cc: m.agnew@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:24:42 +0000 (GMT) from: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics] to: Clare Goodess , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Phil Jones 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 wrote: From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics] To: "Clare Goodess" , "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" , 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 wrote: From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics] To: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" 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" Date: Sun, April 19, 2009 4:39 pm To: "maureen agnew" "Clare Goodess" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------