Fair-ish and Balanced-ish
Saturday, August 09, 2003
Ian Castles Email
Mr Castles has given me permission to post his email, so here it is:
Dear Keneth Miles,
Attached is the text of an article "Economics, Emissions Scenarios and the Work of the IPCC" (by Ian Castles and David Henderson) which has appeared in the most recent issue of the UK-based journal Energy and Environment. It is in part a response to an article in the previous issue of that journal ("The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique"). You may recall that on 24 June last you provided the readers of The UnAustralian with a link to the latter article, which had been posted on the website of one of the authors - Professor Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois.
Also attached is an article by James Schlesinger, former US Secretary of Energy, which appeared in the Washington Post on 7 July. Your readers might well find this article no less interesting than the paper co-authored by his namesake.
In your issue of 24 June you said that I and "to a lesser degree [my] co-conspirator David Henderson" are "a pet obsession" for you. Your speculation some days previously about my relationship with the Lavoisier Group suggests that this must indeed be the case - you may recall that you suggested that I must have left the Group some time between 10 September 2002 and 10 January 2003, so that "at best" my statement to the IPCC meeting about this matter on the latter date was "very misleading".
Pasted below is the text of a letter that Professor Henderson sent to the Editor of USA Today on 3 April last. I believe that it is self-explanatory.
You also told your readers on 24 June that I had been "slammed" by the SRES Team for making the mistake of describing the IPCC scenarios as predictions rather than projections. In fact, I made no such mistake, and the SRES Team did not suggest that I had. They said that the mistake was made by Cambridge University Press - see their footnote 4 on p. 194.
I am copying this message to Professor Henderson and to Mr. Ray Evans, with whom you are free to confirm that I am not and have not been a member of the Lavoisier Group.
With best wishes,
[Text of Letter from Professor David Henderson to the Editor of USA Today begins]
In your issue of April 2, your science correspondent, Dan Vergano, in referring to some recent work by Ian Castles and me, makes two statements which give the wrong impression. First, he describes us as being 'associated with the Lavoisier Group' in Australia. It is true that we both know well the founder of the Group, and we agreed to his request to post our work on their website. But neither Castles nor I are members of the Group; no member of it is or has been involved on our work; and what we have written does not purport to be on the Group's behalf or to represent its views. We are independent persons, holding no official position, and we speak and write for ourselves alone.
It is also not correct to say that what we have written has 'appeared in The Economist' : they published an article (18 February) on our work. They too asked permission to post our critique on their website, and in this case also we agreed.
Westminster Business School
London NW1, England.