Steve McIntyre has written an eviscerating essay about a secret letter circulated by the IPCC to UEA/CRU, which they are refusing to divulge, because:
there would be an adverse effect on international relations between IPCC WG1 and academic institutions within the United Kingdom because it would force is to reconsider our working arrangements with those experts who have been selected for an active role in WG1 AR5 from your institution and others in the UK”.
On Feb 26, 2010, as part of their first response to Climategate, Thomas Stocker, a Climategate correspondent of Phil Jones and by then Co-Chair of AR5 WG1, sent a still secret letter to all WG4 Lead Authors, Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors under the letterhead of WG1, purporting, it seems, to represent the parent IPCC organization. The existence of this secret email came to light as a result of David Holland’s persistence in trying to cut through IPCC authoritarianism and secrecy. After learning of its existence, David submitted an FOI request, which has been refused, and which is now under appeal at the Tribunal.
We might also want to start a betting pool on how long they’ll be able to hold out.
[Edited] Readers might consider consulting the list of AR4 lead authors and asking institutions in their own jurisdiction (USA for example) for FOI requests that might yield better results than my original suggestion of FOI requests to UEA. UEA as usual isn’t in a cooperative mood, so those requests probably will be fruitless.
Another university or organization with no dog in the fight might be more receptive.
- The Questions That Were Never Asked (climateaudit.org)
- CRU Server Returned (climateaudit.org)
- Climategate detective: ‘I’m deeply disappointed’ we didn’t catch hacker | Leo Hickman (guardian.co.uk)
- Police Close ‘Climategate’ Investigation into Hacked Emails with Mystery Unsolved (ecowatch.org)