cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:12:07 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: FOI stuff to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith and Phil, I see on ClimateAudit that there are now many posts on Wahl & Ammann, its citing by Chap 6 of IPCC and how this fits with the publication deadlines etc., late changes to the IPCC publication deadline rules (a memo from Manning), plus "proof" that Ammann corresponded directly with us and not via the official review comments process, and thus his correspondence is apparently not included in the official set of comments/responses: McIntrye: "I’ve added a section to the above post showing the remarkable parallelism in language between the Reply to Review Comments for Review Comment 6-735 and language in then unsubmitted Ammann and Wahl. The Chapter Authors asserted that they were giving a “balanced” view of the literature, while relying on unpeer reviewed opinion from Ammann to supposedly rebut Review Comments." David Holland comments that he will follow up some of these issues: "Incidentally, the email address in the Manning memo is ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov and must be subject to US Freedom of Information Law. I will be asking some questions this side of the pond, hopefully someone in the US will also ask a few." So I'm sure that Holland will be pursuing or even expanding his FOI request! I can't remember what emails I do or don't have, but it would be useful if we do have the one from Wahl/Ammann confirming that their article received final acceptance, to demonstrate that we followed the rules concerning the deadlines for material that we cited. Tim