Wednesday, March 28, 2012


date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:24:42 +0000 (GMT)
subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics]
to: Clare Goodess <>,, 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!
--- On Thu, 23/4/09, Phil Jones <> wrote:

From: Phil Jones <>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics]
To: "Clare Goodess" <>, "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" <>,
Date: Thursday, 23 April, 2009, 12:30 PM

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
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
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
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.
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!)
--- On Tue, 21/4/09, Phil Jones <> wrote:

From: Phil Jones <>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics]
Date: Tuesday, 21 April, 2009, 3:41 PM
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.
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!




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?

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: CII sceptics
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
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

Dr Clare Goodess
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Tel: +44 -1603 592875
Fax: +44 -1603 507784
Web: [6]

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

No comments:

Post a Comment