I received the following response today from Tom Karl regarding my 2007 FOI request (See here): As previously indicated in my e-mail last Thursday, NCDC did indeed put together a response to your official FOIA request, but due to a miscommunication between our office and our headquarters, the response was not submitted to you. I […]
For some reason, Michael Tobis seems to think that the Team is busy cranking out responses to an endless stream of my data requests. Nothing could be further from the truth. For me, getting data from the Team is no easier than posting at realclimate. At this point, it seems to be Team policy to […]
Recently, David Holland reported the unedifying spectacle of John Mitchell, Chief Scientist of the Hadley Center, an institution which proclaimed itself to be the “most significant” contributor to WG1, attempting to circumvent mandated requirements that IPCC be “open and transparent” and that all “written comments” be archived, by claiming that his email correspondence with IPCC […]
More obstruction from the Met Office, in which they have changed their obstruction strategy. Previously they said that Mitchell had destroyed all of this email correspondence. This prompted David Holland to ask for information on the date of the destruction and on records management policy at the Met Office. Rather than answer the unanswerable, the […]
On March 31, 2008, David Holland sent a letter to Keith Briffa asking about several IPCC issues. In correspondence released from the Hadley Center, Briffa indicated his intention of being unresponsive. On May 15, Briffa sent an unresponsive reply to Holland, following which Holland initiated a FOI request on May 27, 2008 leading to an […]
As noted in other posts, IPCC policies state: All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five […]
We’ve been following with interest David Holland’s efforts to obtain information on how IPCC review editors discharged their important duties under IPCC process, with the most recent progress report here. Here’s another update.
Last year, we noted the insolent and unresponsive answers by IPCC chapter 6 Lead Authors to Review Comments in connection with the Hockey Stick reconstructions. Under IPCC policies, Review Editors have important obligations to ensure responsiveness of Chapter Authors (see policies discussed here). The comments by Review Editors were not put online by IPCC, but, […]
David Holland has written in raising an excellent point about the failure of IPCC WG1 to release the Review Editor comments. In our examination of specific issues e.g. the Briffa truncation, the handling of trends, etc., the Author Responses (online through an earlier CA initiative) show that the IPCC authors often made unconvincing and tendentious […]
Willis Eschenbach received a message today that the CRU list of stations used is online at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ . The webpage says: The file gives the locations and names of the 4138 stations used at some time (i.e. in the gridding that is used to produce CRUTEM3) during the period from 1851 to 2006. All these […]
