IPCC’s Secret Letter

On Feb 26, 2010, as part of their first response to Climategate, Thomas Stocker, a Climategate correspondent of Phil Jones and by then Co-Chair of AR5 WG1, sent a still secret letter to all AR4 Lead Authors, Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors under the letterhead of WG1, purporting, it seems, to represent the parent IPCC organization. The existence of this secret email came to light as a result of David Holland’s persistence in trying to cut through IPCC authoritarianism and secrecy. After learning of its existence, David submitted an FOI request, which has been refused, and which is now under appeal at the Tribunal.

In May 2010, Briffa solicited support statements from his pals at IPCC in connection with the Muir Russell “inquiry”. (Muir Russell didn’t bother asking IPCC himself, contenting himself with letters from Briffa’s pals.) In Briffa’s submission to Muir Russell on May 19, 2010, he included, as Supporting Document C, a document described as “Statements provided by IPCC AR5 WGI TSU, prepared in consultation with the former Co-Chair and TSU of WGI for the AR4.”

On October 22, 2010, Holland (FOI 10-122) see here asked for the original document, showing who precisely had sent it. On November 19, 2010, he received the following document:

From: IPCC WGI TSU {Berne]
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:58 PM
To: Phil Jones
Cc: ipcc.unibe.ch
Subject: Response to questions on IPCC WGI AR4 process
Dear Phil,
you asked for input from the IPCC AR5 WGI TSU to help you prepare answers to some questions raised in the context of the Muir Russell enquiry. Attached please find the response which has been prepared in consultation with the former Co-Chair and TSU of WGI for the AR4.
Best regards
IPCC WGI TSU

On March 2, 2011, Holland submitted a follow-up inquiry (FOI-11-048) for the attachment to the May 16, 2010 that UEA had failed to provide. Not really a new inquiry, but it was given a new number. Holland added the following request:

Please provide me with a copy of any emails dated from 25 February 2010 to 16 May 2010 between the IPCC WGI TSU in Bern, Dr Solomon or Jonathan Overpeck and Professors Jones or Briffa or Dr Osborn relating to the Russell Review or the IPCC Fourth Assessment or my submission to the Russell Review

On March 30, UEA provided a partial response, including a letter of May 13, 2010 from Briffa to IPCC AR4 Coordinating Lead Author Overpeck soliciting a testimonial to the Muir Ryssell panel and Overpeck’s response of the same day. It also included a cover email from Stocker (dba IPCC WG1) to IPCC AR4 Lead AUthors dated Feb 26, 2010 – just within the time frame of Holland’s request. Note that this was to AR4 Lead Authors not AR5 Lead Authors.

As typical, UEA did not include the attachment. Holland is used such tricks (TM- climate science) from UEA and submitted another request in May 2011, this time for the attachment to the Feb 26, 2010 email, containing the actual message from Stocker to AR4 Lead Authors.

UEA notified Stocker (WG1) of the new request. On June 6, 2011, Stocker haughtily responded (and this is the language that later made its way into the recent UK report on FOI) that release of his letter to AR4 Lead Authors:

there would be an adverse effect on international relations between IPCC WG1 and academic institutions within the United Kingdom because it would force is to reconsider our working arrangements with those experts who have been selected for an active role in WG1 AR5 from your institution and others in the UK”.

Although Stocker sent this letter on IPCC letterhead, it is not clear (and appears highly unlikely) that he had obtained any sanction from IPCC for this letter and appears that he was acting on his own authority.

UEA refused Holland’s request the same day. Holland asked for an internal appeal. UEA duly sent another notice letter to Stocker, who sent a virtually identical haughty refusal. UEA refused the internal appeal.

Holland then appealed to the ICO. In October 2011, UEA again notified WG1 of the appeal, noting that they would be supplying the letter to the ICO in confidence (as required under UK law). Stocker re-iterated his threat about UK researchers. In each letter, Stocker also objected to the identificaton by name of any IPCC official. Instead of putting on his big boy pants, the sanctimonious Stocker demanded redaction of both the name and position of the WG1 person sending the letter (himself and co-chair Dahe). (The identity of senior officials is not regarded as “personal” information under FOI law by the way.)

we would also object to their being identified by your revealing their position within the WG1 TSU as is now requested. This amounts to the same thing as revealing their name because each staff member has a specific job title.

In the ICO decision in February 2012 regarding my FOI request for a then unpublished articled cited in AR4 FOD (which was supposed to be archived under IPCC procedures), the ICO quoted from a submission from UEA (which both the ICO and UEA have refused to provide to me) which stated:

In another matter, we recently received exactly such representations from the IPCC TSU based in Geneva, Switzerland in which they explicitly noted that release of such material would “…force us to reconsider our working arrangements with those experts who have been selected for an active role in WG1 AR5 from your institution and others within the United Kingdom.”

This quotes from Stocker’s letter. Note that IPCC headquarters are in Geneva, a more senior provenance, while the actual letter came only from the IPCC WG1 TSU based in Bern. The distinction between IPCC – an intergovernmental organization – and WG1, a volunteer group of scientists, is an important one, that was elided in UEA’s submission ( the distinction was caught by Richard Tol in comments at Bishop Hill).

On March 1, 2012 (FER0408711), the ICO decided against David Holland as well. Holland appealed to the Tribunal on March 27 (EA-2012-0070). The matter is pending.

On July 27, 2012, Holland wrote to IPCC. Holland drew their attention to UEA representing communications from Stocker as official IPCC positions:

In its letter to the Commissioner of 18 November 2011, the UEA state:

“The IPCC have made it clear that the release of confidential documents would force them to reconsider working arrangements both with UEA and others within the United Kingdom.”

Thus, despite Climategate email 3529.txt (also attached) in which Dr Solomon told the UEA’s Professor Jones that she did not speak on behalf of the IPCC; and despite Climategate email 4752.txt (also attached) from Professor Jones to Mr David Palmer at the UEA stating that the Working Group Co-Chairs do not speak for the IPCC, the UEA appear to have persuaded the Information Commissioner that they do.

Holland asked the IPCC for the following confirmations for use at the Tribunal:

For the benefit of the Tribunal, I should be grateful if, as the Secretary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, you can confirm or deny that the attached communications from Professor Stocker to the UEA, represented by the UEA as the official view of the Panel and accepted as such by the Commissioner, are indeed the official view of the Panel of government representatives as agreed by them.

Can you confirm or deny that it is the official view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the withheld information referred to by Professor Stocker and the UEA should not be disclosed?

The IPCC refused to confirm or deny on the basis that the matter was pending before the Tribunal.

But the entire issue was whether Stocker had the authority to represent IPCC views.

The cynical opportunism of the UEA is demonstrated by the position taken by Phil Jones in a Climategate email, where he informed UEA FOI officials Palmer and Macgarvie that WG chairs “don’t get to talk for IPCC”:

I’m at an IPCC meeting this week. IPCC has rules and regulations, which we’ve sent you in the past. Tim can resend these if you don’t have them. I have spoken to someone here. IPCC is only a small bureau in Geneva, and the various people who lead the Working Groups don’t get to talk for IPCC.

This did not stop UEA FOI officials from representing letters from Jones’ pal, Stocker, as official IPCC positions.

Postscript 1 Remember the IAC report – the one which recommended that the IPCC Executive Committee include independent directors. Stocker and others sabotaged that. Instead, they appointed the Co-Chairs of the Working Groups to the Executive Committee: Stocker, Christopher Field from WG2, Ottmar Edenhofer of WG3.

Postscript 2:
Stocker’s letter (without any explanation of its context) was referred to indirectly by Universities UK in their submission to the House of Commons Committee considering the FOI act. The Committee quoted from the Universities UK submission,

208. …Universities UK observed that proving a negative, that funding was not awarded to domestic universities, was difficult:

[...] evidence of commercial partners being put off working with UK institutions is largely anecdotal. However, in a case involving the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) recently settled by the Information Commissioner for drafts of a published paper, the University of East Anglia highlighted that:

In another matter, we recently received exactly such representations from the IPCC TSU [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Technical Support Unit] based in Geneva, Switzerland in which they explicitly noted that release of such material would “[...] force us to reconsider our working arrangements with those experts who have been selected for an active role in WG1 AR5 [Working Group One, Fifth Assessment Report] from your institution and others within the United Kingdom.”

[369]

The full chain is this. The Committee quoted from the submission of Universities UK, which quoted from the ICO decision in my case (under appeal to the Tribunal.) The ICO quoted from a UEA submission in my case. Even though it was cited in the decision, the ICO refused to provide the submission to me even in response to an FOI request. The UEA in turn quoted from Stocker’s letter objecting to disclosure of his still secret letter to AR4 Lead Authors.

I wonder what Stocker’s secret letter said. And while Stocker framed his objection in terms of UK FOI legislation, the letter went to all AR4 Lead Authors, many of whom work for US, Canadian and Australian federal agencies and universities, offering other possible routes for obtaining the letter if IPCC wants to do things the hard way.

56 Comments

  1. rogerknights
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    Grinding fine!

  2. Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

    • Louise
      Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

      Why?

      • TerryMN
        Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

        Can’t tell you, it’s a secret :)

  3. hdhuffman
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

    “…the Executive Committee of the IPCC decided that it is not in a position to entertain questions…”

    That is easily translated: “We refuse to answer, on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate us.”

  4. Rich Dommer
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM | Permalink

    Steve, Small typo?? 2nd line: should “WG4 Lead Authors,…” be “AR4 Lead Authors,…”

  5. Ged
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    If this plot was any thicker, it would be gelatin.

  6. KnR
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    Tine again an amazing amount of effort goes to throwing up smoke screens and ducking/diving rather the exposing the ‘settled data ‘ for all to see which in the is only why of getting the changes they say are needed and can’t come to soon .
    You have to ask why/

  7. Alexej Buergin
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

    This post is about somebody from the University of Bern, the last post was about a group with somebody (else) from the University of Bern, so how about another, third post about the University of Bern giving a price (and money) to Michael Mann for his scientific achievemnents?

    • Skiphil
      Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 6:48 PM | Permalink

      re: Univ. of Bern

      not only is Stocker there but the EGU’s Oeschger Medal has been awarded to Stocker, Ray Bradley, and Michael Mann in its brief history (it has only been awarded for 9 years now, so at least 3 of 9 awards went to core members of the imperious IPCC diversion gang). It would be interesting to know the selection process for that award (it seems closely associated with U. Bern where Oeschger was a big deal), which seems to favor “The Team” and allies:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Oeschger_Medal

      p.s. Raphael Neukom of Gergis et al (2012) significance also came out of Univ. of Bern recently finishing his doctorate there (2010). Small world….

      • Marion
        Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 4:54 AM | Permalink

        The Oeschger medal was mentioned in the Climategate mails (116888314)

        from Phil Jones to Ray Bradley

        “Ray,
        I have been nominating you for several years, as has Andre
        and Jean – I think. Not sure how much the last two have been
        involved recently. I haven’t been for a few years.
        So, congratulations ! If as in previous years, you get asked about
        future awards, then consider nominating Keith and/or Mike. In the
        past it has alternated between ice cores and others.”

      • Geoff Sherrington
        Posted Aug 5, 2012 at 3:57 AM | Permalink

        Re Bern in Switzerland, after a visit there we wrote a letter to the Mayor protesting about a smallish pit in which a couple of bears were kept with an old log and a rubber tire. It was like animal death row, with nothing but boredom forecast until termination.
        The Mayor did respond, but in a dialect of German that even very German friends had trouble reading. He avoided a straight answer.
        I don’t know how to tie this together, with images of digging holes, beasts doing what they were forced to do, publicity attractions, data hard to access, a tree to study endlessly.
        I suppose the Mayor will get a medal if the qualifications are similar.

    • Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM | Permalink

      Bern has some history of lending a helping hand to insiders with things to hide. This is Wikipedia on the address 23 Herrengasse and one of its coyest residents:

      Dulles was also able to use his influence to have the street lights outside the property turned off to assist the secrecy of his visitors. These welcomed guests included spies, traitors, refugees, priests, exiles and expatriates, anyone who could provide him with intelligence. One of the most distinguished visitors to the apartment was Prince Max Egon zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a special agent of Himmler.

      Ah yes, those cosy moments between Dulles and Himmler. The Wall Street lawyer of course had the highest motives in all he did, whether in business or what is called government service, and I wouldn’t wish to suggest otherwise – but only because it would take us way off topic.

  8. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    Phil Jones to Stocker:

    I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.

    • ChE
      Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

      Phil still doesn’t seem to get the concept that there’s no such thing as deleted emails.

  9. jknapp
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    Open letter to all scientists who recieved the letter in question.

    Would one of you please send a copy of the letter to Mr. McIntyre. If there is nothing incriminating in the letter then there is no harm done and this situation is quickly put to rest. If there is then sending the letter demonstrates that you are a man/woman of character and integrity. Of course not sending it implies the opposite.

    Thank you in advance for doing what is right.

  10. Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    It is sad, for the questions you’ve posed
    Seem to leave the Team feeling exposed
    And they rage and they jitter
    And must “reconsider”
    Their “science”: If found out, they’re hosed

    But the questions are large in import
    This is not picking teams in some sport
    There are trillions at stake
    From decisions they’d make
    This deserves more than facile retort!

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  11. Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    Steve,
    You write, “In the ICO decision February 2002 regarding my FOI request,….”
    Do you mean February 2012?

  12. Adrian
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM | Permalink

    “As typical, UEA did not include the attachment.”

    To me this is very strange. Just from a point of principle if you asked for “snail mail” that included a cover letter for some documents, you wouldn’t expect to just receive the cover letter.

    But when it comes to email, they are technically one document:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Multipart_messages

    The only reason you view them as seperate is largely to how the UI presents it, and that is largley for security concerns, in that the email client won’t open non-text parts automatically.

    IANAL but only releasing the first section (upto the first – in practice the second – divider) of a multi-part mime email is probably non-complaint under law?

  13. Beth Cooper
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

    The IPCC,
    To know it is not to know.
    What is it? Don’t ask.

    h/t to David Bader and David Holland.

  14. Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 8:29 PM | Permalink

    How to manufacture a controversy 101

    • Jeff Norman
      Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM | Permalink

      Indeed, if everyone held their cards above the cloth and dealt from the top of the deck, there would be not controversy.

      • Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

        You seem to be misunderstanding my comment. I’ve written about this here. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/when-all-you-have-is-propaganda/

        • RomanM
          Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 4:15 PM | Permalink

          In the post that you wrote and have linked in your comment, you have slandered Steve by accusing him of being paid to operate his blog for the purpose of undermining public confidence in the work of climate scientists.

          I would suggest that you either provide proof of this fact or apologize for defaming his character.

          IMO, your sleazy attempts at character assassination would merit a ban on spreading your venom here.

        • Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 6:36 PM | Permalink

          Re: uknowispeaksense (Aug 4 14:44), That post he links to violates this:
          2. Keep it nice. If you were invited to a dinner party, you wouldn’t insult the host or other guests. This is my dinner party.

          His rule number two. Since it is his blog — mighta thought he would notice.

          I read it the way RomanM does…

        • gracco
          Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

          Thanks, Uknow. A great example of propaganda 101 at your link.

        • Derek
          Posted Aug 8, 2012 at 12:33 AM | Permalink

          All he does is show what little sense he has muchless what he speaks. People like him are their own worst enemies and a great example for “neutrals” of the AGW apostles.

  15. RoyFOMR
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 9:33 PM | Permalink

    “As typical, UEA did not include the attachment”
    Taking their lead from the UK Government here.
    The BBC when chasing a story often quote ‘we asked for a government representative to speak but were told that none was available
    Transparency? Yup but not as we see it Jim!

  16. Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

    …”because it would force is to reconsider our working arrangements ” …

    Presumably “force IS” should have been “force US”

    Was this typo in the original letter, or was it created for this page only? I notice Watts up have reproduced it too. You might want to correct it if it is a new ‘mutation’ – in case this goes viral. ;)

  17. geo
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

    Oh, somebody please get him to vow to cut off American scientists too.

  18. DaveA
    Posted Aug 3, 2012 at 10:35 PM | Permalink

    Very convoluted but at the heart it sounds like the 3 Wise Monkeys are at play. If certain truths are revealed we will need to act; solution: hide the truths! Anyone still want to argue these guys aren’t playing politics?

  19. Policy Guy
    Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 12:55 AM | Permalink

    What a tangle of self interest.

    It would seem that a legal challenge may be fruitful. I bet you could find the funding to unravel this onion of cross pointing fingers and get to the core question. At some point an adult has to enter the fray with legal swag.

  20. Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 6:08 AM | Permalink

    ” it would force is to reconsider our working arrangements with those experts who have been selected for an active role in WG1 AR5 from your institution and others in the UK”

    Trans:

    No more jollis to Bali for you if you can’t effectively stonewall people who question us.

  21. R.S.Brown
    Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 7:04 AM | Permalink

    There may be some wondeing who the Ar4 Lead Authors were and what institution they are affiliated
    with now.

    Some of these are not institutions subject to FOI laws in their respective countries.

    Please look up their mailing addresses on your own.

    Source of names:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ts.html

    Coordinating Lead Authors:

    Susan Solomon (USA),
    Dahe Qin (China),
    Martin Manning (USA, New Zealand)

    IPCC AR4 Lead Authors:

    Lead Authors:
    Richard B. Alley (USA), Penn State
    Terje Berntsen (Norway), University of Oslo.; CICERO
    Nathaniel L. Bindoff (Australia), Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre
    Zhenlin Chen (China), Dept. of International Cooperation, China MeteorologicalAdministration
    Amnat Chidthaisong (Thailand),
    Jonathan M. Gregory (UK), Department of Meteorology of the University of Reading &
    Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter
    Gabriele C. Hegerl (USA, Germany), Duke University
    Martin Heimann (Germany, Switzerland), Max-Planck-Institut für Biogeochemie
    Bruce Hewitson (South Africa), University of Cape Town [M.A. & PhD. – Penn State]
    Brian J. Hoskins (UK), University of Reading
    Fortunat Joos (Switzerland), University of Bern
    Jean Jouzel (France), Director of Research at the CEA (French atomic energy commission)
    & head of the Pierre Simon Laplace Institute
    Vladimir Kattsov (Russia), Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory (3-D modeling)
    Ulrike Lohmann (Switzerland), ETH Zurich Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science
    Taroh Matsuno (Japan), Director-General of the Frontier Research System for Global Change
    Mario Molina (USA, Mexico), UC San Diego
    Neville Nicholls (Australia), Monash University in Melbourne
    Jonathan Overpeck (USA), University of Arizona
    Graciela Raga (Mexico, Argentina), Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
    Venkatachalam Ramaswamy (USA), Princeton
    Jiawen Ren (China), Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina), Universidad de Buenos Aires
    Richard Somerville (USA), University of California, San Diego.
    Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland), Physics Institute, University of Bern,
    Ronald J. Stouffer (USA), NOAA
    Penny Whetton (Australia), CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
    Richard A. Wood (UK), Met Office Hadley Centre
    David Wratt (New Zealand) National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

    Contributing Authors:
    J. Arblaster (USA, Australia),
    G. Brasseur (USA, Germany),
    J.H. Christensen (Denmark),
    K.L. Denman (Canada),
    D.W. Fahey (USA),
    P. Forster (UK),
    J. Haywood (UK),
    E. Jansen (Norway),
    P.D. Jones (UK),
    R. Knutti (Switzerland),
    H. Le Treut (France),
    P. Lemke (Germany),
    G. Meehl (USA),
    D. Randall (USA),
    D.A. Stone (UK, Canada),
    K.E. Trenberth (USA),
    J. Willebrand (Germany),
    F. Zwiers (Canada)


    Steve: this list is incomplete. Jones and Trenberth, for example, were CLAs.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM | Permalink

      author country institution
      MENÉNDEZ, Claudio Guillermo Argentina Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y de l
      RUSTICUCCI, Matilde Argentina Departamento de Ciencias de la Atmósfera
      VILLALBA, Ricardo Argentina Departmento de Dendrocronología e Histor
      BINDOFF, Nathaniel L. Australia Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Coopera
      ALLISON, Ian Australia Australian Antarctic Division and Antarc
      COLMAN, Robert Australia Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
      WATTERSON, Ian G. Australia CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
      WHETTON, Penny Australia CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
      PITMAN, Andrew Australia Department of Physical Geography, Macqua
      NICHOLLS, Neville Australia Monash University
      KASER, Georg Austria, Italy Institut für Geographie, University of I
      FICHEFET, Thierry Belgium Université catholique de Louvain, Instit
      ARTAXO, Paulo Brazil Instituto de Fisica, Universidade de Sao
      SILVA DIAS, Pedro Leite da Brazil Universidade de Sao Paulo
      MARENGO ORSINI, Jose Antonio Brazil, Peru CPTEC/INPE
      DENMAN, Kenneth L. Canada Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling an
      FLATO, Gregory Canada Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling an
      FYFE, John Canada Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling an
      PELTIER, W. Richard Canada Department of Physics, University of Tor
      LAPRISE, René Canada Deprtement des Sciences de la Terra et d
      WEAVER, Andrew J. Canada School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Univ
      ZWIERS, Francis Canada Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling an
      CARRASCO, Jorge Chile Direccion Meteorologica de Chile and Cen
      ZHANG, Xiaoye China Chinese Academy of Meteorological Scienc
      REN, Jiawen China Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and
      GAO, Xuejie China Laboratory for Climate Change, National
      LUO, Yong China Laboratory for Climate Change, National
      ZHAI, Panmao China National Climate Center, China Meteorolo
      ZHANG, De’er China National Climate Center, China Meteorolo
      ZHAO, Zong-Ci China National Climate Center, China Meteorolo
      CHRISTENSEN, Jens Hesselbjerg Denmark Danish Meteorological Institute
      RÄISÄNEN, Jouni Finland Department of Physical Sciences, Univers
      DUPLESSY, Jean-Claude France Centre National dela Recerche Scientifiq
      HAUGLUSTAINE, Didier France Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratoi
      CAZENAVE, Anny France Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et O
      RAYNAUD, Dominique France Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysiqu
      LE TREUT, Hervé France Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique du
      BONY, Sandrine France Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, I
      CIAIS, Philippe France Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de
      MASSON-DELMOTTE, Valérie France Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de
      BRACONNOT, Pascale France Pascale Braconnot Institu Pierre Simon L
      FRIEDLINGSTEIN, Pierre France, Belgium Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratoi
      LEMKE, Peter Germany Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and M
      RINKE, Annette Germany Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and M
      CUBASCH, Ulrich Germany Institut für Meteorologie, Freie Univers
      WILLEBRAND, Jürgen Germany Leibniz Institut für Meereswissenschafte
      SCHULTZ , Martin G. Germany Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
      RAHMSTORF, Stefan Germany Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Res
      SRINIVASAN, Jayaraman India Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Scien
      KOLLI, Rupa Kumar India Climatology and Hydrometeorology Divisio
      UNNIKRISHNAN, Alakkat S. India National Institute of Oceanography
      RAMESH, Rengaswamy India Physical Research Laboratory
      RAMACHANDRAN, Srikanthan India Space & Atmospheric Sciences Division, P
      RAHIMZADEH, Fatemeh Iran Atmospheric Science & Meteorological Res
      ARTALE, Vincenzo Italy Italian National Agency for New Technolo
      CHEN, Anthony Jamaica Department of Physics, University of the
      FUJII, Yoshiyuki Japan Arctic Environment Research Center, Nati
      SUMI, Akimasa Japan Center for Climate System Research, Univ
      KITOH, Akio Japan First Research Laboratory, Climate Resea
      NODA, Akira Japan Meteorological Research Institute, Japan
      HANAWA, Kimio Japan Physical Oceanography Laboratry, Departm
      NOJIRI, Yukihiro Japan Secretariat of Council for Science and T
      OLAGO, Daniel Kenya Department of Geology, University of Nai
      AMBENJE, Peter Kenya Kenya Meteorological Department
      NGANGA, John Kenya University of Nairobi
      MAGAÑA RUEDA, Victor Mexico Centro de Ciencias de la Atmósfera, Ciud
      RAGA, Graciela Mexico, Argentina Centro de Ciencias de la Atmósfera, Univ
      MOKSSIT, Abdalah Morocco Direction de la météorologie Nationale
      KLEIN TANK, Albert Netherlands Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institu
      VAN DORLAND, Robert Netherlands Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institu
      LOWE, David C. New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmosphe
      RENWICK, James A. New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmosphe
      BERNTSEN, Terje Norway Centre for International Climate and Env
      MYHRE, Gunnar Norway Department of Geosciences, University of
      MAURITZEN, Cecilie Norway Norwegian Meteorological Institute
      JANSEN, Eystein Norway University of Bergen, Department of Eart
      HEINZE, Christoph Norway, Germany University of Bergen, Geophysical Instit
      KWON, Won-Tae Republic of Korea Climate Research Laboratory, Meteorologi
      BOJARIU, Roxana Romania National Institute of Meteorology and Hy
      BUSUIOC, Aristita Romania National Meteorological Administration
      SOLOMINA, Olga Russian Federation Institute of Geography RAS
      KATTSOV, Vladimir Russian Federation Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory
      GAYE, Amadou Thierno Senegal Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, ESP/C
      SARR, Abdoulaye Senegal Service Météorologique, DMN Sénégal
      HEWITSON, Bruce South Africa Department of Environmental and Geograph
      JOOS, Fortunat Switzerland Climate and Environmental Physics, Physi
      STOCKER, Thomas F. Switzerland Climate and Environmental Physics, Physi
      KNUTTI, Reto Switzerland Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Na
      LOHMANN, Ulrike Switzerland ETH Zürich, Institute for Atmospheric an
      CHIDTHAISONG, Amnat Thailand The Joint Graduate School of Energy and
      BRIFFA, Keith R. UK Climatic Research Unit, School of Enviro
      GILLETT, Nathan P. UK Climatic Research Unit, School of Enviro
      JONES, Philip D. UK Climatic Research Unit, School of Enviro
      GREGORY, Jonathan M. UK Department of Meteorology, University of
      BETTS, Richard A. UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
      COLLINS, Matthew UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
      HAYWOOD, James UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
      JONES, Richard UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
      MURPHY, James M. UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
      PARKER, David UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
      STOTT, Peter A. UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
      WOOD, Richard A. UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
      RAPER, Sarah C.B. UK Manchester Metropolitan University
      FORSTER, Piers UK School of Earth and Environment, Univers
      COX, Peter M. UK School of Engineering, Computer Science
      LE QUÉRÉ, Corrine UK, France, Canada University of East Anglia and British An
      HOLLAND, Elisabeth USA Atmospheric Chemistry Division, National
      SHUKLA, Jagadish USA Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
      TRENBERTH, Kevin E. USA Climate Analysis Section, National Cente
      MEEHL, Gerald A. USA Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Na
      OTTO-BLIESNER, Bette USA Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Na
      MOTE, Philip USA Climate Impacts Group, Joint Institute f
      SOLOMON, Susan USA Co-Chair, IPCC WGI, National Oceanic and
      RANDALL, David A. USA Department of Atmospheric Science, Color
      PENNER, Joyce E. USA Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and
      ALLEY, Richard B. USA Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania
      WOFSY, Steven C. USA Division of Engineering and Applied Scie
      PRATHER, Michael USA Earth System Science Department, Univers
      SHUM, C.K. USA Geodetic Science, School of Earth Scienc
      OVERPECK, Jonathan USA Institute for the Study of Planet Earth,
      RIND, David USA National Aeronautics and Space Administr
      MEARNS, Linda USA National Center for Atmospheric Research
      EASTERLING, David USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis
      FAHEY, David W. USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis
      HELD, Isaac USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis
      LEVITUS, Sydney USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis
      PETERSON, Thomas USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis
      RAMASWAMY, Venkatachalam USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis
      STOUFFER, Ronald J. USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis
      LEAN, Judith USA Naval Research Laboratory
      TAYLOR, Karl E. USA Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
      DICKINSON, Robert E. USA School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
      SOMERVILLE, Richard USA Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Uni
      TALLEY, Lynne D. USA Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Uni
      SODEN, Brian USA University of Miami, Rosentiel School fo
      THOMAS, Robert H. USA, Chile EG&G Technical Services, Inc. and Centro
      ZHANG, Tingjun USA, China National Snow and Ice Data Center, CIRES
      JACOB, Daniel USA, France Department of Earth and Planetary Scienc
      HEGERL, Gabriele C. USA, Germany Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Ni
      BRASSEUR, Guy USA, Germany Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory, Nation
      PRINN, Ronald USA, New Zealand Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Pla

