and climate change issues, tells
     WSJs Jonathan Weisman. So does that mean President Obama would veto the entire spending
     bill if Ms. Murkowski succeeds in attaching her amendment to the final bill? Ms. Browner
     said shes not in a position to comment.
     Our sources predict a close vote in the Senate, possibly as early as Thursday afternoon.
     Stay tuned

     >

     Copyright 2009, WSJ
     ========
     (7) STUDY REFUTES CONNECTION OF GLOBAL WARMING AND STORM INTENSITY
     South Carolina Network, 23 September 2009
     <[10]http://www.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/2009/09/23/study-refutes-connection-of-glo
     bal-warming-and-storm-intensity/>
     by Tom Hayes
     Over the past 70 years, hurricane frequency in the Atlantic basin is up, but the
     strength of the storms have remained relatively constant. Those are the conclusions of a
     new study conducted by Clemson University researchers. Clemson Professor of Mathematical
     Sciences Robert Lund participated in the study that looked at changes in the tropical
     cycle record in the North Atlanticbetween 1851 and 2008. Lund  says he knows global
     warming is a hot button issue and many researchers have maintained that warming waters
     of the Atlantic are increasing the strengths of these storms. We do not see evidence for
     this at all, however we do find that the number of storms has recently increased.
     We took a look at the record from 1851 to 2008 and we did find a lot of changes besides
     recent changes. For instance, we found that around 1935 the count radically increased
     and that was probably do to aircraft reconnaissance, being able to fly out into the
     ocean and see these storms.
     Also participating in the study were Michael Robbins and Colin Gallagher of Clemson
     along with Mississippi State University Mathematics professor Dr. QIQi Lu.
     Lund says the increase in the frequency of hurricanes and some measurable increase in
     strength of the storms was first observed from data from the beginning of the 20th
     century. Lund attributes the observations from better and more sophisticated
     technological devices used to monitor the storms. We saw them from about 1900 which
     makes sense because most of the data recorded before 1900 was guesstimated and not very
     consistent. We also found small changes in the strength of the storms around 1960 which
     coincides with the onset of satellites.
     Lund says in a number of studies involving the analysis of years and years of data, the
     study of probabilities is best conducted by mathematicians. We have to play by the
     rules of probability and the laws of random chance. As statisticians and probabilists,
     we are not allowed to distort the conclusion nor are we invested in any particular
     outcome or inference from the data. Were just going to crunch the numbers as best we
     can with rigorous probability assessments and tell you what we find.
     Lund says the study he and his colleagues just concluded opens up avenues for more
     questions yet to answered. Are the storms changing in terms of duration in terms of how
     long they last? Are they occurring in more northern latitudes? There are a lot of small
     issues that still need to be tied down, but we sort of felt that at least given the data
     that weve seen recently that this pretty much answers the question of are changes
     happening?
     Copyright, SCN
     ============= (8) OPINION: THE DOG ATE GLOBAL WARMING
     National Review Online, 23 September 2009
     <[11]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=>
     By Patrick J. Michaels
     Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy
     debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this
     point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be
     spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal
     in Copenhagen in December.
     Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom
     warming forecasts have disappeared.
     Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded
     computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they arent talking
     much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
     In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the
     United Kingdoms University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU)
     to produce the worlds first comprehensive history of surface temperature. Its known in
     the trade as the Jones and Wigley record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley,
     and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
     Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a
     discernible human influence on global climate.
     Putting together such a record isnt at all easy. Weather stations werent really
     designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at
     points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends
     in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature.
     Further, as documented by the University of Colorados Roger Pielke Sr., many of the
     stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents,
     where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.
     So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to
     verify models of global warming arent the original records at all. Jones and Wigley,
     however, werent specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their
     record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/ 0.2°C in the 20th
     century.
     Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that +/
     came from, so he politely wrote PPhil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data.
     Joness response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, We have 25
     years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your
     aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
     Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact,
     the entire purpose of replication is to try and find something wrong. The ultimate
     objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
     Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Techs Peter Webster told Canadian
     researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to
     him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data.
     Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses
     of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldnt have the data because he
     wasnt an academic. So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of
     Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
     Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there
     were confidentiality agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that
     supplied the data. McIntyres blog readers then requested those agreements, country by
     country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and
     written in very vague language.
     Its worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the
     quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979
     (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from
     satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU
     data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others
     have found otherwise).
     Enter the dog that ate global warming.
     Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of
     Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
     Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun
     new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if
     all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the
     1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the
     station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
     original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized)
     data.
     The statement about data storage is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere.
     The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch
     tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the worlds surface barometric
     pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
     If we are to believe Joness note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data
     and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may
     have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year.
     So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and
     why?
     All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S.
     Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall whereupon
     the Obama Environmental Protection AAgency is going to step in and issue regulations on
     carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which cant be challenged on a scientific basis,
     a regulation can. If there are no data, theres no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to
     know the answer to the question posed above.
     Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studiies at the Cato Institute
     and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Dont Want You to Know.
     Copyright 2009, NRO
     ========== e-mails to the editor ======
     (9) CO2 TRACKING TEMPERATURE DURING PERIODS OF COOLING
     Julian Parker <julian@tayhope.com>
     Dear Benny,

     I am not an environmental scientist and I normally reserve my pondering for astrobiology
     and paleoenvironmental discussions but I have recently taken an interest in the CO2
     debate. I am especially interested in the ice core data and how temperature and CO2
     appear to be interrelated as this seems to be used as a common argument in support of
     AGW.

     I was thinking that in order to understand how temperatures and CO2 may increase in line
     with each other during warming periods then it is worth considering what mechanisms that
     exist that may explain how CO2 can reduce during a cooling period as the inverse effect
     may be present in warming periods.

     One that comes to mind is the relationship between CO2 in seawater and the mineral
     contents. As CO2 can be removed from the system by the formation of marine shells and
     skeletons which are deposited on the ocean floor does there exist a mechanism that can
     elevate CO2 storage on the seabed during a cooling period?  As temperatures drop,
     glaciers grow and commence grinding the bedrock into a fine mineral flour which
     eventually flows in part to the sea in outwash or is deposited at the marine glacial
     front or is transported into the wider ocean within icebergs. This material will contain
     magnesium and calcium which provides the potential for carbonate creation, which in turn
     should, provided there is enough nutrients, allow for the biological removal of CO2 and
     its deposition as carbonate.
     As ice ties up more and more water the sea level will drop and even outside the
     influence of the ice-sheets mature rivers steepen in profile and erosion rates +
     sediment transport power increases. Back at the glaciated areas the ice thickens and the
     erosion rates increase as the power of the glacier increases. This continues to feed the
     oceans with more and more mineral potential which can facilitate the removal of CO2 from
     the ocean system. Also the carbonate or Calcite Compensation Depth, the depth in the
     ocean below which carbonates will re-dissolve back into the sea, changes with
     temperature, salinity and pressure and during a deep glacial period is ~1000m deeper
     than the present day, so we have a thicker carbonate exoskeleton formation zone and more
     sea floor above the CCD to store the new Carbonate on. This, coupled with already
     shallower oceans, means that more carbonate can be permanently stored on the ocean
     floor. Does this increased CO2 storage potential drop CO2

     levels during a cooling period?

     Eventually, as shown by the ice cores, the temperature trends in the opposite direction
     and the ice starts to retreat. During stable glaciation the ice-sheets carry a massive
     load but this is deposited and replenished. With a retreating sheet some of the load is
     dumped in-situ as dense immobile clays and damming moraines, and glacial-marine
     sedimentation reduces. Less CO2 can be removed as sediment input to the ocean reduces
     and the oceans CO2 level rises along with the atmospheric CO2. Ocean levels rise,
     waters warm, CCD shallows, sedimentation levels drop and the CO2 removal system
     rebalances to match the ocean removal potential based on Mg+ and Ca+ levels. Its just a
     ponder but Id be interested in any feedback.

