The minutes for the NAS Panel here includes a reading list. They provide citations for each of the PPT presentations, including ours. They mention a “handout” and “CD” from us.
The “handout” was a formal written presentation to the panel, setting out the points in our PPT. It deserves a citation. I wonder whether they even gave it to the panel members. The reading list includes the Comments on our work by Von Storch-Zorita and by Huybers, but it does not include our Replies (which were also on the CD). I know that it was probably a mistake and no harm was intended, but, at best, it’s amateurish.
I wonder how they made up this reading list? There aren’t any articles on spurious regression or calculating confidence intervals. There aren’t any articles about replication standards or disclosure.
Climate Audit 
2 Comments
…or scientific misconduct or ethical violations or abuses of the peer review system. I’d be very surprised if there were any references to changing terms of reference…
I followed the link to http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?MeetingID=1199&MeetingNo=1 and did not see anything called meeting minutes, or anything called a reading list.
I then tried the link at “Closed Session Summary Posted After the Meeting” and found “The following materials (written documents) were made available to the committee in the closed sessions:” which I guess is what you had in mind by the phrase “reading list”.
I mentiion all that in case others have a similar difficulty.
I notice that the citation of “McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick. 2003. Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance.” has a date of 2003, and does not mention GRL.