Unfortunately, IPCC seems far more concerned about secrecy than in requiring its contributors to archive data. I received another request to remove discussion of IPCC draft reports. On this issue, David Appell and I are in full agreement – see David Appell’s collection of ZOD chapters here. (Jan 30 Update – see below.)
IPCC’s most recent request was as follows:
From: IPCC WGI TSU On Behalf Of Pauline Midgley
Sent: January-24-12 8:54 AM
To: Stephen McIntyre
Cc: ‘IPCC WGI TSU’
Subject: WGI AR5 FODDear Mr McIntyre,
In a recent thread on the blog that you host, Climate Audit, you quote text and a figure directly from the WGI AR5 First Order Draft. We would remind you that each page of this document is clearly marked “Do not cite, quote or distribute”. Therefore, we kindly request you to remove this text and figure from your blog and refrain from such actions, which do not respect the terms of the IPCC review process.
Scientific comments and criticisms on the WGI AR5 FOD are encouraged and welcomed from experts in the topics being assessed. In order for the authors of the chapters to take into account, and respond to, these comments in drafting the Second Order Draft, they must be made through the appropriate channel. This requires registration as an expert reviewer and uploading the review comments on the WGI AR5 FOD before 10 February 2012.
Please refer to the WGI web site for more information about the WGI AR5 FOD review: https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/registration.
All review comments and the author responses will be published on an IPCC web site as soon as possible following the completion of the WGI AR5. For more information about the AR5 review in general, please see the IPCC web site: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/review_of_wg_contributions.pdf.
As mentioned in our email to you of 16 December 2011, in order to have access to the Chapters and to submit review comments for consideration by the authors, all prospective expert reviewers of the WGI AR5 FOD are required to agree to the terms of the review, which specify that all materials provided for the review, including the chapter drafts, are considered confidential and shall not be cited, quoted or distributed. This is the standard IPCC practice in the preparation of its reports.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Yours sincerely,
IPCC WG1 TSU
I responded today as follows:
Dear Ms Midgley,
This is to acknowledge your email of January 24, 2012 in which you “kindly requested” that I remove a discussion of IPCC from Climate Audit. In order for me to properly consider your request, I would appreciate it if you would clarify the legal basis, if any, of this request.
For many years, IPCC policies have stated that the review process should be “open” and “transparent” and my comments were very much in that spirit.
The recent review of IPCC policies and procedures by the InterAcademy Council did not contain any recommendations that the review process be less open or less transparent. I realize that Thomas Stocker, following suggestions of Phil Jones, sought changes to IPCC policies to authorize confidentiality, rather than openness, and that the minutes of the IPCC plenary session in Abu Dhabi state that the following language was approved:
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.
However, this change was deceptively included in a package described as “addressing” IAC recommendations, even though this language had nothing to do with IAC recommendations, but was designed to implement changes sought by Phil Jones and Thomas Stocker long before the IAC review. (See discussion at Climate Audit entitled Stocker’s Earmarks https://climateaudit.org/2012/01/12/stockers-earmarks/ .) Because IPCC officials seem to have misled the IPCC plenary session on the purpose of this language, it seems to me that you lack any moral authority to insist that reviewers comply with your request.
Nor am I aware of any legal authority or case law under Canadian or international law that entitles you to require me to remove the discussion at Climate Audit. Although I registered as a reviewer of the First Draft, I have not downloaded any documents from IPCC in that capacity and did not agree to any confidentiality terms in order to download documents. Nor do I intend to agree to any confidentiality terms as a condition of downloading.
Nor, as I understand matters, does IPCC’s adoption of the resolution saying that “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” create an obligation under Canadian or international law that requires me to comply with your request to remove discussion of IPCC drafts from Climate Audit.
It is my understanding that your email only asked politely that I remove the discussion and did not constitute a formal legal demand that I do so. Unless I am obligated under either Canadian or international law to remove the discussion from Climate Audit, I would prefer not to remove the discussion.
If I am incorrect in my interpretation of your email and it is your view that I am obligated under either Canadian or international law to comply with your request, I would appreciate it if you would explain the basis of your legal theory. I will promptly consider your explanation. Please do not consider this email as an unconditional refusal of your request, but an invitation to you to explain the legal basis of your request under Canadian or international law so that I can take the matter up with my own legal counsel.
While I understand that you are not obliged to take notice of articles posted at Climate Audit, I am very familiar with issues involved in proxy reconstructions. My hope is that the discussion at Climate Audit will contribute to a better understanding of proxy reconstructions, even by IPCC contributors. As I understand it, there are no IPCC rules that prohibit IPCC contributors from taking note of articles at Climate Audit nor any authority for you to discourage IPCC contributors from doing so, should they be so inclined.
Regards,
Stephen McIntyre
Jan 30 Update:
IPCC sent me the following response:
Dear Mr McIntyre
Thank you for your email of 26 January addressed to Dr. Midgley. As has been standard practice and is stated in the Procedures of IPCC, to which we have to adhere in our work for the WGI contribution to AR5, IPCC draft reports that are made available for expert review are done so under the conditions marked on every page: “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”.
In order to be sure that the authors see, consider and respond to your valuable comments on these drafts, they must be submitted through the mechanism provided at the WGI web site. This site will be used by all expert reviewers, over 1500 of whom have duly registered.
Thank you for your attention and your interest in IPCC WGI AR5.
Yours sincerely,
IPCC WGI TSU
As happens far too often in climate science, rather than answering my question, they simply re-iterated their original demand.
Climate Audit 
150 Comments
Nice reply, Steve.
Wow. So well researched and argued per usual. I am sooo glad that you’re making this case…. I eagerly await the reply.
Well done, sir.
Here is the IPCC initial policy on transparency of drafts implemented after the IAC and before the Abu Dhabi meetings:
“As part of its commitment to openness and transparency, the IPCC releases drafts that have been submitted for formal expert and/or government review,
review comments on these drafts, and author responses to these comments after publication of the associated IPCC Report or Technical Paper. During the
multi‐stage review process, expert reviewers and governments are invited to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the
scientific/technical/socioeconomic content and the overall balance of the drafts. Therefore, review comments and author responses should be considered
within the context of the final report. Drafts, review comments, and author responses are pre‐decisional materials that are confidential until publication of the
final Report or Technical Paper; they are not the results of the assessment and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed as such1. Only the approved, adopted,
and accepted Reports or Technical Papers may be cited or quoted as the results of the assessment.”
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srren-drafts-and-review/srren-review-comments-sod/sod-all-srren-1
You will note that the text above appears on a document on an IPCC website which carries the text: “Government and Expert Review of Second Order Draft
Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute” which clearly meant (based on the guidance) that “they are not the results of the assessment and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed as such.”
The IPCC’s orginal policy (above) was a positive step for the organization. The later actions, not so much.
The IPCC’s original
Correct IMHO. Drafts…are not the results of the assessment and may not be cited …as [assessments].
But they sure as heck may be cited as drafts.
