Guest post by Donna Laframboise
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 Departure – here or here
Chapter 2: Foundations for Decisionmaking – here or here
Chapter 3: Freshwater Resources – here or here
Chapter 4: Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems – here or here
Chapter 5: Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas – here or here
Chapter 6: Ocean Systems – here or here
Chapter 7: Food Production Systems and Food Security – here or here
Chapter 8: Urban Areas – here or here
Chapter 9: Rural Areas – here or here
Chapter 10: Key Economic Sectors and Services – here or here
Chapter 11: Human Health – here or here
Chapter 12: Human Society – here or here
Chapter 13: Livelihoods and Poverty – here or here
Chapter 14: Adaptation: Needs and Options – here or here
Chapter 15 – Adaptation Planning and Implementation – here or here
Chapter 16: Adaptation Opportunities, Constrains, and Limits – here or here
Chapter 17: Economics of Adaptation – here or here
Chapter 18: Detection and Attribution of Observed Impacts – here or here
Chapter 19: Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities – here or here
Chapter 20: Climate-resilient Pathways: Adaption, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development – here or here
Chapter 21: Regional Context – here or here
Chapter 22: Africa – here or here
Chapter 23: Europe – here or here
Chapter 24: Asia – here or here
Chapter 25: Australasia – here or here
Chapter 26: North America – here or here
Chapter 27: Central and South America – here or here
Chapter 28: Polar Regions – here or here
Chapter 29: Small Islands – here or here
Chapter 30: Open Oceans – here or here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
SANTA-GATE, Eh?
(You read it here first…) 🙂
Openness is great! I’m sure the IPCC agrees.
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.
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.
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!
Holy sh!t! This will be epic….
Wondering how much money WWF and Greenpeace stand to lose if there is no “global warming” due to CO2 emissions.
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:
It’s time for another round of that survey—six years have passed.
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.
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.
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.
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
That project was such a great success she is doing it again.
Anybody know if these files were scanned for viruses?…
Excellent work Donna Laframboise! Please hire a security staff though – the UN aren’t gonna be happy about this.
Donna LaFramboise, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick – three Canadians doing good work!
Has the climategate leaker just struck again?
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/another-whopping-leak-from-the-ipcc/
Pointman
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!)?
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!
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)
Donna for Dictator!!
Josh’s cartoon is his funniest yet 🙂
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/1/8/secret-santa-releases-ipcc-draft-josh-193.html
Behind the curtain: One naked emperor!
Well done to both Donna F. and the leaker(s).
John
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
Half, per my SWAG, after four years of gradually declining temperatures and loss of “overwhelming consensus” support.