date: Wed Sep 4 13:56:06 2002 from: Mike Hulme subject: Re: BP Cambridge Programme to: Bill Adams Thanks Bill for these thoughts. I think my approach will fit fine into this broad philosophy. I am sending Jemma at CPI later today I hope a powerpoint presentation which summarises my case. You might wish to glance at this to make sure that you are comfortable with it. I'm planning on turning up at BAS sometime before 2pm on the Tuesday (17th) afternoon and will need to get back to Norwich late that evening. Look forward to meeting up again, Mike At 17:45 27/08/02 +0100, you wrote: Dear Chris and Mike, I am delighted that you are both going to speak to the BP delegates when we are at BAS in September. I know that Stuart has talked to both of you about the session, but I thought it might be useful if I jotted down a few things to help orientate you both. As I see it, the challenge is to get the delegates to think about climate change is a constructive way, so that they appreciate some of the complexities and uncertainties, but WITHOUT jumping to the conclusion that the IPCC is just a bunch of scientists with an axe to grindą. It is therefore vital to keep discussion within the framework that there is broad scientific consensus on the existence of anthropogenic influences on climate. This is where BP is corporately (and their stance is in marked contrast to that of some of their rivals, notably EXXON). However, not all the BP delegates will have fully thought this through personally, and most may well not be well-informed. Interestingly, we avoided climate change for a long time because the BP people working with us on the programmes said it was old hat for senior BP staff. Our experience from the debate at BAS in March showed that this is not now true, if it ever was. In particular it may be that the AMOCO merger brought in a number of senior staff who are only now moving from a more EXXON-like position. If I am candid, my aim for the session is to help secure and encourage this move, while at the same time helping them understand something of the complexity of climate variability (i.e. education not conversion!). The problem here is that the delegates are a pretty bright bunch, who are used to pushing through uncertainty to identify the core of arguments. This is great, but it makes for a world seen in black and white. It can be hard to get grey tones across. Somehow we have to leave the thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attentioną. Or something like that! I hope this is helpful. Please get in touch if you would like further discussion. Best wishes Bill