date: Mon Feb 28 08:58:57 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: CCSP report review period
to: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

    Ben,
       Good to see you if briefly last Wednesday !  The rest of the meeting was rather odd.
    Some very odd things said by a few people - clearly irked by not having got a couple
    of proposals recently !  I'm not supposed to be contacting you !
       I would urge you to write up what you presented on the day and in the report. It was
    the most convincing presentation and chapter of the report. You should have less to do
   than
    the other chapters. Not yet sure how the summary will fare.
       We didn't discuss the email evidence (as you put it) nor Pielke's dissent. We shouldn't
    and we won't if the NRC people have their way.
       I was never really sure what the point of the review was.
    Cheers
    Phil
   At 20:59 24/02/2005, you wrote:

     Dear Dian,
     Thanks very much for your email. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments you
     expressed. Over the next few months, my time and effort will be directed towards
     writing up some of the analyses that we've performed in the course of our work on
     Chapter 5. I believe this is how I can be of most benefit to the CCSP report.
     At yesterday's meeting in Chicago, it was disappointing to see that our group's email
     correspondence can be submitted as evidence to the NRC panel. This has rather diminished
     my enthusiasm for further rounds of email exchanges amongst CCSP Lead Authors.
     With best regards,
     Ben
     Dian Seidel wrote:

     Dear Group,
     One thing I like about our line of work is the path we take in our research.  Focusing
     on the publication part of the path, I always get a sense of satisfaction, and breathe a
     little sigh of relief, when I send a manuscript off for journal review.  Although the
     outcome is uncertain, I like knowing that the paper is out of my hands for a period of
     time, and that I can turn my attention to other matters until I hear back from the
     editor.  After the review period, I'm able to return to the work refreshed, and with a
     bit more objectivity, because I've put it aside for a while.
     I'd like to suggest that we try to take advantage of the time the NRC panel is reviewing
     of our report to detach ourselves from it, so that when we have to address their
     comments and revise the report, we might have a clearer perspective on our work.
     These are just my own thoughts, and Tom as our Editor and the CLAs might have different
     ideas on how to keep us busy.  But I hope not! :-)
     Dian
     ----- Original Message -----
     From: "Thomas R Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>
     Date: Thursday, February 24, 2005 3:16 pm
     Subject: Re: science issue

     Roger,
     We should freely communicate among the team as needed.
     Thanks, Tom
     Roger Pielke wrote:

     Tom
     What is your policy with respect to internal CCSP exchanges?

     (i.e. my

     comments/questions to Ben). Are we to consider the CCSP report

     process>closed until we receive the NRC review? (of course, it is up to Ben as to

     whether he replies even if you are permitting CCSP exchanges).
     Roger

     --

     --
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Benjamin D. Santer
     Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
     Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
     P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
     Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
     Tel:   (925) 422-2486
     FAX:   (925) 422-7675
     email: santer1@llnl.gov
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
