IPCC has just written me saying that they will send me review comments on chapter 6 subject to the following restriction: As this additional form of distribution is being provided in conjunction with the review process, the compiled comments are not for re-distribution to others. Given that the review comments are supposedly in an “open […]
IPCC has a policy requiring them to make all expert and government review comments available under the following terms: 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 […]
One of the most important IPCC representations is the supposedly tremendous quality control of its review process. I’ve mentioned in passing on a number of occasions that, when I sought to obtain supporting data for then unpublished articles, IPCC threatened to expel me as a reviewer. I’ve had a few requests to recount my experience […]
Here’s a post which I wrote last June but didn’t post up at the time because the NAS Panel report came out and I had other pressing matters to comment on. My post as then drafted started: Last week, through Chefen, Jean S and myself, here here here and here , we showed that MBH98 […]
I’ve previously discussed IPCC WG1 publication deadlines in the context of Wahl and Ammann [2006], where the authors seemed to make last-ditch efforts to comply with IPCC WG1 publication deadlines, but ironically failed to comply with the letter of the deadlines. There have been some other high-profile "late-breaking" articles (Osborn and Briffa [2006], Wahl et […]
Last week, the review of the second draft of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report began. Some readers here are IPCC reviewers and may not be aware of the following provision of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf, which states that: "All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to […]
Luboà…⟠Motl pointed out that IPCC "needs" Ammann and Wahl in a peer reviewed journal. Let’s re-visit some curious timing issues, which Ian Castles brought up before and which need to be re-examined with the re-submission. The IPCC WG1 timetable (thanks to Ian for this) says the following: Third Lead Author meeting, December 13 to 15, […]
There’s a description of IPCC procedures for adopting reports here. There are a number of policies on "disparate views" or "different views"
Climate Audit 