I’d also note that just because IPCC says “Drafts …are confidential until publication of the final report” does not mean that they are confidential. If I say to a listener “pssst, strictly confidentially between you and me, the sun rises in the East” that’s not confidential information. There has to be some quality of confidentiality to the information in question. We’re up to the fekkin’ 5th IPCC Assessment Report, for pete’s sake. What’s confidential nowadays? Add to that the fact the ZODs are all over the internet (thanks Megaupload) and frankly the horse has bolted never mind the efforts of Stocker and Jones to shoehorn in some last minute confidentiality provisions into the IPCC processes.
I say keep shining a light on this stuff Steve.
I also note that the paragraph under discussion was issued as a disclaimer. Perhaps a more positive reading might be:
“If it gets incorrectly interpreted [by somebody else] as being an assessment… then it’s not our fault.”
“During the multi‐stage review process, expert reviewers and governments are invited to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/technical/socioeconomic content and the overall balance of the drafts.”
And WE the IPCC will invite ONLY those who WE think can comment on the accuracy and completeness, balance…etc, so naff off you lot at Climate Audit!
@observa
“And WE the IPCC will invite ONLY those who WE think can comment on the accuracy and completeness, balance…etc, so naff off you lot at Climate Audit!”
Actually there is an open invitation for expert reviewers here:
https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/registration/
Expertise is self-declared, and if you have no published papers you can just enter “none”.
It’s a good idea to make sure any review comments are specific about what change is being requested, and are backed up by evidence (citation of papers etc)
Richard, it’s a pleasure to read your always polite and pertinent comments. Yes, anyone can join in formally as an IPCC reviewer – if they sign on the dotted line – but that currently commits the signer to observe some degree of confidentiality, at least in the early stages of the process. For Steve M. that was not an acceptable condition. I’d rather have some CA comments about the zeroth draft out in the open now so that everybody involved or interested can read them and take whatever note they wish. That way there’s more chance of influencing and improving the content of the next draft. I can see that less prominent scientists and experts than Steve might be more likely to influence the lead authors if they submit their reviews through the formal channels. But they too may benefit from being able to read CA and perhaps incorporate some of its content in their own reviews.
Re: Richard Betts (Jan 27 04:12),
Richard, have you or the MOD signed a confidentiality agreement? If so you should not have without careful consideration. If Steve’s spam filter will allow, let me quote from
Do I not also recall that Phil Jones is not, as an employee of UEA, permitted to sign confidentiality agreements (unless he is working on AR5 in a personal capacity)?
ANNEX G.
nice. I tried to use this on Jones, to no avail. But I think
it applies
Roger has uncovered what is going on in this post. The IPCC is over-zealously interpreting the ambiguous language of the initial IPCC policy and stamping “Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute” on all comments.
To paraphrase Andrew Jackson, the IPCC has made their decision, now let’s see them enforce it.
snip – blog editorial policies discourage commenters from trying to prove or disprove AGW in a few sentences. Otherwise all threads become the same.
That is a very professional and civil reply
My guess is that you will be forthwith removed as a reviewer. Too bad for them and too bad for climate science.
Do they have a formal procedure for removing a reviewer?
Are there details of what constitutes grounds for dismissal?
If they to decide to dismiss a reviewer is that reviewer entitled to represent themselves (or have representation) in any hearing?
Alternatively, is it simply a case of “We do not want you as a reviewer therefore you are no longer a reviewer.”?
@TerryS
No there is no such procedure AFAIK.
Well written, as usual.
Mark
‘your legal theory’ – more model than theory, no doubt.
I’m curious what difference it makes if one is formally considered a reviewer. We know that insiders drafting the final docs can disregard published research and reviewer comments for no other reason than they don’t like them.
Since the IPCC doesn’t follow its own stated policies regarding archiving comments, etc. and doesn’t seem to care what comments are made, is there any practical difference between commenting on the blog and submitting “official” comments?
Cryptome has a link to the entire package of draft for all to download and evaluate.
IP Climate Change Zero Order Drafts Mirror
Also, if this matter could be subject to US law, then this case might be of interest to you in a lawsuit based on their threats.
Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 – Dist. Court, ND California 2004
B. Copyright Law
Copyright laws are enacted pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides that “[t]he Congress shall have Power … to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The elements of a copyright infringement claim are: (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying[6] of expression protected by that copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(1); Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1335 (9th Cir.1995). To be liable for direct infringement, one must “actively engage in” and “directly cause” the copying. See Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D.Cal.1995).
There is no statutory rule of liability for contributory infringement. However, courts recognize such liability when the defendant “with knowledge of the infringing 1200*1200 activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.” Gershwin Pub. Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2nd Cir.1971). “Such participation must be substantial.” Religious Tech. Ctr., 907 F.Supp. at 1361. The party alleging contributory infringement must show “(1) direct infringement by a primary infringer, (2) knowledge of the infringement, and (3) material contribution to the infringement.” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 380 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.2004). A defendant may be liable under a vicarious liability theory if the plaintiff demonstrates “(1) direct infringement by a primary party, (2) a direct financial benefit to the defendant, and the right and ability to supervise the infringers.” Id. at 1164.
Copyright protection sometimes appears to conflict with First Amendment protections. This conflict is ameliorated in part by various copyright doctrines. For example, consistent with the “idea-expression” dichotomy, expression, but not an idea, is copyrightable. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 219, 123 S.Ct. 769, 154 L.Ed.2d 683 (2003); Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 11 Otto 99, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879). Similarly, copyright law protects only creative works, not facts. See, e.g., Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 349, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). Finally, fair use is not infringement of a copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 107; Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994); Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985). Section 107 provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
They didn’t get around to slipping that in, which is a pity, because that’s exactly what the IAC wanted to discourage, as I’m sure its interpreters Jones and Stocker could confirm. “We demand more transparency,” said the Ministry of Truth, as the Ministry of Love tortured the last dissenter and the new logo of a boot stamping on a human face was finally unveiled.
A great letter from an outstanding citizen of Canada and the world. Thanks from the rest of us.
Thank you Richard, for putting what I wanted to say, so concisely.
I would have just said “No.” Your approach is probably better, although I think the whole “moral authority” part is unnecessary.
“All review comments and the author responses will be published on an IPCC web site as soon as possible following the completion of the WGI AR5. For more information about the AR5 review in general, please see the IPCC web site: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/review_of_wg_contributions.pdf.”
I could have sworn that there was an issue with the IPCC not publishing the review comments as they were supposed to for previous reports, but I can’t seem to find a relevant link. The best I can find is a CA post from 2008 – https://climateaudit.org/2008/04/01/ipcc-review-editors-comments-online.
Isn’t the UN, and by extension the IPCC, entirely funded by the constituent governments, and therefore, by taxpayers? The copyright belongs to the people.
Excellent response, very well written.
It would surprise me if Ms. Midgley can find a legal stick to beat you with. Those of us who want to pierce the veil of government secrecy at all levels see you as a valiant champion.
While I could get the IPCC First Order Drafts, it would be under conditions that restrict my independence, so I plan to continue looking for leaked documents. I note that you did not download any documents directly from the IPCC for similar reasons.
Exactly, as the material cited by Steve was not acquired from the IPCC, they can have no claim to ask for its removal.
That’s not necessarily true, or, at least, it’s not necessarily true for the reason you cite. It is possible for, e.g., trade secret information to survive as a protectable trade secret even after disclosure to a third party, if the means of its original disclosure is something the courts don’t wish to see rewarded. This is distinct from a contractual obligation, obviously, which does not bind a third party not in privity with the party contractually bound. (Which I gather was the point you were making.)
On the other hand, I suspect that arguing trade secret rights in such information would be awkward for the IPCC. To qualify, they’d have to establish that the information is commercially valuable to them due to the fact that it is not generally available to others.
QB, since the IPCC does not produce new science, but rather an overview of the science as currently understood, none of the information in the initial drafts is technically “theirs” to begin with. These are summaries of the science as published in journals and elsewhere, at least it is supposed to be. I see no legal way for them to prevent Steve or anyone from examining the “science” that they are citing, as we can always go to the original source. They could possibly ask Steve not to quote the IPCC output, but even that is not clear cut as this is a public document, and there is no IPR inherent in a summary.
Love that thing about the “Road to Rio”. How I miss Bing Crosby and Bob Hope.
Frankly I’m gobsmacked at the lack of awareness of what it is the IPCC is engaging in here. Haven’t they learned anything from the various Climategates and Exxagerationgates? Where is their political nous or savvy as supposedly the supreme gatherer of climate truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if that’s at all possible?
All they have done with this approach is beget Steve’s obvious retort ball back over the net and now it’s game on. A game of their choosing I might add that will raise the hackles and intense scrutiny of every investigative reporter worthy of the name. The very whiff of something to hide or lack of openness and transparency in procedure should be grist for the mill of the Fourth Estate. That lack of openness and transparency is the very reason they’ve had to bear so much criticism for their failings to date, whereas an open door, approachable policy from the very beginning would have saved them much scientific and political embarrassment in the long run. As a result of this latest amateurish episode the IPCC deserves everything coming to it now. Love 15 and IPCC to serve again, when you’re ready Mr McKintyre…?
Observa:
I wish what you said was true, but you have far more faith in the fourth estate than I do in matters environmental.
So IPCC’s “commitment to openness and transparency” translate into the final report not being confidential?
Impressive post 1984 stuff; a good basis to re-channel massive amounts of funds all over the globe and modify laws everywhere.
/sarc off
In a way this is all hilarious. Reminds me of an Abe Lincoln quote posted once here at CA by someone (my apologies to that someone for forgetting his/her name): “If you call its tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” So, IPCC: Your calling your policy one of “openness and transparency” doesn’t make it that. Please clean up your act. What you say to S. McIntyre doesn’t reflect on him, it reflects on you.
The fact IPCC stil has not conflict of interest policy , or indeed any real plans for one , despite this being a requirement that came out of the review of its workings , tells jus how much IPCC is really into being “open” and “transparent” .
snip – overeditorializing
@KNR
The IPCC does have a Conflict of Interest Policy, it is here.
Richard
Read the links contains they have no implemented COI they have simple talk about how they may do one.
That is one very big difference .
KnR
Actually they have implemented it. As part of that, AR5 authors (of which I am one, as you know) were asked to sign the disclosure form at the end of the policy document I linked to above.
Thank you for the link and comment, Richard
Here is an excerpt from Clause 11 of the COI Policy you linked to:
“These potential conflicts are subject to disclosure”
Disclosure to whom, please ?
@ianl888
The Technical Support Unit, by submitting the completed form to them.
@Richard Betts
Thank you
As you may have guessed, I had hoped, Pollyanna-like, for “the general public”. But I’m not surprised
Funny.
Technical Support Unit, TSU, I presume.
So TSU has the dual task of judging conflicts of interest and strictly enforcing confidentiality for WG1. Sounds like it’ll be really effective in judging conflicts of interest.
observa
….open door, approachable policy from the very beginning would have saved them much scientific and political embarrassment in the long run.
Er, I think they regard openness as CAUSING scientific and political embarrassment.
This would explain why we are where we are right now.
snip – overeditorializing
Hello, didn’t you sign some sort of confidentially agreement in order to become a reviewer? Surely this would be in breach of the same.
Steve: no, I haven’t breached any agreement.
I registered as a reviewer. However, I didn’t take any further steps beyond registering and did not download any drafts as a reviewer (which would have required a website agreement with confidentiality agreements.) My comments are based on material that has been made available by others.
“did not agree to any confidentiality terms”
==========================
Who else has published the material ?
Professor Viral S. Pread. Go get him McStone. For the Team.
===============
That’s obviously a joke name. It’s a serious question that I asked Mr Mcintyre , I’m sure he can answer for himself.
I applaud your tribute to his omniscience.
=========================
They’ve been posted and removed on a number of sites.
One of the latest (and still available) is referred to here.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/zods-new-location/
“Hello, didn’t you sign some sort of confidentially agreement in order to become a reviewer? Surely this would be in breach of the same.”
The answer to your question can be found in Steve’s reply to Ms. Midgley:
“Although I registered as a reviewer of the First Draft, I have not downloaded any documents from IPCC in that capacity and did not agree to any confidentiality terms in order to download documents. Nor do I intend to agree to any confidentiality terms as a condition of downloading.”
Please. Do try and keep up.
You say that your comments are based on material that has been made available by others. Which others ? Who apart from yourself has published this material ?
Steve: ZOD drafts at Megaupload were pointed out at WUWT and Jeff Id’s. They are presently online on David Appell’s. I dont know who provided them to David Appell and wouldn’t tell you even if I did. Nor do I have any intention of telling you anything else about who provided what to whom.
Hengist,
Have you tried a GOOGLE search? I just found numerous sites with AR5 ZOD excerpts.
Further to my comment to Richard Betts, you might note that our Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) had just refused my request for the First Order Drafts. They have them all on a CD. So maybe a a friendly “focal point” near near a CA reader may take a different view on what the public should be able to see. Does CA have any readers from Kuwait? Interestingly DECC have only claimed the exception 12(5)(a) which might not bother every IPCC member country.
Also interestingly, they claim not to hold the list of UK Expert Reviewers who are accredited to AR5 WGI even thought the recently revised Appendix A states in para 2 of 4.3.4.1
It seems that Pauline picks and chooses which rules to follow.
CA reader should also note that DECC refused to disclose to me the the proposed Jones-Stocker confidentiality proposal until it was too late to appeal it to the Commissioner.
In case you think I am slacking at this end, I might mention that this morning I has a call from the Information Commissioner’s Office discussing my complaint at the Met Office refusing to release the ZODs. That should reach a decision soon. I also got the Commissioner’s reply to my Tribunal appeal on regulation 4 to which I must answer in a few days. The dispute is whether regulation 4, which provides for mandatory proactive disclosure of environmental information by easily accessible electronic means, is enforcible by the Commissioner as I believe or not as he does.
