As readers no doubt know, I have previously obtained a great deal of Sir John Beddington's correspondence around the Climategate affair. As evidence of Sir John's involvement in setting up the whitewashes grows, I started to wonder about the information that Sir John's office had said they had withheld for one reason or another. In particular I wondered what was covered by this:
* various internal advice from Government Office for Science and other officials to Sir John regarding the UEA incident and the establishment of the independent reviews, and advising on aspects of the handling of this from the viewpoint of the Government and his personal role.
Since there is a presumption in favour of disclosure, I decided to appeal the decision to withhold and I have now received some further information.
Among the interesting bits and pieces were the notes of a meeting between Sir John and Chris Field, the head of IPCC Working Group II. Although much of the conversation appears to be about procedures at the IPCC - more an area for Donna and Hilary than me - there is still much of interest and even a moment of high comedy. For example, I was interested in Sir John suggesting the publication of interim IPCC reports:
JB suggested that it might be good to have small update reports between the main IPCC reports. These would update the predictions made in the previous report and would be based on a pre-agreed approach. The process and any modelling used would be peer reviewed so the report would not need the same level of review as a full lPCC report, with key data such as on emissions and observed temperature rises updating the analysis. CF thought that this might be a useful way forward and would ensure that IPCC reports were stakeholder relevant. He commented that it would need governments to take an active, leadership role in proposing it and that there would be resistance in some quarters. He noted that [Redacted text] has already been a strong proposer of such an approach.
Who, we wonder, was the strong proposer of such an approach? I don't think the redaction is likely to be permissible under the legislation so I will have to try again if I am going to find out.
Conversation also touched on Working Group III, and here the minutes reveal an unhealthy desire for big business to get involved in the IPCC process.
JB felt that it was very important that the private sector were more involved. CF agreed; he felt that it was important to consider how the work was funded to encourage more private sector involvement. KE felt that the private sector was now much more interested in being involved. Industry representatives recently asked the WG III secretariat to be involved in the review process for a Special Report on renewables.
Hmm... I wonder what effect their input to the review had. Can anyone remind me if the Special Report on Renewables concluded that renewables were a good thing or not?
Then they moved on to the state of climate science:
CF and JB also discussed what can be done in the UK to restore faith in the science of climate change. JB informed CF of his planned climate science meeting where issues of uncertainty and understanding of climate change will be discussed with eminent scientists that have raised concerns. He also plans to write an article for Nature with the departmental Chief Scientific Advisers about uncertainty in climate science. There is also a possibility of writing an op-ed piece with John Holdren for the American press. CF and KE felt that WG III was now a potential target for sceptics looking to further discredit the IPCC (as WG II was) and they would appreciate support from JB, perhaps his article could also take WGIII issues into account?
I assume the meeting referred to was the Royal Society meeting on uncertainty that was much discussed at the time. If anyone can find the articles discussed that would be interesting too. But above all, isn't the interaction between IPCC and scientific bureaucracy fascinating to observe? Both men are straining themselves to shore up the tattered reputation of climate science, without even a flicker of interest in whether such a reputation is deserved. As I've said before, they don't work for you. You just pay for them.
Lastly, the two men discussed the Climategate affair and although there is little new information in the minutes, Sir John does at least enliven things by revealing a hitherto unrecognise talent for standup comedy (emphasis added):
JB updated CF about the enquiries following the leaking of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, that is the enquiry led by Sir Muir Russell and a review of the science being led by Lord Oxburgh. JB emphasised that Lord Oxburgh, as well as being a scientist, is a former chair of Shell so it should not be possible for people who may want to discredit the review suggest he is biased.
You couldn't make it up.