I am attaching my answers to a BBC Questionaire recently circulated to a range of people who are uncomfortable with the current "climate change" hysteria. I thought Richard Black did a good job in identifying the questions that most frequently face us.
Many of the recipients refused to co-operate, as they were suspicious that the results would be used for yet another attempt to discredit dissent. This remains to be seen, but I have found much enlightenment and pleasure in reading the ones who replied. There wss, as is usual amongst scientists, a wide variety of opinion. It is only the advocates of "global warming" who hunt in packs and always have a unanimous and "consensus" opinion.
Climate questionnaire – BBC News website
TEMPERATURE TRENDS
1 Do you believe that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last 50 years?
Most of the evidence is unreliable. The “Surface record” is based on an unrepresentative sample, plus a basic measurement of “mean daily temperature” in any one site derived from the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures, measured only once. This is not a scientifically acceptable basis for the final “record” as it is subject to unknown, mainly positive, bias. Also secrecy surrounds the actual sites, and such surveys that exist show that many of them are unsuitable for even local temperature trends because of proximity to buildings and vegetation. The huge variability in the number of sites available and the absence of an audit of their proper supervision and control for most of them render the entire surface record suspect and its results of little value.
On the other hand the temperature record from satellites in the lower atmosphere since 1979 is truly global, accurate, and has been scrutinised thoroughly for errors from hostile investigators, with no challenge to the basic record, which provides no evidence for globally averaged warming that cannot be explained by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, El Niño ocean events, and changes in the sun. The fact that the two volcanoes (El Chichon and Pinatubo) have caused depressions in the early part of the satellite record, and the El Niño events, particularly the large 1998 one, were in the latter part of the record, gives an impression of an upwards “trend”. The fact that there was no “trend” at all between 1979 and 1997, means that the greenhouse effect could not be detected in the place where it is supposed to happen, for 18 years, An upwards “trend” in the surface record over the same years must therefore have some other cause.
The temperature record from weather balloons supports this conclusion. They are also not distributed across the earth sufficiently randomly, but they also show no evidence of an overall warming effect since 1958 that could be attributed to greenhouse gas increases.
The National Institute for Water and Air in New Zealand (NIWA) has recently published a temperature record for New Zealand which shows that there has been no significant overall temperature change since 1950.
.
I am not a “believer”. I assess evidence. My conclusion from the above evidence is that a warming of the globe from increase in greenhouse gases has not yet been detected
2 If yes, do you agree with the IPCC’s range for that rise of between 0.10 and 0.16 Celsius per decade – alternatively, what figure or range of figures do you believe to be correct?
I have explained above that the IPCC figures are based on faulty data
The evidence shows that temperatures rise and fall in an unpredictable manner, and are usually explicable by well recognised natural claime events. There is simply no evidence for a steady increase which could be attributed to increases in greenhouse gases. “Trends” based on arbitrary choice of beginning and end points are meaningless
3 If you do not believe that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last 50 years, what is your explanation for increasing temperatures recorded by ground-based instruments over that period?
I have explained above that the readings from ground-based instruments are wholly unreliable. They are distributed in an unrepresentative manner on sites mainly close to human activity, which certainly causes a temperature rise over the years. There are no historic records of genuine temperature averages at all, but only a wholly unsatisfactory figure based on one daily reading. There is no system for monitoring sites to see whether they comply with WMO standards, and such surveys which been made suggest that many do not. Finally, the number involved lurched from 200 in 1850 to 8000 in 1980 to 2500 today.
4 Do you agree that the oceans have warmed to depths of several kilometres over the last 50 years?
The measurements go back only to 1955, the temperature displays a periodic behaviour, not a steady rise. A recent paper has found that the measurements have an upwards bias. The temperature is now falling. It is not legitimate to establish a “trend” from an arbitrary choice of beginning and end points.
GREENHOUSE GAS TRENDS
5 Do you believe that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases have increased over the last century or so?
Yes, they have increased. But the measurements suffer, again, from lack of representative sampling. Almost all measurements are over the oceans, whereas politicians worry about concentrations over land, where measurements are extremely sparse. Calculations of possible effects are distorted by the use of averages. Since the effects are related to logarithms of concentration a knowledge of variability is essential. And they do not measure it
Atmospheric concentrations of methane are falling, but the IPCC tries to conceal this.
6 If so, do you agree that the rises are principally due to anthropogenic factors?
There is evidence from isotopes that rises in carbon dioxide and some others are related to human activity. Methane is not rising, and it involves many non-human influences
7 For carbon dioxide, do you accept the broad figure of 280ppm in the post-glacial but pre-industrial era, and the current figure of about 380ppm?
The 280ppm figure is based on an extremely unrepresentative sample, actually a handful of sites. I cannot accept that it should be regarded as a “global average”. The 380ppm does seem to be afir figure for over the ocean, but I would like to see some land-based figures, as these are really more important. The rate of increase in the ocean figures has been about 0.4% a year since 1975 and shows no real evidence of changing. Computer calculations which assume 1% a year and “scenarios” which assume increases which for one case is even higher do not make sense.
GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS
8 Do you agree with the principle that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will increase radiative forcing?
It seems likely that they make a contribution to the many factors involved in changes in net radiation to the earth.
The diagram of these various factors and their supposed effects published by the IPCC is a veritable dog’s breakfast. In “Climate Change 2001” they admit that the so-called “error bars” in the diagram have “no statistical significance’, and all the items are subject to unquantified “levels of scientific understanding” They also stated that you should not add and subtract them to get an overall figure.
In the latest version of this diagram (Figure SPM-2) they have broken these rules. They give “error bars” which are supposed to be 90% confidence levels (as opposed to the 95% levels usually supplied by statisticians) but they do not explain how these have been derived. They have also added and subtracted them but only did so in the last draft. They still have the unknown “levels of scientific understanding” and they omit altogether the main components of “radiative forcing” which are water vapour and clouds, for which they give the excuse that they are “feedbacks”
However you look at that diagram you have to conclude that the net radiative forcing since 1750 could easi;y be zero or negative.
9 Do you agree that the relationship between CO2 concentrations and radiative forcing, given current levels, is logarithmic?
I am not a specialist spectroscopist and I am inclined to accept the formulae given ib “Climate Change 2001” I would, however, point out, that it should not be applied to “averages”, since variations below the average are much more important than those above it.
10 If you answered ‘Yes’ to question 1, do you believe that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are the most important factor behind the observed increases in the global average temperature? If not, what would you say is/are the principal factor(s) behind the observed rise
The rise in 1998 was caused by the El Niño ocean event that year. The current warm spell (2001 to 2004 and 2004 to 2006). As shown on the satellite record, appears to have come to an end. In New Zealand the temperature last year was 1.5ºC below “normal” Since it remained almost stable throughout it could not possibly be related to increases in greenhouse gases. I am not an expert, but I have seen persuasive arguments relating the warm spell to changes in the sun and cosmic rays.
11 If you answered ‘No’ to question 1 but ‘Yes’ to questions 5 and 8, what is your explanation for why rising greenhouse gas concentrations, associated with higher radiative forcing, have not resulted in a rise in the global average temperature?
First, I question the accuracy of the calculations of radiative forcing from “average” concentrations. The figures are too high. Second, there are a large number of other factors contributing to “radiative forcing”, most of which are very poorly known or understood. I therefore do not think there is evidence that the net net change in radiative forcing has been positive.
12 What value, or range of values, would you estimate for climate sensitivity?
First, the whole concept of “climate sensitivity” which assumes that a single constant can relate a net radiative forcing that cannot be calculated with a possible global temperature rise is a gross oversimplification of reality.
I would point out the work of Douglass et al, who in a study on Mt Pinatubo found that a low value of this supposed consyant gave a more plausible answer
NATURAL VARIATION
13 What would you say is the maximum amount by which the global average annual surface temperature can vary over the course of a century due to natural variability?
I am in no position to express an opinion, neither is anybody else. There are no reliable average global surface records which could be used to claim any figure.
MITIGATION
14 Do you believe that if concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases rise significantly higher than they are now, there is a chance of dangerous climatic change resulting?
There is no evidence that this could be so
15 If you answered ‘No’ to the previous question but ‘Yes’ to question 8, could you explain why you do not feel rising concentrations might prove dangerous?
