Copies of non-published literature cited in the First Order Draft are accessible during the review through the use of the software LockLizard. The procedure is the same for all reviewers and we cannot make exceptions. Please note that LockLizard may be viewed via Virtual PC on the Linux operating system.

and am looking to host the other chapters. If you have copies and will share, please click on that link and write me.

However, I think you rather undersell the point that the language the IPCC adopted “arguably was even antithetical to their [the IAC's] reiterated support for openness and transparency”.

The language Stocker got the IPCC to approve flatly contradicts the IAC observation that “it is essential that the processes and procedures used to produce assessment reports be as transparent as possible” and its statement that its investigations “revealed a lack of transparency in several stages of the IPCC assessment process, including …in the selection of scientific and technical information considered in the chapters”.

Transparency in the selection of information considered in the chapters could only be assured by publishing the comments that lead to these selections. They are now not going to do this, or at least not when it would be useful, i.e. before the final selections are made.

The Stocker phrase of “pre-decisional” is also worth considering. The entire process of developing an IPCC report – including all the “stages” mentioned by the IAC – is “pre-decisional”, since only the final report represents the final decision.

Like David Silva and others, I am not quite sure what the ideal level of disclosure might be at various stages of developing the report. But it is quite clear what the IAC wanted – publication of reviewer comments so that anyone could see (though not necessarily contribute to) the development of the report as it happened. Instead the IPCC now has a policy that is less transparent than that which the IAC said was not nearly transparent enough.

In accordance with the IPCC Procedures, copies of any non-published or not publicly available literature that is cited in the FOD is held at the WGI TSU and will be provided to Expert Reviewers upon request during the review period. An online form has been developed for this purpose and it can be accessed via the FOD Review website.

I filled in the form to request three papers on Monday. I was sent three unreadable files with the following information:

For security reasons, the attached copy is an encrypted version of a pdf. The copy can be viewed by a software (LockLizard) which is provided free of charge and is simple and quick to download. Below you will find instructions on how to download the software, register the license, and view the protected file. Please note that you must be online to open the document for the first time. Subsequent viewing does not require you to be online.

I immediately wrote back to the IPCC saying that since the software was only provided for PC and Mac, it would not work on my Linux PC, and asking them to provide access to the pdfs through their website in the same way as the FOD files.

Have a look at the LockLizard website. It features a cartoon of a policeman chasing after a sinister miscreant (tallbloke?) with a confidential document. Clearly an appropriate piece of software for research papers in climate science and the “open and transparent” IPCC.

Section 4.2, last par., reads as follows: “The drafts of IPCC Reports and Technical Papers which have been submitted for formal expert and/or government review, the expert and government review comments, and the author responses to those comments will be made available on the IPCC website as soon as possible after the acceptance by the Panel and the finalisation of the report. The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation. “

Please note that these Procedures have been adopted by consensus by member governments of the IPCC, which is a United Nations body not subjected to any national legislation.”
………………………
Clause 4.1 of this document outlines how you get to be selected onto this secretive team. If you appreciate Sir Humphrey talk, here it is. Note the confusion of “evidence” with “views”.

“Participants should be selected by the relevant respective Working Group Bureau / Task Force Bureau and, in case of the Synthesis Report, by the IPCC Chair in consultation with the Working Group Co-Chairs. In selecting Scoping Meeting participants, consideration should be given to the following criteria: scientific, technical and socio-economic expertise, including the range of views; geographical representation; a mixture of experts with and without previous experience in IPCC; gender balance; experts with a background from relevant stakeholder and user groups, including governments. The Working Group/Task Force Bureau and, in the case of the Synthesis Report, the IPCC Chair will report to the Panel on the selection process including a description of how the selection criteria for participation and any other considerations have been applied, and including a list of participants.
Based on the report of the scoping meeting the Panel”.
…………………….
Bye for now. I’m off to balance my gender.