Comments on: Cunning IPCC Bureaucrats

By: Solomon’s “Divergence” Problem | Another Newyork Times

Solomon’s “Divergence” Problem | Another Newyork Times — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:39:39 +0000

[...] efforts to obtain review comments earlier in 2007 had been rebuffed. In May 2007, they told me (see CA post here on May 27, 2007) that I could attend at a library at Harvard University during restricted hours. [...]

By: Solomon’s “Divergence” Problem « Climate Audit

Solomon’s “Divergence” Problem « Climate Audit — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:50:45 +0000

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:25:12 +0000

I can understand that there are valid arguments why advice should be confidential. Legal advice is confidential. If IPCC policy ex ante was that review comments should be confidential, as their member-states had decided that this was the best way of ensuring a full and frank exchange of views, that would be one thing.

But the member-states explicitly passed a policy saying that there should be a “transparent and open” review process. It’s ridiculous for Manning to claim that confidentiality equals “transparent and open”. It’s straight out of George Orwell.

By: S. Hales

S. Hales — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:25:10 +0000

#225 Having a free and frank discussion is what motivates many such government bodies to keep ‘sausage making’ behing closed doors. The US Fed Board of Governor’s Open Market Committee minutes come to mind in the more distant past. The OMC minutes being published in recent years in a more timely manner does not seem to have encouraged selective quoting, etc., and does not seem to have stifled debate among committee members. What it has done is given us a glimpse at the degree of agreement/disagreement on the future course of policy and whether the chairman is strong or weak. Mr. Manning should take note. If the FED can stand the heat of intense scruitny and still defend its decisions then a bunch of college professors can stand a little of the same or is climate science more nuanced?

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:52:58 +0000

There was a famous saying from the Viet Nam War: “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it.” Martin Manning would have fitted in nicely.

By: John A

John A — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:28:34 +0000

Martin Manning:

We would not be promoting a transparent and open process, nor would we be acting responsibly to our authors and many expert reviewers, if there were no restraint on others selectively editing and redistributing review materials. As the comment files are made available to anyone on request, such a restraint in no way prevents others from retrospective consideration of the report drafting and review process, but rather, to the best of our ability, encourages them to take proper account of all relevant material.

Did I miss a nuance or did Martin Manning basically say that in order to have a transparent and open process, the review materials must be under permanent embargo?

This is the logic of Wonderland.

By: Armand MacMurray

Armand MacMurray — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:32:40 +0000

That’s true. What I was getting at with the email addresses is that those email accounts belong to NOAA. I know that in Washington state, every email sent/received by accounts owned by state government institutions is subject to public disclosure; I would hope noaa.gov accounts are treated similarly wrt the FOI act. Anyway, that’s my approach to this — we’ll see if it bears any fruit.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:08:19 +0000

At this poster http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_Poster.pdf Manning is identifed as IPCC TSU, but Solomon is identified as NOAA. Even if Martin Manning is found to be off balance sheet, I don’t see how Susan Solomon can. There are other NOAA employees as well .

By: Armand MacMurray

Armand MacMurray — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:17:44 +0000

Re:#220
Martin Manning says

…I am not employed by NOAA, but by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) which administers the Working Group I TSU in Boulder, Colorado,…

However, his email address (listed at http://www.joss.ucar.edu/Staff/Offsitestaff.html ) is a @noaa.gov address (as is the WGI TSU email address listed at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_org.html#TSU ), so I would expect both to fall under NOAA FOI purview.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:08:55 +0000

Manning says:

Finally, may I clarify an apparent misunderstanding. I am not employed by NOAA, but by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) which administers the Working Group I TSU in Boulder, Colorado, just as it did the previous US based WG II TSU during the third IPCC assessment round.

The role of UCAR deserves a little airing. It’s a “private” corporation whose main source of revenue is an administrative markup for running NCAR. UCAR is not subject to FOI as far as I know. So it can fund IPCC activities using federal funds without IPCC financing turning up as a line item in anyone’s budget. It’s the climate equivalent of “off balance sheet” financing. Enron isn’t the only organization that knows about keeping things off the balance sheet.

MAnning’s email to me saying that he is not a NOAA employee came from the following email address mmanning at al.noaa.gov . Why would he have a NOAA email address if he is not a NOAA employee?