date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:33:06 -0700
from: Susan Solomon <ssolomon@al.noaa.gov>
subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] draft to sign
to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu

<x-flowed>
Dear Colleagues,

As a CLA of the TS, I am on the CLA mailing list and have had a 
chance to read your very helpful messages.    I would like to 
personally thank each and every one of you for your very thoughtful 
remarks (including Richard Wood, who is the only one expressing 
reservations about replying - and I think that both Richard Wood and 
others who suggested the importance of care and dignity are 
absolutely correct).    In fact I have been quite moved by this 
entire correspondence and found it to be one of those 'IPCC moments'. 
Thank you.

I feel that your letter will be most helpful and have the greatest 
impact if it is prepared and signed by you and if the co-chairs and 
Dr. Manning (who also is a CLA of the TS) do not sign.       Please 
ignore it as you like.   Please make your own decision about what to 
say, or to not say anything at all is fine too, about the chair.

I also agree with Ram that this is neither the first nor the last 
such piece we will be dealing with of this nature, so it is your call 
but I would like to suggest making this letter as 'versatile' as it 
can be.  Again I want to emphasize that it is totally up to you but 
you might want to consider a short cover note sent to the editors of 
New Scientist (I believe Richard Somerville has their email 
addresses) that indicates concern over the fact that New Scientist 
would publish such inappropriate material, followed by a separate 
letter.

Then the letter you could attach, and ask that they publish, since 
they have published so much wrong stuff could be broad rather than 
getting into specific rebuttals.  It could be brief, indicating what 
was done to prepare the SPM by us as a group, and indicating in 
closing that anyone who has no personal knowledge of what occurred 
could refer to this letter in future if they wish to cite an informed 
source.

Regarding Paris:   If you wish to refer to the fact that you as a 
group feel that the changes that occurred in Paris were essentially 
editorial issues of language or presentation style, that you were 
indeed surprised by how minor the changes were (as many of you have 
said to me) this would be good to have in a document if you feel so. 
'Presentation style'  is good language, I think, since even the 
famous change regarding 'likely five times' and solar in the RF 
headline was a non-change, really, since we fully retained all the 
information in the figure and in the main text - so in essence even 
that was a matter of presentation in the end, which is a key reason 
why I didn't push harder to keep it.    I don't suggest you get into 
details but this is FYI.

Regarding earlier drafts:   It could also be useful to state that at 
no point during any step in the drafting and revision process was 
there any inappropriate input by 'government agents' to the framing 
of the document that was the starting point for Paris (rather that it 
was prepared jointly by the authors in order to present the report 
clearly in the collective judgement of those authors).   I had to 
write a short description of how the SPM was prepared in response to 
a question after our congressional hearing (and I add that Kevin, 
Jerry, and Richard Alley all saw this and agreed with it).    A 
little more detail than I put in here could be useful for this.  The 
fact that collectively the authors made choices based entirely upon 
their own expert judgements about clarity, conciseness, and accuracy, 
bearing in mind the need for brevity in the document could be 
helpful.  I am not trying to put words in your mouth but rather make 
a suggestion about the type of thing to say - in fact it will be 
better if you rewrite this so it is your own words.   Such a broad 
letter could have great utility: we could all use it whenever 
appropriate, rather than just for New Scientist.  We might consider 
putting it on the WG1 web site too.

The cover note could then also express your surprise at New Scientist 
using sources who cannot possibly have any personal knowledge of what 
occurred (Wadhams, Wasdell, and Mann), and that the writer of the New 
Scientist articles quite clearly ignored information that WAS sent to 
him by people who DID actually know what happened (Jones, Denman, and 
actually myself as well, probably more).  Not only was  none of what 
we gave them quoted, but our responses were misrepresented as 'lack 
of transparency' and such nonsense.  You could cite a simple 
statement out of one of your messages regarding the fact that the 
substance of the SPM was not altered.  You could then express your 
concern that New Scientist does not seem to following any proper 
standard of objective reporting.

  (I suggest not using the word 'biases' nor referring to early 
information and further data - that is not needed.  Nor is the issue 
of 'emerging' conclusions needed - it was our judgement to look 
deeper as we went along and we should not be trying to explaining 
anything more than that.  Short is probably best here...).

Bear in mind that New Scientist could well choose to publish your 
cover note and not just your letter if you follow this route - so 
both could best be kept quite short and concise, as Kevin and others 
have suggested.

My correspondence (two sets) with Pearce follows.    I kept the 
second one deliberately short as he was obviously fishing for 
nonsense and my first response had already addressed how the report 
revisions were carried out.   The first came to my attention because 
it was sent to NOAA public affairs, who forwarded it on to me.  My 
response obviously did not stop him from making inappropriate 
statements in the article - cleverly by baiting Mike Mann and Peter 
Wadhams into doing it for him, and not properly quoting anything of 
what I told him (or what Phil or Ken told him).    This is just for 
your information.  I suggest taking something out of Phil's or Ken's 
responses to him rather than mine if you think that is helpful.  But 
it isn't needed - doing the above seems to be 'dignified' and 
sufficient to me personally.

I will stress in closing that this entire note is intended only for 
your consideration, and whatever you do it is a pleasure and honor to 
be your colleague.

best regards,
Susan
----------
Second message and response:
>Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 06:30:16 -0700
>To: pearcefred <PEARCEFRED@compuserve.com>
>From: Susan Solomon <ssolomon@al.noaa.gov>
>Subject: Re: fred pearce
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>
>This is a ridiculous assertion.
>Susan Solomon
>
>>Susan,
>>Thanks for your note.  I am quite happy to accept, and publish, your
>>assurance that there was no undue political interference in the drafting of
>>the SPM.  It is, as you say, signed off by 33 authors. I accept 
>>that reviewers do not have direct personal knowledge of how the
>>draft was prepared.  But they can compare different versions of the draft
>>and apply textual analysis.
>>I think what David Wasdell does highlight in his analysis is that there has
>>been a fairly systematic removed from the April draft of certain types of
>>statements and observations.  Specifically, references to positive
>>feedbacks and possible acceleration of climate change.
>>It would be useful if we could include in our reporting of Wasdell's
>>analysis your own interpretation of this.  Is he right in his textual
>>analysis?  Did this happen in an ac hoc way or as the result of a stretagic
>>decision about what should be included and excluded? And what were the
>>scientific grounds?
>>Regards
>>Fred Pearce
>>New Scientist
------------
First message and response:

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:07:48 -0700
To: PEARCEFRED@compuserve.com
From: Susan Solomon <ssolomon@al.noaa.gov>
Subject: Assertions by Fred Pearce
X-Rcpt-To: <ssolomon@aztec.al.noaa.gov>
X-DPOP: Version number supressed

The attached has come to my attention.

All of the assertions below are utterly false, and it would be a 
disgrace to scientific reporting if they were to appear.  

Reviewers of the document do not have direct personal knowledge about 
how the draft was prepared and so do not represent appropriate 
sources.  

All drafts of the document you appear to be referring to (for the 
Summary for Policy Makers or SPM) were prepared and revised by a 
subgroup of 33 authors of the IPCC (2007) Working Group 1 report and 
reflect their joint evaluation and agreement upon all material.  

The list of names of those 33 scientists is given on the front page 
of the Summary. 

Susan Solomon

>
>I hope I have got the right person to ask for a comment on a story I have
>on NOAA's role in the IPCC process.
>I am based in London, UK, so I don't normally deal with NOAA and therefore
>am relying on your web site for media contact names.
>Maybe if you are not the right person you will pass this on.
>I have a story quoting a British scientist involved in reviewing the IPCC
>working group 1 report (which was, as I inderstand it, drafted within  a
>secretariat run out of NOAA).  In it he charges that significant 
>watering down of the report took place
>after the first draft was completed in mid-2006.  Specifically, he says
>references in the first draft to positive feedbacks and possible
>acceleration of warming were removed or watered down.  He characterises
>this as governmental intereference in the scientific process.  He 
>does NOT directly charge NOAA in this regard, but basically says it
>happened under your watch, and you are a governmental agency.
>I cannot give you the name of this scientist at this stage.  But I thought
>you ought to have the option to respond to the charge, which is backed by
>some other researchers I have spoken to.
>Specifically you might like to answer the following questions:
>1. What role did NOAA and Department of Commerce officials who are not
>working scientists play in the drafting of the IPCC working group 1 report
>summary for policy-makers released in Paris earlier this month?

None

>2. As secretariat for the report, how do you respond to suggestions that
>NOAA either initiated or was party to the watering down and removal of
>references in the report to "positive feedbacks" from climate change (for
>instance from water vapour and carbon-cycle changes) and the resulting
>potential for accelerated warming, and of references to recent reports of
>accelerated loss of ice sheets and resulting sea-level rise?

Your assertions are utterly false

>I have a deadline tomorrow (UK time) on this story.
>Regards
>Fred Pearce
>Environment consultant
>New Scientist
>London
>PEARCEFRED@compuserve.com


</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Solomon_AnswerHallQuestion1.doc"
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu
http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas

