See Climate Audit: IPCC claim to have destroyed working documents violates objective, open and transparent process:
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.
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 years.”
Despite this, IPCC Review Editor John Mitchell of the UK Met Office claimed to have destroyed all their working documents and correspondence pertaining to his duties as Review Editor and the Met Office also claims to have expunged all records.
David Holland has also made FOI inquiries to Keith Briffa, a lead author of AR4 chapter 6. Here’s a progress report documenting: May 5 – FOI request
May 6 – CRU Acknowledgement
June 3 – CRU Refusal Notice
June 4 – Holland Appeal
June 20 – CRU Rejection of Appeal
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 acknowledgement on June 3 and Refusal Notice on June 20. This one has additional interest in that Holland asked for copies of expert comments on IPCC chapter 6 sent directly by Caspar Ammann to Keith Briffa, sent outside the formal review process. Both Briffa and Ammann refused to release these comments. For some reason, Ammann seems to think that he is not subject to IPCC requirements that expert comments be open and that he is entitled to make secret comments.
Fortress Met Office continued
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 Met Office has changed tactics. Now they say that they had made a mistake in reporting that they had held any of Mitchell’s email. Instead they now argue that Mitchell was acting “personally” when he acted as an IPCC Review Editor – sort of like gardening, or being a Methodist on Sunday or playing squash after work, I guess. I wonder if Mitchell booked vacation time for his jaunts to IPCC meetings or whether the Met Office paid his expenses. Would they also buy plants for his garden?