This post will remain at the top for a few days, new stories will appear below this one
UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin at the NYT weighs in, and semi endorses the leak, see update below – Anthony
UPDATE2: Alternate links have been sent to me, should go faster now. – Anthony
UPDATE3: The main site is down but a large “all in one” RAR file (and bittorrent) has been created by a readers, see below. – Anthony
UPDATE4: 7:30AM PST 12/14/12 reactions are now coming in worldwide, see here, and the IPCC is going to issue a statement today. – Anthony
UPDATE5: 8:30AM PST 12/14/12 The IPCC has issued a statement on the leak, see below. -Anthony
UPDATE6: 12PM PST 12/14/12 The real bombshell of the report is now evident, a lack of warming to match model projections, see it here
UPDATE7: 12:30PM PST 12/14/12 Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. Analysis of UN IPCC Draft report : IPCC ‘shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods’
UPDATE8: 5PM PST 12/14/12 Another IPCC reviewer speaks out, this time about water vapor trends – actual data and IPCC contradict each other.
UPDATE9: 2PM PST 12/16/12 A rebuttal to Steven Sherwood and the solar forcing pundits of the IPCC AR5 draft leak
Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing
(Alec Rawls) I participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”), and am now making the full draft available to the public. I believe that the leaking of this draft is entirely legal, that the taxpayer funded report report is properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, and that making it available to the public is in any case protected by established legal and ethical standards, but web hosting companies are not in the business of making such determinations so interested readers are encouraged to please download copies of the report for further dissemination in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation. My reasons for leaking the report are explained below. Here are the chapters:
From http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/
(which is down now, see updated links below in update #2)
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Why leak the draft report?
By Alec Rawls (email) [writing at http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/ ]
General principles
The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires weighing the “public’s right to know” against any harm to the public interest that may result. The press often leaks even in the face of extreme such harm, as when the New York Times published details of how the Bush administration was tracking terrorist financing with the help of the private sector Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), causing this very successful anti-terror program to immediately collapse.
That was a bad leak, doing great harm to expose something that nobody needed to know about. With the UN’s IPCC reports the calculus is reversed. UN “climate chief” Christina Figueres explains what is at stake for the public:
… we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.
So may we please see this “science” on the basis of which our existing energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent “green” energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers. Thus the drafts ought to fall within the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.
The Obama administration implicitly acknowledged this when it tried to evade FOIA by setting up private “backdoor channels” for communications with the IPCC. If NCAR’s Gerald Meehl (a lead author of AR5’s chapter on near-term climate change), has working copies of the draft report (and he’s only one of dozens of U.S. government researchers who would), then by law the draft report (now finished) should be available to the public.
The IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled through the UN’s comment process. If there is any merit to that rationale it is now moot. The comment period ended November 30th so the comment process can no longer be affected by publication.
As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.
Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.
Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC
Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.
The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):
There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.
The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC’s computer models is seen to be “solar irradiance.”
This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.
The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 “further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change” (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.
The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.
My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.
The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.
Will some press organization please host the leaked report?
Most of us have to worry about staying within cautiously written and cautiously applied terms-of-service agreements. That’s why I created this new website. If it gets taken down nothing else gets taken with it. Media companies don’t have this problem. They have their own servers and publishing things like the draft IPCC report is supposed to be their bailiwick.
If the press has First Amendment protection for the publication of leaked materials even when substantial national security interests are at stake (the Supreme Court precedent set in the Pentagon Papers case), then it can certainly republish a leaked draft of a climate science report where there is no public interest in secrecy. The leaker could be at risk (the case against Pentagon leaker Daniel Ellsberg was thrown out for government misconduct, not because his activity was found to be protected) but the press is safe, and their services would be appreciated.
United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, all channeled through the funding bureaucracy established by Vice President Albert “the end is nigh” Gore when he served as President Clinton’s “climate czar.” That Gore-built bureaucracy is still to this day striving to insure that not a penny of all those taxpayer billions ever goes to any researcher who is not committed to the premature conclusion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are causing dangerous global warming (despite the lack of any statistically significant warming for more than 15 years).
Acolytes of this bought “consensus” want to see what new propaganda their tax dollars have wrought and so do the skeptics. It’s unanimous, and an already twice-vetted draft is sitting now in thousands of government offices around the world. Time to fork it over to the people.
=============================================================
UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin writes in a story at the NYT Dot Earth today:
It’s important, before anyone attacks Rawls for posting the drafts (this is distinct from his views on their contents), to consider that panel report drafts at various stages of preparation have been leaked in the past by people with entirely different points of view.
That was the case in 2000, when I was leaked a final draft of the summary for policy makers of the second science report from the panel ahead of that year’s round of climate treaty negotiations. As I explained in the resulting news story, “A copy of the summary was obtained by The New York Times from someone who was eager to have the findings disseminated before the meetings in The Hague.”
Here’s a question I sent tonight to a variety of analysts of the panel’s workings over the years:
The leaker, Alec Rawls, clearly has a spin. But I’ve long thought that I.P.C.C. was in a weird losing game in trying to boost credibility through more semi-open review while trying to maintain confidentiality at same time. I’m sympathetic to the idea of having more of the I.P.C.C. process being fully open (a layered Public Library of Science-style approach to review can preserve the sanity of authors) in this age of enforced transparency (WikiLeaks being the most famous example).
I’ll post answers as they come in.
Full story at DotEarth
==============================================================
UPDATE2: Alternative links for AR5 WG1 SOD. At each page click on the button that says “create download link,” then “click here to download”:
Summary for Policymakers
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425211/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 1: Introduction
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425214/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436270/Ch2_Obs-atmosur_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch02_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436276/Ch3_Obs-oceans_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch03_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436279/Ch4_obs-cryo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch04_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436282/Ch5_Paleo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch05_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436285/Ch6_Carbonbio_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch06_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436286/Ch7_Clouds-aerosols_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch07_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425217/Ch8_Radiative-forcing_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 8 Supplement
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436312/Ch8_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_SM_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436298/Ch9_models_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch09_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436302/Ch10_attribution_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch10_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436303/Ch11_near-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch11_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425220/Ch12_long-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch12_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425221/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425222/Ch14_future-regional_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 14 Supplement
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436309/Ch14_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_SM_Final.pdf.html
Technical Summary
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425223/TechnicalSummary_WG1AR5-TS_FOD_All_Final.pdf.html
======================================================
UPDATE3: a large “all in one” RAR file has been created by a reader “hippo”
Link to the entire set of documents, as single RAR archive:
http://www.filedropper.com/wwwstopgreensuicidecom
And now a bittorrent magnet link:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80
reader “krischel” writes:
It’s a folder with each individual PDF in it.
If you have a torrent client like Transmission, you should be able to copy/paste open up that magnet URL and start downloading.
Replaced Link with the newer one. -ModE
==================================================
UPDATE4: 7:30AM PST 12/14/12 reactions are now coming in worldwide, see here, and the IPCC is going to issue a statement today.
UPDATE5: IPCC statement here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/statement/Statement_WGI_AR5_SOD.pdf
Full text here in this WUWT post (easier reading)
S Green : December 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm
says: “…..How can it be claimed this is game-changing when the report is quite clear that the Sun cannot explain the observed warming?….”
Simply put, they are saying that the possible solar forcing mechanism is not yet fully understood, so they prefer the proposed “forcing by CO2 driving water vapour levels (the major GHG) in the atmosphere”.
Another mechanism which is not yet fully understood.
bravo alec –
here comes the sun….
Well done Alec. No more “science behind closed doors”, or last-minute rewrites of the ‘executive summary’. Bravo!
Oh, and also thanks to Dana Nuccitelli for braving the lion’s den. And Anthony and the mods for letting his comments stand – unlike some sites where Dana usually posts.
Should be on BitTorrent by now, no?
I’m going to have to stop reading Ch11 because it is just making me angry. The manipulation and deception is beyond belief. In between the paragraphs so convoluted that they are meaningless, there are outrageous gems such as this one:
“It is virtually certain that globally-averaged surface and upper ocean (top 700m) temperatures averaged over 2016–2035 will be warmer than those averaged over 1986–2005.”
WELL DUH!
Since it is already warmer NOW than it was over the average of 1986 to 2005, the temperature could flat line from now to 2035 and that would still be true! In fact, the temperature could DECLINE from now until 2035 and that might still be true.
Notice also that they cleverly left a gap between the end of one period (2005) and the beginning of the next period (2016)? Eliminates the falling temps we’ve seen since 2005 until now! They’re hoping that their precious warming resumes by 2016 and this cooling period is then excluded from the data that would support the statement!
I’m not even done the first 5 pages and I’ve shouted b*llsh*t out loud a dozen times already.
@crosspatch:
Be my guest.?
Alec Rawls says:
December 13, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Alec, your criticism of Isaac Held’s work was meaningless, because you completely missed the point of his 2-box model. It was never intended for predicting anything, it was only a way to interpret the actual predictions of real models, so the criticism of it as a predictive model is totally irrelevant, as I explained on that thread, more gently, at November 16, 2012 at 11:15 pm.
The whole issue of heat diffusing from the surface to the deep ocean is a boundary value problem, in which values at each boundary (the heat input at the top, and the temperature of the deep ocean) are fixed, and used to calculate what happens in between. Modeling this as one box is a gross oversimplification, as is modeling two boxes. You really need a large, or infinite number of boxes to see what’s going on. But by proposing a second box below the first one, you increased the distance from the first bounday (surface) to the second (deep ocean). This is a more-literal-than-usual case of moving the goalposts. If you wanted two boxes, you should have broken the first one in two, for smaller boxes, but you just added another, shoving the vague boundary of the deep ocean farther down. Accordingly, your criticism is not only irrelevant but totally specious as well.
If you want to find out what happens in the idealized case with heat transfer through a medium, that’s been worked out by mechanical engineers. You can find it by googling “semi-infinite solid heat conduction” Two such results are:
http://ecourses.vtu.ac.in/nptel/courses/Webcourse-contents/IIT%20Bombay/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%204/main/4.5.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=ERtpN94lCOsC&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=semi+infinite+solid+heat+conduction&source=bl&ots=wvGzxHS_G2&sig=wUuWPRsNSPzQu8lefd5D3KIGYv8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_YfKUJqSB4eCjAK_hIAY&sqi=2&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=semi%20infinite%20solid%20heat%20conduction&f=false
These show the temperature as a function of time to be given by the error function, which you get by integrating a normal distribution from time zero to time t. Since the surface and deep ocean start at very different temperatures, and you only change surface heating by a small percentage, you actually would have a starting time that was pretty far out on the error function curve. Additionally, there’s a tiny correcton for the fact that the ocean surface doesn’t warm instantaneously. But these pale in comparison to the fact that the ocean has currents, horizontal and vertical, with the heat transfer input varying seasonally and with wind and cloud cover. No one-dimensional model will cover these, whether with one box, two boxes, or an infinite number of small boxes. But none of this matters because the only purpose of the model was, if possible, to boil down the actual predictions of a Real Model to a single number, just to understand, overall, the effects of increased solar forcing. The one-box model gives a summary statistic, nothing more. Held showed that this worked, and gave a summary statistic that says a lot about the output of the Real Model. That’s all that was asked of the one-box model, and it worked.
I myself would be very careful about proposing new methods, or criticising someone elses, in economics, because it’s not my thing. Similarly, it’s not a good idea to send an economist to do a physicist’s job.
Alec Rawls wrote:
No need to apologize, Alec. Doug Allen is nitpicking. Tell him to read the Democrat platform. Obama is merely a figurehead who is forced to act as a neutral actor because he is president of ALL the people. That’s why you can find quotes that put him on both sides of every issue. It’s no secret where his sympathies lie. They lie with those who contribute millions to his campaign, i.e. those rich Democrats who have been proselytized by the green lobby and who share views with various radical green NGOs. Which is not to suggest OBama’s been bought. He’s convinced by the evidence because he’s only seen the evidence that has been cherry-picked for his benefit. He doesn’t have the time to analyze the issue. He’s too busy counting the money, which got him elected.
The activist wing of the Democrat Party has been captured by the lunatic green fringe. They would pass carbon taxes gleefully if they had the chance. They would attribute every instance of extreme weather to AGW (or, as it should now be labeled, ACC –Anthropogenic-forced Climate Change) if they had the chance. They believe that the more government, the more regulation, the more they can control economic liberty, the better.
It’s who they are. It’s all based on what they can get away at any given moment.
The good news is that people are waking up because courageous individuals such as yourself are lifting the veil.
Are they kidding me?
“There is high confidence that baseline surface ozone (O3) will change over the 21st century, although projections across the RCP, SRES, and alternative scenarios for different regions range from –4 to +5 ppb by 2030 and –14 to +15 ppb by 2100.”
They’re highly certain it will change? Wel DUH! so am I! What idiot would be certain that it would NOT change? They’re measuring it in ppb! Then they have the audacity to provide a range of projections that go in opposite directions and average to…. ALMOST ZERO!
In other words, they’re certain things will change, they just have NO CLUE IN WHAT DIRECTION.
Are they not embarrassed to be associated with this document? I know I would be.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:b7d1530b9d830f9ff5de6cb77c7f15d1b0a374cc&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80
Trying to seed, not sure if I got it setup right, but people can try.
UPDATE – Newer link with summary -ModE:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80
JazzyT: I am aware that Held did not design his two-box model to be applied to the solar-warming question where there is a steady high level of forcing for 50+ years. I noted that in my post. But when I put the solar question to him he DID apply his two-box model to it, with utterly bogus consequences.
Indeed, a many thousand box model (the GCMs) would be better. The “consensus” ought to be GCM-testing AR5’s repeated claims that a continued high level of enhanced solar forcing would not cause continued warming, but they haven’t, and the reason is obvious. They know it would not give the results they are claiming. OF COURSE a continued high level of forcing will cause continued warming, and my comparison of Held’s 2-box model to a simple 3-box model is perfectly adequate to explain why.
Good news, ABC News had this three days ago.
All of this, of course, is a tempest in a teapot. The fact remains that we’ve been told the IPCC is a collection of the world’s top scientists and best experts. Yet Lisa Alexander, who helped write the 2001 and the 2007 climate bible, didn’t even earn her PhD until 2009.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/11/04/when-the-ipcc-makes-an-error-is-it-the-journalists-fault/
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
3
4 Summary for Policymakers
5
6 Drafting Authors: Lisa Alexander (Australia),
GCR=Galactic Cosmic Rays?
Not all readers are familiar with all acronyms.
Ok, a few people asking about a torrent.
I’ve collected the PDFs andI have just lumped them into a zip file which you will need to extract. I may make them into an ebook later if there is any interest in a kindle/mobi version etc.
Bear with me. I think this works but I have no knowledge of creating public torrents which are not managed via a private tracker so even figuring out how to get the torrent to you seems a little awkward.
http://www.filedropper.com/ipccar5wg1draftzip
hopefully that has created a link where you can download the torrent. Open the torrent in the bit torrent client of your choice.
I am not personally holding or sharing any of the data that the torrent points to and I see the work as already in the public domain.
@zootcadillac: I’m seeding at this magnet link:
UPDATE: Newer link with summary -ModE:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80
It’s a folder with each individual PDF in it.
If you have a torrent client like Transmission, you should be able to open up that magnet URL and start downloading.
MODS – if there’s a way to put “pre” tags around that URL it might be easier for people to copy.
REPLY: Tried, but bled off the screen – Anthony
Oh my, and a big WOW!
The IPCC will not take this lightly…..
Perhaps we could ask them how they like people who expose truth Now?
Next up,,,,, the Climategate password?
Call in some of the high tech ones from like Los Alamos Lab, the nut job greenies who work there would grind a gear in reverse to hide the facts.
Whats for Christmas this year,,, Climategate Password for all of U.S..
Anthoney,
Make sure the Congressman Ralph Halls office gets this thread as well as the lead people on his House Science Committee.
@krischel:
magnet works, will leave to seed for a while
Irrespective of the comments about solar forcing, at the top of SPM-8 we find:
Thanks for all your hard work
Somebody needs to archive real climate so future generations can see how they pushed their agenda with hardly any evidence. Otherwise it will be like when they backed down from.the ice age scare.