cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
date: Fri Jun 12 12:10:33 2009
from: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: request for all correspondence related to IPCC
to: Susan Solomon <Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov>

   Dear Susan,
   you may remember that about a year ago we had a Freedom of Information request from David
   Holland for all correspondence and emails to/from Keith Briffa and me in connection with
   drafting the IPCC AR4, listing many people involved.  Phil was also involved because
   Holland asked for internal CRU/UEA documents too.
   UEA rejected this request on a number of grounds, including (i) individuals expected
   confidentiality and (ii) that our future relationship with the IPCC might be adversely
   affected if these materials were released.  The latter view was based in part on your email
   (copied below) indicating that releasing further material was not appropriate.
   Holland has appealed to the UK body that deals with these things, and UEA must explain its
   reasons for rejecting the original request.  I've been asked this:
   "We proceeded on the basis that Susan Solomon represented the 'official' view of the IPCC
   as an international organisation and that her statements represented those of the IPCC.
   Could you confirm Susan's position vis a vis the IPCC and if she does not 'represent' the
   IPCC, who would, or would be in a position to state their position on the confidentiality
   of information passing between IPCC participants that is at question in this case?"
   Now I realise that you aren't co-chair WG1 anymore, so I have two questions:
   (i) during the time when you were co-chair WG1, is it fair to say that your position did
   allow you to represent the IPCC view (or just the IPCC WG1 view)?
   (ii) can you suggest who we should contact who can currently represent the IPCC view on
   this matter?  We really need someone who is fully aware of the issues surrounding this and
   appreciates the context of this request!
   We're very firmly of the belief that there are important principles to uphold here, related
   to our (and all our co-authors') freedom to have frank and open exchange of views while
   drafting these important reports.  I notice that Holland states on McIntrye's blog:
   <[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6040#comment-342457> comment #46
   "The point is not AR4 but to get precedence so as to get into AR5 information as soon as it
   is held."
   If he wins his appeal and we release the AR4-related correspondence, his opinion seems to
   be that this precedence will open up access to AR5 correspondence "as soon as it is held".
   All UK-based authors would then expect to receive regular requests for their AR5
   correspondence *during* the drafting process.  This would, in my opinion, adversely affect
   the relationship between UEA (and all UK universities/public institutions such as Met
   Office) and the IPCC -- it would be very supportive if someone who currently represents
   IPCC (or at least IPCC WG1) could indicate that this is also the view/position of the IPCC.
   Sorry for the lengthy email, and thanks in advance for any help you can give.
   Best regards
   Tim
   At 15:44 09/05/2008, you wrote:

     Dear Colleagues,
     I am attaching below the message I sent to John Mitchell and the other REs, with regard
     to a query seeking information on data as well as discussions about comments, in case it
     is helpful to those of you who may not have yet seen it.
     The same considerations apply to the chapters as to the comment files.  The final
     chapters and comment files have all been made publicly available, and the web pages are
     the appropriate place for those seeking to understand what was done and the reasons why.
     Distribution of interim materials, or other forms of elaboration are not appropriate.
     best regards,
     Susan
     --------------------
     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

