Email 3498, March 2005, IPCC lead author Phil Jones writes some unintelligible, yet eyebrow-raising stuff about the allegedly gold-standard IPCC process

Email 3498

Off tomorrow and not back in CRU till March 10. I'm not supposed to talk to anyone of the report authors ! There was a lot of odd things said after the presentations in Chicago last week. We're charged with writing a report, which will be published, but you get to rewrite the report and no-one sees the one we looked at ! What is the point of publishing it ! Roger Pielke didn't come out of it too well. Some thought he had some good ideas but didn't express them very well. Most thought he just didn't express them very well. All thought Ben's was the best chapter. Almost all think RSS is right. Also why is Fu et al. dismissed as controversial? Likely most work will be needed on Ch 6 and 1, then 2-4 and least for 5. The Exec Summary was deemed OK, but it isn't a summary of the report, so you'll have to do some major reworking. Remember I didn't tell you all this. Lots of details to come - not sure when. Seems a long-winded process.