cc: m.agnew@uea.ac.uk
date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:24:42 +0000 (GMT)
from: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI <andlug@btopenworld.com>
subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics]
to: Clare Goodess <C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk>, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>


    Thanks Phil for the links to Monckton rebuttals amnd sources, and these latest comments.

    Also thank you Clare for all your comments - I agree that the detailed rebuttal is too
    involved. I will do a covering letter stating the main errors, with an appendix.

    I know other senior people in the insurance industry are also very unhappy with the
    sceptical article.

    Finally, I will chivy CII to make our report publicly available, as they said they would.
    Sorry for all this nuisance, but it would be good to show the sceptics up in the naked
    daylight for the charlatans they are!
    Andrew
    --- On Thu, 23/4/09, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> wrote:

      From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
      Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics]
      To: "Clare Goodess" <C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk>, "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" <andlug@btopenworld.com>,
      t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
      Cc: m.agnew@uea.ac.uk
      Date: Thursday, 23 April, 2009, 12:30 PM

     Andrew,
       Clare's email got me to look at what they said about IPCC. I'd seen your responses
     which were fine, but had skipped over what they'd said.
        The SPM has to be agreed line by line. If it isn't then text isn't there. There is
    never
     a show of hands. Also if the govt reps attending the final meeting try to go too
     far in the SPM, the scientists will disagree. So the SPM meeting can't change the
     science in the underlying report.
        What has to happen after the SPM is that some wording in the chapters and in
     the Technical Summary has to be changed. The skeptics always make a big thing about
     this, but a few changes have to be made so that the points in the SPM can be clearly
    traced
     back to original chapters. For Ch 3 in AR4 from WG1 this took us about 30 minutes
     to do after (well during the Paris meeting). No CLA could leave the Paris meeting until
    their
     absolutely necessary changes were handed in.
       What is always mildly annoying is that once each SPM has had a press conference,
     it then takes a few months for CUP to put the book together.  I think this time they did
     put the chapters up on a web site within a few weeks (i.e. before the book came out).
     CUP requires this time for the book, it was nothing to do with IPCC or the WGs.
     Cheers
     Phil
     Cheers
     Phil
    At 11:07 23/04/2009, Clare Goodess wrote:

      Dear Andrew
      First of all - apologies for the delay in responding on this. I've now read the original
      article and your response. The latter seems very comprehensive, providing a very
      detailed point by point rebuttal. My main concern is as to how many CII members will
      read it in detail.  And, personally, I would remove the exclamation marks.
      I'm not quite sure where the original article was published - an in-house magazine? I
      couldn't find it on the CII web site - which gives quite a positive impression with the
      two thinkpieces (Agnew and Catalano; Voysey) and podcasts etc from the launch meeting.
      The introduction to the article does make the CII's formal position clear and somewhat
      distances itself from the article, but it is debatable that the article does provide the
      claimed 'fair comment'.
      I wonder if one way forward, would be to write a fairly brief 'letter' or statement, and
      then to make the detailed point-by-point rebuttal available separately (perhaps on
      line?).  And I think it would be appropriate to focus the former short piece on the IPCC
      process which is completely misrepresented in the article - I'm always surprised by how
      common some of these misunderstandings are. It needs to be stressed that the IPCC
      process is based on review of peer-reviewed science. And everything goes through further
      review by the science community (with review editors) before going to the policymakers.
      Your experience of the latter part of the process is good to mention - but the
      policymakers can't change the underlying science.  [Maynard and Monckton even manage to
      get the name of the IPCC wrong in the 3rd paragraph - it is Intergovernmental not
      International!]  And I think that some of your final comments on page 26 para 6 - issue
      4 about the need for insurers to plan are worth highlighting.
      But you know the insurance community and the functioning of the CII better than any of
      us - so the best way to proceed is down to your judgement.
      Best wishes, Clare
      At 21:49 21/04/2009, ANDREW DLUGOLECKI wrote:

      Thanks Phil, glad to know I am  on the right lines. I appreciate you must be bombarded
      with such stuff, but at least I want to do my bit in sweeping the sceptics out of
      insurance (as far as possible!)
      Andrew
      --- 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.
             [1]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!

      [2]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/


   [3]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gore_testimony.pdfhttp
   ://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsider
   ed.pdf
       [4]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/warming_not_happening.html

   [5]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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Dr Clare Goodess
   Climatic Research Unit
   School of Environmental Sciences
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   Tel: +44 -1603 592875
   Fax: +44 -1603 507784
   Web: [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
            [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm

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

