Prof David Karoly, now at Melbourne University, had this email exchange a few weeks back:

Hi Geoff,

There were no significant differences of opinion between the Review Editors for Chapter 9 and the Lead Authors of that chapter, so there is no annex to the report for chapter 9.

The Review Editors agreed that the chapter provided a thorough assessment of the peer-reviewed literature relevant to the chapter.

Best wishes, David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof David Karoly
School of Earth Sciences
University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA
ph: +61 3 8344 4698
fax: +61 3 8344 7761
email: dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

——————————————————————————–
From: Geoff Sherrington
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 15:41:13 +1100
To: David Karoly
Subject: Re: IPCC paperwork

Hi David,

So re the IPCC section that reads -

“Although responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors, Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report.” (my emphasis)

Were there such differences, is there an annex to the report and if so, where is it to be found?

We ordinary folk cannot navigate the IPCC paths so well as you participants.

regards Geoff S.

—– Original Message —–

From: David Karoly

To: Geoff Sherrington

Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 1:54 PM

Subject: Re: IPCC paperwork

Hi,

Thank you for your interest in the IPCC process. The document that you have attached is the final approval document confirming that I considered that the author team for Chapt 9 of WGI of the IPCC AR4 afforded appropriate consideration of all review comments on multiple reviews of their chapter.

There were numerous other communications, including working papers, drafts and email messages (that are not publicly available) leading to the final approved chapter and detailed responses to the review comments, which are also available.

Best wishes, David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof David Karoly
School of Earth Sciences
University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA
ph: +61 3 8344 4698
fax: +61 3 8344 7761
email: dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

——————————————————————————–
From: Geoff Sherrington
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:16:13 +1100
To:
Subject: IPCC paperwork

A dreary subject, but in your participation with the IPCC did you submit any working papers, clarifications, work that was to be completed then forwarded, etc, or is the attached the sole document and commentary that you used to attest to your satisfaction with Chapter 9 of the 4th Assessment Report?

This seems a rote report, essentially similar to some 60 others I have seen, but markedly different to a handful where substantial comments were appended for action. Is that how consensus was achieved?

Regards

Geoff Sherrington
Scientist.

p.s

I ask because of IPCC rules that say in part (these from WG2 directions)-

Although responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors, Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report.

Review Editors must submit a written report to the Working Group Sessions or the Panel and where appropriate, will be requested to attend Sessions of the Working Group and of the IPCC to communicate their findings from the review process and to assist in finalising the Summary for Policymakers, Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports and Synthesis Reports.

Is the assertion of unavailability in

numerous other communications, including working papers, drafts and email messages (that are not publicly available)

applicable to the public, or are the papers open to certain other IPCC authors?

‘The hockey stick is alive and well and still beating up sceptics’.

So says Christopher Conder, the man from the Ministry, replying to my letter to the Rt Hon Hillary Benn, the British Cabinet Minister responsible for Climate Change Policy. He also said,

‘I can confirm that I am replying in my official capacity as a Defra official and as such represent the views of the Government. You are of course free to quote my response in any publication.’

When I had got hold of the Review Editors’ reports, I had written to Hilary Benn at DEFRA to ask if “any Minister or official of HMG has studied the working papers of the latest IPCC, 2007 Working Group I (WGI) assessment reports?”

I have put my original letter to Mr Benn and the reply, just received from Christopher Conder here so you can judge the level of the discussion we have to deal with in the UK. Once again the ‘hockey stick’ doesn’t matter but its ‘still valid anyway’.
For completeness I have also put up an earlier letter from another Minister at DEFRA, Phil Woolas, which is referred to in the other letters. Phil Woolas had written to my MP who had sent him a copy of my Energy and Environment paper ‘Bias and Concealment’. Two points to note in his letter. One is how he justifies the Briffa deletions and the other is the justification for the IPCC’s refusal to enforce disclosure of data that its studies rely upon and which Steve had asked for.

The results were spectacularly successful. So, although there are bound to be problems in the operation of larger CO2 scheme, the US and Canadian experience with S02 proves that they aren’t insurmountable.

Following on from what you say, he is still trying to defend the press release at RC. I seem to remember that when Stainforth was interviewed as part of GGWS he took a far more diplomatic line, admitting that lesson’s should be learned form this fiasco.

Is having someone who is prepared to defend the indefensible, and apparently incapable of admitting to a mistake, the wrong person to have as Review Editor on Chapter 10, or the the perfect person?

Apart from the IPCC reports, there seems to be an entire industry of publishing papers about the “potential” adverse effects of AGW

And all a waste of time. Yes to …

more time understanding climate and all the various subtle phenomena that drive it

The cover page of WGI, Chapter 10 lists Myles Allen (UK) as a Review Editor and James Murphy (UK) as a Lead Author. The climateprediction.net website shows Dr. Myles Allen of Oxford University as ‘Principal Investigator’ and Dr. James Murphy of the Met Office-Hadley Centre as a member of the project team. Dr. Allen reviewed a chapter that was co-authored by a member of the team that he headed.

kinda like this