UPDATE: The real bombshell of the report is now evident, see it here
Below is a collection of reactions today to the IPCC AR5 leak on the website stopgreensuicide.com (now down) but also reported on WUWT here.
Donna Laframboise, author of The Delinquent Teenager book about the IPCC:
The IPCC Leak: This is What Transparency Looks Like
On its Twitter feed the IPCC says it intends to issue a statement about the leak. Perhaps it will keep some prior remarks by its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, in mind (bold added):
“The IPCC is a totally transparent organization…Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage.” – magazine interview, May 2009
“The objective and transparent manner in which the IPCC functions…should convey conviction on the strength of its findings to all rational persons…” – testimony to a US Senate committee, February 2009
“[The IPCC’s] work is carried out with complete transparency and objectivity…” – speech to heads of state, December 2008
“So you can’t think of a more transparent process…than what we have in the IPCC. I would only put that forward as valid reasons to accept the science and the scientific assessments that are carried out.” – newspaper interview, June 2007
From James Delingpole at The Telegraph:
Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up
I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it’s business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme.
From Tom Nelson, a collection of Twitter and website reactions:
PM – Draft IPCC report leaked 14/12/2012
MARK COLVIN: So you’re saying that you’ve managed to basically eliminate this idea that sunspots or whatever are more responsible for global warming than human activity.
STEVE SHERWOOD: Based on the peer-reviewed literature that’s available now, that looks extremely unlikely.
Twitter / RichardTol: an alternative way to write …
an alternative way to write an IPCC report http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/first-order-draft-109-markets-and.html …
Twitter / IPCC_CH: The #IPCC is looking into the …
The #IPCC is looking into the publication of material that appears to be draft of an #AR5 report and will issue a detailed statement later
Twitter / RichardTol: because the IPCC refused to …
because the IPCC refused to acknowledge the existence of the internet, we now have an uncontrolled release of material http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html …
Twitter / RyanMaue: Well deserved warm-up on the …
Well deserved warm-up on the way for Astana Kazakhstan, from -40°F to -15°F for highs. Asian cold-vortex! pic.twitter.com/hs3qso3L
Twitter / RyanMaue: IPCC SREX is nary a year old. …
IPCC SREX is nary a year old. Didn’t find anything new in AR5. Why not just cancel the whole thing and blow the remaining budget on Rio?
Twitter / BigJoeBastardi: United States taxpayers have …
United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, from this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/#more-75705 …
Twitter / RyanMaue: Expect climate advocates to …
Expect climate advocates to say IPCC too conservative bc of influence by so-called deniers. Watch as they throw colleagues under bus.
@KenCaldeira on @IPCC_ch: “There’s kind of a…
@KenCaldeira on @IPCC_ch: “There’s kind of a pretense with these IPCC reports that it’s this latest science that’s happened in the last two or three years that’s really going to make the difference, that’s going to tip the balance in favor of action. I think really we’ve been filling in details in the last 30 years and the picture hasn’t changed substantially.”
From physicist Lubos Motl at The Reference Frame:
IPCC AR5 not acknowledging cosmoclimatology
I was agnostic about both claims but now I see that Rawls is surely having a point but my excitement is much weaker than his. In fact, I would say that not much is changing in the IPCC.
From Jo Nova:
What was the point of keeping the IPCC draft secret? The point is so the IPCC can control both the content and the PR. The IPCC wants a free kick, and they get one if the world doesn’t see how they arrive at the conclusion, and if critics can’t specifically point to errors or flaws until weeks after the giant press circus has done its megaphone production.
It’s how the media game works. First they release the “up and coming” scary headline. (Already done for AR5.) Critics can’t criticize what they can’t see.
Then they release the Summary with a three ring display of terrifying headlines. The black box that justifies it is shown off in all its mysterious glory: 4,000 experts labored for 5 years, produced 2,000 papers, 2 million emails, and rigorously, savagely dissected the science to give you this ominous, frightening message. Pay us your tithe! We will stop the Storms! The inner workings of the black box are held in the Sacred Vault. Those who question it are “deniers, nutters, conspiracy theorists, believe the moon landing was faked, are simultaneously paid by Exxon and suffer from ideological mental deficits — they wouldn’t accept any evidence anyway because they are old white male conservatives (that’s why we have to save the world by hiding the science — it simply is not a fair competition: the IPCC only has billions in funding, the support of the UN, most large banks, all western governments, most university money managers, the thought police in the press, the $176b carbon trading market, and the $257b renewables investment scene. Skeptics have wit, evidence, and the world wide web.)
Then finally they release the long paper with a few more headlines, but the circus has moved on. The people “know” the message. The press is bored, and the critics will need weeks to study the massive document in any case.
From NYT’s Andrew Revkin:
Leak of IPCC Drafts Speaks to Need for New Process – NYTimes.com
A WikiLeaks-style Web dump of drafts of the 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides fresh evidence that the organization’s policies and procedures are a terrible fit for an era in which transparency will increasingly be enforced on organizations working on consequential energy and environmental issues.
From Jeff Condon at the Air Vent
From Dr. Roger Pielke Jr on Twitter
IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific lit
Related articles
- BREAKING NEWS: IPCC AR5 Global Warming Report Leaked (pjmedia.com)
- Landmark climate change report leaked online (guardian.co.uk)
- IPCC report leaked, again [Stoat] (scienceblogs.com)
- Report: UN IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing (climatedepot.com)
- IPCC draft climate report leaked by sceptics (abc.net.au)
- IPCC draft (redux) (realclimate.org)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the first comment I ever made on a climate blog – well, if you can call Real Climate a climate blog that is – was that the great big yellow ball in the sky has much more to do with our climate than the infinitesimal rise of the percentage of an already trace gas in the atmosphere which may be due to humans.
Needless to say I was shot down in flames – with very little respect for the environment I may add – by the usual suspects there. It wasn’t very pleasant.
Joanna Nova provides a logical explanation of why the IPCC does not want the AR5 interim work to be made public. Ms Nova comments concerning the IPCC process are right on.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/draft-ipcc-report-leaked-the-evidence-is-so-overwhelming-it-has-to-be-kept-secret/
What was the point of keeping the IPCC draft secret? The point is so the IPCC can control both the content and the PR. The IPCC wants a free kick, and they get one if the world doesn’t see how they arrive at the conclusion, and if critics can’t specifically point to errors or flaws until weeks after the giant press circus has done its megaphone production.
It’s how the media game works. First they release the “up and coming” scary headline. (Already done for AR5.) Critics can’t criticize what they can’t see.
Then they release the Summary with a three ring display of terrifying headlines. The black box that justifies it is shown off in all its mysterious glory: 4,000 experts labored for 5 years, produced 2,000 papers, 2 million emails, and rigorously, savagely dissected the science to give you this ominous, frightening message. Pay us your tithe! We will stop the Storms! The inner workings of the black box are held in the Sacred Vault. Those who question it are “deniers, nutters, conspiracy theorists, believe the moon landing was faked, are simultaneously paid by Exxon and suffer from ideological mental deficits — they wouldn’t accept any evidence anyway because they are old white male conservatives (that’s why we have to save the world by hiding the science — it simply is not a fair competition: the IPCC only has billions in funding, the support of the UN, most large banks, all western governments, most university money managers, the thought police in the press, the $176b carbon trading market, and the $257b renewables investment scene. Skeptics have wit, evidence, and the world wide web.)
Then finally they release the long paper with a few more headlines, but the circus has moved on. The people “know” the message. The press is bored, and the critics will need weeks to study the massive document in any case.
The IPCC’s definition of “transparent” is the exact opposite of what you and I believe. Similar to a certain presidential administration that shall remain nameless, they use the word only to hide their evil intentions then act in the opposite manner. When irrational behavior becomes the norm for an organization, it is destined for failure and is worthy only of derision and elimination.
Re: Revkin: the organization’s policies[, conflicts of interest,] and procedures are a terrible fit for an era in which transparency will increasingly be enforced
Edit mine.
I was cited out of context.
An organization should either run a closed shop or be open and transparent. The Fed(eral Reserve System) is a closed shop, for good reason, and leaks are rare. The IPCC tries but fails to run a closed shop.
Leaks are bad for an organization because someone else puts their spin on first, and early spin sticks better than late spin.
Some readers will argue that what is bad for the IPCC is good for the world. I disagree. I prefer a competent, honest, and open IPCC.
The fact that 24 after the fact, the IPCC still has not responded shows just how clumsy this organization is.
A glance at the composition of the IPCC Bureau tells you why: The IPCC is to a degree run by the pre-internet generation, and has a large number of people from autocratic governments on its board.
I suspect the IPCC “transparency” will not even be a meme for them after this.
No wonder why UN wants to control the internet… to prevent something like this from happening.
Freedom of Speech at its finest…
Did you – did anyone – think for a moment that the beat no longer goes on?
Judith Curry on the AR5 SOD:
“I’ve downloaded the SPM and a few of the chapters. The extreme overconfidence of many of their conclusions is bewildering. More on this in future posts.”
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/13/week-in-review-121512/
No story on Canada’s national news website, Instead the CBC runs a story that more doubter(at least they did not use the word denier) are turning into “believers” yeah right and that bridge is how much?
Richard Tol,
I looked into the background of the founding fathers (Maurice Strong with strong ties to Al Gore) of IPCC and it doesn’t sound like it had much to do with preventing catastrophic weather from high CO2 output. It’s nothing more than a massive scam.
I’d much rather disband IPCC and start all over or just go with NIPCC – http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html
Much of a Hoot, really. Love JoNova’s “black box”. Also Sprach Climatothustra.
It is not the IPCC that wants to keep the draft reports secret, its the governments and business interests that have a history of diluting the findings of the reports.
Which is why they have been consistantly underestimating ice melt, weather extremes and the Baysian certainty of attribution.
In accordance with the existing (non) logic, it’s not a leak, but an intrusion (hacking) …
Politicians are the new scientists. No facts necessary.
See also Lucia’s take at http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/the-ipcc-gives-their-spin/
Howdy Mr. Tol
I, too, would prefer an open and competent IPCC. But that ain’t what we got.
Increasingly I can see the screen of secrecy in my crystal ball coming in motion, revealing incoherent parts of a certain password for a certain archive, probably promulgated just before IPCC AR5 final release…
izen says:
Your reasoning is absurd, izen; you have made an irrational statement. Transparency would eliminate what you assert whereas secrecy makes it possible for you to assert a fantasy.
“The IPCC keeps saying “transparency”. I do not think that they know what that means.”
Regards to Inigo Montoya
W. Soon and S. Baliunas told us that “Global Warming” was primarily due to the Sun many years ago. The truth shall always prevail.
Is the Soon and Baliunas paper cited? I must admit I am waiting for a better link to the AR5 before I download and read it. I tried the one last night and gave up.
Matthew W,
Slightly closer paraphrase: I do not think that word means what you think that it means.
“izen says:
December 14, 2012 at 8:32 am”
LOL, What a Hoot.
You need to develop your trolling capabilities or you’ll get no-one to…Oh rats, I responded.
On the same day the Guardian talks about the leak it funnily enough has another story (interview) on the same day concerning…………………clouds and cosmic rays.
And observation how we are going to have to settle the power of co2 to indirectly warm the Earth. Lets see if the 16 years of lack of warming turns to 17 then 18.