    • Bebben
      Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 8:03 AM | Permalink

      Lead Authors from Norway were also

      Cecilie Mauritzen, now head of CICERO, University of Oslo;
      Gunnar Myhre, CICERO, University of Oslo;
      Christoph Heinze, University of Bergen, said to represent both Norway and Germany.

      Eystein Jansen from Bjerknessenteret, University of Bergen was Coordinating Lead Author of WG1 Ch. 6 on Palaeoclimate.

      (This list may also be incomplete.)

      • Jon
        Posted Aug 7, 2012 at 3:28 AM | Permalink

        They are there okay. The next question that popped up in my mind once I saw this list:
        How many of these are member of WWF or other like WWF?

  22. LearDog
    Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 7:15 AM | Permalink

    Putting aside your assertions for now – you highlight their mindset. And problem. Its not a game.

    If CAGW is such important a question for all of mankind – isn’t it a reasonable thing to expect people to behave ethically and above all else – to put their data and code out there so that others can check and make sure that we’re sure about this?

    Why expend such a collosal amount of time and energy hiding this stuff?

    • Tony Mach
      Posted Aug 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

      LearDog, I think the problem is the perceived mythical well-funded all-distorting oil-powered disinformation campaign they believe they face as an enemy – something akin to a cross between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein I imagine – and which justifies their secrecy and charades. After all, anything the enemy learns will be used by him only to distort, or so they believe.

  23. Posted Aug 4, 2012 at 8:40 AM | Permalink

    Nice

  24. R.S.Brown
    Posted Aug 5, 2012 at 12:54 AM | Permalink

    Over at WUWT:

    H/T to Berényi Péter !

    August 4, 2012 at 10:59 am

    Jim Cripwell says:

    August 4, 2012 at 5:53 am

    Here in Ottawa, Canada, I have written to my Member of Parliament, David McGuinty, asking him to find out whether there are any Canadian government employees who are in receipt of the secret letter. If there are, I have asked him to demand that they reveal the contents of the letter immediately. I am not holding my breath.

    Berényi Péter responds at August 4, 2012 at 10:59 am

    Why, let Mr. David McGuinty know Dr. Kenneth L. Denman was a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) WG1 AR4 titled “Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry”, and as such, was certainly among the recipients of said secret mail.

    He is a Senior Scientist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), which, in spite of its cryptic name, is a Ministry branch, really. And they have a rather strict transparency code.

    Do we know any other Canadians who might email a query to either Mr. Mcguinty or Dr. Denman ?

    • Posted Aug 5, 2012 at 1:14 AM | Permalink

      Like Steve McIntyre?

