Good point, Toby! Maybe we should move this discussion to a specialist blog? One targeted at people who understand and care about the IPCC process and the science behind it. Maybe … uhm … climateaudit.org?

The flaw in this argument is that it ‘proves too much’. If sending a draft out to a non-reviewer to review is just asking for “advice” and getting comments back which may have been incorporated into the final text is the same as incorporating an unsolicited correction from a scientis at conference, what exactly, in your interpretation, does the rule prevent?

Edify – To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement.

I think it’s pretty difficult to ignore that the whole discussion is aimed at encouraging intellectual improvement.

“The public do not understand and do not care about obscure e-mails from long ago.”

The public doesn’t understand or care about much of science – they tend to leave it to the integrity of scientists and the scientific method, and don’t loose sleep over either the process or results. Luckily, importance is not determined by “the public”.

You are entitled to your own opinion but it’s clear that you haven’t been following this whole saga from the start as many others who visit here (including myself) have been doing almost from the start.

May I suggest you purchase and read Andrew Montford’s book ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ and you’ll then understand why what is being discussed here is far from a ‘sideshow’ and why the CRU email’s are far from ‘obscure’.

Have you actually read any of CRU emails?