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
crosspatch says:
Although this is completely true, it is this message that a lot of people instantly shut down. In their eyes, you are presenting a “conspiracy theory”, which closes ears and minds faster than a KKK member discussing racial issues.
The fact that there is a conspiracy doesn’t matter. Once someone perceives that you are presenting a “conspiracy theory”, the discussion is over.
The position that the conspirators have placed you in is equal to those who believe man never landed on the moon, there were shooters on the grassy knoll, 9/11 was domestic, etc. etc.
And if you think about it, that was probably the unappreciated genius of the Heartland billboard: it’s not our side that hold the nutty conspiracy theories, it’s the warmists in the company of the unabomber.
In reality the IPCC is acting like any-other UN based organisation , with the transparency of a 12 foot thick reinforced concert wall . Many of its ills can in fact been understood if you take into account that is merely reflects the working ‘practices’ of its parent organisation.
@ur momisugly Pokerguy
you said “.If we could demonstrate that there is indeed a significant percentage of smart, qualified people with profound reservations”
There was a petition with the signatures of 30,000 scientists on it opposing the CAGW nonsense. Comfortably beating the 97% of scientists who turned out to only be 75 people.
I can’t find a good link to the 30,000 petiton at the moment, but perhaps someone else here has a better organised set of bookmarks than me.
There is this though;
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf
the 30,000 petition is mentioned on page 10
and a link for the 97% just 75 people is;
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/
@ur momisugly Pokerguy.
Somewhere on WUWT is at least one, I think two very good posts on the 97% which make wonderful reading, but I can’t find them. They must be here somewhere.
Hopefully someone has the links at their fingertips.
Rhys Jaggar says:
January 8, 2013 at 8:50 am
Based on the headings you have listed in the article, this is one of the first definitive pieces of evidence for unelected one world government through the auspices of the UN….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do an internet search for “Pascal Lamy” “Global Governance” and you will get a real eye full.
Pascal Lamy is Director General for the World Trade Organization which was championed by ex-President Bill Clinton.
Then go search:
“Pascal Lamy” LSE (London School of Economics)
Bill Clinton LSE
Tony Blair LSE
Fabians LSE
and finally LSE and the guys above with the “Third Way”
You can have lots of fun following all the threads. Add Caroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor and Milner’s Kindergarten and it really gets interesting.
Rob Dawg says:
January 8, 2013 at 9:16 am
It could mean they are old LISP programers and don’t know how to define anything without tail-recursion 🙂
Perhaps you need to ask that question of a few really good sales people who have a proven track record selling something to difficult customers.
My understanding is the first step is to find something that they can say “yes” to, one you establish that first point of agreement you take them off the dig in their heels defensive mode, as you are no longer “against them”.
It might be useful to find a way to get them to agree with what constitutes scientific proof. As long as they believe that appeal to authority and such is a valid measure of a theory then the prospect of changing their minds is very slim because it becomes a game of dueling authorities — ( ie my phd is better than your phd ).
It is worth while to note that the pro AGW advocates are in fact doing a very broad scale sales pitch using every hook in the book. Perhaps we need to study up on books written about successful con artists and sales people that could sell cars to people that did not need them. Maybe then we can figure out how to break the con job that gets people to buy into this stuff with nothing but glossy photos and fluff to support it.
Larry
J Martin says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:19 pm
I don’t have those links. But here’s a reply I posted (re the Doran and Anderegg “surveys”) on the Bishop Hill blog (28vi.2011):
The flaws in the Doran paper are well known: (A) it used a hopelessly inadequate sample size (79 respondents) and demographic (nearly all from N America) and (B) in any case, most sceptics would agree with both its propositions: (1) that the world has warmed since the 1700s and (2) that mankind contributed. It made no mention of GHG emissions.
Anderegg is more sophisticated than the hopeless Doran. But there’s a basic problem: it’s concerned with whether or not respondents agree that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most [i.e. more than 50%] of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”. The only scientists qualified to evaluate that are those engaged in detection and attribution (both difficult and uncertain). Yet the research was not confined to such scientists. [NOTE: moreover, it says nothing about whether or not further emissions are likely to be dangerous/catastrophic.]
And, in any case, the research itself is flawed. First, the total number of “climate researchers” who accepted the above statement was, according to the paper, 903 and the total that did not was 472. In other words, 66% – not the much-claimed 97%. The researchers got their 97% by restricting their findings to researchers “most actively publishing in the field” – in other words, the paper’s findings do not cover all “climate scientists”. Further, it wasn’t an opinion survey at all, but an analysis of scientists who signed pro/anti statements – not the most useful documents. And, again, it was essentially confined to North America and was not concerned with whether or not the warming was dangerous. For these reasons, it’s valueless as a measure of climate scientists’ opinion about the dangers of AGW.
So neither “survey” is evidence of the claimed 97% consensus. But, of course, the overriding point is that science is not done by consensus nor by majority vote. Science requires empirical evidence.
J. Martin:
IMO you’re referring to the Oregon Petition:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
There is also, among other such public statements, the letter sent to NASA by former astronauts.
One of the best site summarizing some skeptical positions is aerospace engineer Burt Rutan’s.
J Martin says: January 8, 2013 at 1:16 pm
@ur momisugly Pokerguy
you said “.If we could demonstrate that there is indeed a significant percentage of smart, qualified people with profound reservations”
There was a petition with the signatures of 30,000 scientists on it opposing the CAGW nonsense. Comfortably beating the 97% of scientists who turned out to only be 75 people.
I can’t find a good link to the 30,000 petiton at the moment, but perhaps someone else here has a better organised set of bookmarks than me.”
—————————————————————-
That link is here: http://www.petitionproject.org/
There are now 31,000 signatures from scientists and engineers, 9,000 with PhD degrees. The petition basically says there is not enough conclusive evidence of AGW to warrant spending money to reduce CO2 emissions.
Three cheers for the IPCC whistleblowers and to the great work of Donna Laframboise. Her book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” is a monument to the struggle with the IPCC.
CodeTech says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:12 pm
“Although this is completely true, it is this message that a lot of people instantly shut down. In their eyes, you are presenting a “conspiracy theory”, which closes ears and minds faster than a KKK member discussing racial issues.”
Although that may be true its best to dance around the issue and then let the warmmonger yell conspiracy theory. Then the correct response is to mock them. ‘Ah yes its a conspiracy theory put forward by a massive disinformation campaign funded by a giant fossil fuel industry conspiracy. A conspiracy theory created by a conspiracy … how quaint.’
just a thought – I hope the three usb sticks were not really blue, green and gold – as I would think the whistleblower may be concerned if such items were seen in his/her hands? or their IPCC computer? Hopefully, they are rather common!
Very good Donna, thanks!
This supranational government takeover should not be let to continue.
Secrecy has nothing to do with science. It is, however, valued by those eager to control the message. Secrecy allows the IPCC to release its reports in an orchestrated manner to great media fanfare. It also permits the leaking of advance copies to sympathetic journalists.
These are Donnas words which really get to the heart of the alarmist cult. We owe a huge thanks to the leaker, lets hope we can get the remainder of the draft for reviewing in the public domain.
Wow
Santa has been good this Christmas. Way to go, Donna! 🙂 🙂 🙂 (Brilliant book, too, by the way. “The Delinquent Teenager” is a must-read – I could not put it down).
Sociologists of the future will appreciate this raw material.
This is beautiful. Thanks to Donna and we should all support her and brindarle un felice anno novo – please contribute, she’s doing a good job! Just as we all should all contribute to WUWT, Roy Spencer, Bishop Hill and all those who are desmoking the blogs – but of course not desmokeblog and their minions…
Done it, will do it again! But be prepared: I’m a European liberal!
Make that “One naughty naked emperor!”
Donna Framboise – The Raspberry that keeps on giving.
Raspberrygate, I trust! thank you Donna.
1. Crosspatch, CodeTech, Larry Ledwick—thanks very much for your insights too (even the bits that contradict the other bits!). As obvious as they may seem to you, I haven’t found such advice anywhere else.
2. Donna, thank you for this belated Christmas gift! Your place in the history books is assured.
Peter Gleick’s review of Donna LaFramboise’s Book is still on Amazon. Just the way Peter condemns this book tells you how important it is. READ IT! (I did – it is excellent)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2XYU6ZBJOG200/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
The truth will win.
J Martin says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:19 pm
“@ur momisugly Pokerguy.
Somewhere on WUWT is at least one, I think two very good posts on the 97% which make wonderful reading, but I can’t find them. They must be here somewhere.”
the original one
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax
the Prall & Schneider remake
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/lawrence-solomon-google-scholar-at-the-academy/
Stunning News
Crowd sourcing this material before the draft AR5 is reviewed really puts the IPCC on the spot. But it is even harder for the scientists who allow their names to go on the bottom of AR5 as contributors to AR5; their reputations are now tied to how they react when errors are exposed in their draft during the reviewing process. Do they protect their reputations as scientists who take account of new material that goes against their beliefs or do they let errors be fudged?
I think you may see a peeling away of support by scientists who have been involved in putting AR5 together.