date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:53:03 +0000
from: David Viner <d.vineratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Press Summaries for Tuesday 8th February 2005
to: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, k.briffa Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
<x-rich>Lenton's Words(amongst others having ago at CC science).
Scientists at UEA have also cast doubt on the famous hockey stick
graph used to convince us that global warming is a recent phenomena,
with no allowance made for the well documented medieval warm period
and the later Little Ice Age.
The graph and its scary supporters assume that the climate in northern
Europe over the past millennium has been roughly constant, but Timothy
Osborn and Keith Briffa conclude that the true variability is likely
to be much greater, and if it is, "the extent to which the recent
warming can be viewed as 'unusual' would need to be reassessed".
Tim and Keith
The essay by HVS is all well and good, but that does not address the
Lenton article in which you are either correctly represented or not.
Do you agree with Lenton's precise words or not? Simple Yes or No?
If you support Lenton's comments then the Unit needs to have a big
discussion about them. If you do not then you should contact Lenton
and put him right. If Lenton is wrong and you do not correct him then
it will be people like me who have to pick up the pieces and spend
more time addressing them, than you will spend by writing a short
email to him.
So do you want to take a few minutes now sending an email to Lenton or
spend a greater amount of time taking this issue further.
In new Scientist Tim is quoted:
<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>"One of the conclusions
we draw is that the climate�s sensitivity might be higher, and
therefore future climate change will be greater,�
So why can not you send this short excerpt to Lenton and a further
piece to put him straight?</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
PS The issue about over dramatisation is one carried out by the media
or pressure groups, and very rarely the scientists themselves, the
other extracts of HVS's story aren't very good either.
On 8 Feb 2005, at 12:40, Tim Osborn wrote:
<excerpt>At 11:59 08/02/2005, David Viner wrote:
<excerpt>Dear Keith and Tim
please see below a summary of Lenton's piece. If you are happy with
this fine, I and others here will pick up the pieces. If not it would
be good if you could correct Lenton, if not it will just keep
resurfacing every-time we speak to the media or give public
It may mean a bit of hassle in the short term for you but is likely to
create a lot more hassle for others.
David - here are some relevant excerpts from an essay recently
published by von Storch:
"...there is indeed a serious problem for the natural sciences:
namely, the public depiction and perception of climate change.
Research has landed in a crisis because its public actors assert
themselves on the saturated market of discussion by overselling the
...The costs of stirring up fear are high... A scarce resource -
public attention and trust in the reliability of science - is used up
without being renewed by the practice of positive examples...
...The concealment of dissent and uncertainty in favor of a
politically good cause takes its toll on credibility, for the public
is more intelligent than is usually assumed. In the long term, these
allegedly so helpful dramatizations achieve the opposite of that which
they wish to achieve."
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
Dr David Viner
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Tel: +44 1603 592089
Fax: +44 1603 507784
http://www.e-clat.org Tourism and Climate Change