date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:09:14 -0400 (EDT)
from: Barbara Richman <brichmanatXYZxyzsin.org>
subject: Re: Report on Reports
to: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Thanks for your prompt e-mail response to my letter.
First of all, I'd like to address the month and a half delay in getting
back to you. Yes, Tim did talk to you in early September (or very late
August). I have been delayed in getting back to you mostly because since
Tim spoke with you I have been ill with bronchitis and have not worked a
full week since early September. So the blame for the delay is mine, and
I am very sorry for that. I appreciate how frustrated you are at that
because I have been frustrated in not being able to work as quickly as I
On to the substantive comments...
What the editors would like you to do is to add a several paragraphs at
the start of the review to state for those readers who are not monitoring
the situation daily, as you are, about the state of climate change
discussion, to provide the appropriate framework: Discussions re IPCC
have been going on for 7 (am I correct in that date?) years; generally
there's a consensus, though there are still some disagreements over some
points (and list the big ones); but all along there have been naysayers,
Michaels as one of the primary ones; the counter-attack consists of
these main points; the main naysayers are (identify them); here is the
nature of the dialogue (I'm being kind) between the naysayers and
others. All of this discussion would serve to put into context the
Michaels report. Doing so is especially important because some readers
will not have kept track of what is happening and who is saying what.
The editors also ask that you provide a description of what is in the
Michaels's report: topics covered, what he states, what data he relies
on. Then, your evaluation of the report, as laid out in the review that
you sent, would be fine and would make sense to those readers (most of
them) who have not read the actual report.
I'm confident that the foundation work and the description of what is in
the report would not take more than half a day for you to lay out. I'm
sure that you have all of the information at your fingertips, that it
would be a matter of putting on paper.
I would also like to suggest a timeframe of the middle of December for
this revision. We are looking to put together a special issue on climate
change, including a review of each of the three IPCC reports, and that
material is due mid December as well. It could make a nice package. Do
you think you might be able to carve out a bit of time over the next two
months for the revision? I really hope so.
Again, my apologies for being so late back to you; it's not my usual
course of action.
Barbara T. Richman, Managing Editor, Environment
1319 Eighteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1802
tel: 202-296-6267 ext. 234; fax: 202-296-5149; e-mail: brichmanatXYZxyzsin.org