I am a scientist. I do not make conclusions on important issues such as this from ”feelings” . I am unable to have any opinion until somebody comes up with plausible evidence.
16 Do you think it would be wise for the global community to set a maximum limit for atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, or of carbon dioxide equivalent? If so, what limit would you recommend?
They are not wise, they are mad. I would ignore the issue until somebody provides evidence
17 If anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increase broadly in line with “business as usual” projections over the next 20 years or so, which of the following statements would most closely reflect your opinion of the likely impact of emissions over that period:
If wishes were horses beggars would rise. The “business as usual projections’ are simply rubbish. They pointedly refrain from checking whether they are actually happening. They are not
a) they will not have any deleterious impacts on human societies or the natural world
b) they will have some impacts on human societies and the natural world, but nothing that cannot be dealt with quite easily
c) they will have major impacts on some human societies and some aspects of the natural world
No justification for any of these propositions
18 Which of these statements most reflects your view of the Kyoto Protocol:
a) it was a worthwhile attempt to tackle an issue of global significance
b) it was the wrong approach to tackling an issue of global significance
c) it was meaningless, because there is no reason for attempting to curb greenhouse gas emissions at present
At last, a yes and no question I can answer. My answer is ©
CLIMATE MODELS
19 Do you believe that computer models, when used in conjunction with observational data, can in principle make meaningful projections of future temperature and climate trends at global and regional scales?
In principle they cannot. And the reason ought to be obvious. None of them has ever been “validated” and the IPCC have banned the used of this word. They also never make “predictions” because they no that there is no basis for such a claim.
In order to validate a climate model you need to show that it is capable of predicting future behaviour to a known, and acceptable, level of accuracy
Otherwise it should not be used at all.
The IPCC does not even try to discuss how this may be done. Instead they “adjust” the highly uncertain parameters in their models to try and “simulate” a few past climate sequences, and claim that this “fudging” proves something. They then ask a panel of modellists, whoc are financially dependent on governments promoting greenhouse theory, their “opinion” on the “likelihood” of the value of the model “projections” They then have different levels of “likelihood” which are given fake probability numbers and claim their models are successful.
It is as if Newton and Einstein had not lived, and in order to send a rocket to the moon the asked the scientists who set up the schedule whether it might get there, and they replied “very likely, but we don’t know where”
20 If so, would you say current models are, on the whole:
a) very accurate and useful
b) quite accurate and useful
c) not very accurate or useful
d) completely useless
They are worse than useless because this fact is concealed.
21 If you answered c or d to the last question, could you explain what it is that you believe to be wrong with current models?
They have never been validated. They have never been shown to predict anything. One result of this fact is that there is no measure of their potential accuracy, which can only be determined by actual practical tests
22 If you answered ‘No’ to question 19, what approach would you prefer to computer modelling as a way of forecasting future climate?
Models do not make forecasts. They only make “projections” there is no future to modelling unless they can be shown to work. A major problem is that natural climate events are currently unpredictable
YOUR BACKGROUND
23 Which element(s) of your academic background is/are relevant to climate change?
I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University and a lifetime research experience in many fields, plus over 100 scientific and technical publications, including climate science
24 Could you please supply a list of scientific publications (not exhaustive), or a weblink to such a list, which demonstrates your expertise in the climate field?
1992 The IPCC Report on Climate Change (1990): an Appraisal, Chapter 5 in “The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment (Editor, S. Fred Singer), The Science and Environmental Policy Project, San Francisco, California, USA
1992 The IPCC Supplement (1992): An Appraisal Chapter 6 in “The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment (S. Fred Singer, Editor) The Science and Environme tal Policy Project San Francisco, California, USA
1994 (with W.W. Hennessy) Comparison of Climate Change Theory with Temperature Observations. Poster paper at “Climate Change 94” Conference, Wellington, October
1994 The Greenhouse Effect and its Consequences, Chemistry in New Zealand 58 (2) 31-40
1995 Climate Change 1994 Chemistry in New Zealand 59 (9) 30-33
1995 (with W.W. Hennessy) Climate Change Science 1995 Report prepared for the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand
1996 Climate Change ’95 New Zealand Science Review 53 58-62
1997 Climate Change 95: An Appraisal The Heartland Institute , Palatine, Illinois, USA
100 2000 The Cause of Global Warming Energy & Environment 11 (6), 613-629
101 2001 Climate Change: Can it be Stopped? New Zealand International Review October, 27-28
102 2001 The Greenhouse Delusion. A Critique of Climate Change 2001 http://www.john-daly.com , Guest Publication
103 2002 The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Multiscience Publishing, Essex, UK 95 pages
104 2003 Regional Temperature Change http://www.john-daly.com/guests/regional.htm
105 2004 Maurice Wilkins and the Double Helix. Chemistry in New Zealand 67 (1) March , pages 50-54.
