Friday, December 30, 2011

1485.txt

date: Fri Dec 10 15:20:46 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Jones and Mann '04 online @ WDC Paleo
to: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>

Mike,
I didn't pursue with the BBC writing a follow up piece as it was so bad.
If you want to contact someone the Alex Kirby is the person to contact.
He is "Alex Kirby" <alex.kirbyatXYZxyz.co.uk> . He is good. You might have
spoken to him when the GRL paper came out in 2003.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:03 10/12/2004, you wrote:

Thanks Phil,
I did the the BBC piece--at least it clearly marked as an op-ed, not a news story. Did
you check w/ BBC whether they would consider publishing an opposing op-ed by some Brits
(hint!).
I've personally stopped responding to these, they're going to get a few of these op-ed
pieces out here and there, but the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the
PR battle. That's what the site is about.
By the way, Gavin did come up w/ the name!
Will keep you posted of developments....
Talk to you later,
Mike
At 09:56 AM 12/10/2004, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Your link works fine. Got the email about realclimate from Gavin . Someone else sent
it around
here, as a joke, asking us to guess which skeptic group had set it up !!
Did one of the Brits come up with the title - real IRA ....
Anyway it looks good !
This might be some of the appalling drivel you might want to comment on.
[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm
It is really bad, but quite funny in a way. We should all go on logic courses,
but he should be the one going first ! How do the Dutch decide when they have to move
without planning !
I complained to the editor of BBC online and it sneaked through without being read !
Apparently they get loads of these and reject most, but then get accused of bias
by the skeptics. BBC didn't run at all with the awful report that the Marshall Inst.
and some newish group in London put out. Timed deliberately (no coincidence)
for COP-10. I still don't seem to be able to get the report - bet it doesn't really
exist !
Maybe you should say on realclimate that you're restoring clarity and accuracy
to the debate (see their claim below) ! This would then be true. They are just
stirring it up. No
real need to read on. It is the usual garbage !
Cheers
Phil
STRICTLY EMBARGOED: 00:01 Wednesday, December 8th, 2004 News
Release CLIMATE CHANGE CLAIMS UNDERMINED BY NEW ANGLO-AMERICAN RESEARCH
New paper warns key scientific questions remain unanswered 8th December
2004: As the Government's Chief Scientist, Sir David King, today
discusses with MPs the next steps in UK climate change policy,
scientists have published new research that calls into question many of
the scientific assumptions driving global climate change policy.
The report, produced by the George C. Marshall Institute in
Washington DC and the Scientific Alliance in London, suggests that calls
for global action on climate change are often based on poor or uncertain
science. In particular, the report sets out nineteen key questions and
assumptions underpinning the climate change debate and global climate
policy, highlighting a number of important areas where scientific
uncertainty remains, as well as those where sound scientific evidence
throws the Kyoto process into doubt.
Publication of the report also coincides with the 10th
Conference of the Parties (COP) taking place in Buenos Aires this week -
the first COP since the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
Mark Adams, Director of the Scientific Alliance, said: "The
debate over the state of climate science and what it tells us about past
and future climate has been going on for at least 15 years. It is not
close to a conclusion, in spite of assertions to the contrary. The
purpose of our paper is to subject the fundamentals of climate change
science to the highest level of scientific scrutiny and to highlight
those areas where further research is still needed. "
William O'Keefe, President of the George C. Marshall Institute,
said: "Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and
media rhetoric and as a consequence, the quality of science and rigors
of the scientific process have suffered. The result is extensive
misunderstanding over what we know about the climate system and what
influences it, and the impact of human activity on future climate. The
world will be ill served if global climate policy, planned out at events
such as COP10, continues to be driven by politicized science instead of
scientific facts and reality. The aim of our paper is to go some way
towards restoring accuracy and clarity to the debate."
There are key issues that must be better understood if policy
is to more closely match current knowledge levels. Examples of issues
that are not adequately understood in the climate debate include:
- The assertion that there is a direct causal relationship
between increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other green
house gases, and increased temperature - during the 20th century,
greenhouse gases CO2 rose steadily, while temperatures rose fell and
rose in a pattern that showed no direct relation to increased greenhouse
gases.
- Whether global warming over the past century is unique to the
past 1000 years or longer - the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion
that the warming of the 20th century is unique to at least the past 1000
years was based on a study (by Mann, et al.) that has been shown to be
incorrect by three studies recently published in peer-reviewed
literature. These studies show that many parts of the world have
experienced warmer temperatures at some time during the last 1000 years
than they did during the later part on the 20th century.
- The influence of the sun on global climate - new studies
indicate that changes in the Sun's magnetic field may be responsible for
shorter-term changes in climate, including for much of the 20th century.
- The influence of human activity on the possibility of abrupt
climate change - all available evidence indicates that 'ice ages' are
caused by changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's
surface rather than changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.
- The accuracy of climate change modelling - the estimates from
current climate change models are highly uncertain and large differences
between the results from different modelling methods remain. No climate
model has been scientifically validated
- Understanding about major climate processes and their
importance in terms of understanding future climate change - key
uncertainties about the influence of ocean circulation, the hydrological
(water) cycle, cloud formation and the properties of aerosols on the
climate system remain. The cumulative effect of these and other
uncertainties in our understanding of the climate system is an inability
to accurately model the climate system and therefore accurately project
future climate.
- ENDS -
Copies of the report can be obtained from:
<[2]http://www.scientific-alliance.org> [3]http://www.scientific-alliance.org
For further information and interviews, please contact:
Mark Adams, Director, Scientific Alliance: 07963 834412 William
O'Keefe, President of the George C. Marshall Institute: 001 202 296 9655
Notes to Editors
* The George C. Marshall Institute, a non-profit research group founded
in 1984, is dedicated to fostering and preserving the integrity of
science in the policy process. The Institute conducts technical
assessments of scientific developments with a major impact on public
policy and communicates the results of its analyses to the press,
Congress and the public.
* The Scientific Alliance, formed in 2001, is a non-profit
membership-based organisation based in London. The Alliance brings
together both scientists and non-scientists committed to rational
discussion and debate on the challenges facing the environment today.
* The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Select Committee is hearing evidence from Sir David King, Government's
Chief Scientific Adviser at 15.00
The terms of reference for the inquiry are as follows: to
examine the policies of the United Kingdom Government to address the
challenge of climate change, and also the Government's activities in the
international arena to drive forward the international response to the
issue.
The Committee will focus on a number of points, including:
- The forthcoming review of the UK Climate Change Programme during
2004-05, looking particularly at what new policies might be needed to
keep the United Kingdom on track in reducing all greenhouse gas
emissions.
- The role that the Government will play in 2005 as Chair of
the G8 and as President of the European Council in driving forward the
Kyoto and post-Kyoto agendas.
The nineteen questions addressed by the report are as follows:
1. How is the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)
determined and how accurate are the measurements? 2. How much of today's
atmosphere is CO2? 3. What has been the history of atmospheric CO2
concentrations? 4. Do we know why CO2 concentrations are rising? 5. What
do we know about the relation between increases in the atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and temperature?
6. If temperature changes cannot be correlated with the
increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse
gases, what is causing them?
7. What influence does the Sun have on global climate? 8. What
is known with a high degree of certainty about the climate system and
human influence on it? 9. What major climate processes are uncertain and
how important are these processes to understanding future climate? 10.
What tools are available to separate the effects of the different
drivers that contribute to climate change? 11. How accurate are climate
models? 12. What is the basis for forecasts of large temperature
increases and adverse climate impacts between 1990 and 2100? 13. How
accurate are the parameters used in climate models? 14. How well have
models done in "back-casting" past climate? 15. Is global warming over
the past century unique in the past 1000 years of longer? 16. How much
does the global climate vary naturally? 17. What do we know about the
extent of human influence on climate? To what extent has temperature
increase since 1975 been the result of human activities?
18. Could climate change abruptly?
19. Will sea level rise abruptly?
You have received this email on behalf of the Scientific Alliance, a
UK-based a non-profit membership-based campaign organisation which
brings together both scientists and non-scientists committed to rational
discussion and debate on the challenges facing the environment today. If
you do not wish to receive press releases or other information from the
Scientific Alliance, please notify us by emailing
<[4]mailto:mediaatXYZxyzentific-alliance.org> mediaatXYZxyzentific-alliance.org
with the subject 'unsubscribe' and we will remove your address from our
list.
The Scientific Alliance
Golden Cross House
8 Duncannon Street
London WC2N 4JF
Tel: 07963 834412
<[5]http://www.scientific-alliance.org> [6]www.scientific-alliance.org
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.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[7]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

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.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment