Comments on: UEA: IPCC Requires Secrecy, Not Openness

By: oneuniverse

oneuniverse — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:24:27 +0000

Thanks Steve. I agree my comment was OT, as was TFP’s (both referring to Keenan’s success at QUB). However, given that TFP’s comment appears to have passed moderation (it’s still up, and had been up for over 40hrs at the time), I expected that valid critical replies on-topic to that comment (as I believe mine was) would pass moderation as well. I’ll try to be more discerning in the future.

Steve: I prefer that readers do not rise to bait, even if the bait is not moderated.

By: oneuniverse

oneuniverse — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:03:08 +0000

Moderators –
I’d appreciate the courtesy of dropping me an email or note, however brief, to let me know why my reply to TFP was deleted – my reply seemed reasonable and on-topic to me, I quoted Keenan in the Belfast Telegraph explaining his motivation for requesting the data from QUB.

Steve: Keenan and Belfast was OT to this thread. No need to rise to bait,

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:35:15 +0000

Eduardo Zorita here says that he doesn't know anything about the alleged "guidance" document.

By: j ferguson

j ferguson — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:16:20 +0000

That they feel they need privacy for their discussions suggests that they don’t see their charge as describing the science, but instead PR, propaganda, or outright advocacy.

Those do have to be contrived in private.

By: TAG

TAG — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:11:07 +0000

snip – overeditorializing and venting

By: Steven Mosher

Steven Mosher — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:39:16 +0000

Re: Shub Niggurath (Nov 26 07:01), yes that is a fascinating mail. there are a couple reasons for putting him on it. At the time some were worried that he was in the Bush camp. very odd mail

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:03:25 +0000

Sorry, I should have typed “IPCC-stated”, not that the IPCC had stated that rules were subverted. I meant that their rules were subverted.

By: thefordprefect

thefordprefect — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:08:58 +0000

How is the analysis of that eagerly awaited tree ring data going?

By: Steven Mosher

Steven Mosher — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:33:47 +0000

Re: fredb (Nov 26 05:16),

You might think that, but those are just thoughts not arguments.
Let’s call the IPCC document what it is. A review of the science.
It is not science. There is no need and no benefit derived from
chapter authors communicating privately. Whatever they discuss they
can discuss at open meetings of all chapter authors. Having worked on large
documents myself I can testify that these open meetings yeild better results
than people working in isolation. There is no empirical argument that
working with private communication is better, no moral argument that it is superior, no argument whatsoever except the personal desire of those involved.

When working on a document of grave import we had one simple rule: AVO
avoid verbal orders. verbal communication, communication that was not subject to record keeping requirements,caused deaths. That is a fact which your thoughts to the contrary cannot change. when people are allowed to “thrash” things out
the result is more often than not dominated by personality rather than by reason.

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:22:05 +0000

You’re really dancing around the issue, IPCC stated rules were subverted. There are no two ways around it.

Steve: IPCC made no such statement. Fred Pearce used the word.