106 2004 Sociobiology New Zealand Science Review 61 (1) 30-34
107 2004 The Third Man Speaks, Book Review, Chemistry in New Zealand 68 (1) 28
108 2006 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere Energy and Environmenmt 17 707-714
The Following Greenhouse Bulletins were privately published. Many of the latter ones were published on various Internet Websites, notably that of John Daly ( http:..www.john-daly.com.
101 1991. Greenhouse Miscellany, Bulletin No 1 10th March 1991
102 1991 Five Recent Papers Bulletin No 2 16th March 1991
103 1991 Ocean Carbon Dioxide Absorption according to A.A. Evans. Bulletin No 3 29th March 1991
104 1991 A Sensible Climate Model. Bulletin No 4 5th May 1991
105 1991 4th New Zealand Coal Conference and the Greenhouse Effect Bulletin No 5 25th October 1991
106 1991 Global Surface Temperature Rise Since 1940. Bulletin No 6 :2nd November 1991
107 1991 Several Recent Papers Bulletin No 7 16th November 1991
108 1992 Recent Papers by Michaels and O’Brien Bulletin No. 8 23rd January 1992
109 1992 The 1992 IPCC Supplement, an Appraisal: First Draft. Bulletin No 9 February 1992
110 1992 Energy Economics and the Greenhouse Effect Bulletin No 10 14th April 1992
111 1992 Modifying the Greenhouse. Bulletin No 11 20th April 1992
112 1992 Where has all the Carbon Dioxide Gone? Bulletin No 12. 18th May 1992
113 1992 Modifying the Greenhouse Again Bulletin No 13 25th June 1992
114 1992 Fuel Economy in Motor Vehicles Bulletin No 14 16th July 1992
115 1992 Three IPCC Reports Bulletin No 15 15th August 1992
116 1992 Changes from the Draft of 1992 IPCC Supplementary Report. Bulletins No 16 (20.8.92), 17 (25.8.92) 19 (9.9.92),20 (11.9.92), 21(17.9.92), 22 (17.9.92).
117 1992 Futures Scenarios Bulletin No 18 18th October.1992
118 1992 Global Warming: The Evidence Bulletin No 23 16th October 1992
119 1992 Several Recent Books Bulletin No 24 24th November 1992
120 1992 The Greenhouse Effect: A Coal Industry Bonanza Bulletin No 26 27th November 1992
121 1992 Environmental Forecasting Bulletin No 27 December 1992.
122 1993 Coal Industry Statistics Bulletin No 28 January 3rd 1993
123 1993 Diversifying Climate Parameters Bulletin No 29 January 1993
124 1993 Futures for Coal Bulletin No 30 February 1993,
125 1993 Greenhouse Economics Bulletin No 31 March 1993
126 1993 Greenhouse Economics II Bulletin No 32 25th March 1993
127 1993 Greenhouse Economics III
128 1993 Greenhouse Economics IV Bulletin No 34 April 1993
129 1993 Barrie Pittock’s Reply Bulletin No 35 October 1993
130 1993 5th New Zealand Coal Conference and Climate Change Bulletin No 36 October 1993
131 1993 Energy Efficiency and Energy Intensity Bulletin No 37 November 1993
132 1993 Two Papers on Greenhouse Economics Bulletin No 38 November 1993
133 1993 Global Warming Debate Bulletin No 39 November 1993.
