Monday, March 12, 2012


date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:07:48 +0000
from: John Shepherd <>
subject: Re: penultimate draft : specific requests
to: Mike Hulme <>

Herewith responses on specific questions...


>� John Shepherd: do we need to mention UGAMP anywhere?

Well, it would be a good idea, but I haven't approached them (not sure
what Reading are doing) and it's a bit late to do so now. I guess we have
to accept one or two loose balls, unless you have an atmospheric colleague
who could call somebody (Hoskins? over the weekend....)

>� RP Co-ords and others: Box A: this needs good clean entries where they
>are missing


>� All: I have not quite got the text on funding allocation mechanism
>properly located between 3.1 and Appendix 4. Suggestions?

I would vote for just two tranches, would like to see Appendix 4 reflect
the main text (ie bottom up proposals/evaluation rather than top-down
allocation with "control" by RP Coordinators). I would keep the tables you
have but make sure they're clearly labelled "indicative". table A3 ain't
there so can't comment on whether to keep it (p69)

>� All: Figure 1 is a re-re-working of the Arnell/Shepherd diagram. Take it
>or leave it - I am not re-drawing it again.

It's good : keep it.

>� All: Section 3.2: Can we bring North-South issues to more prominence -
>we have a number of projects that involve developing countries
>� All: we have 1-2 suggestions for Summer School topics. It would be nice
>to have suggestions at least for all five on offer. These could then be
>mentioned as RP deliverables. Should be very much cross-cutting topics.

"Intermediate complexity models" and "Coupled models of natural and
socio-economic systems" would be good topics...

>� All: Table 1 is drafted but needs checking and completing. Are these the
>projects you would choose to bring forward for the first funding round?

Looks pretty good. Could we make 2B (first item) "biotechnology for carbon
management" ?? Get the word "solar" in there somewhere, and replace 3 (item
2) by something more exciting, and 3 (item 3) by something more specific
(perhaps "Carbon-free energy for the developing world" ?

>� All: I have dropped the diagram showing Management arrangement - in the
>end I did not feel it added much. Are people happy with Table 2?

Add "hosting Programme Coordinators (and Associate Directors if you're
accepting Brian's suggestion)" for Row 2 (Tyndall North & South)

Add Tyndall N & S to row 5 (Extending the frontiers)

>� Table 3: I have not had chance to revise this yet - sorry, you will have
>to trust me!

We do, we do, what's a few asterisks between friends... ???

>� All: Check Box C and Advisory Board members - some questions have been
>raised about some

Yes, I vote against Mary Archer, and am not a fan of Peter Greig-Smith
either.... Alan Thorpe and Merilyn M-Hare pretty much essential for the
Board, aren't they ? I wouldn't lose any sleep if Gummer said no, either,

>� All: there are some missing non-UEA entries in Section 5

Don't know, I still haven't got that far !!

>� John Shepherd: some sentences about BAS please in Section 6

I guess you mean BGS ? If so how about

"BGS is the principal repository of geological information in the UK, and a
globally recognised leader in geological research. It is already involved
in collaborative and commissioned research with many of the consortium
members, and has major interests in, for example land-use, subsidence, and
coastal defence. In addition BGS has been active in research on the
technical aspects of carbon sequestration and geological disposal for a
number of years. "

NB re BAS : I got some very bad vibes back (via CEH) about BAS, Tsunami,
the insurance industry and failure to engage (!) the real academic experts
on extreme values and risk.... you have been warned (don't take dear old
Dougal too much at face value).

>� All: check Section 7 Table - are you happy with this? Do we have any
>more projects from Cambridge?

I wanted a column showing the value but I guess it's too late for that now ?

>� All: References: I only want 3 pages of these so be selective - drop any
>that are not essential or strategic - and check all details please.

Those for RP4 are good enough for Government work (and not excessive in

>� All: Appendix 3: please check your contact details are all correct


>� All: Appendix 4: The Financial Plan

See comments above

>� All: please check text and names/letters in Appendix 5

No reply from Exxon yet but I live in hopes : can't hassle them any more.
It'd be quite a coup to get them on board though, if we can, so hold the
back page.....

That's it for now. Bonne chance


PS New letter from VC organised and coming on Monday, all being well : if
not use a copy of the old one : I'll be amazed if anybody notices.

No comments:

Post a Comment