Comments on: IPCC’s Secret Letter

By: Will Stocker Retaliate against the U.S? « Climate Audit

Will Stocker Retaliate against the U.S? « Climate Audit — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:31:30 +0000

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

By: Thomas Stocker versus the U.S. « Climate Audit

Thomas Stocker versus the U.S. « Climate Audit — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:28:01 +0000

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

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:31:19 +0000

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….

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:22:11 +0000

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….

By: Mooloo

Mooloo — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:11:41 +0000

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.

By: The ‘secret’ IPCC Stocker WG1 memo – found! | Watts Up With That?

Thu, 04 Oct 2012 22:15:26 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: IPCC’s verkliga ansikte | The Climate Scam

IPCC’s verkliga ansikte | The Climate Scam — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 04:01:19 +0000

[...] 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.) [...]

By: Game on – NOAA’s refusal of documents earns them a lawsuit | Watts Up With That?

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:37:37 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: kim

kim — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:27:05 +0000

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

By: Derek

Derek — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 05:33:22 +0000

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.