Comments on: The IPCC Doctrine of Implicit Confidentiality

By: tallbloke

tallbloke — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:36:11 +0000

Doesn’t look like CRU will be getting any more from the MET anyway:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/1298/met_office_and_leading_uk_universities_launch_academic_partnership

By: Chris E

Chris E — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:45:16 +0000

Neither you nor I nor anyone else alone will ever understand the complexities of the global climate and economic systems well enough to make good policy; policymakers are forced to rely on expert opinion (i.e. arguing from authority). If those experts are not above reproach in their professional conduct, no good can come of it. At times this website does have a slight smell of witch-hunt about it, but in the absence of any effective official gategeepers for scientific professionalism then CA does perform a much-needed role.

Like any science, the field of ‘climate-change’ is built brick-by-brick from from the bottom. There’s no doubt that Phil Jones represents a very large brick in the foundations of the field, and so intense scrutiny of his work is justified. For Dr Jones to resist this scrutiny in unavoidably suspicious. That said, academic politics and grant-chasing is a dirty business, and I’d imagine it would be fairly easy for an innocent up-and-coming academic to progressively dig themselves into a deeper and deeper hole. All the more reason for maximum public exposure, as a salutory lesson for the next generation of science workers.

By: tallbloke

tallbloke — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:34:08 +0000

‘Scuse me for butting in, the Royal Society has opened it’s digital archive is till open for tonight and tomorrow only. free downloads for all. I just found a bunch of interesting dendro and solar stuff from 1990. You can search by author too.

Have at it!

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org

Cheers!

By: sleeper

sleeper — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:35:09 +0000

Re: Steven Mosher (Nov 28 20:41), The local pride probably kept vanity among the apes in check.

By: jorge kafkazar

jorge kafkazar — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:09:20 +0000

We’ve not reached Act V, Scene 3, yet, Ian.

By: Ed Waage

Ed Waage — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:18:33 +0000

Here is the draft AR4 Synthesis Report
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session27/closed/inf1.pdf
where the statement is made on each page of comments submitted by national governments: “Comments from Governments and Organizations – Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote”

It is relevant that these comments are now available after the publication of the final document. Applying the same logic to the working group review comments, they should now be available for public inspection as well after publication of the final report.

In addition, the InterAcademy Council review of the IPCC has a confidentiality statement in it on page vii:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf
where it states: “The review procedure and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.”

However, it too is now available for perusal after final publication.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:36:50 +0000

IPCC omerta (using this precise term) was mentioned at klimazweibel here about 10 days ago.

By: mpaul

mpaul — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:59:10 +0000

The ‘omerta’ explanation makes sense. Recall that just prior to the release of the climategate emails, a group of us requested copies of the alleged “Confidentiality Agreements” that CRU claimed existed between CRU and the data publishers. CRU argued that they did not actually have any such written agreements, rather they were relying on (what amounts to) a secret and unwritten oath not to release the data. Omerta indeed!

But I don’t see an omerta exemption in the FOI Act. It seems to me that such an exemption would be useful in denying all FOI requests.

By: bill

bill — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:55:26 +0000

Yes the cost of the inquiries, the cost of handling the FOI requests, indeed, all issues. But you want to talk about cost, just suppose, for the sake of argument, that UEA’s science was not right, but public policy was built on it: and consider what the costs of that public policy might have turned out to have been. Little costs today, bad; massive costs tomorrow, worse.

By: Mac

Mac — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:06:16 +0000

It is the exposure of such behaviour that discredits CRU, UEA, Russell, Oxburgh and the IPCC. That is the key point in this debate. The science falls when the credibility of the scientists have been shredded by their own deeds.

Remember, skeptics don’t have to make arguments when they can simply point to the behaviour of those such as Phil Jones.