cc: Caspar Ammann <ammann@ucar.edu>, William M Connolley <wmc@bas.ac.uk>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@duke.edu>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@psu.edu>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>, Eric Steig <steig@ess.washington.edu>, gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rasmus.benestad@physics.org, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer <d-archer@uchicago.edu>, "Raymond P." <rtp1@geosci.uchicago.edu>, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" <john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkins@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Warrilow, David \(GA\)" <David.Warrilow@defra.gsi.gov.uk>, Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>, mafb5@sussex.ac.uk, "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk>
date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:44:03 +0100
from: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de>
subject: Re: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Phil, I fully agree. The point is not to blame anyone at all - at least 
my point was to track down the source in order to be able to show the 
skeptics (or in my special case, the school authorities) that this old 
graph is completely superseded and should not be used any more in teaching!
And I also see your problem: what we are finding out now makes the IPCC 
process look somewhat unsophisticated back in 1990, so it is a 
diplomatic conundrum how to be completely truthful in reporting this, as 
we need to be as scientists, without providing the skeptics undue fodder 
for attacking IPCC. But maybe we're too concerned - the skeptics can't 
really attack IPCC easily in this case without shooting themselves in 
the foot.

Cheers, Stefan

-- 
Stefan Rahmstorf
www.ozean-klima.de
www.realclimate.org

</x-flowed>