134 1993 More Greenhouse Economics Bulletin No 40 November 1993
135 1993 Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 41 December 1993
136 1993 Ian Enting’s Floppy Bulletin No 42 December 1993
137 1993 The Carbon Dioxide-Atmospheric Ratio Bulletin No 43 12th December 1993
138 1994 Svante Arrhenius Bulletin No 44 11th January 1994
139 1994 Uncertainties in the Climate Bulletin No 45 19th January 1994
140 1994 Global Warming: an Alternative Perspective Bulletin No 46 January 1994
141 1994 The Current State of Trace Gas Research in New Zealand Bulletin No 47 2nd January 2nd 1994
142 1994 Radiative Forcing of the Climate 1994 Bulletin No 48 16th March 1994
143 1994 Natural Variability Bulletin No 49 18th April 1994
144 1994 Extreme Events Bulletin No 50 April 1994
145 1994 Solar Variability Bulletin No 51 May 1994.
146 1994 Radiative Forcing of Climate Change Bulletin No 52 June 1994
147 1994 The Rate of Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 53 2nd August 1994
148 1994 Atmospheric Aerosols Bulletin No 54 3rd August 1994
149 1994 Errors in NIWA Presentation Bulletin No 55 August 1994
150 1994 Draft Summary for Policymakers Bulletin No 56 30th August 1994
151 1994 United Nations Population Statistics Bulletin No 57 30th August 1994
152 1994 Outlook Even Hazier Bulletin No 58 13th September 1994
153 1994 Some Recent Work on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Bulletin No 59 28th September 1994
154 1994 Extrapolating IPCC Scenarios Backwards Bulletin No 60 1st October 1994
155 1994 The Effect of Methane on the Climate Bulletin No 60A 21st October 1994
156 1994 The State of the Environment Bulletin No 61 November 1994
157 1994 Warming Trends Bulletin No 62 12th December 1994
158 1995 The Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center Bulletin No 63 8th January 1995
159 1995Global Temperature Trends Bulletin No 64 January 1995
160 1995 Natural Variability Bulletin No 65 9th February 1995
161 1995 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Bulletin No 66 28th February 1995
162 1995 The IPCC WGIII Second Assessment Report Bulletin No 67 28th February 1995
163 1995 Assessing Climate Models Bulletin No 68 9th March 1995
164 1995 Volcanic Eruptions Bulletin No 69 23rd March 1995
165 1995 The IPCC WGII Second Assessment Report Bulletin No 70 27th March 1995
166 1995 Climate Change 1994 Bulletin No 71 3rd July 1995
167 1995 Carbon Dioxide Problems Bulletin No 72 1st July 1995
168 1995 Greenhouse Miscellany Bulletin No 73 26th July 1995
169 1995 Global Temperatures Since 1400 Bulletin No 74 3rd August 1995
170 1995 Future Emissions and Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 75 3rdAugust 1995
171 1995 The Earth’s Energy Budget Bulletin No 76 20th September 1995
172 1995 Greenhouse Roundup Bulletin No 77 15th October 1995
173 1995 Subjective Judgments Bulletin No 78 29th November 1995
174 1995 The Hadley Centre Model Bulletin No 79 16th December 1995
175 1996 The Thermohaline Circulation Bulletin No 80 8th January 1996
176 1996 The IPCC Emissions Scenarios Bulletin No 81 28th January 1996
177 1996 Differences Between the Hemispheres Bulletin No 82 13th February 1996
178 1996 The Hadley Centre Climate Model II Bulletin No 84:27th February 1996
179 1996 Two Energy Perspectives Bulletin No 85 6th March 1996
