IPCC Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept!

Här kommer en fortsättning på beskrivningen hur IPCC:s arbete EGENTLIGEN GÅR till. Jag har redan tidigare konstaterat att det är ett mycket begränsat fåtal (Bara 5, säg 5 vetenskapsmän kommenterade alla 11 kapitlen) som de facto bestämmer vad som står i WG1 och ”Summary for Policymakers”. (The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!)

Nu visar det sig att ” Review Editors” systematiskt bryter mot IPCC: s egna regler som säger att ALLA KOMMENTERER skall bevaras i 5 år och att hela processen skall vara  ”open and transparent”.

Vilket vi redan vet är en lögn då man systematiskt förvägrar insyn och det är bara tack vara USA:s freedom of information act som vi har fått tillgång till delar av materialet som rör WG1 eftersom de är placerade i USA (tack för det USA!)

Nu visar det sig dessutom att de ansvariga ” Review Editors” systematiskt har förstört allt material (knappt innan ”bläcket” har hunnit torkat på den officiella rapporten AR4)! Eller så säger man sig INTE KUNNA HITTA korrespondens eller kommentarer.

Visst är det en tjusig och SANN vetenskaplig verksamhet som dessa politruker bedriver i vetenskapens namn!

Och på grund av dessa politiska manipulationer i ”vetenskapens namn” så skall alltså GIGANTISKA SUMMOR läggas ut på nonsensåtgärder som förstör ekonomin och välståndet i den industriella världen.

Och som sagt, den svenska regeringen vill gå i täten på detta sorglustiga spektakel och därmed verkligen garantera att det svenska folket får betala enorma summor för att göda skojeriet med handeln på utsläppsrätter.

Se även bl.a mina tidigare inlägg: The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?IPCC and its bias!Peer Review – What it actually means

Och

Green tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economyCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayDon’t bother with emissions trading law, the Chambers of Commerce tells MPsEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK -2!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!,  $ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!,  De ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3061

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence”

By Steve McIntyre

Last year, we noted the insolent and unresponsive answers by IPCC chapter 6 Lead Authors to Review Comments in connection with the Hockey Stick reconstructions. Under IPCC policies, Review Editors have important obligations to ensure responsiveness of Chapter Authors (see policies discussed here). The comments by Review Editors were not put online by IPCC, but, after some effort, David Holland managed to obtain the Review Comments for WG1 and WG2. While a few WG2 Review Editors made substantive comments, WG1 review editor comments proved to be a few-sentence form letter in all but one case (chapter 6 Review Editor Mitchell noting outstanding controversy in connection with the Hockey Stick.)

It seemed inconceivable that these form letters were the entire corpus of the Review Editor contributions, given their important obligations in the IPCC process. Holland accordingly pressed Mitchell for any supplementary information, reports pertaining to his duties as IPCC Review Editor. Even though IPCC policies state clearly that all comments will be retained for 5 years:

All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five years.

Mitchell replied that he had no kept ”any” working papers and that he was not required to do so.

For my own part, I have not kept any working papers. There is no requirement to do so, given the extensive documentation already available from IPCC.

In the modern day and age, it seemed inconceivable that Mitchell could have discharged his duties without any trace or ripple in the electronic pond and accordingly, on April 1, 2008, Holland submitted an FOI request asking for all emails to and from Dr Mitchell in his capacity as IPCC Review Editor, with a turn of phrase that unfortunately was construed as limiting the request to emails concerning the HS. Once again, he has been essentially stonewalled. Although Mitchell’s final terse Review Editor report referred to outstanding issues in connection with the HS, according to the Met Office, Mitchell either never corresponded with any IPCC chapter author or IPCC official about these misgivings during the course of the IPCC review process or subsequently destroyed the relevant correspondence.

Here is the form of David Holland’s FOI request:

I am therefore asking initially to see all emails to and from Dr Mitchell in connection with his work as an IPCC Review Editor.

To assist you in this matter I would suggest information that I am seeking would likely be found in correspondence between Dr Mitchell and the following individuals involved in the assessment: Drs Susan Solomon, Jean Jouzel, Eystein Jansen, Jonathan Overpeck, Keith R. Briffa, Jean-Claude Duplessy, Fortunat Joos, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Daniel Olago (Kenya), Bette Otto-Bliesner, W. Richard Peltier, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rengaswamy Ramesh, Dominique Raynaud, David Rind, Olga Solomina, Ricardo Villalba, De’er Zhang, and Timothy Osborn.

Relevant information may also be found in correspondence between Dr Mitchell and the IPCC Panel, DEFRA, CRU and the IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit.

The specific areas of context that I am interested in seeing include references to studies by Briffa; Mann Bradley and Hughes e.g. MBH98/99, the ”hockey stick”; Rutherford et al.; Wahl and Ammann; McIntyre and McKitrick e.g. M&M 2003, M&M 2005; NRC, 2006; Wegman et al., 2006. I am also interested in any discussion of Expert Reviewer’s Comments or the proposed or actual responses to them. I am particularly interested in any discussion of Expert Reviewers’ Comments from Susan Solomon, Ross McKitrick, Steve McIntyre and the Reviewer for the Government of the United States of America. I would obviously wish to see any drafts of text to be included or proposed to be included in the official drafts of Chapter 6.

On May 1, Holland received a reply in which his request was re-stated as follows:

the release of all documents concerning the IPCC assessment of this matter [Historic Temperature Reconstructions in IPCC 2007 Working Group I Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate] held by the Met Office.

Note that Holland‘s request was somewhat re-characterized by the respondent. This should be of note to any readers thinking of submitting FOI requests – officials may well re-characterize a FOI request; requesters should make their requests as concise and precise as possible and avoid editorializing in order to minimize any such adverse re-characterization.

The official then listed the following information as responsive to this re-characterized request:

”The Met Office holds information as requested and is listed below. One exemption has been applied S40 Personal Information. Personal email addresses have been removed.

1 Email from you to Dr Mitchell dated 31 January 2008

2 Email from you to Dr Mitchell dated 22 February 2008

3 Email from Dr Mitchell to Susan Solomon, K Briffa and others dated 14 March 2008

4 Email from Susan Solomon to Dr Mitchell dated 14 March 2008

5 Email from Jean Jouzel to Dr Mitchell dated 31 March 2008

6 Email from Keith Briffa to Dr Mitchell dated 1 April 2008; the attachment shown on the email is a letter from you, of which you will already have a copy.”

This is all the information held by Dr Mitchell, on behalf of the Met Office regarding all of your questions asked.

In other words, prior to Holland’s correspondence, and despite the concerns about the HS ultimately expressed in his terse final report as Review Editor, Mitchell had never once emailed or corresponded with any IPCC author or official about these misgivings. Amazing.

It’s interesting to re-read Mitchell’s letter of March 27, 2008 to David Holland (for some reason, not listed in the above correspondence) – this is the letter in which Mitchell said that he had kept ”no working papers”.

”Dear Mr Holland,

Thank you for your letter of 22 February 2008. I apologise again for the delay in replying, I have been away from my office much of the intervening time and also, in view of the width of your questions, I have also consulted IPCC.

You raise two main points in your letter.

Your first question concerns the grounds for one of the citations in chapter 6 of the Working Group I Report. The IPCC process assesses the published scientific and technical literature, and in some cases ‘gray literature’, based on the judgement of the authors. Gray literature is used very seldom in Working Group I (but more frequently in Working Group III, for example in the form of technical reports from industry). Unpublished draft papers or technical reports referenced in chapters are made available to the reviewers for the purpose of review. This does not include the underlying datasets used as IPCC has neither the mandate nor the resources to operate for a clearing house for the massive amounts of data used in the referenced papers. Note IPCC’s role does not include the governance of research, or the requirements of scientific literature.

Your second question concerns the conduct of review editors. You should note that the review editors do not determine the final content of the chapters. It is the authors that are responsible for the content of their chapters and responding to comments, not the review editors. All of the comments and all of the authors’ responses have been made available, and are the proper source for anyone wishing to understand what comments were made and how the authors dealt with them. It would be inappropriate to provide more information beyond the web pages already freely provided.

For my own part, I have not kept any working papers. There is no requirement to do so, given the extensive documentation already available from IPCC. The crux of the review editors’ work is carried out at the lead authors meetings going through the chapters comment by comment with the lead authors.

I hope this answers your two main concerns.

John Mitchell”

As noted before, the destruction of working papers is at odds with IPCC policies requiring that all ”written expert, and government review comments” be retained for 5 years, a policy that would include Mitchell’s comments as Review Editor.

After receiving Holland’s request on Feb 22, 2008, Mitchell wrote to Susan Solomon noting that Holland had ”links Stephen McIntyre and his Climate Audint website” and suggesting that it would be more appropriate for a response to come from IPCC.

On March 14, Solomon advised Mitchell as follows (and her language is then incorporated almost verbatim into the Mitchell letter.)

”I feel that the most appropriate response will be from you since you have been queried.

I will offer the following points that may be useful to your or others in replying to the queries that you or other REs may have received but of course it ius up to you how you wish to proceed.

The IPCC process assesses the published scientific and technical literature, or in some cases ‘gray literature’, based on the judgement of the authors. In general, gray literature is used very seldom in Working Group I although such material as industry technical reports are used more frequently in WGr3. Unpublished draft papers or technical reports referenced in chapters are made available to the reviewers for the purpose of review, but not the underlying datasets used. IPCC does not have the mandate nor resources to operate as a clearing house for the massive amounts of data used in the referenced papers. The governance of research and requirements of the scientific literature are not IPCC’s role.

The review editors do not determine the content of the chapters. The authors are responsible for the content of their chapters and responding to comments, not REs. Further explanations, elaboration or re-interpretation of the comments or the author responses would not be appropriate. All of the comments and all of the authors responses have been made available. These are the proper source for anyone seeking to understand what comments were made and how the authors dealt with them and it would be inappropriate to provide more information beyond the references to the web pages where this can be found.”

One important sentence in Solomon’s letter that was not directly incorporated in Mitchell’s rely was the following:

”Further explanations, elaboration or re-interpretation of the comments or the author responses would not be appropriate.”

Mitchell dealt with this by saying that he had not kept any documentation.

”For my own part, I have not kept any working papers. There is no requirement to do so, given the extensive documentation already available from IPCC.”

The IPCC Review Process is supposed to be ”open and transparent”. The ink is barely dry on AR4. And yet here we have the unedifying spectacle of public officials ”not keeping” any working papers and claiming to be unable to locate any relevant correspondence.

 

Etiketter: ,

9 svar to “IPCC Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept!”

  1. Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] även några av mina inlägg om IPCC: IPCC Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept!,  The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!,  The Unscientific way of IPCC:s […]

  2. Peer Review – What it actually means 2 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] IPCC Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept!, […]

  3. Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’ « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] IPCC Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept! […]

  4. Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] IPCC Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept! […]

  5. The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] IPCC Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept! […]

  6. Rajendra Pachauri, The head of IPCC endorses and defends India’s aggressive coal plant building! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series,  IPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are ke…,  The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!,  The Unscientific way of IPCC:s […]

  7. The IPCC must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!,  IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!, IPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are ke…,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  IPCC and its bias!,  Peer Review – What […]

  8. There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future. « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series,  IPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are ke…,  The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!,  The Unscientific way of IPCC:s […]

  9. Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 291 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] IPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are kept! […]

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Google-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: