The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.
My bold; I just wanted to draw your attention to the complete and objective nature of the work of the IPCC as well as its welcoming attitude to different views.
OK, that's enough of the bedtime stories (they all lived happily ever after). The R rated (X rated for any North American readers) can be gleaned from this email from Phil Jones of the CRU:
From: Phil Jones email@example.com
To: "Michael E. Mann" firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugeniafor years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with himto tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet alsothat you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeksto get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and alsofor ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sondeobs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change standout so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is alsolosing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I seeit. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, whichshows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first authoris a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrongbecausethe difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn'thappen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doingthis makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphereare all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
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
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL indeed!
Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth?
That's right, the "Coordinating Lead Authors". The guys who "coordinate" the "complete and objective assessment of the different views from the scientific community"
Pardon my French, but what a load of bollocks.