Although NOAA were minor players in the Climategate letters, the recent report from the Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce (re NOAA) is the first report to date in which the investigators made any effort to crosscheck evidence from Climategate correspondents against independent sources. It does not list the emails that it investigated […]
Apparently none of Santer’s four NOAA coauthors either received or sent any correspondence to Santer regarding the monthly data series used in Santer et al 2008. What a strange way to run a railroad.
On Oct 20, 2008, I sent Santer the following request: Dear Dr Santer, Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49 series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL. I understand that your version has been collated from PCMDI ; my interest is […]
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 […]
In a website release earlier this year, NOAA proudly announced the extensive involvement of its officers in IPCC as lead authors, review authors and even the co-chair of IPCC WG1, Susan Solomon, a senior scientist of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., is co-chair of Working Group 1 (WG1), the Physical Science […]
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 […]
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program Workshop was the first such workshop that I’d been to. Sometimes the anthropology is as interesting as anything else.
Climate Audit 