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)
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.
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?”
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:
This is in the nature of a test case. Its lawyers recently stated UEA’s position as
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
If any thing must remain hidden… Can that thing ever be good? GK
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!
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”.
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!
“…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.
Pat Boon Said it in 1956
“You made a vow that you would ever be true
But somehow that vow meant nothing to you”
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.
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)
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.
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…
Simple Ultimatum – reveal ALL workings, emails etc Or we just don’t beleive you and nor do we have to.
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.
“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
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.
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
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.]
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?