The language cited in Pielke’s post: “are not the results of the assessment and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed as such”
note the AS SUCH–the drafts are not official and do not represent the approved views of the IPCC. No problem. This is not the same as secret. Steve is not representing anything in ZOD as official, just as what the current draft says. Everyone knows it is a draft. They are acting daft. In government agencies like say EPA or Fish & Wildlife Service, draft documents have DRAFT in overlay on the text. An insider could get in trouble for releasing them, but an outsider sued? Absolutely not.
Nice catch,Craig.
Major catch, I would say. The inclusion of “AS SUCH” makes all the difference in the intent of the restriction and the practical result of minimizing confusion and enhancing clarity of the process. I find it quite interesting that said “AS SUCH” was not reiterated in Pauline Midgeley’s letter. Had she been mindful of the intent of the provision, as formulated and accepted, there would have been no need to contact Steve McIntyre on the CA post, which clearly referenced “DRAFT.” Instead of which, due to Pauline Midgeley’s word selection we are left with, not greater clarity, but obfuscation.
Unfortunately, Craig, the sentence preceding the one you quoted appears to contradict your interpretation. Here’s the whole thing:
“Drafts, review comments, and author responses are pre‐decisional materials that are confidential until publication of the
final Report or Technical Paper; they are not the results of the assessment and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed as such1. Only the approved, adopted,
and accepted Reports or Technical Papers may be cited or quoted as the results of the assessment.”
I suppose it depends on what the meaning of the word “confidential” is.
On the other hand, the sentence following the sentence you quoted tends to support your interpretation. If Steve is not quoting the comments “as results of the assessment,” what’s the problem?
Which suggests we may have an incident of unnecessary harassment of Steve by the IPCC occurring here and further suggests that maybe these people need to hire an attorney and/or a public relations consultant.
Clearly that only applies to those within the IPCC, since they have no way of preventing anyone from citing any document in any of the ARs.
I would guess that somebody has stuffed up their grammar. It is probably meant to be more like the following, which is a multiple rearrangement of the quoted sentence.
“Drafts, review comments, and author responses are confidential until publication of the
final Report or Technical Paper and as such1 may not be cited, quoted, or distributed; they are pre‐decisional materials that are not the results of the assessment.
Perhaps the document was originally written in French and translated poorly into English. Or perhaps the quality of grammar is just a reflection of the overall qualityu of the process.
Is it stated that a nominated language shall apply if there are differences in translation? Can a ‘subject to no disclosure’ document retain that status if translated to another language?
“may be cited or quoted as the results of the assessment” they never say can’t be cited or quoted, only that they are unofficial. It is unnecessary harassment of Steve (and anyone else who dares discuss in public).
A very polite way of saying “Thanks, but no thanks”
Well done
Does Pauline Midgely monitor CA (and all other websites) or has somebody grassed on Steve?
It would appear that the IPCC (and its staunch defenders) have never made a case for the drafts not to be made public initially but to be made public after the fact of the final publication. It is though the IPCC does not want to reveal the process in real time of gathering facts/information for its reviews and the reasons for not wanting to reveal. Does the IPCC feel that its contributors might be influenced by blog discussions – before the process is finalized? If that is the case, why is it?
By the way does anyone know how the major MSM like the NYT and Washington Post view the IPCC’s secret proceedings?
Sir John Houghton did in 2002.
Read section 5 of http://www.rsc.org/ebooks/archive/free/BK9780854042807/BK9780854042807-00001.pdf
“Thirdly, all parts of the assessment process need to be completely open and transparent. IPCC documents including early drafts and review comments have been freely and widely available – adding much to the credibility of the process and its conclusions.
The mystery of John Houghton is not this paragraph, which is excellent, but why we have never heard a peep from the devout Methoodist about the IPCC failing to live up to it. “Be doers of the word and not hearers only,” as the apostle James puts it. Maybe someone could slip that message in to Sir John’s daily devotions.
I can’t say “I know” they don’t give a damn, but I’m pretty sure they don’t give a damn. The IPCC can do no wrong in their view.
I cannot understand why anyone would even bother to give the IPCC the attention or even reply it does not deserve as seen already from emails, sloppy exagerations etc, to be even being mentioned in this blog
I think the point here is this:
To anyone who does not live inside the bureaucratic bubble that is the UN and the satellite bureaucracies whose funding pipelines are throttled by Ms Midgley and her ilk, to those whose livelihood and ambitions are not constrained by the need to please the unaccountable and interlocking mandarinates of those agencies, Ms Midgley’s request/demand/whatever is almost offensively absurd.
She’s given Steve a – well, not unique, but unusually direct – opportunity to expose this mindset to a little broader ridicule.
Lets make it clear , some of issues seen within the IPCC are general issues that effect most if not all UN bodies , the lack of transparency is the norm not the exception. If the IPCC is ever going to do the job its supposed to then it will probable need to be taken outside the UN bubble , on top of all the other issues.
> Because IPCC officials seem to have misled the IPCC plenary session on the purpose of this language, it seems to me that you lack any moral authority to insist that reviewers comply with your request.
Seemingly, this sentence seems to express some seemings.
it seems to me that it expresses just the kind of reservation and uncertainty one would be well advised to adopt in these matters.
It certainly seems like the plenary session was “misled” but its certainly not certain. And any responsible charge about moral authority should, it seems, be expressed in the appropriate language. Steve seems to have got it right.
Seemingness does not seem to switch the burden of proof of the unclean hands defense.
Responsible restraint perhaps requires rectifying the “you” in what seems to be almost a charge.
>“Seems,” madam? Nay, it is. I know not “seems.”
wrong. seem seems to imply that there is no conclusive proof, however, there is a concern . its a call for dialogue rather than a call for proof. Burden of proof isnt even in play in a call for dialogue. If they want to talk about whether or not the plenary was misled the comment section is open.
On balance, the history of the text points to that as a probable explanation.
You know, best evidence
Asking for chapter and verse of the law and then “charging” (Moshpit’s previous wording) one’s interlocutor of unclean hands can only mean one thing: a “call for dialogue.”
So when reasonable see words like “earmarks”, “trick” or “ploy”, the category of “first draft reviewer” being created for the beauty of one’s argument, the hammering of “secrecy”, implicitely identified as the absence of absolute transparency, or expressions showing evaluations like “not much downside for me”, they can only see a dialogue.
To disagree on these points would only be unreasonable: it is a call for dialog, and that’s that.
Who in this world is what they seem to be? Who?
Unfortunately they wrote steve and requested that he honor the legal terms of their documents. That request presupposes several things which a dialogue could clarify. They apparently seem to think that steve has unclean hands. That you miss the fundamental evidence in this case is not surprising. That you try to shift the discussion to his language is transparent. Perhaps you might consider returning to the best explanation surrounding the policy that they seek to enforce here. If you don’t see steves request as a call for dialogue, then its hard to see what else you could call it. They requested a takedown, he requests to understand what law he is breaking. Seems like a dialogue is already happening,unless you see their request as a command.
It only seems like a command when the organization concerned seems to have abused its authority at every turn to intimidate dissenters. Happily our host seems to be made of sterner stuff.
Looks like they read the blog but not his letter.
odd.
The first remark was about “language”, so the accusation of switching topics has no merit.
The “language” suffices to show that the “dialog” has been “opened” insofar as future litigation as being pursued, litigation which was estimated as having “not much downside” by and for the party stating, in provision of future litigation:
> Unless I am obligated under either Canadian or international law to remove the discussion from Climate Audit, I would prefer not to remove the discussion.
Litigation matters have not been introduced by “the terms of IPCC review process”, but by the sentence just quoted. Thus the excuse The IPCC Made Steve Do It has no merit, as often is the case with that excuse.
The claim that the IPCC is accusing Steve of unclean hands deserves due diligence. It might be possible and perhaps even easy to do so (hint: “no downside for me”), but we don’t see where the IPCC made this accusation. In fact, a better explanation would be to suspect a misunderstanding in the concept.
The IPCC recalled the terms of the review process and made a request. Steve fired back that unless they’re willing to litigate under Canadian or Internatioal laws, they can shove it. Only the opening of a dialog can be going on there, to reasonable people.
The hopeless dream of being – not seeming, but being.
Willard, I don’t know what your background is, but it’s hardly uncommon for parties in a potential dispute to explain the contractual or other basis of a request. In this case, I didn’t download the documents in question from IPCC and did not agree to their download terms. It seemed possible to me that they assumed that I had agreed to their download terms. Removing as many points of simple misunderstanding is always a good idea in trying to resolve a dispute. That’s why I told them that I hadn’t agreed to their download terms and hadn’t downloaded the documents in question from them.
It doesn’t seem to me that merely marking “Do not cite or quote” on a document places any binding restriction on a third party who, for example, obtains the document from the internet. However, it is possible that IPCC thinks otherwise. Rather than rejecting this possibility out of hand, I invited them to explain such a position. Again, this is in keeping with the sort of dialogue that can avoid disputes. This sort of dialogue occurs all the time in potential contractual disputes. Instead of answering my question, IPCC simply reiterated their opening letter. In real dialogue, people try to answer one another’s questions – that’s how disputes get settled. Unfortunately IPCC has chosen not to explain their position, but only to make requests/demands. That’s how disputes get exacerbated.
Steve,
Indeed, it hardly uncommon for parties to negotiate before litigation. Nothing has never was said or implied otherwise. Perhaps I can clarify my main point. Talking about an “open dialog” simpliciter fails to mention many peculiarities of what’s going on here:
First, that this dialog depends upon this condition:
> **Unless** [my emphasis] I am obligated under either Canadian or international law to remove the discussion from Climate Audit, I would prefer not to remove the discussion.
Second, that the dialog’s subject shifts from the “terms of the IPCC review process” to “Canadian or international law”.
Third, that the dialog’s object might not only be to preempt litigation. Even you ackowledge that there is “not much downside” for you. It would be interesting to know why you think so. In any case, we can entertain lots of theories regarding the overall payoffs the different outcomes this week hurly burly can bring to the interested parties.
For instance, reasonable people could very well see this “open dialog” as another way to have “a little fun”, to use your own way of expressing similar editorial practices. This impression is reinforced by the fact that this dialog is taking place publicly, here in your blog, in front of your crowd. This situation may not be that “hardly common”, but that’s just a guess. It would be interesting to have some examples of contractual meditation through a blog of one of the parties. Perhaps among the disputes between Surinam and Guyana?
So my guess, based on a background you strawmanly questioned, is that some parties still prefer to dialog in confidentiality, more so if litigation is at stake. If that guess is correct, I doubt we should presume that such parties are entertaining some “secrecy ambitions”. If I am right in thinking that such presumption goes a bridge too far, we might question your insistence on the word “secrecy”. That you use an expression like “requests/demands” attests your sensibility toward language gamesmanship.
Speaking of secrecy, do you have access to the review procedure and draft manuscript of the IAC report, by any chance?
A man of the world must seem to be what he wishes to be thought,
Goodbye,
w
But you are shifting the discussion with your first comment, as I noted.
of course he does. that’s what he always does. seems it’s his job.
willard: Why do you come here to quibble over the language Steve used to respond to an IPCC request to self-censor his blog? Why don’t you defend the policy machinations of Stocker/Jones outright? Did you even read the post titled “Stocker’s Earmarks” in which a few people apparently distorted the process to get the outcome they wanted, one that would release them from the openness and transparency requirement?
This has little to do with “unclean hands.” It’s about invisible hands attempting to impose a curtain of secrecy on deliberations that impact everyone on the planet. You should be thanking Steve for exposing to whom those hands belong.
You ask, “Who in this world is what they seem to be? Who?” I suggest you direct that question at the people pulling the levers behind the curtain at the IPCC.
thanks for your stance on transparency Steve.
found this AR5 ‘Workshop Report’ Edited by:
Thomas Stocker, Qin Dahe, Gian-Kasper Plattner,
Melinda Tignor, Simon Allen, Pauline Midgley – from 2010.
Click to access SLW_WorkshopReport_kuala_lumpur.pdf
IPCC Workshop on
Sea Level Rise and Ice Sheet Instabilities
just a flavour –
“Recently, various attempts using semi-empirical models have been proposed to estimate globally averaged sea level rise
for the 21st century. No physically-based information is contained in such models and assumptions are based on
relatively short and limited observational data. The assumption that the rate of change of sea level rise from those
components that were small during the 20th century and which have been attributed to ice sheets would scale with
global temperature change leads to a strong and unlimited amplification of future sea level rise when global
temperatures continue to increase. Therefore, such approaches have generally yielded the largest sea level rise estimates
for the end of the 21st century. A major limitation is the fact that the calibration phase for these semi-empirical models
does not cover the range of climate-system behaviour that might be expected for the 21st century, i.e., significant loss
of ice from the large polar ice sheets. The physical basis for the large estimates from these semi-empirical models is
therefore currently lacking.”
“Significant loss of ice from polar ice sheets” Of course, this does not apply to floating ice (with the exception of small changes due to higher temperature and water expansion that might happen incidentally). So, we can deduct North Pole ice.
Secrecy can be justified by private companies that have valuable trade secrets that must be protected from competitors. State and local governments must keep information in contract bids confidential until the bids are unsealed to get the lowest cost. National governments try to keep military tactics and munitions effectiveness from other nations,
primarily their perceived enemies so that they maintain the element of surprise in the event of war. But what justifies the confidential treatment of AR5 ZOD? It is none of the above. The IPCC, as a world-wide organization, has no perceived enemy state that it needs to keep things from. Is the data in ZOD of proprietary information? It seems that the citizens of the world should be able to read the scientific papers that they have paid for, even though its likely only a tiny fraction will take the time to do so. The job of a scientist is to try to convince his collegues, both hostile and friendly, that his/her
new theory better explains the data or the observations better than any other theory
thus far put forward. Why limit the discussion to the typical science mag that has a tiny
viewership. The confident person should feel free to engage a wider public of interested,
technically competent folk such as those who frequent CA, WUWT and RC. What’s the harm?
I would hope IPCC lifts the veil of secrecy on the AR5 drafts and lets the masses in on what is being discussed, even if we will need sites like CA to explain some of the nuances of what is being discussed. snip
I would say it would be up to the InterAcademy Council to express their disgust…
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/23450/24824.aspx
They already have:
Click to access Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf
Click to access Comments.pdf
On all 3 counts:
1) openness and transparency
2) conflict of interest in choice of papers informing the AR’s
3) prominent demarcation of “greywash”
The IPCC has not just ignored IAC recommendations, it has deliberately followed the precisely opposite paths
Steve: ZOD drafts at Megaupload were pointed out at WUWT and Jeff Id’s. They are presently online on David Appell’s. I dont know who provided them to David Appell and wouldn’t tell you even if I did. Nor do I have any intention of telling you anything else about who provided what to whom.
===========
So then:
No problem with using material provided by people breaking the Computer Misuse act (a criminal offence).
No problem with using you have signed up to not release.
Steve: As I’ve said on several occasions, I did NOT sign any agreement to not release.
Brilliant!
May I enquire what is the point of PUBLISHING material that could be totally irrelevant to the final report. Surely the object of review is to remove the dross. Well you seem to have removed yourself.
Whatever good your input could have done is now lost.
If you publish that which will not be used you will demand explanation, data, justification, etc. etc, to what end? The input will not be used, No doubt your minions will spread the dross far and wide claiming all the IPCC is tainted! Well done.
Sir, it seems that your total input to the climate debate is to spread distrust and cause delay. You are as you have made yourself.
I take it that you support total secrecy, than. I’ll make a point of reading future posts from you.
2 extra points for barbs about my motivations revealed by my spelling error (than, instead of the intended “then”).
“did not agree to any confidentiality terms”.
I’ve run across three posters now who claim Steve is violating confidentiality, two of them on this thread where contrary evidence is clearly written in plain English.
Astroturf, confirmation bias, or high correlation of poor reading comprehension with true belief in CAGW, you decide.
================
fyates wrote: “May I enquire what is the point of PUBLISHING material that could be totally irrelevant to the final report.”
May I enquire what is the point of prohibiting the “open and transparent” publishing of material that allows the taxpayers a glimpse at how scientific conclusions that dramatically impact us all both now and in the future are reached? To provide secrecy for those who are manipulating the conclusions behind the scenes? If not, what are they trying to hide?
“May I enquire what is the point of PUBLISHING material that could be totally irrelevant to the final report.”
———————————————
Transparency is the best way to avoid errors, to detect tricks and misconduct and beyond that, deters from such.
Once the product is out and in the hands of politicians, correction mechanisms have proven to fail or, more precisely, even to be existent.
Re: Fyates (Jan 28 10:36),
“May I enquire what is the point of PUBLISHING material that could be totally irrelevant to the final report.”
In all walks of life the most effective way to get findings accepted is to fully demonstrate how the conclusions were derived. The greater the non-discloser the more the findings will be questioned.
EdeF Posted Jan 27, 2012 at 10:31 PM
…thus far put forward. Why limit the discussion to the typical science mag that has a tiny viewership. The confident person should feel free to engage a wider public of interested, technically competent folk such as those who frequent CA, WUWT and RC. What’s the harm?
=====
You CANNOT be serious.
Have you checked the WUWT website concerning GHG theory 4 threads greater than 3000 comments ad still it continues.
Can you imagine the pointless discussions arising from the “technically competent” folk on WUWT reading the drafts, It would take years! No science would be done for the rest of eternity if each stupid point required rebutting by the authors!
One could as well argue that little or no real science has been done in most of the past few decades.
If you are publishing politically acceptable but scientifically indefensible work, indeed if it is a career and economic necessity that you do so, and you are operating within a system that protects you from the need to defend it, it is not science.
At this point the climate-science field has earned every bit of public and professional doubt they’re facing.
Perhaps they should have to go back and explain everything. Perhaps if those at the top of the field actually released everything necessary to reproduce it, it’d be a valuable learning experience to line up a team of student assistants to do ‘tech support’ on the work and explain it in the public sphere.
So what? If this is meant as an argument for keeping the drafts out of the public eye, it is a stoooopider argument than anything that could ever appear at WUWT.
No one is suggesting people involved in writing the second, third, nth drafts or final report are required to read comments at WUWT much less address or discuss them. Of course they may if they wish– but they aren’t required to do so.
In the meantime, transparency permits interested members of the public to see how the document progresses. As far as I can see, true transparency will permit discussions wherever interested parties which to discuss and imposes no additional burden on the authors.
“In the meantime, transparency permits interested members of the public to see how the document progresses”
Exactly. I’m looking forward to the 2nd and 3rd order drafts being leaked, so we can follow the censorship/conflict of interest process
also Lucia, it presupposes that the people who write the final report are just too dumb to be able to differentiate between ignorant commentators and the kind of people who turn up on technical blogs, who are at least equivalent to Mann and Jones and co in terms of statistical and scientific expertise. As usual, this is science by obstruction, informing the kind of policies that are needed for the greater good.
… who are at least equivalent to Mann and Jones and co in terms of statistical and scientific expertise…
What is that supposed to mean? Is that setting a low standard for statistical competence or a high standard for data and methodological obfuscation ?
Re: Fyates (Jan 28 10:50),
Couldn’t be any more stupid than the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 stupidity that made it into the AR4. I’m quite certain that if a little more transparency during the writing of the AR4 had been in place, someone, perhaps a WUWT denizen, would have noticed this completely false claim and prevented the IPCC from looking… well…STUPID.
In the ZOD, the first page I opened had a contentious statement: “Zero Order Draft Chapter 2 IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report. Using global mean temperature, the variability associated with regional variability is averaged out, giving a larger signal to noise ratio.”
As stated, this is wrong. A region with no recording history cannot have its signal/noise improved, because it has no signal. Yet, this very act has been attempted in the past IPCC reports by extrapolation over vast distances.
That is why drafts need to be available. It’s so that more minds can pick up errors.
“Can you imagine the pointless discussions arising from the “technically competent” folk on WUWT reading the drafts, It would take years! No science would be done for the rest of eternity if each stupid point required rebutting by the authors!”
Complete transparency of the process, and I emphasize the aspect of how the process operates in reality here, puts no obligations on those in the process to respond to any criticism or suggestions. And there are no obligations with the current process.
The major point in obtaining transparency is for interested parties to see the process in action in real time and to comment as they so choose. That viewing is a very important part in determining how the final and official reports are formulated and thus the validity and quality of the final output. There are those I would suppose who would say leave it to the “experts” and that we should trust with the process to those experts – even in a process aimed explicitly at governmental policy. I know a number of informed skeptics who disagree with that approach of trust but do not verify.
FYATES
“Can you imagine the pointless discussions arising from the “technically competent” folk on WUWT reading the drafts, It would take years! No science would be done for the rest of eternity if each stupid point required rebutting by the authors!”
Yea great example was the “Hockey Stick” Nothing found here at Climate Audit was there???
Could you imagine if the lunacy that was Mann and the IPCC adopted Hockey stick actually got stopped here in its tracks before the pure steaming crap was inculded in the IPCC.
I don;t trust anyone on the IPCC committees–especially the “Climate Scientists”
Don’t trust them and verify EVERYTHING they put out!
Everybody seems to be missing the point.
Why does Jones want to keep the comments in all the drafts confidential even when all the so called Inquiries found that the process should be more open and transparent?
They are obviously trying to limit future critique of the final report. Much has been made about the quality of the final reports in the past. Especially wrt reviewers comments being ignored in the final report by waiting until the late stages after comment is closed.
The IPCC appears to have adopted the approach of hiding the lack of consensus by;
Requiring confidentiality in comments with respect to draft reports
Proactively threatening reviewers with legal action if they discuss the drafts
Eliminating these individuals as future reviewers
Having less reviewers to ignore for future reports
The end result is that the IPCC can claim that all the reports represent the “Consensus amongst all scientists“ !
They are using the courts to bully the “deniers” and possibly bankrupt them with legal costs.
Eduardo Zorita has a post where he remarks about the short lead time necessary for papers to be cited in ar5 wg1. Pointing out that papers published close to the deadline will have received little public vetting prior to inclusion.
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2012/01/ipcc-deadlines.html
I guess we can look forward to a flurry of papers being published just short of the deadline.
Bob, March 2013 is over a year away. Based upon recent experience, the Team can get a paper published in under a month. They’ve got plenty of time! /sarc
Skeptics on the other hand better have already submitted any papers they want to have a chance to get noticed. Based upon O’Connell 2011 and a few others, a year is barely enough time to finish answering reviewer questions.
Re: Bob Koss (Jan 29 03:51),
Bob, according to the AR5 WGI website to be cited in the second order draft papers need only be submitted by 31 July 2012.
Unless there is some instruction that I have not seen there is no rule, as was the case in AR4, that the papers must be “in press” with “final preprints” available for Expert Reviewers before the start of the the second and final Expert Review stage, which begins on 5 October and finishes on 30 November 2012. That means that after the review has finished and any time up to 15 March 2013 some submitted papers could be substantially changed to meet Reviewers’ criticism and still remain cited without further Expert Review. This makes a nonsense of any claim that IPCC assessments are peer reviewed.
AR5 WGI, having insisted, in an unsigned statement on page 26 of B&O’s evidence to the Russell Review, that the Wahl and Ammann paper did not break any rules in AR4, they could hardly use the same deadlines this time and expect to get away with it.
Edwardo’s concern is a fair one but the IPCC process can not undertake a thorough Expert-Reviewed assessment of the science and be fully up to date when finally published. In fact, if Renate Christ’s description of the IPCC review process, as given to the InterAcademy Council Review were followed the second review stage is only to make sure that the comments on the the first order draft were properly dealt with. That would make the IPCC report even less up to date.
Steve,
You made such a nice point with the most respectful tone. Well played! In honor of such, may I submit this humble verse?
O I C U R 1 2
By Big Dave
There once came a letter O’Paulene
“For our b’loved I-pee-sea-sea come clean”
“We’ve had quite enough…
“Stop displayin our stuff…
“And we’re meaning we mean what we mean!”
Cheers
Big Dave
Nice work Steve. If their reply as to the legal background is not specific, I think I may also host the files.
Dear Admin, this is urgent. Please get in touch with me as soon as you can.
Mr. McIntyre:
I endorse your response. Let’s be practical, the IPCC isn’t going to consider any comments you submit anyway. They know this and we know this. They aren’t going to litigate against you. So, in the absence of a fair, full and open discussion of the issues in their forum, it is appropriate to at least attempt to have some discussion here.
snip
From the IPCC’s letter: “On the other hand, publicizing drafts have serious drawbacks. There is a risk that drafts contain errors or statements that are still unbalanced and that have to be corrected at a later stage. These could prematurely circulate in the public domain, creating confusion, and that would be a bad service of IPCC to society.”
To help the IPCC with its legitimate concerns, you and other bloggers could choose to say that a particular quote from a draft was: 1) Not directly obtained from the IPCC website. 2) Does not represent the findings of the IPCC until officially accepted by a Plenary Session or WG. 3) Came to my attention in a manner that doesn’t allow me to assess the accuracy of the quote.
“There is a risk that drafts contain errors or statements that are still unbalanced and that have to be corrected at a later stage.”
———————————
There is a much greater risk, that the final report contains errors or statements that are still unbalanced and that then will remain uncorrected.
I though the idea was to have a report which had ‘errors or statements that are still unbalanced’ as long as they support climate doom, becasue it odd they never go the other way . Then for the head of the IPCC to deal with this issues through denials and attacking those that point these errors out as Voodoo scientists.
Bottom line no AGW, no IPCC and those turkeys are not going vote for Christmas or Thanksgiving.
IPCC sent me the following response:
As happens far too often in climate science, rather than answering my question, they simply re-iterated their original demand.
Did they even read your letter? You didn’t ask them to instruct the authors to read climateaudit and respond to anything discussed here.
They did indicate that the draft will be modified only in response to comments received through official channels.
I thought it was one of Steve McIntyre’s issues that the drafts were being modified in response to personal and private requests from the writers. I would ask the IPCC is this policy was new because past practice did not conform with it
Tom Gray–
The IPCC response doesn’t say the authors will only consider the valuable comments if submitted through official channels. It’s says that Steve can only be sure they will consider them if he submits them that way. That leaves open the possibility that the authors would consider information from any source including something their manicurist might mention while they are having their nails polished. That is: If steveMc writes something here, the authors might not read it. That’s fine. We all know that.
But I think asking whether authors might modify documents in response to comments received through unofficial channels might be straying from the topic at hand. Right now:
1) The IPCC requested SteveMc stop doing something SteveMc is doing. That is: they want him to stop discussing the drafts.
2) SteveMc asks them to provide a reason why he should grant their request.
3) They ignored what he asked them and provided information that is utterly irrelevant.
Sure: If SteveMc writes something here, the authors of the AR5 won’t necessarily see it. We know that. Steve knows that. But that’s no reason why Steve shouldn’t host discussion here. That’s merely a reason why SteveMc should also submit comments through the official process where the authors will see then and will consider the information. Discussing here and submitting comments are not mutually exclusive.
(I suspect whoever wrote the answer to Steve didn’t read the previous correspondence. Or the person who wrote the current letter really doesn’t really care if Steve posts, but is in a position where he’s required to write something. So he wrote something. )
To me, this was a quite carefully crafted response that conveyed the message that they wanted to send. They will not consider comments published on blogs and elsewhere. That is the sanction that they have to people who do not conform to the stated policy. Review comments to be considered must be submitted through the web site. All expert reviewers must use this method. They will not see nor consider if they do see to other comments. If you don’t comply, you are not an expert reviewer and your comments will not be seen,
One could well ask if other sources of information will be consulted – manicurists or private inquiries to others. Will such sources be acknowledged and responses published?
