More IPCC AR5: THE SECRET SANTA LEAK

Guest post by Donna Laframboiseclip_image001

Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle, bringing in Greenpeace again.

A week before Christmas, three data sticks containing 661 files and amounting to nearly one gigabyte of material came into my possession. They were created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body currently at work on a high-profile report.

Due to be released in stages starting in September, this report will be promoted by government press conferences the world over. Officials will point to its findings and continue to spend billions on climate change measures.

The IPCC has confirmed the authenticity of sample documents on these sticks. Today, I’m making this massive collection of data, (with reviewer comments), which I call the Secret Santa leak, public. Some of these documents are already online. Many others would only have been released by the IPCC years from now. Still others the IPCC intended to keep hidden forever.

There’s a lot of information here and I’ve only examined a small portion of it so far. But a few things are certain. First, this leak – together with the one that occurred last month – places draft versions of a majority of the IPCC’s upcoming report in the public domain. Forty-four out of 60 chapters – 73% – are now available for examination. The claim, by the IPCC’s chairman, that this is a “totally transparent” organization and that whatever it does is “available for scrutiny at every stage” is closer than ever to being true.

Second, the IPCC hasn’t learned a thing from the Himalayan glacier scandal. Under the guise of “scientific expert review,” it recently permitted aggressive, behind-the-scenes lobbying of its authors by WWF employees and other activists. The draft version of the Working Group 2 report currently lists publications produced by the WWF and Greenpeace among its end-of-chapter references.

For a full discussion of these matters, click on over to my lengthy blog post: The Secret Santa Leak

What these sticks contain:

  • Working Group 2’s Zero Order Draft + 13,702 reviewer comments
  • Working Group 2’s First Order Draft + 19,958 reviewer comments
  • administrative documents

A 2010 investigation identified “significant shortcomings in each major step of the IPCC’s assessment process.” The time to shine light on this organization is now. If activists employed by lobby groups can read draft versions of this report, so can the public.

I encourage you to download your own copies. If anyone has the technical skill to make all of this data available – and searchable – online, that would be welcome, indeed.

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

Blue data stick zipped, 26 mb – here or here

Gold data stick zipped, 140 mb – here or here

Green data stick zipped, 675 mb – here or here

Blue torrent:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:FE53DEE7870921017E63678647B78281F56F45A2&dn=blue.zip&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ffr33domtracker.h33t.com%3a3310%2fannounce

Gold torrent: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:A30CCD2FFEF70C354073D082938894B122870888&dn=gold.zip&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ffr33domtracker.h33t.com%3a3310%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80%2fannounce

Green torrent: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:35BCE4E514069B62D39CFECD26F799E7C36BDA84&dn=green.zip&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ffr33domtracker.h33t.com%3a3310%2fannounce

First Order Draft torrent: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:FEABA896B40807B21E34138183CFE28C2962B248&dn=WGIIAR5_FODall.zip&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ffr33domtracker.h33t.com%3a3310%2fannounce

please leave your client active for a few hours to help speed up other people’s download

Complete First Order Draft 2,465 pages – 125 mb here or here

Chapter 1: Point of Departurehere or here

Chapter 2: Foundations for Decisionmakinghere or here

Chapter 3: Freshwater Resourceshere or here

Chapter 4: Terrestrial and Inland Water Systemshere or here

Chapter 5: Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areashere or here

Chapter 6: Ocean Systemshere or here

Chapter 7: Food Production Systems and Food Securityhere or here

Chapter 8: Urban Areashere or here

Chapter 9: Rural Areashere or here

Chapter 10: Key Economic Sectors and Serviceshere or here

Chapter 11: Human Healthhere or here

Chapter 12: Human Societyhere or here

Chapter 13: Livelihoods and Povertyhere or here

Chapter 14: Adaptation: Needs and Optionshere or here

Chapter 15 – Adaptation Planning and Implementationhere or here

Chapter 16: Adaptation Opportunities, Constrains, and Limitshere or here

Chapter 17: Economics of Adaptation – here or here

Chapter 18: Detection and Attribution of Observed Impactshere or here

Chapter 19: Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilitieshere or here

Chapter 20: Climate-resilient Pathways: Adaption, Mitigation, and Sustainable Developmenthere or here

Chapter 21: Regional Contexthere or here

Chapter 22: Africahere or here

Chapter 23: Europehere or here

Chapter 24: Asiahere or here

Chapter 25: Australasiahere or here

Chapter 26: North Americahere or here

Chapter 27: Central and South Americahere or here

Chapter 28: Polar Regions here or here

Chapter 29: Small Islandshere or here

Chapter 30: Open Oceanshere or here

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

162 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dodgy Geezer
January 8, 2013 9:13 am

SANTA-GATE, Eh?
(You read it here first…) 🙂

January 8, 2013 9:14 am

Openness is great! I’m sure the IPCC agrees.

ferdinand
January 8, 2013 9:15 am

All valid comments but we still have the problem of proving a negative. When speaking with alarmists they can quote all the spurious science from IPCC supporters but the skeptics case is rather piecemeal. Some central coordination along the lines of pokerguy’s suggestion would be welcome and I think very effective.

January 8, 2013 9:16 am

The strategy for sidestepping climate change and staying in business is revealed in Chapter 20. Global warming didn’t work, climate is likewise crumbling because they are data driven testable phenomena. Chapter 20 however introduces the importance of “sustainability.” And in their words what is this mysterious goal? “A summary definition is development that achieves continuing human progress and assures a sustainable relationship with a physical environment that is already under stress, reconciling tradeoffs among economic, environmental, and other social goals through institutional approaches that are equitable and participative in order themselves to be sustainable.”
Got it? A definition that can mean anything they want. When the word itself is used twice in the definition you know a fast one is being pulled.

