Thursday, May 24, 2012

4687.txt

cc: "Mike Hulme" <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:03:47 -0000
from: "Neil Adger" <N.AdgeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Fw: Justice and Adaptation Meeting - September 2003
to: "Stephen H Schneider" <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>

Dear Steve

Thanks for the forthright message.

We wish you to come to the conference. We will not be using CUP as a
publisher.

The important issue for us is the intellectual debate and taking forward
ideas that may be of use to society. The right to publishing these ideas
will be given to a publisher who everyone in the group believes to be
sharing these aims.

I agree with your sentiments and position over CUP - I believe that the
publishers see the Lomborg affair ony in terms of sales, though was not
aware that they still defend the scientific nature of Lomborg's polemic. I
was also not aware of the efforts being made to ensure that CUP does not
publish the MA etc. Your information and views will be of use to Mike and
the rest of us in Tyndall since we are contemplating a book series. I raised
the possibility of CUP in my message precisely because I believed you had
strong views on them.

So hopefully with the hurdle cleared that we will not be approaching CUP or
Chris Harrison, we can still count on your 80 percent assurance of
attending. We strongly believe that our meeting will be a worthwhile and
stimulating event.

I also sympathise with having a 'dangerous moron for a President' - indeed
the world has gone mad. So let's make a difference in what we can do to
promote justice and equity.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

Neil

cc Mike



----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen H Schneider" <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>
To: "Neil Adger" <N.AdgeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Cc: "Mike Hulme" <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Justice and Adaptation Meeting - September 2003


