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 ‐
“Change”
old eyes, old fingers, to much work
[snip. Too much snark, Mr. Seitz.— mod.]
Willis Eschenbach said: ” 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.”
The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.
The drafts aren’t secret. They’re available to anybody who signs up to be a reviewer (that’s how they got “leaked”). They don’t publish the drafts so as to prevent a scenario where several versions are flying about the internet at the end of the process. Is that actually difficult to understand?
This is little more than “trust us. We are committed to repeating the statement that we are transparent. We will be transparent at all stages of the process which come after the point at which we have finished colluding in secret to create a document which supports the position we have held since 1998. P.S. we’ll need the public to get behind us if we are going to get more funding to repeat this process ad nauseum”
Translation: The only way the IPCC and properly manage all aspects of this process to keep as tight a control as possible over everything and everyone; otherwise the predetermined political outcome will not be as we desire it.
“The IPCC is committed to an open and transparent process that delivers a robust assessment.”
Who are these idiots trying to fool?
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
The leak interferes with the review process???
” The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review.”
Our evil scheming must be kept secret!
And what does the BBC have to say about the leak?
No mention of Alec Rawls being one of the IPCC’s 800 expert reviewers. He’s just a blogger who knows not what he does. 😉
Please try to bring ALL of this IPCC:eists, including ALL directly/indirectly involved persons, to a/any/ court of justice!
Garrett says: “The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.”
The implication that what the IPCC is doing is “science” is laughable. Until they empirically prove that human activity is changing the climate in any meaningful way, it’s not science. It’s a false consensus based on correlation, dubious models and green propaganda.
Hobart, Tasmania… To minimize their “carbon footprint” I suppose…
Garrett says:
December 14, 2012 at 9:57 am
[…]
The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.
The IPCC isn’t science, either. It’s a policy body.
Mmmmm …. that was a good bag of popcorn. Time for another!
XD
I would not rule out IPCC-CCCP’ers using InterPOL, FBI and varied government bodies to prosecute and litigate on this; including web-site take downs, letters to a lot of people (reviewers) demanding silence (under threat of litigation and detention and loss of money) and to Media outlets to pay $$$$ for editorials (words of indignation) in support of IPCC.
Hay, IPCC Bartender ! Where is my 100,000 euros for not reviewing the AR5. Ha! I knew it would be ‘junk’. XD
“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.“
That sentence shocked me, because, as an expert reviewer, I submitted over 100 comments to the FOD, and got no responses back at all. So I wrote to the IPCC this morning, and asked, where are the responses to my comments? They replied promptly:
When is a “response” not a response? When the person to whom it is addressed isn’t permitted to see it!
I’ve written back, objecting to the policy of not letting the expert reviewers see the “responses”[sic] to their reviews, and asking that I be sent copies of the responses to my FOD & SOD comments before it’s time to review the TOD.
Yes but is it science when blogging untimately gets a paper withdrawn? 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/gergis-et-al-hockey-stick-paper-withdrawn-finally/
The third paragraph, second sentence of the IPCC statement reads :
“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, BASSED ON A SELF-DECLARATION OF EXPERTISE.” (The ALL CAPS are mine.)
So, I can “slef-declare” myself an “expert” ? Surely I have misunderstood.
The IPCC is transparent. Yeah, right. At least we can see right through them, but not because of any assistance from the IPCC. Let’s rip the lid off their “Sacred Box”.
So, all the authors are flying down to Tasmania in January for a week? Must be nice to get out of the winter weather for all of the northern hemisphereans.
“The unauthorized and premature posting of the drafts of the WGI AR5, which are works in progress, may lead to confusion”
Well I think that previous final reports have led to confusion so what’s the problem?
The raison d’etre for the IPCC, namely mitigating actual and projected global warming caused by CO2 emiited by human activity, no longer exists. AR5 should be its last report and then it can be wound up.
Garrett says:
December 14, 2012 at 9:57 am
The IPCC is indeed not Wikipedia. Blogging may or may not be science. None of that is a reason for secrecy. The people who are writing the report would be free to ignore any and all comments from the public … but on the other hand, they (and you) might actually learn something from public comments as well.
Let me see if I understand you. The drafts aren’t secret, because they are available to anybody who promises to keep them secret and not say anything publicly about them …
As I said, I did not sign up as an expert reviewer because I was unwilling be bound by their draconian secrecy pledge, and now you are trying to tell me the drafts aren’t secret … you really aren’t clear on this idea of “transparency”, are you?
They are trying to prevent “several versions” from “flying about the internet”? That’s the reason for the secrecy? That’s the problem? Here, let me solve it for them. It is their freaking draft. They put the official version up on their web site. Anyone can compare any version to the official version … OK, problem solved. Can we move on?
Dang, I’ve heard some rationalizations for an aversion to sunlight, but yours are up there with the best. The IPCC has instituted a culture of secrecy that even extends to the lack of conflict-of-interest statements. They have fought desperately in the past from revealing things that might not reflect golden light on their posteriors, and to keep their secret machinations buried forever from public scrutiny.
And yet here you are, desperately fighting the good fight against IPCC transparency …
Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the IPCC desperately needs disinfecting. How about you join the side of the angels, and start demanding that the IPCC folks actually live up to their promises of transparency?
w.
Davidmhoffer says
I know of no model that predicted the cooling period we are currently experiencing.
————-
David you are comparing an ensemble of model runs with an individual real run of the earth’s climate.
It’s quite likely that one of the individual model runs will have shown a cooling period similar to what is observed for the real climate.
There is only one weather god, and his name is Sun, and his prophet is Svensmark.
Game, set and match. Svensmark.
Garrett says:December 14, 2012 at 9:57 am
“The IPCC is not Wikipedia. Blogging is not science.
The drafts aren’t secret. They’re available to anybody who signs up to be a reviewer (that’s how they got “leaked”). They don’t publish the drafts so as to prevent a scenario where several versions are flying about the internet at the end of the process. Is that actually difficult to understand?”
We say that we are entitled to review the drafts and state our views on them here. Why do you object?
You say blogging is not science. You are incorrect. Science issues are taken up and discussed world-wide in all fields of science and on innumerable blogs devoted to science, with expert scientists taking an active part in such discussions. Your statement flatly dismisses such scientific discussion as “not science”. Perhaps now you wish to amend that comment.