Galloping Camel writes: 
The IPCC issued its fourth assessment report (AR4) in 2007, updated for the Copenhagen conference in 2009. This report raised a fire storm of criticism which elicited only a feeble response. As a result the IPCC’s credibility has been seriously damaged. Will the new “AR5” report correct the faults of its predecessors?
On December 12, 2011 documents purporting to be the “Zero Order Draft” of the WG1 (Working Group 1) committee was published on the Internet. Less than 48 hours later the site went dead. Fortunately, most of the files were recoverable.
If you have any of the missing files, please send a copy to info@gallopingcamel.info
Organizations that receive government funding for climate research are surprisingly reluctant to have any public scrutiny or input. For example, the University of Virginia, Penn State and the University of East Anglia are using the courts to block disclosure of information relating to work paid for by taxpayers. These organizations and many like them scorn sunshine laws, Freedom of Information Acts (FoIA) as well as the concept of accountability. This strategy is working for the most part, backed up as it is by a string of disgraceful “Investigations”.
The higher one goes in the government food chain the less interest in accountability. IPCC stands for “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, which in the opinion of some makes it accountable solely to itself. How anyone can justify resisting disclosure of information paid for by taxpayers is a mystery, yet the recent “Climategate 2” disclosures and related leaks have been strongly resented in some quarters as evidenced by attempts to “Unring the Bell”.
The heavy handed actions taken against “Tallbloke” and others may be attempts to intimidate people who want to lift the curtain that hides the Wizards of Climate Science from Dorothy and Toto.
See them at: http://www.gallopingcamel.info/IPCC.htm
h/t to Jeff Id
They have lost the science battle.But they are still politically active.
It is no longer about the science or even if there is any catastrophic warming coming.It is about control and they will try to achieve it.
Exposure,is the dreaded experience they are trying to avoid.That is why they are now fighting back in this area.They are just getting started.Their bureaucratic inefficiency made them slow to react.But they will do what they want to do.
It is going to get a lot worse than it is now.It will get really ugly.
I think these politicians and social theorists who pass themselves off as scientists have come to realize that the world is not going to commit economic suicide voluntarily. particularly when the case for AGW is falling apart. This does not prevent NGOs and regulatory agencies from attempting to enact their favored policies by fiat, or by law suit, but it considerably slows the process.
“accountabiliy” should be “accountability”. The first spelling is an accurate rendition of how The Git pronounces the word after a few too many 🙂
[Thanks, Git, fixed. —w.]
See the NY Times article on Climategate 2 this morning. They will stop at nothing to paper it over. Perhaps the “comment” section in the paper was absent due to the holiday. Or perhaps they simply do not want to hear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/science/earth/new-speculation-on-who-leaked-climate-change-e-mails.html?_r=1&hpw
Vic
“Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.”
“Fortunately, most of the files were recoverable.”
As The Register’s BOFH says, computers are devices for losing data. Perhaps they should call on his services the next time 😉
In discussing the recent release of some 5,000 Climategate e-mails, blogger Anthony Watts uses the clever headline “They are real — and they’re spectacular.” He credits Jerry Seinfeld as the source. Following his example, I choose the headline “Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!” — also taken from a Seinfeld episode — in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html#ixzz1iK8Lsy5g
Once the fallacy of the precautionary principle is swallowed by politicions and NGOs, advances in the science count for nothing because they are deemed not to be relevent. We are now up against the UNs Agenda 21.
“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment
“http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
Check it out for yourself.
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Nov. 2007
It is 2012. There has been no action. The IPCC has told us it is now too late for action. Thus, further action would be pointless. We would simply be throwing money away.
Question: If it is now too late, why is the IPCC producing another report? They have already told us it is too late to do anything. Why are they proposing we close the barn door after the cow has already escaped?
Clarification? Is this a an FYI and a soliciting request for erased Zero Level Draft fragments?
or is there revelation of a new effort to retrench on behalf of the IPCC? Both?
Correction: Climate Science should be Climate “Science”.
I think one of the greatest achievement or should I say most important role of a site like this is to maintain a constant vigilence on the Warmists.
For many years (unobserved)they were able to make wild claims, and bizarre predictions which they were then free to change as suited them.
Also by posting data from neutral and reputable scientific sources we are steadily denying them the scare headlines they are addicted to.
You cannot imagine the havoc I wreak on warmist comment columns with the single sentence…
“I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till 2020” !
Oh joy.
ferd berple said @ January 2, 2012 at 10:06 am
“We would simply be throwing money away.”
Is that not what the Western powers have been doing for most of my life?
One of the issues with FoIA in a globalised internet world is this:
The people who paid for research carried out in certain HEIs are not the only ones able to read it after publication!
So it would pay, in such a world, to get other suckers to pay for the research, scream FOI, FOI to all and sundry and then just read the stuff for free along with those who did.
So the US and UK taxpayers may be asking some other questions too, like:
1. Why should we pay to educate the world?
2. How, in an internet era, can you control access to publicly funded research results?
3. Are password-controlled secure domains secure enough for such a purpose?
4. If so, who controls who gets access?
It’s a messy fuzzy world out there…….
“Is that not what the Western powers have been doing for most of my life?”
Yeah, but when you throw away a billion here and a trillion there, before long you find you’ve run out of money.
Most Western nations are borrowing to fund day-to-day operations, which means they’re pretty much bankrupt. They can’t afford to throw money away any more.
@Rhys Jaggar
“..So the US and UK taxpayers may be asking some other questions too, like:
1. Why should we pay to educate the world?
2. How, in an internet era, can you control access to publicly funded research results?
3. Are password-controlled secure domains secure enough for such a purpose?
4. If so, who controls who gets access?”
You can’t limit the benefits of education to one group. It has to be a free gift to the world. If it’s not, it’s not education, it’s intelligence.
So the only thing the US and the UK should do is try to ensure that there is not too much duplication of publicly funded research. For which international liaison groups ought to be sufficient…
Vic, the NYT does not have a comment section for most articles.
Charles Gerard Nelson said @ January 2, 2012 at 11:17 am
“I think one of the greatest achievement or should I say most important role of a site like this is to maintain a constant vigilence on the Warmists.”
Not forgetting the pioneers of course:
Warwick Hughes who first blew the whistle on Phil Jones.
The late John Daly, my fellow Tasmanian who began the citizen-science that Anthony has brought to perfection (remembering his Dead Man’s Isle & Low Head investigations).
Doug Hoyt and his list of falsifications.
Hans Erren and his work on UHI.
Dave Wojcik and the Climate Change Debate List…
The biggest and ongoing problem is how do we get the MSM, or indeed the scientific media, to report things like this, either in an unbiased way or indeed to report it at all?
Doesn’t anyone know an independant serious renowned publisher who is prepared to publish what so many of them know but are afraid to say? Note I say publisher; there are several journalists, like Christopher Booker, who write minority columns, but their articles are often counteracted in the same paper by other stories.
We need a major well-respected journal to break the ice; I suspect that if one does so then many others would follow.
Perhaps not BBC. ABC and CBC though. Or not for a while, anyway.
And even if they do so, will the politicians act?
I’m not holding my breath.
MarkG said @ January 2, 2012 at 11:32 am
”Yeah, but when you throw away a billion here and a trillion there, before long you find you’ve run out of money.
Most Western nations are borrowing to fund day-to-day operations, which means they’re pretty much bankrupt. They can’t afford to throw money away any more.”
Sadly, that doesn’t seem to stop them trying 🙁
When it comes to politicians adopting an attitude more deeply questioning beyond the front page of the average daily newspaper I am not an optimist. There is I feel, only one thing that will wake the average politician from his / her co2 reverie, and that is some very seriously cold weather, especially if it happened during a summer period leading to a food shortage.
Whilst I was busy catching skin cancer on a French beach in the summer, a number of people in the UK apparently had a practise run at doing a food riot by going on a flat screen shopping expedition without paying for them. One big Northern hemisphere volcano, of which there are no shortage of suitable candidates (such as Katla) beginning to rumble, and we could see the people going food shopping without money. Most opinion, even NASA, thinks the forthcoming down-slope of the the current solar cycle will likely be drawn out and therefore cold, if it’s cold enough the inevitable food price rises that that would bring could become problematic for some.
Not too difficult to imagine in the UK, a country unable to feed itself and in 2009 reliant on imports for 40% of it’s food supply. So while our government prepares itself and the people for a warming World based on the reports of the narrow subservient clique that is the IPCC, the planet is about to enter a cooling phase, and possibly a severe and extended one a that.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/15/02/2011/125501/UK-self-sufficiency-in-food-how-bad-is-it.htm
In fifteen years time food rationing in the UK ?
Allow me to propose an admittedly controversial solution to the problem at hand, which is how to get politicians to listen to the sceptic side. The short answer is that they won’t even give us the time of day, so our only remaining option is to ask them to listen to a warmest. Now, before you all get aerated over this idea, the reasoning is – that even some died in the wool warmists are of the opinion that the medium term outlook is a severe drop in temperatures. Our very own R Gates is in print recently on this blog with that very view.
The only flaw in my cunning plan is how do get the UK house of parliament to invite R Gates to give them a talk, I don’t care how much rubbish he spouts about co2, as long as he also points out that starting in about 5 to 10 years time it is going to get a great deal colder in the UK, according to R Gates, somewhere between the Dalton and the Maunder minimums.
It could be done, R Gates knows Trenberth who probably knows someone at the BBC who probably knows someone in the UK government…
There is a cultural change occurring, thanks to the painstakingly fair analysis of the AGW claims, particularly in blogs such as WUWT (doing a new and better kind of peer review).
A few years ago no one would have bought t-shirts such as these:
http://www.zazzle.co.uk/anti+global+warming+gifts
Tom Waits sang all about trying to “unring a bell”:
But I prefer this:
Is North Korea part of the UNFCCC / UNIPCC? I guess they would veto any openness.
Well here’s one MSM outlet that seems to be onside:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/2/europes-airline-tax-bomb/
Maybe it will be the hip pocket nerve that will be the catalyst for more questions being asked by journalists.
A few years ago no one would have bought t-shirts such as these:
http://www.zazzle.co.uk/anti+global+warming+gifts
******************************************************************
At those prices, I don’t think too many will be buying them these days either. Are they made of silk?
IPCC’S highly skilled, highly paid Photographers with special trainings have already presented TEDx vedios. But the facts are there are no SUN SHINES TO melt the ICESHELVES. ICESHELVES ARE DEICING FROM BOTTOM BY CONC: DEICERS. Capture it & build more ice mases near Poles to bring down the temperatures. Welcome to visit AIR CONDITIONING OF MOTHER EARTH & comment
Are you kidding? Not even Fox News will stick their necks out on this issue. Not with the prospect of “2000 of the worlds leading scientists” chopping them off at the knees (in a very public way) for being complete idiots. Like it or not, the extreme vitriol boils down to the perception that the denialists represent an ignorant population of religious fundamentalist that can’t possibly understand the science. However untrue this is it results in an extreme arrogance associated with most exchanges with individuals that align themselves with the warmists. Something like ” how dare an ignorant idiot challenge my position”. I think it’s going to be a very long time before the MSM will take on this issue in any ballanced way.
“The icy parts of the planet — known collectively as the cryosphere — affect, and are affected by, local 20 changes in temperature. The mass of water stored in mountain glaciers globally has fallen year on year for 21 the past 20 years. The lost mass contributes to the observed rise in sea-level. Snow cover is sensitive to 22 changes in temperature particularly during the spring when the snow starts to melt. Spring snow cover has 23 fallen across the Northern Hemisphere since the 1950s. The Arctic has warmed at twice the rate of the rest of 24 the world. Surface observations in this region are sparse, but losses in sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean measured 25 by satellites — particularly at the time of the summer minimum in extent — and reductions in the area of 26 frozen land are consistent with the observed increase in temperature. In the Southern Ocean that surrounds 27 Antarctica, temperatures have not increased significantly. This is consistent with the slight increase in sea-ice 28 extent seen in the Southern Hemisphere.”
One more time with feeling!
How many contested statements does this excerpt from Chapter 2 contain?
“mass of water stored in mountain glaciers globally has fallen year on year for 21 the past 20 years” shows that it is worse than we thought – much worse.
But the rest of the paragraph is full of now discredited received wisdom.
Many of us were aware of this. So is this post begging for people to supply the downloads? Or is it for info?
Jason,
Some of the documents are still missing so I am asking for them to be sent to info@gallopingcamel.info. That’s how I got most of the files currently on my server.
The next task is to review the files in detail and that is far too large a task for one camel. That is why I am appealing for volunteers. Donna Laframboise has already shown the way:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/
They’re really hot to find who put the files online aren’t they ?
It takes a stunning effort of will to completely miss the content of the damning letters, but they do it.
Whoever did it should get a whistleblower prize.