cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, Brian Hoskins <hoskins@met.reading.ac.uk>, jean.jouzel@ipsl.jussieu.fr
date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:52:09 -0600
from: Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov>
subject: Re: FW: IPCC Review Editors report.
to: "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" <john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk>, wg1-ar4-re@joss.ucar.edu, rchrist@wmo.int, ipcc-wg1@ucar.edu

   John

   I feel that the most appropriate response will be from you, since you have been queried.

   I will offer the following points that may be useful to you or others in replying to the
   queries that you or other REs may have received but of course it is up to you how you wish
   to respond.

   The IPCC process assesses the published scientific and technical literature or, in some
   cases 'gray literature', based on the judgment of the authors.  In general gray literature
   is used very seldom in WG1 although such material as industry technical reports are used
   more frequently in WG3.   Unpublished draft papers or technical reports referenced in the
   chapters are made available to reviewers for the purposes of the review, not the underlying
   datasets used.   IPCC does not have the mandate nor resources to operate as a clearing
   house for the massive amounts of data used in the underlying papers referenced.    The
   governance of conduct of research, and the governance and requirements of the scientific
   literature are not IPCC's role.

   The review editors do not determine the content of the chapters.  The authors are
   responsible for the content of their chapters and responding to comments, not REs.  Further
   explanations, elaboration, or re-interpretations of the comments or the author responses,
   would not be appropriate.  All of the comments, and all of the authors' responses, have
   been made available.   These are the proper source for anyone seeking to understand what
   comments were made and how the authors dealt with them, and it would be inappropriate to
   provide more information beyond the reference to the web pages where this can be found.

   best regards,

   Susan

   At 12:23 PM +0000 3/14/08, Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) wrote:

     Susan



     I have received the following letter from David Holland, who has links with Stephen
     McIntyre and his Climate Audint website, on the review process for chapter 6 of AR4 . I
     have discussed this briefly  with Jean and we do not think there is an issue. However,
     given the wider nature of the questions, I think it would be more appropriate for any
     response to come through IPCC rather than me as an individual.I will wait to hear from
     IPCC before I respond. I am in Exeter for the first three days of next week (+44 1392
     884604) if you want to discuss this further.



     I understand Brian has received a similar enquiry, hence I have included his name on the
     copy list.



     John


     Professor John Mitchell OBE FRS Chief Scientist,
     Met Office FitzRoy Road  Exeter  EX1 3PB  United Kingdom
     Tel. +44(0)1392884604  Fax:+44 (0) 870 9005050
     E-mail: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk


       ___________________________________________________________________________________

     From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net]
     Sent: 22 February 2008 15:50
     To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)
     Subject: Re: IPCC Review Editors report.

     Dear Dr Mitchell,


     Thank you for your reply. In the light of it I hope you might be able to answer the more
     detailed questions in the attached letter.


     David Holland

     ----- Original Message -----

     From: [2]Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)

     To: [3]David Holland

     Cc: [4]Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)

     Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:34 PM

     Subject: RE: IPCC Review Editors report.

     Dear Mr Holland


     I can confirm that you have had the complete Review Editors report and that there was no
     supplemental information submitted with the Review Editors report


     I hope this answers your enquiry.


     John Mitchell
       ___________________________________________________________________________________

     From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net]
     Sent: 31 January 2008 18:04
     To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)
     Subject: Re: IPCC Review Editors report.

     Dear Dr Mitchell,


     WGI TSU have now kindly sent me a copy of your Review Editor's Report and I attach a
     copy.


     Clair Hanson from your office, on behalf of WGII TSU has kindly sent me all the WGII
     reports and many of them provide substantial additional information.


     Can you confirm that the attached is the complete report or let me have a copy of any
     supplemental information?


     Thanking you in advance,


     David Holland

     Content-Type: application/pdf;
       name="CH6RevQs.pdf"
     Content-Description: CH6RevQs.pdf
     Content-Disposition: attachment;
         filename="CH6RevQs.pdf"
     Attachment converted: Discovery:CH6RevQs.pdf (PDF /IC) (004B9C39)

