Below is a note, and attached a copy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) review process, both authored by Kevin Trenberth, one of the scientists in the midst of the tempest about the University of East Anglia emails.
Trenberth says, rightly, that he is proud of the openness and accountability shown by scientists such as him and Phil Jones from the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit. We could only cheer the day that the same transparency was shown by, say, the Competitive Enterprise Institute or the Cato Institute – two parties that are being inordinately enthusiastic about these stolen emails.
An Open Letter to Scientists from Kevin Trenberth
… This has been a difficult time for us, with very personal abusive and threatening emails, protesters at the bottom of the NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) hill, and trying to get a decent hearing. I am proud of what Phil and I did for Chapter 3 in AR4, and it is disappointing that the IPCC has not been more forthright in standing up for its procedures. After
the SAR, when editors were introduced, the IPCC process has become very open, transparent and thorough, but it is not documented anywhere that we can hold up to the world and say, “look, see”. The IPCC web site is not
helpful. It is possible to find something on IPCC procedures and the URL is in the attached. However, the attached is my attempt to detail the process of which we should be proud. In particular it documents the process down to the level of Chapter 3 of AR4. Along with the huge xls spread sheets that document how every comment (for chapter 3 over 3500) were handled and responded to (now why aren’t those made publicly available???) the process does not allow any of the finagling or manipulation we have been accused of.
Indeed in the stolen emails you will find evidence of this. Please promote the attached document and maybe we can get it onto the IPCC web site somehow? And maybe we can get others to pay attention to it.
Also, for those who have not seen it, I highly recommend the recent editorial in the latest Nature editorial Dec. 3, 2009: