Worldwide reactions to the IPCC AR5 leak

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 functionsshould 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.”

Flashback: Warmist Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC lead author, says “it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices”

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:

Draft IPCC report leaked (the evidence is so overwhelming it has to be kept secret!) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

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

IPCC – Full Speed Ahead

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

http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/279628063946469376

About these ads

57 thoughts on “Worldwide reactions to the IPCC AR5 leak

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. No wonder why UN wants to control the internet… to prevent something like this from happening.

    Freedom of Speech at its finest…

  7. 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?

  8. 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

  9. Much of a Hoot, really. Love JoNova’s “black box”. Also Sprach Climatothustra.

  10. 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.

  11. 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…

  12. izen says:

    December 14, 2012 at 8:32 am
    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.

    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.

  13. W. Soon and S. Baliunas told us that “Global Warming” was primarily due to the Sun many years ago. The truth shall always prevail.

  14. 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.

  15. “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.

  16. 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.

    e360: Let’s assume that cosmic rays don’t have an effect on clouds. What does that mean?

    Kirkby: It will settle a particular question, which to my mind can only be settled by experimental data. There’s a huge amount of opinion one way or another on the blogosphere that says “cosmic rays have no effect on the climate” to “cosmic rays do everything in the climate.” And no matter how passionately people believe this view or that view, we can’t settle it by energetic debate. We have to settle it by experimental measurements.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/climate-change

    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.

  17. Wait a minute… Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC lead author?! Wow! And he explains that “it is not clear how much additional benefit..” he can get from all this razmataz… Wow again!! Finally, after getting tenure, after dining and wining with powerful and famous, after making into a chapter of freakomonics, after becoming fearless leader of this Institution of something… finally, he is done with it. No need for geoengineering… What’s next? May be study of whether our entire universe exists inside of a computer simulation, like in “The Matrix”… Though it will be a competition with University of Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom who thinks that, “we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.” But wait… there will be study of climate in this simulated universe and the effect of the “computer” people activities. Nobody proposed such thing yet and, perhaps, one of the rock star friends will help with funding until taxpayer dollars kick in.

  18. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) December 14, 2012 at 8:00 am says:

    Leaks are bad for an organization because someone else puts their spin on first, and early spin sticks better than late spin.

    The problem is, Professor Tol, it is all spin. Having read some of the SPM last night, I conclude that there is no evidence presented for a future of catastrophic global warming. In fact the opposite. There is a tacit admission of no evidence for worsening hurricanes or extreme weather events, nor of more drought in the tropics. There is also the admission that AR4 was too extreme on aerosols, and lots of very shaky evidence for warming of the oceans. Further, there is no evidence presented of accelerating ice melt, nor accelerating sea level rise. In economic terms, there is no evidence of a costly future catastrophe that can justify any policy to reduce CO2, even if that policy were near-zero cost and effective.
    What true scientists should be calling for, and applying, is proper objectivity. That is confronting the weaknesses in one’s own arguments, and recognizing that other arguments are possible. Given that the evidence will always be weak, (even if the evidence were unambiguous) the last people you want running the show is a bunch of activists and spin doctors.

  19. The IPCC could abbreviate their reports to the bleeding obvious;
    Another 4 years, still no evidence. Need more money and parties.

  20. @ManicBeanCounter
    I was just putting my remarks cited by Anthony in context.

    Reasoning from the IPCC perspective, they tried to control the message by secrecy and instead lost control of the story. Regardless of your or my other views of the IPCC, this is a PR failure.

  21. Richards Betts, UK Met off. climate impact director, speaking to the BBC. ” This is a draft it will change. Yeah right

  22. Richard Tol,
    I quite agree with you that it is a PR failure. However, it would not nearly be so bad if they had a more rigorous approach to evaluating the evidence. I was a management accountant in industry for over twenty years. I learnt that it was fine to have loads of complex spreadsheets, or pages of justification. But if you did not review the results critically, and keep sight of the total picture, the whole lot would quickly unravel. The IPCC AR5 fails in critical evaluation (as it did with the extreme elements of AR4) which is why a great deal of effort is put into shutting off any avenue to ask the critical questions. If climatology was a healthy science, with plenty of robust evidence, PR would unnecessary. But like with a business with dodgy accounts, the smoke, mirrors and bluster of the IPCC is absolutely crucial.

  23. Amazingly this made it onto the ABC1 (Australia) 7pm news report, I actually heard the words “Cosmic rays” and “Climate Change” in the same report.

  24. [The IPCC's] work is carried out with complete transparency and objectivity…” – speech to heads of state, December 2008

    ==================================================================
    I suspect that what the IPCC (and Obama) mean by “trasparency” is “You can’t see what we’re doing.”

  25. “The IPCC is a totally transparent organization…Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage.” When you read this you instinctively know that it isn’t transparent. Sort of like those countries that called themselves The Democratic Republic of XYZ” – you just know that they’re not democratic. These peoplet do realize that it is others that decide if they are transparent but they are arroganrt enough to try to get away without being transparent. Trust me, I’m a scientist…

  26. I just read the guardian article. I’m surprised I ever made it back here because I nearly drowned in a vortex of spin. I also clicked on the earlier article by Skeptical Science’s Dana Nuticcelli who signs off with a flourish thus:

    “In fact, in attempting to argue to the contrary, Rawls has scored an own goal by showing that if anything, GCRs are currently amplifying a solar cooling effect.”

    They are so confident that their readers think temperatures are rising, that they can make this brazen remark which is proves Rawls correct.

    Both articles are so steeped in half-truths and witheld truths that I hardly knew where to start my usual laborious dissection, correction and nailing them to the floor…but I didn’t have to worry- comments weren’t allowed.

  27. Absolutely brilliant comment by Jo Nova. The Republicans should hire her to run their media operation.

  28. Russ R. says:
    December 14, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    And here’s Bloomberg’s reaction:
    “The period from 1981 through 2010 was “very likely” the warmest 30 year period in at least 800 years, the researchers wrote in the latest draft of a 26-page summary for policy makers, the main document that will guide lawmakers.”

    Is this an admission the MWP could have been warmer than today?

  29. @ManicBeanCounter
    I’m glad we agree on the PR bit.

    Some parts of the IPCC are hard science, other parts are soft as butter. The IPCC has found it extremely difficult to determine, let alone communicate, which is which. Levels of confidence as expressed in the Summaries largely reflect the power play between IPCC authors.

  30. All is typically silent in NZ. True to low wattage intellectual form, not a squeak from the delinquent and biased MSM.

  31. Richard Tol (@RichardTol):

    In your post at December 14, 2012 at 10:57 pm you say to ManicBeanCounter

    Levels of confidence as expressed in the Summaries largely reflect the power play between IPCC authors.

    No!
    Levels of confidence as expressed in the Summaries largely reflect the power play between the government representatives who approve each statement in those Summaries from the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Also, the IPCC’s Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) are published first and the IPCC so-called Scientific Reports are published after they have been amended to not-refute the already published SPMs.

    Richard

  32. Unless and until a substantial cohort of thirty-something academic researchers muster the cojones to flip Pachauri and his excrescent IPCC The Bird, totalitarian New World Order types like Holdren, Linkola, Schellnhuber will be ransacking public fiscs from now ’til the next Mayan Apocalypse.

  33. @Richard Courtney
    My conclusion is based on first-hand observations of the IPCC process as an author (contributory, lead, principal, and convening) in WG1, WG2 and WG3 for AR2, AR3, AR4 and AR5. Confidence levels are largely set by the authors.

  34. Richard Tol (@RichardTol):

    Your post at December 15, 2012 at 7:25 am refers to
    (a) your post at December 14, 2012 at 10:57 pm
    and
    (b) my rebuttal of it at December 15, 2012 at 1:51 am.

    Your post at December 15, 2012 at 7:25 am says in total

    @Richard Courtney
    My conclusion is based on first-hand observations of the IPCC process as an author (contributory, lead, principal, and convening) in WG1, WG2 and WG3 for AR2, AR3, AR4 and AR5. Confidence levels are largely set by the authors.

    Well, I have sat in an IPCC Meeting and watched what I said being done.

    But, assuming your claims are correct (in reality, I know my explanation is) then you will be able to explain the ‘Chapter 8′ scandal, especially since your claims say you were involved in Santer’s alterations to the text.

    I and many others would welcome the explanation which you say you can provide and we have wanted for many years. Please provide it.

    Richard

  35. Transparent….so were the emperor’s new clothes. The watermelons are finally starting
    to dry up.

    With regard to PR, this is about SCIENCE, not PR [i.e. convincing the "common folk" that
    the "scientific community" (aka "consensus") know what's good for them]…reminds me
    of Carly (and others) saying “perception is reality”. No folks, only reality is reality….
    and science is science, not PR.

    Sad….Hegel would be proud…of the “consensus”….

  36. New Scientists are up to speed putting out the propaganda to support the IPCC in an unbalanced report which ends with this sentence:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html

    “The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,” says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. “If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence.”

    So far there have been five comments, two very supportive of the sceptics, compared to thousand on WUWT or Dellingpole in the Telegragph. They really don’t understand the power of the Internet, do they

    But when it comes to press releases they are much better at it than the blog sites. Our side needs someone who can make up summaries of the arguments and news stories in short pithy sentences so that lazy hacks have something to copy and paste into their newspapers

  37. Gunga Din says:
    December 14, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    … I suspect that what the IPCC (and Obama) mean by “trasparency” is “You can’t see what we’re doing.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Seems like the “Climate Denier” Ralph M. Hall (R-TX), Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is calling out Obama, the President’s Science Advisor Dr. John Holdren, and the EPA’s Administrator Lisa Jackson, on that “transparency” issue.

    Committee Leaders Call on Administration to Release Secret Data Behind Looming Air Rule

  38. Julian Williams in Wales says: @ December 16, 2012 at 3:43 am

    …..But when it comes to press releases they are much better at it than the blog sites. Our side needs someone who can make up summaries of the arguments and news stories in short pithy sentences so that lazy hacks have something to copy and paste into their newspapers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

    Just ask John Munsell what happened to his story after a three day interview and approval by the editor of a big New York Magazine. It was killed by the OWNER of the press.(Info direct from John) This was a BIG story – E. coli Attorney on July 11, 2009: One E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak I Think I could have Prevented, – but it never made it into the mainstream media because it would have raised questions about the new HACCP regulations (1996) and the proposed new food safety bill.

    There are plenty of other similar stories such as the firing of journalists in Florida and the Derry Brownfield vs Monsanto fiasco.

    Skeptics have a snowball’s chance in Seventh Circle of “Dante’s Inferno” of getting reasonable media coverage. Who counts are the OWNERS of the press not journalists and they are really happy about the carbon economy making them lots of money. They are not about to shoot the golden goose just for a good story.

    World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
    The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

    (IPPC climate scientists BTW belong in Dante’s Eighth Circle.)

  39. Rajendra Pachauri knew in 2009 what AR5 would contain, as he revealed in this talk to a meeting at the New York offices of the Bahai International Community in September 2009, pre-Copenhagen.

    http://www.onecountry.org/e203/e20304as_Climate_Ethics_Appeal_story.html

    “When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken,” said Dr. Pachauri, speaking of the periodic assessments rendered by the group of more than 400 scientists around the world that he leads. “People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned. ’”

    I assume the number 400, rather than his oft-quoted 4000, is just a typo, otherwise those scientists disappeared faster than a Himalayan glacier.

Comments are closed.