180 1996 Climate Change 1995 Bulletin No 86: March 23rd 1996 (29 pages)
181 1996 Effective Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 87: April 1996
182 1996 Radiative Forcing: a Discontinuity Bulletin No 88 19th May 1996
183 1996 The Global Warming Debate Bulletin No 89 28th May 1996
184 1996 The World Energy Council and Climate Change Bulletin No 90 8th June 1996
185 1996 Climate Change Policy: A Durable Response Bulletin No 91 5th August 1996
186 1996 How Sensitive id the Climate Bulletin No 91A July 1996
187 1996 Climate Change and CO2 Policy Bulletin No 92 5th August 1996
188 1996 Discernible Human Influence Bulletin No 93 27th August 1996
189 1996 Runaway Greenhouse Bulletin No 94 14th September 1996
190 1996 The End of Global Warming Bulletin No 95 22nd November 1996
191 1996 Hemisphere Differences Bulletin No 96 6th December 1996
192 1996 IPCC Technical Papers Bulletin No 97 22nd December 1996
193 1996 Aerosol Forcing of the Climate Bulletin No 98 27th December 1996
194 1997 Current Climate Data Bulletin No 99 January 1997
195 1997 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Bulletin No 100 2nd February 1997
196 1997 Updating Satellite Temperatures Bulletin No 101 16th April 1997
197 1997 The Line Goes Dead Bulletin No 102 21st May 1997
198 1997 World Population Trends Bulletin No 103 14th June 1997
199 1997 Updating the Data Bulletin No 104 September 1997
200 1997 Human Influence on the Climate Bulletin No 105 8.th October 1997
201 1997 The Airborne Fraction Bulletin No 106 21st November 1097
202 1997 The Carbon Cycle Bulletin No 107 22nd November 1997
203 1997 Does Global Warming Exist? Bulletin No 108 4th December 1997
204 1997 Sea Level Bulletin No 109 11th December 1997
205 1997 The Kyoto Protocol Bulletin No 110. 19th December 1997
206 1998 The Missing Sink Bulletin No 111 29th January 1998
207 1998 Errors and Bias in the Surface Temperature Record Bulletin No 112 24th March 1998
208 1998 Regional Temperature Change Bulletin No 113. 16th May 1998
209 1998 Stabilization of Atmospheric Methane Bulletin No 114 8th June 1998
210 1998 The One Percent Solution: A Fairy Story for Grown-ups Bulletin No 115 28th June 1998
211 1998 Validation of Computer-based Climate Models Bulletin No 116 17th August 1998
212 1998 The Sun, El Niñ0 and the Carbon Dioxide Thermometer Bulletin No 117 9th December 1998
213 1999 Hansen’s Reappraisal Bulletin No 118 12th January 1999
214 1999 Population Projections Bulletin No 119 15th February 1999
215 1999 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Bulletin No 120 27th February 1999
216 1999 Greenhouse Warming Reduced Bulletin No 121 16th March 1999
217 1999 Carbon Dioxide and Methane Revisited Bulletin No 122 April 4th 1999
218 1999 Validation of Computer-based Climate Models Bulletin No 123 April 28th 1999
219 1999 Regional Temperature Change Bulletin No 124 April 29th 1999
220 1999 IPCC Scenarios Old and New Bulletin No 125 September 23rd 1999
221 2000 The Surface Temperature Record Bulletin No 126 January 24th 2000
222 2000 Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis No 127 November 2000
The Following NZClimate (and Enviro) Truth Newsletters were privately published. Most are available at http://www.warwickhughes.com/gray04/ and some on other websites.
