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.
I do not believe Western Fisheries Magazine or Urban Agriculture Magazine are peer reviewed…
Pokerguy, with regards to your suggestion. It would be an interesting project and it would show that there is solid opposition – IF. That if is “if the media publicized it.” Your friend will still be able to say 97% say it’s real because the likelihood of the survey being published is almost as good as finding standing water on Antarctica.
I have mirrored the files here: http://secretsanta.ntsa.org.uk/ for easy download.
Please bear with, while I knock a text search together.
She’s a sceptic who regulary lays into the IPCC with gentle ferocity. She also lays into Greenpeace and other manipulators. If you want IPCC stuff, she’s your gal – even before today.
Hey, she lists the following “expert” reviewers. No special interests there then.
Alliance of Small Island States
Centre for Global Change
Conservation International
GenderCC, Women for Climate Justice
Germanwatch
International Rivers
Norwegian Refugee Council
Nourishing the Planet
SeaTrust Institute
Third World Network
IPCACgate.
All we need now is for Mr FOIA to release the password for the encrypted files of climategate2.
Nows as good a time as any dont you think?.
iskoob says: January 8, 2013 at 10:39 am
“More generally (though somewhat OT), I’d love to see a thread where we could swap advice on how to break through the bunker of the alarmist mind (which, like it or not, is a human mind not fundamentally different from our own).”
I absolutely would second this idea. One suggestion: put them on the defensive (as a good defense lawyer would do to a prosecution witness) by asking them apecific, pointed questions and steering them into a conclusion from which they couldn’t escape. One possibility: “So, how much anthropogenic CO2 goes into the atmosphere relative to the total emitted each year?” And, “You’re saying that 3% (~11 ppm) is causing all these effects? How?”
Raspberries, all around,
IPCC, gone to ground.
================
whistleblowerleakerconspir@toranarchistanti-scientistGAIA-hateranonymous cowardI think the person(s) who is(are) Donna L’s source is(are) the enlightenment’s proud progeny. Viva!
John
@Brad Keyes
“Has anyone here ever succeeded in deprogramming a believer? How? What works, what doesn’t work?”
I have done it multiple times. I have followed the CAGW story and argued with alarmists so long that I know every argument they can throw at me and every counter argument to their arguments. I know their conter arguments to their counter arguments. I can overwhelm any alarmist with facts and passion.
But I don’t like to attack them. It leads into a deadlock. Rather attack the stupid arguments made by some climate scientists and make the alarmist himself seem like a bystander to an argument between you and the scientist. It’s easy to win because the scientist is usually not present. 🙂 Mann and Hansen are my favourites.
Teach the listener to see how they are being manipulated. Show how partial truths can be used to make reality seem like something totally different. Tell how to detect weasel words like could, might, may, models say, scientists believe. Tell about the trends of glaciers in Himalaja, Greenland and Antarctica and how the reality can be made to sound something totally different by using cherry-picked facts. How sea level rise hasn’t been accelerating. How global temperatures aren’t rising. Show graphs if you can.
Usually the alarmist brings up the scientific concensus and the IPCC. Use the info on Donna’s book (Delinquent Teenager) to destroy IPCC’s credibility and show how concensus is not really determined by scientists but politicians.
Don’t force the alarmist to believe immediately. It can take a while. But once you have tought him to see the the pattern in alarmist articles and how they relate to the full picture, he will start to notice how he is being manipulated. A “may” here, a “might” there… suddenly he is discussing an article on WUWT with you. 🙂
But the most important thing is to seem like you know what you are talking about. Be a hedgehog because foxes don’t convince anyone. 😉
Hannu—that is awesome. Hedgehog, fox, crouching tiger, drunken master style—it’s all good. I like choice.
Please keep it coming people.
The BBC (in the person of David Shukman) actually admitted today that global warming has stalled. Is this the first sign of the post-Mark Thompson era, or are they just preparing their escape route?
Donna,
Well done! But don’t you find the new revelations interesting in that they have been revealed by insiders?
For a while I have felt the people we need to hear from are the working stiffs, not the managers. Having spent my career in and around large corporations, I know the manipulation and cherry-picking of conclusions that happens as the “project” travels vertically in an organization. The potential you create at the bottom becomes a certainty in two steps and revolutionary by the fourth. What I wonder is if we are seeing the revolt of the working class …. abetted by the top.
Failure of the project makes the top look bad. The best way to avoid looking bad at the top is if the bottom levels “reconsider”, but the bottom levels have to be different people who can show that their data is “newer” and “improved”. Nobody looks bad if subsequent investigation – initiated by prior researchers who say potential that needed to be studied further – reduces the prize (or threat). This change is why we keep working on something.
No heads have rolled at the IPCC, right? Same with Climategate I and II. Nobody. Odd, don’t you think? Is it true that the top is also disenchanted, and this is the start of their walk down the mountain?
Where next? Insiders with NOAA/NASA? with the New Zealand Met Office? Australian BOM? Is the Al Gore sale to Qatar the public declaration that burning oil doesn’t matter any more?
I’m only a few kilometers away from the Mauna Loa observatory right now. All we really need is some smart kid to reanalyze the CO2 data and suggest that what the Keeling Curve shows is a lot of degassing of the world’s oceans as a CONSEQUENCE of warming, not as a cause of warming, for CAGW to be over. Now wouldn’t THAT be a game changer.
Have all the torrents downloaded now. Will seed for several weeks.
I think education is the key. They need to understand that while many of the arguments used by the alarmists sound emotionally pleasing, they are seriously flawed on the science. What needs to be pointed out to them is that fear of AGW is being used in order for them to gain support for implementing a political/economic agenda. In order to buy in to the massive diversion of funds from your children to their children, they first need to create a boogeyman to create fear and uncertainty that can only be mitigated if you go along with them. At the most fundamental level, what they are doing is stealing from you but doing so in a way that makes you want to give them your money. It is basically a massive con game.
Hannu, speaking as a Beagle, I’ve never been convinced by a fox. But Hedgehogs don’t hold my attention for long.
iskoob says:
………
………… More generally (though somewhat OT), I’d love to see a thread where we could swap advice on how to break through the bunker of the alarmist mind (which, like it or not, is a human mind not fundamentally different from our own). [b]Has anyone here ever succeeded in deprogramming a believer?[/b] How? What works, what doesn’t work?
=======================================================
Yes someone has …… his name is Anthony and he’s probably kicking around here somewhere.
;- )
And they have enabled this game with the Rio treaty and such policy as “sustainable development” where uncertainty is not enough of a reason not to do something. If something is even plausible, that is enough to “mitigate” against the scenario. It also turns the burden of proof on its head and forces one to prove that something isn’t happening. You can not prove a negative. But the key point about the Rio treaty surrounds the word “could”. That is all you need in order to mandate action under sustainable development and in order to stop it, one must prove that it “can’t” happen. It is impossible to prove that something can’t happen. You can only prove that you have no evidence that it HAS happened or IS happening. What has happened here is that policy is now based on potential scenarios as long as some body in the policy making process reaches consensus that it “could” happen. That is the reason why weasel words such as “could”, “might”, and “potentially” appear so often. That is all that is needed. They do not need to show that something *is* happening or is even *likely* to happen, just that it *could* happen.
Kim@11:43
“Raspberries, all around,
IPCC, gone to ground.”
You were aware weren’t you, that “raspberry” in French is ‘la framboise’?
Ha!
The whistleblower will already be known to the IPCC. There’s technology to minutely and uniquely alter text so that individual versions of any leak can be traced back. I’d be VERY surprised if the IPCC hadn’t used this technology
Crosspatch says: “Wondering how much money WWF and Greenpeace stand to lose if there is no “global warming” due to CO2 emissions.”
And there’s the rub. These organisations’ fund raising programs are modeled on the time-proven milking techniques of the gullible by the loony cults that infest America’s Bible Belt.
It is a win-win situation for both the gullible and their leadership. The former get to think they are doing something useful with their pointless lives and the latter live like Patchy (we have not heard much from the IPCC’s Pachauri recently) in a style that few of us could imagine and the taxman cannot touch them because of their ‘charitable’ status.
” Political Junkie says: January 8, 2013 at 9:50 am
Donna LaFramboise, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick – three Canadians doing good work! ”
That is what happens when there is no NHL hockey. Canadians have too much time on their hands and get all sorts of stuff done. I’ll bet the IPCC is glad the NHL and players finally struck a deal.
🙂
WOW – OMG -THE SH-T HIT THE IPPC FAN – GREAT!!!!!!!
Need a recount on the number of files. Surely there are 666 (not 661).
Rhys Jaggar says:
January 8, 2013 at 8:42 am
For any others like Rhys not familiar with Donna Laframboise, check out her blog at:
http://nofrackingconsensus.com
Donna has extended her “buy a girl a holiday cocktail” donation page. Her latest work with the Secret Santa papers has shamed me into ordering her book, which I meant to do when it first came out, as well as making a donation.
Without Donna’s efforts, the dreary landscape of IPCC Climate “research” would be much bleaker.