date: Wed Sep  4 13:56:06 2002
from: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: BP Cambridge Programme
to: Bill Adams <wa12@cam.ac.uk>

   Thanks Bill for these thoughts.  I think my approach will fit fine into this broad
   philosophy.  I am sending Jemma at CPI later today I hope a powerpoint presentation which
   summarises my case.  You might wish to glance at this to make sure that you are comfortable
   with it.  I'm planning on turning up at BAS sometime before 2pm on the Tuesday (17th)
   afternoon and will need to get back to Norwich late that evening.
   Look forward to meeting up again,
   Mike
   At 17:45 27/08/02 +0100, you wrote:

     Dear Chris and Mike,
     I am delighted that you are both going to speak to the BP delegates when we
     are at BAS in September.  I know that Stuart has talked to both of you about
     the session, but I thought it might be useful if I jotted down a few things
     to help orientate you both.
     As I see it, the challenge is to get the delegates to think about climate
     change is a constructive way, so that they appreciate some of the
     complexities and uncertainties, but WITHOUT jumping to the conclusion that
     the IPCC is just a bunch of scientists with an axe to grind.
     It is therefore vital to keep discussion within the framework that there is
     broad scientific consensus on  the existence of anthropogenic influences on
     climate.
     This is where BP is corporately (and their stance is in marked contrast to
     that of some of their rivals, notably EXXON).  However, not all the BP
     delegates will have fully thought this through personally, and most may well
     not be well-informed.
     Interestingly, we avoided climate change for a long time because the BP
     people working with us on the programmes said it was old hat for senior BP
     staff.  Our experience from the debate at BAS in March showed that this is
     not now true, if it ever was.  In particular it may be that the AMOCO merger
     brought in a number of senior staff who are only now moving from a more
     EXXON-like position.    If I am candid, my aim for the session is to help
     secure and encourage this move, while at the same time helping them
     understand something of the complexity of climate variability (i.e.
     education not conversion!).
     The problem here is that the delegates are a pretty bright bunch, who are
     used to pushing through uncertainty to identify the core of arguments.
     This is great, but it makes for a world seen in black and white.  It can be
     hard to get grey tones across.
     Somehow we have to leave the thinking OK, climate change is extremely
     complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it,
     and that impacts produces risk that needs careful  and urgent attention.
     Or something like that!
     I hope this is helpful.  Please get in touch if you would like further
     discussion.
     Best wishes
     Bill
