cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:12:07 +0100 (BST)
from: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: FOI stuff
to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk

Hi Keith and Phil,

I see on ClimateAudit that there are now many posts on Wahl & Ammann, its
citing by Chap 6 of IPCC and how this fits with the publication deadlines
etc., late changes to the IPCC publication deadline rules (a memo from
Manning), plus "proof" that Ammann corresponded directly with us and not
via the official review comments process, and thus his correspondence is
apparently not included in the official set of comments/responses:

McIntrye: "Ive added a section to the above post showing the remarkable
parallelism in language between the Reply to Review Comments for Review
Comment 6-735 and language in then unsubmitted Ammann and Wahl. The
Chapter Authors asserted that they were giving a balanced view of the
literature, while relying on unpeer reviewed opinion from Ammann to
supposedly rebut Review Comments."

David Holland comments that he will follow up some of these issues:
"Incidentally, the email address in the Manning memo is
ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov and must be subject to US Freedom of Information Law.
I will be asking some questions this side of the pond, hopefully someone
in the US will also ask a few."

So I'm sure that Holland will be pursuing or even expanding his FOI request!

I can't remember what emails I do or don't have, but it would be useful if
we do have the one from Wahl/Ammann confirming that their article received
final acceptance, to demonstrate that we followed the rules concerning the
deadlines for material that we cited.

Tim