     Julian Parker
     ==================
     (10) PLATO AND THE ANCIENT ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FASCISM
     William Kay <williamwkay@yahoo.ca>
     Dr Peiser,
     I take it from your broadcast that you are a fan of Karl Popper. This piece was inspired
     by his "Plato" essay published 40 years ago. If you are not familiar with that work you
     may find the following jarring and germane.
     Environmentalism 400 BC
     <[12]http://www.ecofascism.com/article20.html>

     Decent word-pictures of environmentalism won't be had from those embroiled in the coil
     over the latest eco-imbroglio. Viewed macroscopically, environmentalism is usurping
     state power. Entirely for self-aggrandizement an oligarchic party is imposing a policy
     platform. Environmentalism isn't about mutant tadpoles and melting ice-burgs. Its about
     economic containment. It's an oligarchy bringing uppity capitalists to heel. This is a
     repeat performance. A classic rendition was given at Athens 400 BC.

     Table of Contents
     The Stage: Greece 431 BC
     The Protagonist: Athens' Democracy Movement
     Climax: The Peloponnesian War
     Exit Socrates Enter Plato
     Epilogue: Fast Forward 2400 Years for the Same Old Same Old

     thank you William Walter Kay
     [...] Platos program involved strengthening aristocrats solidarity and will to rule.
     Ruling class degeneration was reversible through eugenics and education. Their agenda
     should be: arrest all social change and return as far as possible to the monarchical
     state. Change came through two events: defeat by a foreign power or Change in the
     constitution originates, without exception, in the ruling class itself, and only when
     this class itself becomes the seat of dissension. This dissension was caused by the
     growth of industry, inter-state commerce, and colonization. Population growth also
     caused instability.
     Platos ideal city-state was self-reliant and agrarian. It needed no harbour or merchant
     fleet. Entrepreneurialism would be suppressed. Common citizens would have no means for
     travel. Currency would consist of tokens having no intrinsic value. Only the state elite
     would possess precious metal. An astrology-based system of religious dogmas and rituals
     would be crafted to prevent social change. No variation in scripture or ritual would be
     tolerated. Atheists and doubters would be eliminated. The ideal government was an
     entirely unaccountable philosopher-king, but at minimum governance should be the
     preserve of entrenched experts drawn from the elders of the aristocracy. [..]
     Platos oligarchic authoritarianism has been reincarnated many times. Once called
     fascism it is now environmentalism. Despite enormous sums spent repackaging this
     endeavour as something new, it remains the same old ensemble of socioeconomic actors
     reading the same old script. Platos ideas can be seen in environmentalisms utopian
     longing for a steady-state land-based and self-reliant economy and in its promotion of
     the hundred-mile diet where politically correct food consumers shop locally and
     organically.
     The anti-globalization pan-flash was an oligarchic sponsored anti-trade blitz. Platos
     theory of divine forms lives on in the Naturalist axiom that wilderness degenerates upon
     human contact. Restoring land to its original divine form is now a widely held, and
     utterly loony, political objective. Environmentalists affinity with paganism and
     spiritualism would have pleased Plato, as would their willingness to treasonously
     sacrifice their homelands in order to marginalize their domestic adversaries. Platos
     nostalgic dream appeals to denizens of the charmed circle yearning for a low-maintenance
     social order where one can enjoy the life of banquets above the turbulence always
     threatening to tip over the ambrosia buffet.
     FULL ESSAY at <[13]http://www.ecofascism.com/article20.html>
     ==========
     (11) RE: GLOBAL WARMING SUITS ARE A HARD SELL, ATTORNEY ADVISES
     Colin Hunt <huntc@CNA.CA>
     Benny,
     There is a fundamental legal error in item 8, Kivalina vs. Exxon-Mobil (CCNet, 23
     September 2009). I'm astonished that any court would even entertain such a suit. A
     plaintiff cannot sue for damages which have not yet occurred.
     Colin Hunt
     Canadian Nuclear Association