Anyway all of this is just political fun and games. Nothing will change
I would have thought that the sensible approach would be for one reviewer to stand in the market place and offer to submit the blogged consensus (with that review not divulging the ZODs so as not to be “struck off”).
They fairly ignored his important criticisms when he WAS an official reviewer. Why would anyone think it would be different this time around?
They will at least know that more people are watching this time round. That may, possibly, put some kind of a limit on the more egregious additions to, or deletions of, early draft comments.
That reply immediately brought the following to mind:-
“Answering The Question Before Last”
The only difference being that The Two Ronnies sketch is brilliantly funny.
Classic group-think response in classic group-speak style: ” We are the group. We are polite. We are anonymous and wish to remain so. We have rules that preserve our anonymity by which you will abide. We are the group. We are polite. We are anonymous and wish to remain so . . .” etc ad nauseam.
“Mr. McIntyre, it appears
That you didn’t sign up for our tiers
Of secrecy stacks
You’ve snuck through the cracks
And that only can heighten our fears
So we won’t really ask you to stop
We’ll just reference procedural shop
With no actual request —
We thought that was best
Since even our threat was a flop.”
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Once again, IPCC had a golden opportunity to explain itself to a large body of technically savvy and interested non-climate scientists by explaining on this blog site
the reasoning behind their secrecy in regards to early drafts of AR5. Again, we are ready to engage in a two-way dialogue, but find the communications going only one direction. Steve, thanks for your time and effort on this issue.
Another official channel to address this issue would be through the review process.
A reviewer may actually write a comment about “do not cite, quote or distribute” such as:
1. The IAC report concluded: “…it is essential that the processes and procedures used to produce assessment reports be as transparent as possible.
Transparency is an important principle for promoting trust by the public, the scientific community, and governments…”
2. This goes completely against the IAC recommendations.
3. This confidentiality rule was passed off as part of the IPCC package, when it wasn’t.
4. The decision of IPCC management to present Stocker’s confidentiality clause as addressing IAC recommendations was a deception on IPCC.
At least this comment will then be and remain part of the official IPCC reports.
Re: Manfred (Jan 31 00:40),
The originally agreed Principles Governing IPCC Work require the assessment process to be both open and and transparent. WGI and its supporters want it closed but transparent only after the event. Having sneaked through the Jones-Stocker clause in IPCC Session 33 they have now sneaked through an update to Appendix A in in IPCC Session 34 November 2011.
A new section 4.2 has been added to carry the new Jones-Stocker clause. However these people are poor at what they do and although they renumbered and slightly renamed the original section 4.2 as 4.3, they have left the last sentence of the second paragraph of 4.2.3 unchanged from the previous version. It states
Steve: this document has a Document Properties date of Jan 25, 2012.
If you google the phrase :do not cite or quote”, one turns up dozens of documents, commonly draft documents. The second entry on my google search was here, a paper by Richard Alba, Department of Sociology, The University at Albany, SUNY entitled “Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second generation assimilation and exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States”
According to Google, it had been cited 193 times :).
One of the items on the second page was a draft document of the American Tax Institute here – also marked “Do not cite or quote”.
At present, it seems to me that there is no difference between the position of the American Tax Institute and the IPCC in respect to their right to expect third parties to pay any attention to their request not to cite or quote their draft documents. It’s too bad that IPCC elected not to explain their position.
Presumably in the process Richard Alba may have moved from outraged at the liberty taken by one or two, perhaps unknown, leakers to justifiably proud of the recognition his work had received. I cannot see the difficulty for the IPCC either. It should welcome the attention and make optimal use of it to improve its final report for policy makers.
IMO, like the UN they sent you a perhaps stronger letter to stop you. And the words might keep getting stronger if y ou do not stop or else they might spin and re-rinse.
“Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”.
This is instructions to INTERNAL staff. It can not be construed as an official document. Ok, fine. But they have no legal claim on the public once someone leaks it. Just because it might “cause confusion” is gibberish. That there might be errors is exactly the point, because IPCC seems not too diligent about ferreting out errors.
I’m a little confused. I didn’t read all of the comments so maybe my question has been answered already.
Let’s say I’m a statistician who is interested in tree ring proxies, but I need some information from an arboriculturist or botanist about how tree rings of different species might change with time (sunlight/water/C02… etc) in order to consider variability between different proxy sets.
How can I share the bit of the ZOD which discussed these proxy studies with the botanist without distributing it?
Re: timheyes (Jan 31 14:38),
you’re mistakenly assuming that IPCC is interested in actual due diligence. In AR4, I tried to get data for studies relied upon by IPCC. My requests were turned down ( I was even threatened with expulsion if I continued to try to get data from still unpublished studies). They said (and this is by recollection -see older posts for actual wording) that the job of a reviewer was only to opine on whether the IPCC reported the studies properly, not whether the studies were “right”.
Obviously they were inconsistent and opportunistic on this. For example, when they wanted to editorialize against McKitrick and Michaels 2004, they took a different position.
Steve,
Is it possible to make comments through the IPCC process without downloading?
In other words, can you comment on these drafts without agreeing to the confidentiality clauses? If so, it seems you can legitimately discuss the drafts here AND enter your comments into the formal record
Answer to Q2 is no. You have to click ‘agree’ before you get to the comments form and upload box.
I have a link to one AR5 FOD (figures for Ch 5 – Paleoclimate) here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/01/ar5-first-order-draft-available.html
thanks for this.
Thanks, David
Lucia: “3) They ignored what he asked them and provided information that is utterly irrelevant”
They did this because they cannot answer Steve’s questions about their legal position on confidentiality. And the reason is that they have no legally enforceable position.
Oops, this one is not working out so well for the opponents of transparency…. SOD of AR5 now linked at WUWT, BH, etc.
Why couldn’t the IPCC adopt genuine transparency in the first place?
14 Trackbacks
[…] claims to conduct an “open, transparent and inclusive” process; yet, as Steve McIntyre has observed, maintaining secrecy of their zero-draft trumps openness and transparency at this stage of the […]
[…] Steve McIntyre https://climateaudit.org/2012/01/26/another-ipcc-demand-for-secrecy/ […]
[…] Climate Audit […]
[…] up for air this weekend, I noticed Steve Mc. had posted Another IPCC Demand for Secrecy. In that post he wrote: Although I registered as a reviewer of the First Draft, I have not […]
[…] IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled […]
[…] IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled […]
[…] veil of secrecy over the drafting process, while diligently defended by the IPCC, has been criticized by stakeholders and observers on all fronts, with many suggesting […]
[…] veil of secrecy over the drafting process, while diligently defended by the IPCC, has been criticized by stakeholders and observers on all fronts, with many suggesting […]
[…] […]
[…] IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled […]
[…] IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled […]
[…] veil of secrecy over the drafting process, while diligently defended by the IPCC, has been criticized by stakeholders and observers on all fronts, with many suggesting […]
[…] IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled […]
[…] IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled […]