The secret letter UEA and CRU doesn’t want us (or anybody else) to read

Uh oh.

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”.

McIntyre writes:

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.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate, FOI, IPCC and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to The secret letter UEA and CRU doesn’t want us (or anybody else) to read

  1. Glacierman says:

    If your job was to “present the current, best understanding of the science regarding climate change”, why would you be worried about secrecy? Why would transparency hurt working relationships with scientists who are asked to do this? Maybe things are not as publicly stated?

  2. An Opinion says:

    The letter also went to others around the world, including the U.S. So, there are other targets for FOI requests.

  3. john says:

    Hopefully someone will leak this “secret” letter, what do they have hide excepyt the truth?

  4. David Larsen says:

    I believe there was one Prof. in Montana part of the charade.

  5. clipe says:

    Change “because it will:” to “because:”

  6. Jenn Oates says:

    I’m assuming any British citizen can file a FOIA? My son-in-law just happens to be one. :)

  7. John in NZ says:

    Before a dam collapses there is seeping on the down stream side.

  8. Andrew says:

    You misplaced the procedure for FOI requests in the UK? I think they misplaced it, too. That’s why it’s taking so long. A simple mixup.

  9. Steve McIntyre says:

    Please don’t file FOI requests on this matter to UEA. That’s already been done and is under appeal. Further efforts doing the same thing will make it more difficult in the future. Please don’t do this.

    On the other hand, you may wish to consider steps in your own jurisdiction.

    REPLY: I’ve made some changes to the text which will likely yield better results – Anthony

  10. Spence_UK says:

    I would advise against a mass writing of FOI requests to the UEA. That wasn’t good PR for the sceptics last time it happened.

    Note Steve McIntyre’s observation at the end. This letter went to other IPCC authors – including some in other countries that may have FOI legislation with more power than the weak UK one – possibly including people in the US. That angle is probably more productive.

  11. Ron says:

    Another fantastic and intriguing story for any investigative journalist to relate for his or her readers; ripe fruit hanging off the lowest branches ready to pick! Seth! Seth? Where arrrrrrreeee you?

  12. Spence_UK says:

    Oops – crossed post with the good Mr McIntyre. Luckily I’m on message today :)

  13. Gunga Din says:

    When people were commenting on “denier” vs “skeptic”, I said that “suspicious” would best describe my take on whatever they’re calling “global warming” now. “The Team” has yet to do anything to change that.

  14. Jeff D says:

    I am sure it would be easy to FOIA this in the US. We were promised an open and transparent Government. //sarc off….

  15. David L. Hagen says:

    What could possibly persuade the IPCC to renege on its policy of transparency and hide a letter to lead authors?

    Today the IPCC’s role is also, as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”

    Could history provide be any guide?
    Or did Orwell better understand human nature subject to money and power?

  16. James Abbott says:

    [Snip. O/T. ~dbs, mod.]

  17. Gunga Din says:

    “Today the IPCC’s role is also, as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding ….”
    ====================================================================
    Kinda sounds like what this blog is attempting to do with things like the “Watts et al” paper.

  18. Gunga Din says:

    James Abbott says:
    August 3, 2012 at 2:29 pm
    So, away from “who said what” gossip …

    Looks like 2012 may well see a record melt in the arctic:

    So while clearly there is not going to be a ‘nearly ice free arctic’ this year, the mocking piece

    “Arctic Sea Ice Nearly Disappears September 22nd, 2012 1 month to go”

    does not look so smart.

    The ice in the Siberian sea is looking thin and vulnerable with open areas beginning to form – as it did in 2007. But concentration is less throughout almost the whole of the arctic region compared to the same date in 2007.

    ===========================================================================
    Lowering the goal post?

  19. cui bono says:

    Secret mails. Cloak and dagger. What do these people say to each other when they actually meet?
    ” ‘I hear it is very warm in Lithuania this time of year’ “.
    ” ‘Yes, but that is due to Nadia, not global warming’ “.
    “OK, quick, where’s the microfilm of WG6?”

  20. Steve in SC says:

    Wonder if Uva or pENN sTATE were included on this missive?

  21. eyesonu says:

    James Abbott says:
    August 3, 2012 at 2:29 pm
    So, away from “who said what” gossip …

    =========================
    And off you go to Arctic ice.

    So you don’t like the thread?

    Why are you here and why did you post such an OT comment?

  22. HaroldW says:

    “…the list of AR4 lead authors…”
    The email was addressed to AR4 WG1 lead authors (& CLAs &c.), not all AR4 lead authors.

  23. Fitzcarraldo says:

    [Off topic. ~dbs, mod.]

  24. James Abbott says:

    I posted it because there is so much dross bouncing around the internet about climate change based on gossip and sniping, “secret” information, claims about false data, etc when what counts is real observations.

    So right now we are looking at 2012 heading towards being the biggest melt in the arctic in the satellite record in terms of ice area – and the ice looks much thinner than in the previous record year of 2007.

    This is IMPORTANT.

    Maybe there is no recent WUWT piece on this because its inconvenient to the sceptic narrative ?

    [Reply: There are regular sea ice articles and threads at WUWT, just wait for the next one. Please try to be patient, and calm down. What you are seeing is simply natural variability. ~dbs, mod.]

  25. Gunga Din says:

    eyesonu says:
    August 3, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    James Abbott says:
    August 3, 2012 at 2:29 pm
    So, away from “who said what” gossip …

    =========================
    And off you go to Arctic ice.

    So you don’t like the thread?

    Why are you here and why did you post such an OT comment?

    ====================================================================
    I see two possibilities.
    1. Obvious thread jack attempt. (That I fell for.)
    2. He came across abit of information that relates to an old post about the artic melting and couldn’t/wouldn’t look up the the original post so made his comment on the most recent one. I’d advice him to wait. Whether the artic ice cap disappears as predicted or not, it will come up again as a post.

  26. DirkH says:

    Spence_UK says:
    August 3, 2012 at 1:45 pm
    “I would advise against a mass writing of FOI requests to the UEA. That wasn’t good PR for the sceptics last time it happened.”

    “Good PR”? Skeptics NEVER have good PR because the Old Media are warmist. So, whether something is “good PR” cannot be a consideration for a skeptic. By definition the Old Media will be against him.

  27. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Secret letters amongst co-conspirators … this is politics, not science.

  28. DirkH says:

    Another thing. Whether one or 1,000 or 1,000,000 people write a FOIA request for the same thing is irrelevant, as all it takes is to add their e-mail address to a list.

    So, when the warmist institutes or the Old Media complain about “harrassment” by mass FOIA requests that is a smokescreen. It means nothing. They are offended by it? Oh let them be offended, a law is a law.

  29. Brian R Adams says:

    Sunlight – The best disinfectant. And the most efficient planet warmer, as if …

  30. Maus says:

    Glacierman: “Why would transparency hurt working relationships with scientists who are asked to do this? Maybe things are not as publicly stated?”

    Because people can be informal when they believe they can be informal. And some people are simply incorrigible cads and back-biters. Which may say a great deal about who should get first pick of the donuts in the break room, but what it does not do is have any necessary bearing on their formal and technical literature.

    If their technical literature is well written, attempts caution and the avoidance of bias, the experimental setup is well described and vetted, replicable, and their conclusion do not speak beyond what the experimental setup allows? Then they could prefer infants parboiled as a food staple for all it mattered to the literature in question.

    But it’s a longstanding tradition that if the employer pays for it, the employer owns it. And in a democracy the populus employs the government, and the government is hiring scientists on behalf of its employer. It all belongs to the public if it was done on company time. The question is less whether people would wish to keep off-color informal statements away from the HR department. It is a question as to whether or not the populus employs the government; or if it is that the government owns a herd of free-range humans.

  31. Gunga Din says:

    James Abbott says:
    August 3, 2012 at 3:27 pm
    I posted it because there is so much dross bouncing around the internet about climate change based on gossip and sniping, “secret” information, claims about false data, etc when what counts is real observations.

    So right now we are looking at 2012 heading towards being the biggest melt in the arctic in the satellite record in terms of ice area – and the ice looks much thinner than in the previous record year of 2007.

    This is IMPORTANT.

    Maybe there is no recent WUWT piece on this because its inconvenient to the sceptic narrative ?

    =============================================================================
    Attempt #2.
    If you have something, put it “Submit Story”.
    Otherwise, wait, and when the ice cap is still there after Hansen or whoever said it would be gone you might realize what the REAL “Inconvient Truth” is. CGAW ain’t happening.
    Now, back to the “Transparency”.

  32. P Wilson says:

    [Off topic! I'll email Anthony asking for a new sea ice thread so everyone can put their comments in the right place. ~dbs, mod.]

  33. wayne says:

    IPCC: is, and always will be, corrupt to the core. Its parent, the UNFCCC, the framework, is also hopelessly corrupt at its administrative core. Dissolution is the only cure.

  34. Jimbo says:

    Secrecy in climate ‘science’ – that’s the ticket. Hide the decline, instruct others to delete emails, try and fire editors, try and block sceptical papers, refuse to divulge our paid for data. Why would you need to do such things if your ‘scientific’ evidence is so ‘clear’?

    Part of the answer is follow the (oil & gas) money >>>

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Billions have now been invested by governments, ‘green’ capitalists (Gore), the fossil fuel industry and other money schemers on this brazen scam over the trace rise of the trace gas CO2. How did we get to this?

  35. P Wilson says:

    [Although I agree with you, sea ice is OFF TOPIC in this thread. There will be a new sea ice thread soon. Save your ammo. ~dbs, mod.]

  36. Ally E. says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:

    August 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Secret letters amongst co-conspirators … this is politics, not science

    *

    And very much part of the story of Global Warming. Science is important and the truth of science will win the day. Meanwhile, politics is responsibile for costs and damages. It’s politics that’s hiding the truth and politics trying to tear down civilization. We need to hear it all.

  37. Ally E. says:

    Judging by the number of off topic approaches in so short a time, this seems a discussion some are desperate to stop us having! :)

  38. David A. Evans says:

    Does this have any bearing on UNFCCC seeking in effect diplomatic immunity? (A concept I have never understood!)

    DaveE.

  39. Ally E. says:

    David A. Evans says:

    August 3, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    Does this have any bearing on UNFCCC seeking in effect diplomatic immunity? (A concept I have never understood!)

    *

    I would say UNFCCC seeking diplomatic immunity is very much so that these inconveniences (FOI disclosure) won’t matter. If they were to get their immunity, the monster can show its face. They will no longer have to hide behind a mask of honesty or science or environmentalism.

    You would think that this very secrecy and refusal to show their data and manipulation of data would raise more questions from the warmist camp. If their “science” is so sound and their only trouble is convincing the skeptics, first on their list should be willingness to share and prove. They’re the ones claiming time is running out and sacrifices are needed, yet they are so shy – world wide – to show what belongs to the people in any case. The data and methods.

    Seriously, the warmist should be asking why is that. More, they should be putting pressure on those in charge of the data to do the right thing and reveal all. What’s to hide, right?

    If THEY seriously believe CAGW is real, and WE seriously want to see the data and manipulations, WE COULD ALL PULL TOGETHER for the transparency necessary. So, I’m inviting the warmists to help us move this whole thing forward. They want to see action. So do we. Let both sides tell the climate scientists to stop behaving like selfish children and show everyone what they’ve got.

  40. TerryT says:

    Fix ” because it would force is to reconsider ” to ” because it would force us to reconsider”

  41. Brian H says:

    What would cause university researchers and authors to become disillusioned with the IPCC Working Group 1? Admission/evidence that “the Fix is In”, and the papers and authors will be cherry-picked, the conclusions fore-ordained, and rights of final edit approval denied.

    Exactly the sort of sham “analysis” at the WG2 and WG3 level that caused many authors and reviewers to withdraw in protest, and even have to threaten to sue to have their names removed from the end document(s).

  42. Gunga Din says:

    “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”.
    ==============================================================================
    They almost sound like a company talking about the secret recipe for Coca Cola or Colonel Sanders’ (KFC’s) 11 herbs and spices.
    What were they cooking up?

  43. jdgalt says:

    I wonder if Michael Mann’s name is included, either as one of the writers or as a recipient? Because if it is, then discovery in the upcoming Mann v. National Review libel case will very likely be able to reach this letter.

  44. Rolf says:

    The main problem is really that almost all people on any government payroll do seem to think the people on who they are living is only there to support their lifestyle. They do not understand they really should be and act as the servant of the people who make their position and lifestyle possible.

  45. JFD says:

    [SNIP: Sorry, JFD, but it is still off-topic. To allow this mention would get the thread off track again. Please. -REP]

  46. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Tip o’ the hat to the Mods, you folks are working overtime tonight! Cheers, Charles the DrPH

  47. Hot under the collar says:

    The thing about a ‘secret letter’ between the IPCC and ‘the team’ is that I am sure we can all think of our own versions of what was probably included. Unfortunately most of the suggestions I can currently think up although very funny are unprintable.
    Still, that’s never stopped me before – how about;
    “…. just stall on any FOI requests and hope they get bored or run out of time, if rumbled just say ‘I know nothing governor’…….get our peer review friends to stop them publishing…..we can always get our friends in the societies to whitewash any inquiry ….If this email gets out onto WUWT and we get a bloody climategate 3 you will be waking up with a horses head and swimming with the fishes…….delete this email immediately”.

    Just sayin :)

  48. Caleb says:

    I imagine an honest scientist would be disgusted with any request for any sort of cover-up. However they might also know that if they are the one who blows the whistle, they could kiss good-bye to any further grants. Therefore they would be unlikely to blow the whistle unless they were very ill, and had no future to care about, or else were independantly wealthy.

    One escape for an honest scientist might be to have some underling release the email. If the whistle-blower is some part-time secretary, who simply answers the FOI request because he/she is doing their job and doesn’t know better, the honest scientist can look like they had nothing to do with it.

    Now, regarding sea-ice…..

  49. If the claims made by these people about climate fears were true then secrecy would not be required. The cover ups go a long way to show what a scam this alarmism is.

  50. David Holland says:

    Thomas Stocker’s letter went to some 40 Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Review Editors of WGI with USA affiliations, and for Steve in SC, yes one was at Penn State – Richard B. Alley was a LA on Chapter 6.

    One was from NASA – David Rind, Ch6/LA

    Seven were from NCAR:
    Guy Brasseur, 7/CLA
    William D. Collins, 10/LA
    Elisabeth Holland, 7/LA
    Linda Mearns, 11/LA
    Gerald A. Meehl, 10/CLA
    Bette Otto-Bliesner, 6/LA
    Kevin E. Trenberth, 3/CLA

    Seven were from NOAA:
    David Easterling, 3/LA
    David W. Fahey, 2/LA
    Thomas R. Karl, 3/RE
    Sydney Levitus, 5/LA
    Thomas Peterson, 1/LA
    Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, 2/CLA
    Ronald J. Stouffer, /LA

    Who knows maybe one of them could post it up?

  51. JohnH says:

    Jenn Oates says:
    August 3, 2012 at 1:31 pm
    I’m assuming any British citizen can file a FOIA? My son-in-law just happens to be one. :)

    Anyone in the world can raise a UK FOIA, but in this case it is already done and no more are required for the UK, what is required is Non-UK FOIA requests in case the UK one fails, it will be dragged out by UEA as long as is possible we can be 100% sure.

  52. polistra says:

    You’re still assuming that “science” is the driving force. It isn’t. Money for speculators is the sole forcing factor, and it won’t stall out until the speculators no longer see money.

    A good subject for research would be: “How did PM Harper of Canada decide to stop subsidizing this rot, when all other governments are still pouring money into it? What persuaded him? And how can we apply the same persuasive fact or feeling or pressure to other governments?”

  53. David Holland says:

    I think I should mention that there may not be much of any any great interest in the letter that I have been trying to get hold of. In the recently disclosed letter of 23 March 2011, which Thomas Stocker wrote to UEA in order to give it a pretext to refuse to disclose his letter of 28 March 2010, he stated:

    As a matter of fact, the substantive contents of the letter have been published in various Guidance Notes and Statements on the WGI website

    This is in the nature of a test case. Its lawyers recently stated UEA’s position as

    Essentially the concern that was being expressed by Working Group One is that, if you disclose this letter, it causes real concern as to what else might be disclosed and essentially it will chill the operations of Working Group One and it would chill Working Group One’s relationships with UK academic institutions including, in particular but not limited to, the UEA. It was on that basis the UEA decided that the letter should be withheld

    The police have now returned the backup server to the UEA. What the UEA may well have in mind is that there are several FOIA/EIR requests pending for information that is in it and at least one MP has asked the UEA to ensure that its contents are not erased. In a while the the Information Tribunal will consider my request for all of AR4 correspondence which Phil Jones told Michael Mann that Keith Briffa was going to delete. UEA desperately want a convincing argument to refuse disclosure of all IPCC related information. If that possibility is chilling it can only be because they know what is in the information.

  54. Gail Combs says:

    JohnH says:
    August 4, 2012 at 4:17 am

    Jenn Oates says:
    August 3, 2012 at 1:31 pm
    I’m assuming any British citizen can file a FOIA? My son-in-law just happens to be one. :)

    Anyone in the world can raise a UK FOIA, but in this case it is already done and no more are required for the UK, what is required is Non-UK FOIA requests in case the UK one fails, it will be dragged out by UEA as long as is possible we can be 100% sure.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Given that in the UK, FOIA go “stale” every 6 months, perhaps staggering FOIA every five months would be appropriate.

  55. Berényi Péter says:

    HaroldW says:
    August 3, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    The email was addressed to AR4 WG1 lead authors (& CLAs &c.), not all AR4 lead authors.

    Let’s set it straight. Was it sent to Contributors to the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report, Reviewers of the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report or some other list?

    Where can a comprehensive & authoritative list be found online? (link!)

    The trouble is the term “lead author” is not related to AR4 WG1 as a whole, but to its individual chapters (there are 11 of them).

    Then each chapter has both Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors.

    All lumped together there are 142 of them:

    Alley, Richard B. (USA)
    Allison, Ian (Australia)
    Ambenje, Peter (Kenya)
    Artale, Vincenzo (Italy)
    Artaxo, Paulo (Brazil)
    Berntsen, Terje (Norway)
    Betts, Richard (UK)
    Bindoff, Nathaniel L. (Australia)
    Bojariu, Roxana (Romania)
    Bony, Sandrine (France)
    Braconnot, Pascale (France)
    Brasseur, Guy (USA) (Germany)
    Briffa, Keith R. (UK)
    Busuioc, Aristita (Romania)
    Carrasco, Jorge (Chile)
    Cazenave, Anny (France)
    Chen, Anthony (Jamaica)
    Chidthaisong, Amnat (Thailand)
    Christensen, Jens Hesselbjerg (Denmark)
    Ciais, Philippe (France)
    Collins, William D. (USA)
    Colman, Robert (Australia)
    Cox, Peter M. (UK)
    Cubasch, Ulrich (Germany)
    Denman, Kenneth L. (Canada)
    Dias, Pedro Leite da Silva (Brazil)
    Dickinson, Robert E. (USA)
    Ding, Yihui (China)
    Dorland, Robert Van (Netherlands)
    Duplessy, Jean-Claude (France)
    Easterling, David (USA)
    Fahey, David W. (USA)
    Fichefet, Thierry (Belgium)
    Flato, Gregory (Canada)
    Forster, Piers (UK)
    Friedlingstein, Pierre (France) (Belgium)
    Fujii, Yoshiyuki (Japan)
    Fyfe, John (Canada)
    Gao, Xuejie (China)
    Gaye, Amadou T. (Senegal)
    Gillett, Nathan P. (UK)
    Gregory, Jonathan M. (UK)
    Gulev, Sergey (Russian Federation)
    Hanawa, Kimio (Japan)
    Hauglustaine, Didier (France)
    Haywood, James (UK)
    Hegerl, Gabriele C. (USA) (Germany)
    Heinze, Christoph (Norway) (Germany)
    Held, Isaac (USA)
    Hewitson, Bruce (South Africa)
    Holland, Elisabeth (USA)
    Jacob, Daniel (USA) (France)
    Jansen, Eystein (Norway)
    Jones, Philip D. (UK)
    Jones, Richard (UK)
    Joos, Fortunat (Switzerland)
    Kaser, Georg (Austria) (Italy)
    Kattsov, Vladimir (Russian Federation)
    Kitoh, Akio (Japan)
    Knutti, Reto (Switzerland)
    Kolli, Rupa Kumar (India)
    Kwon, Won-Tae (Republic of Korea)
    Laprise, Rene (Canada)
    Lean, Judith (USA)
    Lemke, Peter (Germany)
    Levitus, Sydney (USA)
    Lohmann, Ulrike (Switzerland)
    Lowe, David C. (New Zealand)
    Luo, Yong (China)
    Masson-Delmotte, Valerie (France)
    Mauritzen, Cecilie (Norway)
    Mearns, Linda (USA)
    Meehl, Gerald A. (USA)
    Menendez, Claudio Guillermo (Argentina)
    Mokssit, Abdalah (Morocco)
    Mote, Philip (USA)
    Murphy, James M. (UK)
    Myhre, Gunnar (Norway)
    Nganga, John (Kenya)
    Nicholls, Neville (Australia)
    Noda, Akira (Japan)
    Nojiri, Yukihiro (Japan)
    Olago, Daniel (Kenya)
    Orsini, Jose A. Marengo (Brazil) (Peru)
    Otto-Bliesner, Bette (USA)
    Overpeck, Jonathan (USA)
    Parker, David (UK)
    Peltier, W. Richard (Canada)
    Penner, Joyce E. (USA)
    Peterson, Thomas (USA)
    Pitman, Andrew (Australia)
    Prather, Michael (USA)
    Prinn, Ronald (USA) (New Zealand)
    Quere, Corrine Le (UK) (France) (Canada)
    Raga, Graciela (Mexico) (Argentina)
    Rahimzadeh, Fatemeh (Iran)
    Rahmstorf, Stefan (Germany)
    Raisanen, Jouni (Finland)
    Ramachandran, Srikanthan (India)
    Ramaswamy, Venkatachalam (USA)
    Ramesh, Rengaswamy (India)
    Randall, David A. (USA)
    Raper, Sarah C.B. (UK)
    Raynaud, Dominique (France)
    Ren, Jiawen (China)
    Renwick, James A. (New Zealand)
    Rind, David (USA)
    Rinke, Annette (Germany)
    Rueda, Victor Magana (Mexico)
    Rusticucci, Matilde (Argentina)
    Sarr, Abdoulaye (Senegal)
    Schulz, Michael (France) (Germany)
    Shukla, Jagadish (USA)
    Shum, C.K. (USA)
    Soden, Brian (USA)
    Solomina, Olga (Russian Federation)
    Somerville, Richard (USA)
    Srinivasan, Jayaraman (India)
    Stocker, Thomas F. (Switzerland)
    Stott, Peter A. (UK)
    Stouffer, Ronald J. (USA)
    Sumi, Akimasa (Japan)
    Talley, Lynne D. (USA)
    Tank, Albert Klein (Netherlands)
    Taylor, Karl E. (USA)
    Thomas, Robert H. (USA) (Chile)
    Trenberth, Kevin E. (USA)
    Treut, Herve Le (France)
    Unnikrishnan, Alakkat S. (India)
    Villalba, Ricardo (Argentina)
    Watterson, Ian G. (Australia)
    Weaver, Andrew J. (Canada)
    Whetton, Penny (Australia)
    Willebrand, Jurgen (Germany)
    Wofsy, Steven C. (USA)
    Wood, Richard A. (UK)
    Zhai, Panmao (China)
    Zhang, De.er (China)
    Zhang, Tingjun (USA) (China)
    Zhang, Xiaoye (China)
    Zhao, Zong-Ci (China)
    Zwiers, Francis W. (Canada)

    There are 29 people on the list with no other affiliation than US

    Alley, Richard B. (USA)
    Collins, William D. (USA)
    Dickinson, Robert E. (USA)
    Easterling, David (USA)
    Fahey, David W. (USA)
    Held, Isaac (USA)
    Holland, Elisabeth (USA)
    Lean, Judith (USA)
    Levitus, Sydney (USA)
    Mearns, Linda (USA)
    Meehl, Gerald A. (USA)
    Mote, Philip (USA)
    Otto-Bliesner, Bette (USA)
    Overpeck, Jonathan (USA)
    Penner, Joyce E. (USA)
    Peterson, Thomas (USA)
    Prather, Michael (USA)
    Ramaswamy, Venkatachalam (USA)
    Randall, David A. (USA)
    Rind, David (USA)
    Shukla, Jagadish (USA)
    Shum, C.K. (USA)
    Soden, Brian (USA)
    Somerville, Richard (USA)
    Stouffer, Ronald J. (USA)
    Talley, Lynne D. (USA)
    Taylor, Karl E. (USA)
    Trenberth, Kevin E. (USA)
    Wofsy, Steven C. (USA)

    There are 22 Coordinating Lead Authors:

    Bindoff, Nathaniel L. (Australia)
    Brasseur, Guy (USA) (Germany)
    Christensen, Jens Hesselbjerg (Denmark)
    Denman, Kenneth L. (Canada)
    Forster, Piers (UK)
    Hegerl, Gabriele C. (USA) (Germany)
    Hewitson, Bruce (South Africa)
    Jansen, Eystein (Norway)
    Jones, Philip D. (UK)
    JĂźWillebrand, JĂźWillebrand (Germany)
    Lemke, Peter (Germany)
    Meehl, Gerald A. (USA)
    Overpeck, Jonathan (USA)
    Ramaswamy, Venkatachalam (USA)
    Randall, David A. (USA)
    Ren, Jiawen (China)
    Somerville, Richard (USA)
    Stocker, Thomas F. (Switzerland)
    Trenberth, Kevin E. (USA)
    Treut, Herve Le (France)
    Wood, Richard A. (UK)
    Zwiers, Francis W. (Canada)

    6 of them have no other affiliation than US

    Meehl, Gerald A. (USA)
    Overpeck, Jonathan (USA)
    Ramaswamy, Venkatachalam (USA)
    Randall, David A. (USA)
    Somerville, Richard (USA)
    Trenberth, Kevin E. (USA)

  56. TomC says:

    In case anyone hasn’t figured it out by now, FOIA does not apply to Leftist organizations, Leftist Administrations, or even Leftist Universities – no matter how much they’re subsidized by the taxpayer.

  57. Jim Cripwell says:

    Here in Ottawa, Canada, I have written to my Member of Parliament, David McGuinty, asking him to find out whether there are any Canadian government employees who are in receipt of the secret letter. If there are, I have asked him to demand that they reveal the contents of the letter immediately. I am not holding my breath.

  58. eyesonu says:

    Ally E. says:
    August 3, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    Judging by the number of off topic approaches in so short a time, this seems a discussion some are desperate to stop us having! :)
    =========================

    I think you are right.

  59. G. Karst says:

    If any thing must remain hidden… Can that thing ever be good? GK

  60. David, UK says:

    Glacierman says:
    August 3, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    If your job was to “present the current, best understanding of the science regarding climate change”, why would you be worried about secrecy? Why would transparency hurt working relationships with scientists who are asked to do this? Maybe things are not as publicly stated?

    You only just figured this out? What do you think everyone’s been talking about since (and even before) Climategate? Sheesh!

  61. David Ball says:

    Shouldn’t be difficult to find the letter. It will be filed under “Systemic Bias for Dummies” or “How to Eff Up the World’s Economies”.

  62. eyesonu says:

    What has the world come to? The Internet has screwed everything up. In the past it could have been written in invisible ink. Now it’s so complicated to hide everything.

    A return to the days of cloak and dagger and secret micro-film is in order. Damn the Internet and he who invented it!

  63. Gary Pearse says:

    “…still secret letter to all WG4 Lead Authors, Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors…”

    With a crowd like that I would have given it a week or two at the outside to be kept secret if they were ordinary folk; maybe a month or two if they were a cadre of bank robbers; maybe a year or two if they were murder co-conspirators, a spy agency, secret police or mafiosi. I think we are going to know really soon.

  64. Axel says:

    Pat Boon Said it in 1956
    “You made a vow that you would ever be true
    But somehow that vow meant nothing to you”

  65. HankHenry says:

    Wow, almost an edict. What place do edicts have in the scientific community? Edicts imply authority and authority implies something political. If you want me to believe in global warming just demonstrate to me that models actually work and don’t try to make me acquiesce by lording it over on me.

  66. Berényi Péter says:

    Jim Cripwell says:
    August 4, 2012 at 5:53 am

    Here in Ottawa, Canada, I have written to my Member of Parliament, David McGuinty, asking him to find out whether there are any Canadian government employees who are in receipt of the secret letter. If there are, I have asked him to demand that they reveal the contents of the letter immediately. I am not holding my breath.

    Why, let Mr. David McGuinty know Dr. Kenneth L. Denman was a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) WG1 AR4 titled “Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry”, and as such, was certainly among the recipients of said secret mail.

    He is a Senior Scientist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), which, in spite of its cryptic name, is a Ministry branch, really. And they have a rather strict transparency code.

    If nothing else, Mr. David McGuinty could send an inquiery on the issue directly to the Honourable Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway. Or you could do that, couldn’t you?

    (What a title! “Minister for the Atlantic Gateway” – I simply gotta love that)

  67. David Holland

    Kudos to you. There must be months perhaps even years when you feel disheartened and very alone, wondering if you are wasting your time… why can’t or don’t other scientists speak up… thinking about all those exciting films about things like this, but how time-consuming and even boring it is to actually be involved… etc.

  68. Bill Tuttle says:

    G. Karst says:
    August 4, 2012 at 6:21 am
    If any thing must remain hidden… Can that thing ever be good? GK

    There are some things that Man was never meant to know.

    Especially if it involves a scam of global magnitude…

  69. Tim Minchin says:

    Simple Ultimatum – reveal ALL workings, emails etc Or we just don’t beleive you and nor do we have to.

  70. jimash1 says:

    At first I was thinking ” Isn’t there someone here who could “find” a copy of this letter “?
    And then it occurred to me. Trap.

  71. dynamicdiscord says:

    “There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry … There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.” – J Robert Oppenheimer

  72. LazyTeenager says:

    All of this over a letter that no one has seen?

    Careful reading of this article points to the conclusion that it’s just a sky hook to hang a whole bunch of over inflated interpretations made to suit the tired old agenda of making action on CO2 emissions go away by discrediting climate science. Yawn.

  73. mycroft says:

    Lazy Teenager
    All of this over a letter that no one has seen?

    Careful reading of this article points to the conclusion that it’s just a sky hook to hang a whole bunch of over inflated interpretations made to suit the tired old agenda of making action on CO2 emissions go away by discrediting climate science. Yawn.

    Yes, off to beddy byes for you.Let the adults talk amongst ourselves
    PS… As for trying to discredit climate science…..doing fine all by its self thanks…sweet dreams

  74. Entropic man says:

    This transparancy is an excellent idea. What are my chances of getting an informative reply if I send WUWT a letter asking embarassing questions?

    [Reply: Just as soon as your tax money goes to fund WUWT, you will have the right to complain. ~dbs, mod.]

  75. Gunga Din says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    August 4, 2012 at 11:34 pm
    All of this over a letter that no one has seen?

    Careful reading of this article points to the conclusion that it’s just a sky hook to hang a whole bunch of over inflated interpretations made to suit the tired old agenda of making action on CO2 emissions go away by discrediting climate science. Yawn.

    =======================================================================
    The solution is simple. Release the letter. If there’s nothing to hide, why hide it?

  76. Gunga Din says:

    Entropic man says:
    August 5, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    This transparancy is an excellent idea. What are my chances of getting an informative reply if I send WUWT a letter asking embarassing questions?

    =========================================================================
    What do you think might be embarassing in this letter that was sent to so many people?

  77. Entropic man says:

    Entropic man says:
    August 5, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    This transparancy is an excellent idea. What are my chances of getting an informative reply if I send WUWT a letter asking embarassing questions?

    [Reply: Just as soon as your tax money goes to fund WUWT, you will have the right to complain. ~dbs, mod.]
    ———————————————-
    If I sent a donation along with the letter, would I then get a reply?

    [Reply: Maybe. Give it a try. The bigger the donation the liklier the reply.☺ ~dbs, mod.]

  78. Entropic man says:

    Payment for information? Is that legal?

    On this subject, I was researching Intelliweather Inc.
    Dun and Bradstreet have the company name listed, but a glitch on their site says that they have no information on “Intelliweather%20Inc”. Could you let me know the company’s D-U-N-S Number for clarification.

Comments are closed.