From: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/statement/Statement_WGI_AR5_SOD.pdf
2012/15/ST
IPCC STATEMENT
14 December 2012
Unauthorized posting of the draft of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report
GENEVA, 14 December – The Second Order Draft of the Working Group I contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (WGI AR5) has been made available online. The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review. We will continue not to comment on the contents of draft reports, as they are works in progress.
The Expert and Government Review of the WGI AR5 was held for an 8-week period ending on 30 November 2012. A total of 31,422 comments was submitted by 800 experts and 26 governments on the Second Order Draft of the Chapters and the First Order Draft of the Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary. The author teams together with the Review Editors are now considering these comments and will meet at the Working Group I Fourth Lead Author Meeting on 13-19 January 2013 in Hobart, Tasmania, to respond to all the comments received during the Expert and Government Review.
The IPCC is committed to an open and transparent process that delivers a robust assessment. That is why IPCC reports go through multiple rounds of review and the Working Groups encourage reviews from as broad a range of experts as possible, based on a self-declaration of expertise. All comments submitted in the review period are considered by the authors in preparing the next draft and a response is made to every comment. After a report is finalized, all drafts submitted for formal review, the review comments, and the responses by authors to the comments are made available on the IPCC and Working Group websites along with the final report. These procedures were decided by the IPCC’s member governments.
The unauthorized and premature posting of the drafts of the WGI AR5, which are works in progress, may lead to confusion because the text will necessarily change in some respects once all the review comments have been addressed. It should also be noted that the cut-off date for peer-reviewed published literature to be included and assessed in the final draft lies in the future (15 March 2013). The text that has been posted is thus not the final report.
This is why the IPCC drafts are not made public before the final document is approved. These drafts were provided in confidence to reviewers and are not for distribution. It is regrettable that one out of many hundreds of reviewers broke the terms of the review and posted the drafts of the WGI AR5. Each page of the draft makes it clear that drafts are not to be cited, quoted or distributed and we would ask for this to continue to be respected.
For more information:
IPCC Press Office, Email: ipcc-media@wmo.int
Jonathan Lynn, + 41 22 730 8066 or Werani Zabula, + 41 22 730 8120 Follow IPCC on Facebook and 
Twitter
IPCC Secretariat
c/o WMO · 7 bis, Avenue de la Paix · C.P: 2300 · CH-1211 Geneva 2 · Switzerland
telephone +41 22 730 8208 / 54 / 84 · fax +41 22 730 8025 / 13 · email IPCC-Sec@wmo.int · www.ipcc.ch
Note for editors:
The IPCC provides governments with a clear view of the current state of knowledge about the science of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation, through regular assessments of the most recent information published in scientific, technical and socio-economic literature worldwide. IPCC assessments are policy-relevant, but not policy-prescriptive.
For more information on the IPCC review process, go to:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/review_of_wg_contributions.pdf
For more information on the Fifth Assessment Report, go to:
http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml
To see the Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports go to:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf
To see the drafts and review comments of the IPCC’s latest report, go to:
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/review-comments-disclaimer
‐ 2 ‐
” The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review.”
Sunshine interferes with the process. Their words.
Note the contradiction in the first 2 paragraphs:
The leak interferes with the review process …. which ended on November 30th.
If the comment period ended Nov 30, how is the literature cut-off date still in the future? Do they write more content that is not subsequently open to comments? What are the openness and transparancy rules for this? Since this is still a draft, will they now take out the offending sentence from the final report?
“The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review by preventing us from burying without trace things that might not meet the Party Line”
Dear IPCC, fixed that for you 🙂 ^^^
There is a reason that some States and municipalities have Sunshine laws.
What is even more regrettable, is that organizations such as the IPCC feel that they must shroud their activity in secrecy… away from the gaze of those who fund much their activity and personnel.
Specifically… the public.
Who else likes to work in secrecy? “criminals.”
The horse has bolted. The IPCC is gradually making its way over to shut the gate.
It will be interesting to see what changes there are between this draft and the final published/released version.
Thankfully now that it is in the open this will be easy to check. Lets see how “open and transparent” they really are.
I hope they don’t delete anything important /sarc
How exactly does having more people read what you are doing make it harder to review what you wrote ? The world wonders….
As the IPCC is adhering to governmental procedures, using the tentative scientific outcomes as a preferrred (CAGW, the human race has donnit) direction finders, thus preventing as they say “confusion”, they make the terminal mistake to make the (often sloppy) science as leading instead of using the consequences of science derived “scenarios”. In that case the trade offs of the various scenarios should be leading. In other words the solidity of the scientific procedure will continue in the scenario selection procedures.
I’m not convinced that it was a good idea to leak this report. It will at least make them think hard before editing out the embarrassing bits.
Good on yer, Alec. Keeps the Warmists’ feet to the fire of accountability and rigor.
run rabbit run, dig a hole, forget the sun…..
There is currently a push by other governments for UN control of the internet. They will use this to plead that case. Fortunately, the U.S. has opposed.
Haste makes wastrels all the more apparent! Open your mouth and change feet, IPCC!
cross posted from the original thread:
Folks, let’s not get entirely focused on the GCR thing. Yes it is important, but my quick skim of just a few pages reveals that there is plenty more dubious science in this document. Gems like:
o they have a high level of certainty that ground level ozone in the future will be higher, lower, or about the same (yes, they actually said that!)
o they have a 95% confidence that the models are in agreement…. with each other. Wow. What about being in agreement with the temperature record?
o they do have some verbiage about forecasting, for example they ran their models with 1960 and 1980 data and show they have some skill. Wow, using data and models written in 2000, they can correctly model 1960 forward and 1980 forward. Big deal. What I want to know is how well models written in 2000 did compared to 2012. I haven’t found that kind of comparison yet, and I know of no model that predicted the cooling period we are currently experiencing.
o they predict LESS severe weather in Ch11, in opposition to everything they’ve been saying until now.
That’s just from a few pages of Ch11! My point here is that they are meeting again in January (see their just released statement) to consider revisions.
So let’s hammer them. Find the mistakes, find the obfuscation, the misdirection, document it and publish it. They’re behind the 8 ball and they know it. They either have to back down in the final draft, or they have to knowingly publish false information. They are scr*wed either way if we get down to work and start documenting this utter bullsh*t.
And let’s not leave the Summary for Policy makers out of it. Shred that too, turn up every instance you can of disparity between the science and the summary. Blog about it here or anywhere that you can get the issues made public. They’ll be forced to back down on those issues too for the final draft if we seize this opportunity and make the most of it.
The IPCC provides governments with a CLEAR VIEW of the current state of knowledge about the science of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation, through regular assessments of the most recent information published in scientific, technical and socio-economic literature worldwide.
Emphasis mine.
That sounds good, but see what Robert Watson has to say at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_%28scientist%29#cite_note-WebsterPagnamenta2010-6
In 2010, he warned the IPCC against overstatement:[8]
“The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
As a writer, one of my talents I’m told is my ability to make long drawn out explanations more concise. Thus, here is what the IPCC actually is saying, without so many unnecessary words getting in the way:
“You IDIOTS! You interfered with THE PROCESS!!!!!!!!!”
[snip. Persona non Grata — mod.]
davidmhoffer
Head over to The Blackboard. Lucia has done quite a good job of analyzing how well the models have been doing since the year 2000 moving forward.
@ur momisugly Bloke down the pub
I’m not either, but Jo Nova’s comment makes a good argument for it. I’d hate for Alec to end up being portrayed as our Gleick, but when you have the MSM in your pocket almost anything can be equated. I expect “Noble Cause Corruption” accusations will be flying our way now; as in if he’s willing to break the “terms of review” then what else will he do for “the cause”. Yes, I know, it’s a ludicrous comparison but this is a world where “A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy”.
All you have to do is to leave out the stuff in the middle, and you get:
I’ve never understood the need for scientific secrecy of this type. If I ran the IPCC, I’d publish every draft as it came off of the presses, along with the reviewers comments, in real time. I’d do it on the web, blog-style, so other interested parties could comment as well.
What is there in the review process that requires its work to be done in darkness? What secrets are they afraid might be revealed? What are people saying that they wouldn’t say in public?
Finally, yes, dear IPCC, we do realize it is a draft …
w.
IPCC’s Counterproductive Secrecy
While IPCC promised an “open” and “transparent” review process, in practice it has reverted to an even more secretive process by dishonest means. The 2010 InterAcademy Council (IAC) Report reviewing IPCC procedures strongly affirmed that processes and procedures be “as transparent as possible”:
Steve McIntyre addressed Another IPCC Demand for Secrecy
(emphasis added).
The IPCC’s current secrecy “language was almost singlehandedly introduced by Stocker”. ClimateGate revealed that Phil Jones emailed Stocker “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”
McIntyre highlighted:
“The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review”
What they really mean is they regret not being able to leak out juicy cherry picked bits of info to be used by the pro CAGW alarmist MSM like CNN and the BBC before the report goes public. The BBC and the green taliban has always managed to get advance notice of contents so they have time to produce the tsunami of supporting model derived clap trap. In the past there has always been sufficient time for the pseudo science manufacturers to produce numerous ‘its worse than we though’ scaremongering featuring green taliban spokesmen like Roger Harrabin.
Takes only one big old giant gorilla in the room.
“Climates Change”
Takes only one big old ugly gorilla in the room.
“Climates Chage”