     =========
     (12) I THINK PEAK OIL IS DEAD
     Mark Lawson <mlawson@fairfaxmedia.com.au>
     Benny
     reluctant though I am to be involved in the debate on limits to oil resources with such
     distinquished participants, I should draw your attention to an essay in the September
     issue of the American Economics Association's Journal of Economic Perspectives by James
     Smith, a distinquished oil and gas economist. The article has drawn favourable comments
     and for most observers will kill the debate on peak oil. Here is the link.
     <[14]http://www.scribd.com/doc/19401722/World-Oil-Market-or-Mayhem-by-James-Smith>
     Smith says a careful analysis suggests that the recent oil price peak was due to nothing
     more than good old fashioned supply and demand problems in an area where both supply and
     demand react only slowly to circumstances. He also says that although the recent
     competition between analysts to pick an oil peak is entertaining it is essentially
     irrelevent to policy makers, as a peak - if and when it is reached - could have almost
     any results in the market. I won't attempt to summarise his arguments on that point.
     More importantly for peak oil proponents, he points to another, authorative analysis of
     oil reserves by two senior economists Adelman and Watkins - "Reserve Prices and Mineral
     Resource Theory", the Energy Journal 2008. Its available online (as part of a special
     issue to acknowledge Watkin's death),
     <[15]http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/reprints/Reprint_212_WC.pdf> The article
     is very uncomplementary to efforts to forecast the end of oil reserves, saying that it
     is impossible to do so. It also produces material (reproduced in graphic form in Smith's
     paper) that proven reserves have been growing for decades, not falling.
     I think peak oil is dead.
     Mark Lawson
     Journalist/Reports Editor
     The Australian Financial Review
     mlawson@afr.com.au [16]http://afr.com.au
     ==============
     (13) SPACE TRAVEL MATHS
     Stephen Ashworth <sa@astronist.demon.co.uk>
     Dear Benny,
     According to Richard Wakefield (CCNet 148/2009 - 23 September 2009):
     "2) forget about space travel. The distance is prohibitive for one. The closest star is
     4.4 x10^16 meters away. If we launched a ship and accelerated at 1G (the body can't
     handle more for long periods) it would take more than 12 BILLION YEARS to get there.
     Actually much longer since you would have to start to decelerate half way there."
     According to my own calculations, if a spacecraft were to accelerate at only one-tenth
     of a g, it would attain a speed of 3 x 10^7 m/s after one year, i.e. one-tenth of the
     speed of light.  At this speed, it would make the crossing to Alpha Centauri in about 46
     years, including deceleration at the same rate at its target.
     The British Interplanetary Society is well-known for its detailed technical study in the
     1970s of a robotic interstellar probe, called Daedalus, designed to reach Barnard's star
     in about 50 years flight time using plausible near-future technologies.  The Society
     will be holding a follow-up meeting on the subject at the end of this month.
     Best wishes,
     Stephen Ashworth
     Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society
     23 September 2009
     =============
     (14) SPACE TRAVEL MYTHS
     Robert Redelmeier <redelm@sbcglobal.net>
     Richard Wakefield <jrwakefield@mcswiz.com> wrote (CCNet, 23 September 2009)

     2) forget about space travel. The distance is prohibitive for one. The
     closest star is 4.4 x10^16 meters away. If we launched a ship and
     accelerated at 1G (the body can't handle more for long periods) it would
     take more than 12 BILLION YEARS to get there. Actually much longer since
     you would have to start to decelerate half way there. (and we don't even
     know if there are planets there that can sustain us) Forget worm holes.
     Stick to what is know for a fact, not fantasy that is unproven to exist.
     Plus Relativity forces time dilation between those who accelerate and
     those who sit still (the Twin Paradox). Thus those who space travel will
     have their time slowed relative to those on earth. Earth will have aged
     millions of years compared to decades for the space travelers (as they
     accelerate faster).

     Richard should check his sums: 312 _days_ of normal 1 gee acceleration gives 90% of
     lightspeed. Acceleration is not the limit.
     The Twin Paradox is irrelevant to the survival of the human species. What breaks if you
     come back (why?) and meet your great-great-...grandson? Human growth requires
     estrangement, and societies fail when they cannot tolerate or incorporate it. Many
     science fiction authors have explored time-slew multigenerational scenarios.  Orson
     Scott Card, for one.
     -- Robert Redelmeier
        HOUSTON  TX   USA
     ===========
     (15) RE: HUMAN PROGRESS IS A (POSSIBLE) CALAMITY
     Mark Duchamp <save.the.eagles@gmail.com>
     Dear Benny,

     No one can possibly disagree that Norman Borlaug is a modern hero: he actually saved
     millions of lives.
     However, as he proved the Neo-Malthusians to be wrong, he permitted population explosion
     to continue unabated. Only History will be able to balance it all out: the millions
     saved today against (who is to know?) the millions starved or massacred tomorrow.
     When pitted against any extremist ideology (the green one for example), it is normal
     behavior to grab any argument to defend oneself against it.  I am equally guilty on that
     account, I am sure, and would welcome any justified criticism.

     So yes, it is true that another agricultural revolution would allow us to feed a few
     more billion people. But is this the purpose of life on earth: reproduce without
     restraint till people starve to death by the million? Then we´ll have reached the
     limit. Then we´ll know for sure we have to stop. Then we´ll pass some law against
     reproducing at a rate of, say, 2,2 per family (to account for unmarried, childless
     people).

     So, what we are doing now is procrastinating till we have no choice but to adopt such
     laws. - Is that smart ?  I would say not, for while we procrastinate, we are forgoing
     what makes life bearable: elbow room, open spaces, soul-lifting natural landscapes - in
     a nutshell : quality of life.

     And what would happen to the Amazon? What would happen to wildlife?

     These may appear to be elitist considerations, as feeding the hungry is, and should be,
     the only objective. But how smart is it to open the floodgates wider while one is trying
     to contain the water?

     And is it worth giving up wildlife in the world so that Mexico City can house 50 million
     people instead of 25? Nairobi 25 instead of 3 (that's the projection)? And London 20
     instead of 14? What good would that do?

     I may be a pessimist, a doom-monger, but I fail to see why we should all want to see Los
     Angeles increase its population - or London, or Paris, or New York...  Yes, merchants
     will have more consumers for their goods, and politicians more taxpayers to milk. But is
     that what should be our goal?

     Should we let politicians dictate us: you must have more babies so as to service the
     huge debt we have wrecklessly contracted in your name? Or should we tell them: cut down
     on the Pork, and become more responsible?

     Mark Duchamp
     EDITORS NOTE: Mark: Your Malthusian anxiety is quite understandable - in the same way
     that the angst of many half-informed people about global warming Thermageddon is quite
     understandable. There is little that I can say in a view words that would ease your
     apprehension. One recommendation I can make, however, is to encourage you to read up on
     current demographic research and debates in order to develop a more balanced view of a
     highly complex problem. What you will discover is that the challenges of global
     population growth are far less apocalyptic, and potentially far more manageable, than
     the doom-mongers claim. One book in particular would make a good start for a better
     understanding: Jacqueline Kasun's "The war against population: the economics and
     ideology of world population"
     <[17]http://books.google.com/books?id=sPNP4_POjc8C&dq=The+War+Against+Population&printse
     c=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=kze7St33JdGrjAfv5ZzBCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&res
     num=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false> Let me know what you make of it. BJP
     ==========
     (16) ORCHESTRATING VOLUNTARY CURBS ON REPRODUCTION  DEMOCRATICCALLY
     Peter Salonius <petersalonius@hotmail.com>
     Dear Benny
     In a CCNet post September 21, 2009 entitled MISANTHROPY AND POPULATION ANXIETY, John
     A. wrote: your guesstimate is simply wrong because your key assumptions are your
     wrong. There is no such thing as a "carrying capacity" for human beings.
     In THEOILDRUM essay I offered (CCNet, September 18, 2009), I referenced Sustainability
     or Collapse? edited by Robert Costanza et al., featuring contributions by
     interdisciplinary teams at a workshop on Integrated History and Future of People on
     Earth (IHOPE), most of which suggest --- that IF, as John A.  asserts, the  human
     species is able to create new food sources, improve food sources (thanks for example to
     the work of people like Norman Borlaug), create new living environments in formerly
     inhospitable places, have many more people fed, clothed and housed than ever before, and
     protect more species and natural environments than  ever before. --- then it will be
     the first time in our history that a civilization has not overshot the carrying capacity
     of its supporting ecosystem.
     John A. also wrote There is no such thing as a voluntary reduction of no or
     one-parent-family behavior without fundamental denial of human rights.
     There never has been. For a fellow who lauds the creativity of the human species, John
     A. has given rather short shrift to our ability to craft and launch educational
     campaigns, explaining why we think that resource scarcity warrants global population
     reduction, in advance of democratically orchestrated plebiscites/referenda in which we
     hope that the majority will approve the adoption of policies leading to the institution
     of financial grant and taxation programs that would reward reproductive behavior that
     institutionalizes a population reduction trajectory that would play itself out over a
     very long period of time. We already have considerable experience with the employment of
     financial incentives and taxation penalties designed to alter various human behaviors.
     These incentives and penalties can be increased over time as necessary, by adaptive
     management, to achieve No or One Child Per Family reproductive behavior by the majority
     of couples, as public policy increasin

     gly renders this behavior desirable in the interests of the public good. Human numbers
     could be halved within the coming century by such programs.

     John A. also wrote: Who are the "us" and the "we" that "require the 'voluntary'
     adoption of no or one-child-per-family behavior to orchestrate the Rapid Population
     Decline that is necessary now"? I'm willing to be bet that those people would have
     nothing to do with any democratic process. The paragraph above, with reference to the
     democratic process we have in mind, should counter John A.s negative comments regarding
     our commitment to attempting to achieve majority support for population reduction.

     Peter Salonius
     =========
     (17) DICTATORSHIPS, POPULATION AND PEAK OIL
     Richard Wakefield <jrwakefield@mcswiz.com>
     Dear Benny:
     Let's be clear. I really hope you are right. I would like nothing more than for my
     grandchildren to have a prosperous and safe life. You are also correct that oppressive
     governments (communists, dictatorships and elected
     leftists) are a bane on civilization, which begs the question, how do we
     eliminate them?  Militarily?  Just look at the outcry in getting Iraq cleaned up.  We
     have been in Afghanistan for 8 years now and a recent report
     by a general in the field claims the situation is worse, not better.  Plus
     the Canadian public is itching for our troops to get out of there and EU
     countries are not eager to put their own troops in harmsway. (BTW I support
     both actions).  However, we do nothing in Darfur.  We do nothing to stop
     China from securing oil fields in Africa paid for with AK47's.
     I am above all a realist. Our civilization is a very diverse and complex place. We here
     in the west claim we see things clearly because our decisions are based on science and
     logic, but in reality, there are cultures who's entire existence is based on myth and
     religious doctrine, in some cases, hell bent on eliminating other cultures by force. The
     UN is completely impotent, and I would not in any way support any kind of one world
     government.  So it may be a nice dream to wish for a Utopia, the likelihood of such
     coming any time is near zero, based on past human history.
     Resource depletion is a fact. The article you reposted is arguing from geological peak.
     It's irrelevant. Seems those who hope there is lots of oil
     yet to be found completely ignore the two fundamental limiting factors for
     oil extraction. Flow rates and ERoEI. I would love to hear from anyone who
     can show me how, through technology, we can overcome the problem of the
     energy required to extract the oil from places like Brazil, Bakken and the
     Tar Sands. Once it takes more energy to get the oil than we get out of it,
     I fail to see how we have not physically run out of oil. Not one of the
     rebuttals here, or elsewhere, has addressed those two critical limits to oil
     extraction.  The article you posted most definitely did not address the
     issue of flow rates from these new finds. We are entering into a time never
     before seen. Super giant fields (100bb+) are all in terminal decline around
     the world. This has never happened before on a world wide scale. The US saw it happen in
     the 1970's causing real economic pain.  We need to find HUNDREDS of Tibers in the next
     few years just to keep up with decline from
     aging fields like Cantarell. Or does no one here believe that Cantarell is
     in a 41% decline rate. The loss of flow rate is 2 million barrels per day
     just from that one field. Would numerous Tibers be able to replace that flow rate? Not a
     chance. Or that North Sea is in decline. Or that Indonesia is in decline. Are they or
     are they not in decline? Skeptics of peak oil have to explain the November IEA report
     too.
     And it's not just oil. Potash extraction is in decline (China just signed a
     contract with Canada to pay 3 times the going rate for our potash). Rare
     earth element scarcity is a serious limit for mass production of electric
     vehicles.  If you look at the ore concentrations of copper that has been
     mined over the past 100 years you will see a trend to ever smaller percents
     being mined (which requires a larger energy requirement to extract and
     refine).  Uranium, natural gas and even coal falls into resources that are
     depleting.
     I know I sound just like the AGW dogmatists, which for me is very
     frustrating, but the difference is I rely on evidence.  As yet, no one here
     has provided any evidence that resource depletion is not happening. Instead
     the arguments are hope faith-based speculations that technology and free
     markets will solve the problem, any problem, we face. I really do hope you
     are right, I'll leave it in the hands of those who wish to try, and good
     luck to them. Personally, I'm going to prepare for the worse, and hope for
     the best. I would love nothing more than to be wrong.
     Lastly, I'm also going to take a swipe at the comment: "we're the only
     species that is on its way of being in full charge of this planet, its
     environment and its future." A tad arrogant if you ask me. It's comments
     like that that allow others to think they can do what ever they want,
     destroying in their wake. I look at other life forms having some degree of
     sentient beings. They are individuals in their heads just as much as you
     are in yours. That's not anthropomorphism, that's measured fact. Pushing
     them aside just for us is just as much a genocide as any elimination of
     humans. In our past, advanced humans eliminate less advanced humans in the
     name of expansion. Now we are doing it to the rest of the biota.
     Richard Wakefield
     London, Ont.
     EDITOR'S NOTE: Richard. OK: Natural resource depletion is a fact. So what? Will we be
     unable to fertilize our soils once we begin to see Potash extraction in decline some
     time in the future? Don't you think there are good chances for synthetic fertilizers and
     other substitutes? The same holds true for oil. Once it becomes too expensive, we will
     use more coal and gas, build more nuclear power plants and develop all sorts of new and
     yet unknown forms of energy generation. So what's your problem? The fact that we are in
     the process of taking full charge of our planet and its environment comes with
     responsibilities, obviously. Anyone who wishes to protect endangered species, as I do,
     should foster democratic reform and economic development -  because only free and
     developed nations are willing and can afford to protect their environment. No wonder
     that the rapidly growing middle classes in India and China, hundreds of millions of
     them, are beginning to be concerned about clean

     water, air quality and the protection of their environments. Unfortunately, it's often
     green campaigners that are attempting to stifle economic growth, thus contributing to
     societal stagnation and environmental degradation in much of the developing world. BJP

     ----------------
     CCNet is a science policy network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail
     to <listserver@ljmu.ac.uk> ("subscribe cambridge-conference"). To unsubscribe send an
     e-mail to <listserver@ljmu.ac.uk> ("unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). Information
     circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached
     information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior
     permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints
     expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily
     reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.
     <[18]http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/>

     --
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Benjamin D. Santer
     Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
     Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
     P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
     Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
     Tel:   (925) 422-3840
     FAX:   (925) 422-7675
     email: santer1@llnl.gov
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

