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.
Related articles
- 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)
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?
The letter also went to others around the world, including the U.S. So, there are other targets for FOI requests.
Hopefully someone will leak this “secret” letter, what do they have hide excepyt the truth?
I believe there was one Prof. in Montana part of the charade.
Change “because it will:” to “because:”
I’m assuming any British citizen can file a FOIA? My son-in-law just happens to be one. 🙂
Before a dam collapses there is seeping on the down stream side.
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.
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
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.
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?
Oops – crossed post with the good Mr McIntyre. Luckily I’m on message today 🙂
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.
I am sure it would be easy to FOIA this in the US. We were promised an open and transparent Government. //sarc off….
What could possibly persuade the IPCC to renege on its policy of transparency and hide a letter to lead authors?
Could history provide be any guide?
Or did Orwell better understand human nature subject to money and power?
[Snip. O/T. ~dbs, mod.]
“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.
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:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
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?
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?”
Wonder if Uva or pENN sTATE were included on this missive?
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?
“…the list of AR4 lead authors…”
The email was addressed to AR4 WG1 lead authors (& CLAs &c.), not all AR4 lead authors.
[Off topic. ~dbs, mod.]
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.]
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.