cc: shackley_Simon,a.minns@uea.ac.uk date: Mon Dec 8 14:10:21 2003 from: Mike Hulme subject: Re: Will Hutton's A-level essay to: "Richard Starkey" Richard, The McIntyre and McKitrick paper (MM03) has got a hidden agenda behind it. Check out this web site for some commentary on it. As with the contentious Soon and Baliunas paper, MM03 has been published by Energy & Environment and is part of Sonja Christriansen-Boehmer's on-going campaign. [1]http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/EEReply.html So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many "facts" about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal. I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of "sound science" and Tyndall's reaction to it some thought recently. Mike At 11:37 08/12/2003 +0000, you wrote: Dear Mike Did you see Will Hutton s article in the Observer yesterday. See [2]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,12877,1101658,00.html An appalling article in my view. One of the key paras is An important and neutral paper by Canadians Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick suggests that the best guess is that, while temperatures are currently rising, they probably lie within the range for the past 600 years. Environmentalists, just as in a battle over a new runway, are being as partisan in their use of science as their opponents. Do you know of these (neutral!!!!!!!!!) guys and their paper. Do they have credibility? Is Hutton s interpretation correct? I d like to do a reply but could do with some insight into the science. Richard _____________ Richard Starkey Researcher Tyndall Centre for Climate Research UMIST PO Box 88 Manchester M60 1QD Tel: +44 (0) 161 200 3763 (direct) _____________