> Many apologies Neil for my rude delay. I have just about cleared that I
> don't have a conflict in Stockholm, and if I go the the Berlin IPCC
> Scoping meeting 2 in Berlin it is two days before your meeting. My docs
> say that as long as my next two test have only background levels of nasty
> cells, I don't need any treatments and thus can travel--treatments mean
> immune compromise and eliminate airplanes for a while. So my Bayesian
> priors on this were around 80%--until you mentioned a big stumbling
> block. I cannot now, nor unless they withdraw the Lomborg book as
> science and apologize to the scientific community for a scientific fraud,
> nor can I EVER work with CHris Harrison. His talk at the AAAS was
> deceitful maneuvering--wrapping him self up in an authors right to speak
> and citing all the university visits Lomborg was paid to go to as proof
> how important his "challenge" was. Pure deceit. Chris didn't mention
> that at each BL was roundly trounced by angry folks. Lomborg is a
> non-rewritable CD. If a debater wins a point, he just repeats his litany
> at the end. That Harrison should cover his butt for such an eggregious
> error of scientifically incompetent reviewing is the part that
> is unpardonable, if not unethical. I have no problems with a 150 page
> polemic--many of us write them. But we don't do 500 pages and 3000
> references--elliptically selected from the happy end of the literature of
> four fields: climatology, demography, conservation biology and energy
> systems. THe odds of that if every one of those field had only random
> skill is 1 out of 16--that all four got in wrong in the same
> direction--overstatement. This is NOT random, it is eggregious scientific
> fraud on the part of Lomborg and until Harrison comes clean with the
> scientific community and denounces The Skeptical Environmentalist as
> political polemic, not science, neither I nor most ecologists I know will
> have any thing to do with them. CUP lost the MIllennium Assessment because
> of a peasant revolt from ecologists--and they deserved it.
> I feel very strongly that the incompetent peers CUP used are no excuse
> for the horrific failure of scientific peer review. If Harrison keeps his
> duck and cover polemics, then I and many of my colleagues will continue to
> excoriate him as dishonest and covering up fraud. So if you use Cambridge,
> then no thanks. Sorry to be so blunt, but only a full retraction from
> Harrison will satify me and most of my ecologist friends who have
> literally wasted months refuting the Lomborgian polemics and then having
> to endure specious accusations that we don't want to" hear the other
> side". IN science there aren't two sides, but many outcomes and many
> subjective probabilities attached to each. Lomborg--with Harrison
> covering him up still!--did not talk in subjective probabilities, just
> selective ranges and point values. He can't even do statistics right!.
> Scientific peer review is not about equality, but quality. Equality is
> everyone should get an opportunity to vet his/her science to the knowledge
> community--what CUP peer review was suppossed to do. They must have
> selected dead above the ears reviewers if any at all, and thus this whole
> horrendous caper was launched--by the way, CUP and LOmborg are crying all
> the way to the bank.
> I guess, Neil, you've figured out I'm pretty pissed about CUP and at
> this moment cannot have anything to do with them--especially the soical
> side of the house that should have dismissed Harrison for his continuing
> coverup--especially after the release. DOn't know what that means for my
> attendance, but I doubt you should be leveraged by the strong views of one
> participant, so if you keep CUP and Harrison in the mix, I'll just make my
> looked-forward-to vistit to TYndall at another occassion. Between the
> dangerous moron I have for a President and the dishonesty of
> Lomborg and Harrison, I just don't need to be asscociated with more such
> stress. Life, as I've learned the hard way, is too short to spend it
> fighting polemicists at every turn, when there are so many decent people
> in the world.
> I'm sorry I will likely miss your decent crowd--many people I like
> and respect on the invite list--because of this unshakable
> position of mine. Perhaps there will be another time. Cheers, Steve
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Neil Adger wrote:
>
> > Dear Steve
> >
> > I am chasing you up on the Justice and Adaptation Meeting 7th-9th
Sepetember
> > here at UEA.
> >
> > I noted in my diary that your schedule should be apparent by now and
that
> > you can confirm (hopefully) that you can make it.
> >
> > The programme is now fairly well firmed up - you will have had a note a
few
> > weeks ago from John Turnpenny here in Tyndall concerning providing an
exact
> > title and a few sentence abstract or summary of your talk. I very muich
hope
> > you can confirm your participation and can give us some intial thoughts
on
> > the paper. I know that John Schellnhuber and Mike Hulme (among others)
are
> > keen for you to visit and very much looking forward to the
Sustainability
> > Days events.
> >
> > The other reason for asking for a confirmed title is that a publisher
has
> > already expressed an interest in a resulting book from the conference.
This
> > is Chris Harrison of CUP, who tells me that he met you at a recent AAAS
> > session on politicisation of science. As you know Chris was the editor
> > responsible for publishing Lomborg's book. I really hope this doesn't
put
> > you off! We do not intend to publish a 'Lomborg'! For one, we will be
> > undergoing proper review processes. And for two, we are not necessarily
> > committed to CUP.
> >
> > I look forward to hearing from you.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Neil
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen H Schneider" <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>
> > To: "Neil Adger" <N.AdgeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Justice and Adaptation Meeting - Spetember 2003
> >
> >
> > > Many thanks Neil for the reminder of the original invitation--just
about
> > > got to that among 1000 backed up e-mails from 3 weeks away from
> > > computers--thank god for SPAM, I can delete about 500 of the old
messages
> > > in seconds each!
> > > In any case, a quick look at your meeting has two strong positives:
> > > first I've promised Mike and John that I'd visit soon and have so far
been
> > > delinquent in that, and second, it is a very interesting program
you've
> > > put together. The negatives are my overtraveling and a possible
conflict
> > > with the Beijer institute of Ecol Econ meetings in early Sept of which
I
> > > am a regular participant--but the dates arent set yet. SO if you can
take
> > > a tentative yes for another month or so, that will have to suffice. If
you
> > > must know for sure now, then better ask someone with a saner life and
a
> > > clearer schedule. I suspect--subjective probabilities always from me
> > > about future events!--about a 70% chance I'll do it, but my priors
won't
> > > get reviesed for probably another 6weeks if you can wait. Thanks
again,
> > > and my best wishes to you, Mike and John for the wonderful new and
> > > exciting programs building at UEA. Cheers, Steve
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Neil Adger wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Steve
> > > >
> > > > In case you didn't receive this, or are still contemplating it, I
copy
> > below
> > > > again my message from 17th December. Look forward to hearing from
you.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes for 2003
> > > >
> > > > Yours sincerely
> > > >
> > > > Neil Adger
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > shsatXYZxyznford.edu
> > > > >
> > > > > 17th December 2002
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Professor Schneider
> > > > >
> > > > > Justice in Adaptation to Climate Change
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope this finds you well. I write on behalf of myself and my
> > colleagues
> > > > to
> > > > > invite you to give a paper an this upcoming event we are planning
for
> > > > 6-8th
> > > > > September 2003 here at the University of East Anglia.
> > > > >
> > > > > The conference is part of a strategic assessment we are
undertaking on
> > the
> > > > > justice and equity aspects of adaptation actions. But it also
forms
> > part
> > > > of
> > > > > Third Sustainability Days, a week of events here at UEA
celebrating,
> > among
> > > > > other things, the opening of the new Zuckerman Institute for
> > Connective
> > > > > Environmental Research which will host Tyndall Centre, CESERGE and
> > other
> > > > > interdisciplinary research centres. It promises to be an eventful
> > week.
> > > > The
> > > > > justice conference will straddle some of these events, including
the
> > > > > inaugural Zuckerman Institute lecture on Monday 7th September.
Hence
> > there
> > > > > will be an opportunity to interact with other scientists and
> > researchers
> > > > > within the third Sustainability Days.
> > > > >
> > > > > Information on the justice conference is attached. We would very
much
> > like
> > > > > you to contribute an important paper on the third issue (in the
> > questions
> > > > > listed) of dangerous climate change following your writing on this
> > issue.
> > > > > This should address not only the need for adaptation and the need
for
> > > > > quantified assessment of the likelihood of alternative futures,
but
> > also
> > > > the
> > > > > implications of developments in this area for framing adaptation
> > response.
> > > > > We see your contribution as a key paper which frames some of the
> > > > discussions
> > > > > on optimal adaptation.
> > > > >
> > > > > The conference will have about 30 invited participants and will be
run
> > in
> > > > > plenary throughout. We are inviting key philosophers, economists,
> > climate
> > > > > scientists and geographers to explore theoretical and applied
areas of
> > > > these
> > > > > justice questions through the two full days of discussions. We
will
> > also
> > > > > present our own work being undertaken by CSERGE, FIELD and IIED on
> > > > > international to local dimensions of the problem. As a starting
point
> > I
> > > > > attach a copy of a Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23 which outlines
our
> > > > > framework.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you agree, we will expect a written paper by 1st July 2003 for
> > > > > circulation prior to the meeting. We plan to publish all the
> > commissioned
> > > > > papers in an edited book with a highly quality academic publishing
> > house.
> > > > > Papers, following the conference and discussions, will be reviewed
and
> > > > will
> > > > > be expected in final form by the end of October 2003.
> > > > >
> > > > > We offer economy class return travel and will cover all local
> > expenses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know of your interest and whether you can commit to
> > this -
> > > > we
> > > > > will then have a finalised programme to send early in 2003.
> > > > >
> > > > > With best wishes for the holiday season.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours sincerely,
> > > > >
> > > > > Neil Adger
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ____________________________
> > > > > Dr. Neil Adger
> > > > > Reader in Environmental Economics
> > > > > School of Environmental Sciences
> > > > > University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
> > > > > Tel: 44 (0)1603 593 732 Fax: 44 (0)1603 507 719
> > > > > Email n.adgeratXYZxyz.ac.uk
> > > > > Personal www.uea.ac.uk/env/faculty/adgerwn.htm
> > > > > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research www.tyndall.ac.uk/
> > > > > CSERGE www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ------
> > > Stephen H. Schneider, Professor
> > > Dept. of Biological Sciences
> > > Stanford University
> > > Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A.
> > >
> > > Tel: (650)725-9978
> > > Fax: (650)725-4387
> > > shsatXYZxyznford.edu
> > >
> >
>
> ------
> Stephen H. Schneider, Professor
> Dept. of Biological Sciences
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A.
>
> Tel: (650)725-9978
> Fax: (650)725-4387
> shsatXYZxyznford.edu
>
>
>

No comments:

Post a Comment