223 2002 15 Feb, No 1. Launch of NZClimate Truth
224 2002 27 Feb No 2
225 2002 13 Mar No 3
226 2002 23 Mar No 4
227 2002 31 Mar No 5
228 2002 10 Apr No 6
229 2002 11 Apr. No 7
230 2002 24 Apr No 8
231 2002 24 Apr No 9
232 2002 14 May No 10 NZ Government Preferred Policy Package
233 2002 22 May No 11
234 2002 10 June No 12
225 2002 8 July No 13 What the Scientists Say
226 2002 16 July No 14
227 2002 16 July No 15
228 2002 23 July No 15
229 2002 26 Aug No 15A
230 2002 11 Nov No 16
231 2002 19 Nov No 16B
232 2002 17 Nov No 17
233 2002 5 Dec No 18
234 2002 Dec1o No 19
315 2002 Dec12 No 20
316 2002 Dec 17 No 21
317 2003 Jan 10 No 22
318 2003 Feb 5 No 23
320 2003 Feb 28 No 24
321 2003 Mar 7 No 25
322 2003 Mar 22 No 26
323 2003 Apr 8 No 27
324 2003 May 11 No 28
325 2003 May 28 No 29
326 2003 Aug 12 No 30
327 2003 Aug 23 No 31
328 2003 Sep 6 No 32
329 2003 Sep 18 No 33
330 2003 Oct 30 No 34
331 2003 Nov 6 No 35
332 2003 Nov 26 No 36
333 2003 Dec 22 No 37
334 2004 Jan 13 No 38
335 2004 Jan 24 No 39
336 2004 Jan 25 No 39A
337 2004 Jan 25 No 40
338 2004 Mar 3 No 41
339 2004 Mar 4 No 41A
340 2004 Mar 16 No 42
341 2004 Mar 19 No 43
342 2004 Mar 23 No 44
343 2004 Apr 5 No 45
344 2004 Apr 7 No 46
345 2004 May 13 No 47
346 2004 May 26 No 48
347 2004 June 7 No 49
348 2004 June 12 No 50
349 2004 June 20 No 51
350 2004 July 3 No 52
351 2004 July 12 No 53
352 2004 July 29 No 54
353 2004 Oct 14 No 55
354 2004 Nov 12 No 56
355 2004 Nov 25 No 57
356 2004 Dec 12 No 58
357 2004 Dec 20 No 59
358 2005 Jan 6 No 60
359 2005 Jan 21 No 61
360 2005 Jan 31 No 62
362 2005 Feb 5 No 63
363 2005 Feb 22 No 64
364 2005 Feb 26 No 65
365 2005 Mar 6 No 66
366 2005 Mar 18 No 67
367 2005 Mar 25 No 68
368 2005 Apr 24 No 69
369 2005 Apr 29 No 70
370 2005 May 4 No 71
371 2005 May 13 No 72
372 2005 May 22 No 73
373 2005 June 6 No 74
374 2005 June 8 No 75
375 2005 June 11 No 76
376 2005 July 7 No 77
377 2005 Sep 30 No 78
378 2005 Oct 3 No 79
379 2005 Oct 15 No 80
380 2005 Oct 30 No 81
382 2005 Nov 4 No 82
383 2005 Nov 16 No 83
384 2005 Nov 23 No 84
385 2005 Nov 30 No 85
386 2005 Dec 1 No 86
387 2005 Dec 4 No 87
388 2005 Dec 11 No 88
389 2005 Dec 11 No 89
390 2006 Jan 9 No 90
391 2006 Jan 13 No 91
392 2006 Jab 31 No 92
393 2006 Feb 22 No 93
394 2006 Apr 4 No 94
395 2006 Apr 7 No 95
396 2006 Apr 24 No 96
397 2006 May 1 No 97
398 2006 May 5 No 98
399 2006 May 18 No 99
400 2006 May 25 No 100
401 2006 June 1 No 101
402 2006 June 4 No 102
403 2006 June 15 No 103
404 2006 June 20 No 104
405 2006 June 28 No 105
406 2006 Jul 3 No 106
407 2006 Jul 8 No 107
408 2006 Jul 22 No 108
409 2006 Aug 31 No 109
410 2006 Sep 13 No 110
411 2006 Sep 28 No 111
412 2006 Oct 8 No 112
413 2006 Oct 9 No 113
414 2006 Oct 17 No 114
415 2006 Oct 31 No 115
416 2006 Nov 6 No 116
417 2006 Nov 16 No 117
418 2006 Nov 30th No 118
419 2006 Dec 6 No 119
420 2006 Dec 23 No 120
412 2006 “Temperature Trends in The Lower Atmosphere” Energy and Environment”17 707-714
413 2007 Jan 2 No 121
414 2007 Jan 9 No 122
415 2007 Jan 22 No 123
416 2007 Jna 27th No 124
417 2007 Jan 31 No 125
418 2007 Feb 6 No 126
419 2007 Feb 12 No 127
420 2007 Feb 17 No 128
421 2007 Feb 19 No 129
25 Have you ever received funding from a company involved in fossil fuel production or use, or from an institution which receives such funds? If so, please give details.
My employment included, amongst many others
Petrocarbon Manchester 1946-47, 1951-54
Coal Research Establiahment, Cheltenham 1954-57
Coal Research Association New Zealand 1973-1987
Zhejiang University, China, 1987-1990