January 8, 2013 9:17 am

I’m going to send your links and all to Spiegel, NYT, CBS, BBC, etc. because I know they just love doing investigative journalism. Why, I’m just sure they’ll be teeming with stories in the days ahead!

MattN
January 8, 2013 9:18 am

Holy sh!t! This will be epic….

January 8, 2013 9:18 am

Wondering how much money WWF and Greenpeace stand to lose if there is no “global warming” due to CO2 emissions.

rogerknights
January 8, 2013 9:23 am

The way to counter the consensus argument is for someone to fund George Mason U. to rerun their 2007 survey of the AMU & GSU, which can be read here:
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
Here’s the heart of the report:

Major Findings
Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.
Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.
A need to know more
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.
Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.
Climate scientists are skeptical of the media
Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.
Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it “very reliable” and 38% as somewhat reliable. Other non-traditional information sources fare poorly: No more than 1% of climate experts rate the doomsday movie “The Day After Tomorrow” or Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” as very reliable.
Are climate scientists being pressured to deny or advance global warming?
Five percent of climate scientists say they have been pressured by public officials or government agencies to “deny, minimize or discount evidence of human-induced global warming,” Three percent say they have been pressured by funders, and two percent perceived pressure from supervisors at work.
Three percent report that they were pressured by public officials or government agencies to “embellish, play up or overstate” evidence of global warming: Two percent report such pressure from funders, and two percent from supervisors.
Changing scientific opinion
In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union.
We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming. Among the changes:
In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today.
In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today.
The proportion of those who see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius has increased from 47% to 56% since 1991.
The proportion of scientists who have a great deal of confidence in our understanding of the human-induced sources of global climate change rose from 22% in 1991 to 29% in 2007. Similarly, the proportion voicing confidence in our understanding of the archeological climate evidence rose from 20% to 32%.
Despite these expressions of uncertainty, however, the proportion which rating the chances at 50-50 or better that the role of human behavior will be settled in the near future rose from 47% in 1991 to 69% in 2007.

It’s time for another round of that survey—six years have passed.

troe
January 8, 2013 9:28 am

Good and important work in opening up this process. In the USA we continue to dream of defunding this entire fiasco. Once upon a time I thought those who wanted the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN were tin-foil hat types. I am now proud to stand with them sun glinting off my hat and all.

Editor
January 8, 2013 9:32 am

Who is Donna? She’s the wicked intellect behind “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. She’s someone you don’t want angry at you.
w.

cui bono
January 8, 2013 9:33 am

Well done Donna, and salutations to the public-spirited whistleblower!
PS: Given we’re heading towards 17 years without warming, (Ben) Santer-gate can’t be far off.

Gail Combs
January 8, 2013 9:36 am

Rhys Jaggar says:
January 8, 2013 at 8:42 am
Sorry to be so thick: but WHO’S DONNA?!….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
….Or read her Book The Delinquent Teenager Who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert
Donna is known for her Crowdsourcing Project effort that Audited the UN Climate Report of the 2007 – The Results? Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card

….Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.”….

That project was such a great success she is doing it again.

kramer
January 8, 2013 9:43 am

Anybody know if these files were scanned for viruses?…

Mark and two Cats
January 8, 2013 9:46 am

Excellent work Donna Laframboise! Please hire a security staff though – the UN aren’t gonna be happy about this.

Political Junkie
January 8, 2013 9:50 am

Donna LaFramboise, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick – three Canadians doing good work!

January 8, 2013 9:53 am

Has the climategate leaker just struck again?
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/another-whopping-leak-from-the-ipcc/
Pointman

Nigel S
January 8, 2013 9:55 am

For those who didn’t click through to Bishop Hill…
The Cybermen may look familiar, one of the Doctor’s and earth’s deadliest foes.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3hOt4G1spx8/TckfXEe-eUI/AAAAAAAAfUw/8Bf1Q99DWJc/s1600/CYBERMEN%2BINVASION%2BGUNS.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberman
Someone at IPCC must have a sense of humour, otherwise why (also) call the report AR5 (oooh Matron!)?

guam
January 8, 2013 10:00 am

Staggerring work, top marks Donna and well done to the whistleblower, for getting this out before the inevitable “massaging”. There will be hell to pay over this I reckon!

Nigel S
January 8, 2013 10:01 am

This seems quite apt…
Let’s get Santa Clause ’cause;
Santa Clause has a red suit
He’s a communist
And a beard, and long hair
Must be a pacifist
What’s in the pipe that he’s smoking?
Mister Clause sneaks in your home at night.
He must be a dope fiend, to put you up tight…
©1968,1969 Appleseed Music Inc. (ASCAP)

C.M. Carmichael
January 8, 2013 10:19 am

Donna for Dictator!!

January 8, 2013 10:26 am
rogerknights
January 8, 2013 10:32 am

Behind the curtain: One naked emperor!

January 8, 2013 10:36 am

Well done to both Donna F. and the leaker(s).
John

January 8, 2013 10:38 am

Donna Laframboise,
What can you say about the source of the leak?
Does the person(s) have reasons to hide identity? What are they?
Are all persons responsible for the leak within the IPCC? What general affiliation do any non-IPCC leakers have? e.g. : government, environment group, reporter, private citizen, university, blogger, bureaucrat, etc.
Same source as CG1 and CG2?
I think the total lack of any back story has implications.
John

rogerknights
January 8, 2013 10:44 am

crosspatch says:
January 8, 2013 at 9:18 am
Wondering how much money WWF and Greenpeace stand to lose if there is no “global warming” due to CO2 emissions.

Half, per my SWAG, after four years of gradually declining temperatures and loss of “overwhelming consensus” support.