    • Posted Aug 5, 2012 at 7:19 AM | Permalink

      Re: R.S.Brown (Aug 5 00:54), David McGuinty is dedicated to the cause of Green Energy and believes deeply that cAGW is the greatest threat to mankind. It is unlikely that he will be sympathetic to your request.

      • tetris
        Posted Aug 5, 2012 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

        Then the request should be redirected through an MP who is not beholden to the CAGW “cause”. How about going getting right down to brass tacks and ask the Honourable Peter Kent, Federal Minister of the Environment and Member of Parliament [C] for the riding of Thornhill, Ontario?

        Anyone on this blog from that riding?

    • JCM
      Posted Aug 6, 2012 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

      David McGuinty is in favour of ‘moving to a carbon free economy’ when last I saw him on CBC TV ( a few days ago in fact on Power & Politics ). His knowledge of science is somewhat limited.

  25. Political Junkie
    Posted Aug 5, 2012 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

    Senator Nancy Greene Raines would be a good choice. She’s a “sceptic.”

  26. Posted Aug 5, 2012 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

    This is the simple explanation: No one can be in WG1 whose communications are subject to UK’s FOI, if this letter is released. Must be a doozy of a letter!

  27. tetris
    Posted Aug 5, 2012 at 11:01 PM | Permalink

    SteveM

    Why the moderation on my tetris suggestion?

    Someone of voting age in Canada [preferably from the Thornhill riding] just ask Peter Kent to get us the answer. Right guy to ask and shouldn’t altogether be too difficult to do..

  28. kim
    Posted Sep 6, 2012 at 8:27 AM | Permalink

    @ the Bish’s, hottin’ up this one.
    ========

  29. Mooloo
    Posted Oct 4, 2012 at 6:11 PM | Permalink

    The letter has turned up. A copy is at WUWT.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/letter_wg1ar4authors_26022010-1.pdf

    I felt that the bit about how they had already decided what the answer is, and that the purpose of AR5 is merely to make the message more effective, was something that I wouldn’t want to spread if I was trying to pretend to be a scientist.

    The rest is very bland.

    • Skiphil
      Posted Oct 4, 2012 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

      Yes most of the letter is bland, but as you note one bit assumes that AR5 will not be a genuine, new re-assessment but simply a confirmation of AR4:

      “The IPCC Chair, Vice-Chairs and Co-Chairs are working on a strategy to ensure
      that work on the AR5 is as effective as possible whilst at the same time emphasising the robustness of the AR4 findings.”

      They may claim that only means that their work is an ongoing project, but it certainly does imply that AR5 is not any genuine new re-assessment. AR5 is simply a pre-ordained confirmation of AR4′s findings. Not too surprising the IPCC types look at it this way, but not a genuine critical and scientific spirit….

      • Skiphil
        Posted Oct 4, 2012 at 6:31 PM | Permalink

        also, the admissions that it was a problem to rely upon “grey” literature in the past, and that some govts may have been considering their own inquiries or pressing the IPCC to do something (back in 2009-10) may be embarrassing admissions, however inconsequential they proved in terms of any critical outside attention….

8 Trackbacks

  1. [...] McIntyre has written an eviscerating essay about a secret letter circulated by the IPCC to UEA/CRU, which they are refusing to divulge, because it will: there would [...]

  2. [...] Steve McKintyre has written this up in considerable detail.  [...]

  3. [...] http://climateaudit.org/2012/08/03/ipccs-secret-letter/#more-16628 [...]

  4. [...] McIntyre has wrote an eviscerating essay about the secret letter circulated by the IPCC to UEA/CRU, which they are refusing to divulge, because: there would be an [...]

  5. By IPCC’s verkliga ansikte | The Climate Scam on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:01 PM

    [...] I våras hölls ett 3-dagarsmöte i KVA’s regi, som avslutades med en session som var öppen för allmänheten. Den sista timmen var vikt åt en person inom den centrala IPCC-kärnan (Thomas Stocker, Bern) med en för mig tidigare okänd Stephen Schwartz som bisittare. (Stocker var nyligen också centralperson rörande ett ”hemligt” eMail rörande IPCC-procedurer, som bl.a. diskuterats på Climateaudit.) [...]

  6. [...] McIntyre wrote an eviscerating essay about the secret letter circulated by the IPCC to UEA/CRU, which they are refusing to divulge, because: there would be an [...]

  7. [...] August 3, I discussed the progress of David Holland’s efforts to overcome obstruction by the University of East [...]

  8. [...] August 3, I discussed the progress of David Holland’s efforts to overcome obstruction by the University of East [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,381 other followers

%d bloggers like this: