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)
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”….
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
“Alternative media” really sucks if you’re trying to keep a secret, eh?
[snip. Zero tolerance here for “denialist” labels. — mod.]
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
Julian Williams in Wales says: @ur momisugly 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.
(IPPC climate scientists BTW belong in Dante’s Eighth Circle.)
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.