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.
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
This is another: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
On the 30,000 scientist against CAGW. That was Dr. Robinson’s Oregon Institute petition project.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
One wonders whether the IPCC has yet got around to setting a policy on bias and conflict of interest.
The following is taken from the gold zip file dated Dec 2011. but as you see they had not yet managed to establish a final policy at that time.
WGII LAM1 Draft Policy on Bias and Conflict of Interest
(December 2010)
The IPCC member countries are currently developing a conflict of interest policy for the IPCC. As of the first Lead Author Meeting (LAM1) for Working Group II (WGII), the policy is not complete.
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). Has anyone here ever succeeded in deprogramming a believer? How? What works, what doesn’t work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Actually I start with the Federal Reserve and the Bank Bailouts here in the USA. That is one place there is a meeting of minds between liberals and conservatives. I then move on to what is happening to food/farming esp. in the third world. The food riots in 2008 are remembered and most hate the WTO. The World Bank SAPs and Mr. Budhoo’s Public resignation from the IMF are key points to bring up.
Figure out which of those two subjects is of interest. One of the two usually will open up a gusher of opinions and you can skim over the other.
Then I head to Kissinger’s 1972 quote: “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls energy can control whole continents; who controls money controls the world.”
I stay away from the science and point out the follow the money. There is plenty of evidence that the World Bank, GE, Enron, BP, Shell…. are in on the scam and making $$$ hand over fist by ‘controlling energy’ Do not forget the people in the UK freezing while the ‘lords’ who own the land the windmills are on collect big bucks.
Heck here is one: ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve and another Monsanto Profit Up 23% on Corn-Based Ethanol Demand Libs HATE monsnato. (Nice chart in the article of Monsanto’s ever climbing profits) 2nd Link
I then suggest they take a look at Democrats against Agenda 21 (Rosa Koire’s site)
I don’t try to talk of CAGW I just try to get them thinking about how they are being manipulated. OH do not forget The MSM is also controlled by the banks (J.P. Morgan) and G.E.
See : link for a discussion on the control of the MSM.
Quick summary on current policy on Food link
With Al Gore selling Current TV to Big Oil there are some really ticked off activists right now so it is a good time to point out the rest of the ‘traitors’ raking in the $$$ off CAGW.
I was wondering if these torrents were indexed at major torrent sites, so I started with the Pirate Bay. Nothing, then I googled “IPCC AR5 torrent” and got a Pirate Bay hit. They deleted last months AR5 leak (posted Dec 14), but Google cache has it: (link too big, google it).
I guess leaks are OK they come from loons like Assange, but not when it’s about IPCC corruption.
Gail Combs says:
January 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm
“…who controls money controls the world” (H.K.)
Well, yes. And, there is a dissident website dedicated to so-called high finance and international affairs — a WUWT for big money —
http://www.zerohedge.com/
As an example, one could use a search engine to find Zerohedge articles on HSBC, one of the great banks that are too big to fail, with executives that are too big to jail. CAGW corruption is important, but it will be ‘cured’ if the Eddy Minimum produces a cooling trend beyond the Fudge Limit. Financial corruption is more difficult. But one can use ZH to follow the decline of the West… CAGW is only one facet.
Strange… this is my 3rd attempt to post this. The first two never even went to moderation, they just vanished. Mod, any idea what’s going on?
BTW, the quickest, easiest way for Windows users to get µTorrent (a/k/a uTorrent) for Torrent-based file sharing is via Ninite:
http://ninite.com/
Note: be cautious receiving shared files via Torrent, because a lot of “trojan” infections are transmitted that way!
If you don’t have an “Office” suite suitable for viewing and editing the .doc, .docx, .xls, .xlsx, .ppt & .pptx files in these archives, you can get LibreOffice via Ninite, or (arguably better) download KingsoftOffice:
http://www.kingsoftstore.com/kingsoft-office-freeware.html
(be sure to opt out of any extra freebees that they offer)
Microsoft also has read-only “viewers” for Microsoft Office files:
Word Viewer: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4
Excel Viewer: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=10
Powerpoint Viewer: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=13
Wow!!
Donna; Thank you very much! If I can scrounge up some more extra cash I’ll buy you another double brandy!
And I don’t think the description “…Delinquent…” is quite correct anymore. Though, I’m not sure there are any suitable words that don’t basically mean ‘capital offence incarcerated’ or ‘d_mned for eternity’. Perhaps you’ll retitle your book for the next edition; ‘The D_mned Delinquent Maturity Challenged Parasite’?
Looks like they plan to ‘officially’ use grey literature. The ‘guidance’ section is useless in preventing the ethically challenged, aka CAGW alarmists, from including anything they desire.
Wasted some time reading many of the comments in the spreadsheets contained in the gold zip file. Quite disgusting! Many comments that are NOT related to science; instead there were frequent requests to ‘tune’ the language or utilize more references or to strengthen the ‘climate change’ language. While I doubt the grey literature proponents will be embarassed, I would think scientists would be mortified in having their pet desires for alarmisms published… “Nice fear mongering professor…”
Amused myself by rooting through document properties for some files. Looks like authors and creation/modification dates are preserved.
The Grey Literature PDF I quoted above shows a creation date of 3/11/2010 10:29:56AM and a last modification date of 3/11/2010 1:09:57PM. I wonder if that included the lunch break… The timing for the Grey Literature PDF is very interesting. That’s what; some fifty days after IPCC admitted the grey literature error in January 2010?? Fairly quick time for soliciting suggestions, exchanging drafts and a final rewrite for the IPCC to CYA (scientific acronym describing practices adhered to by CAGW scientists) before the next IPCC toilet paper for the disadvantaged publication.
What is now required is a very thorougher analysis of every section (chapter) of the IPCC report maybe by crowd sourcing and then a compilation of a report using the same chapter headings signed off by an eminent panel of scientists. This reworked report must be absolutely factual and backed only by credible sources of information and data sources, any comment on political intervention must contain the cost of interventions i.e. cost benefit analysis. It’s time to show this bunch of UN bureaucrates how a scientific analysis and situation report should be handled.
I downloaded the first order draft and almost the first item was a statement that fewer than 1000 articles had been published on climate change between 1970 and 1989, but that this had increased “10,000” fold to a total of 73,000 articles after 1989.
–from pp.3-4 of IPCC WGII AR5 Chapter 1
I suppose this is possible if “fewer than 1,000” actually means “fewer than 7”.
Hannu has good advice. The issue is a mater of de-programming a cult member.
The enlightened ones feel morally and intellectually superior for believing the correct things and doing the correct things.
The thrill and comfort of being intellectually and morally superior is one big way a cult can hold a person. You don’t notice its effect upon you because you are always focused on the details – sin, proper habits, etc, – and not on the emotional pay-off.
To believe the cult views, you have to be surrounded by the nuttiness and keep getting a steady diet of the suposed truth, and at the same time, cpntrarian views have to be avoided in one of two ways: simple avoidance, such as being cut off from family, or disarming the arguments of the non-cult members.
Branding the denialists as totally motivated by the money of big oil, or intellectual dullardism, is a common approach.
So, follow Hannu’s advice: isolate one argument, and frame it as someone wants to convince me that [insert calamity here] north atlanitc hurricane season is becoming worse.
Then, set up the standards: does this mean more hurricanes? More major hurricanes? More ACE? More dollars of destruction? From when to when? THen, go matter-of-fact ot the actual data.
Wikipedia has the atlantic hurricane season data. You can get it all entered into Excel in about ten minutes, then rank, plot, etc.
Then revisit the agreed-upon assumptions.
That is part one.
Part two is developing the idea that the global warming supporters could have ulterior motives. They Gore etc. have framed themselves as virtuous. But if you can take one figure and show that the one figure is not virtuous, then that is the beginning of the crack in the edifice.
Gore is an investment fund manager. He is one of two partners who developed “Generation Investment Mamagement, LLC. This can be googled. You can look at this website and see what kind of business it is:
They take large sms of money from investors who want to invest in the “green” economy, and they invest this money on the behalf of the investors. They get a cut of the money along the way.
So, Gore manages investment funds in the green economy for large investors. The more that governments mandate green this and green that, the more that business grows. Therfore, Gore makes money when govts adopt “green” policies.
Now, we have the profit motive.
And, as Hannu said, just cover a little at a time, and don’t confront the person’s beliefs directly – instead, set up the issue as one between you and the green advocate or issue. “They are trying to tell me the planet is warming and so polar ice is disapeparing. But when I look at the data I see polar ice increasing (north plus south. Therefore, what am I supposed to belive about what they are telling me?”
This all seems more like a plant than a leak.
This might help shine a light into the long story behind CAGW, leading to current implementation of UN Agenda 21 globally, aka Sustainable Development:
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/how-can-we-bloggers-win-the-climate-wars-answers-below-please/
It’s a long read, but watching the videos only would be educational.
atheok says: January 8, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Billy Blofeld says:
January 8, 2013 at 7:14 am
OMG 🙂
Climate science is indeed starting to become a transparent pursuit.
The only thing that seems sure is that he likes of the BBC will brazenly ignore this content and continue pushing alarmism for all they are worth…..
——————————————————————————————————————–
Bill, they must!
Because the BBC has invested all of it’s employees’ retirement plans in “green energy”.
If they don’t keep pushing the AGW-agenda full-bore, all-out, no-holds-barred, 24/7/365, the’re TOAST!
Billy Blofeld says: @ur momisugly January 8, 2013 at 7:14 am
OMG 🙂
Climate science is indeed starting to become a transparent pursuit.
The only thing that seems sure is that he likes of the BBC will brazenly ignore this content and continue pushing alarmism for all they are worth…..
——————————————————————————————————————–
mogamboguru reply: @ur momisugly January 9, 2013 at 1:15 am
Bill, they must!
Because the BBC has invested all of it’s employees’ retirement plans in “green energy”.
If they don’t keep pushing the AGW-agenda full-bore, all-out, no-holds-barred, 24/7/365, the’re TOAST!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did you ever stop to think that the easiest way to control the BBC employees is to invest 100% of their pensions in “green energy” and let them know that if the ‘Deniers’ win the war of words their pensions are toast?
A great way to make any closet fence-sitters into frothing at the mouth Greenies in public. Since the entertainment world is not know for its scientific background it works even better than it would in the usual corporation
Oh Donna
You make me stand up
You make me sit down, Donna
Sit down, Donna
Sit down
You make me stand up
Donna I’d stand on my head for you
(for those of us too young to remember the Ritchie Valens song but who know 10CC)
CodeTech says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:12 pm
“The fact that there is a conspiracy doesn’t matter. Once someone perceives that you are presenting a “conspiracy theory”, the discussion is over.”
All of what you said is so.
Too many people don’t understand exactly what makes a “conspiracy theory” implausible and yet makes this a different situation.
Such as 9/11 conspiracy theories fail at the most basic level, even before considering details, by: (1) imagined actions drastically against the inclinations of the bulk of the people hypothetically involved and (2) lack of stability upon dissenters escaping. Take a random group of a hundred U.S. government employees, and the number willing to mass-murder their fellow citizens is not a majority. There is not a selection filter making such so. Moreover, even a single one dissenting, to spill the beans, could lead to arrests and all breaking down.
In contrast, for instance, when Greenpeace makes wrong statements about nuclear power, that does not occur by an implausible conspiracy because (1) such corresponds to the natural inclinations and biases of a majority of the hardcore membership, while also (2) such survives dissenters.
Likewise, the CAGW movement exists because it:
(1) corresponds to what those involved naturally do anyway, with their natural inclination being to be biased without any explicit universal organized plot needed, rather just picking up on the subtle signals of what others are getting away with
(2) can quite survive thousands of dissenting scientists, as has been demonstrated
Regarding #1, there are many who, upon hearing about how Mann and Hansen were rewarded without the slightest penalties, are not disgusted but want to join in.
For this again:
“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 best solution is to initially say nothing about deliberate dishonesty from many sources, as that takes time to realize, but to turn the trust of seeming “authority” against them. For instance, one can show http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif which is a nasa.gov address, regarding how much the keystone of global warming (the arctic) warmed (or not!) for the 1990s relative to the 1930s after most of a century of CO2 increase. And so on can be done with much else.
Any direct argument on the direct topic of global warming alone can only work on some people, though. Many others support CAGW propaganda because their ideology / politics make them want such to be believed by the public. Amongst a sample of a few dozen people significantly interacted with on the topic, I have actually yet to encounter any who really seem to greatly personally fear CAGW, but I have encountered many who want others to believe in it and spread false propaganda to support it. Presumably sincere believers in CAGW exist, despite me not having directly encountered them, but they would tend to be the ignorant casual kind, not the hardcore no-lifer elites who have argued with skeptics online for countless hours and unavoidably picked up some knowledge on the way.
You know, the sad truth is, there is not a particularly reasonable reason to adopt the draft AR5’s reasoning.
Tis a funny thing, if you think about it.
The CAGW skeptic community will sped the next 6 or 8 months pulling this apart and critiquing it for free, then the final document will come out with all the criticisms dealt with or cleverly glossed over.
And that will be the published version, filed away for history….
The early release of documents does help to flatten all of their tires. Although the CAGW Bandwagon continues down the road, it’s listing and weaving, veering towards yonder ditch. None too soon for my liking, although that is a ways off still.
Gail Combs says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:27 am
Billy Blofeld says: @ur momisugly January 8, 2013 at 7:14 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mogamboguru reply: @ur momisugly January 9, 2013 at 1:15 am
Bill, they must!
Because the BBC has invested all of it’s employees’ retirement plans in “green energy”.
If they don’t keep pushing the AGW-agenda full-bore, all-out, no-holds-barred, 24/7/365, the’re TOAST!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did you ever stop to think that the easiest way to control the BBC employees is to invest 100% of their pensions in “green energy” and let them know that if the ‘Deniers’ win the war of words their pensions are toast?
A great way to make any closet fence-sitters into frothing at the mouth Greenies in public. Since the entertainment world is not know for its scientific background it works even better than it would in the usual corporation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good point, Gail. You may be pointing to something of real importance here. I think that this is worth some further investigation, because: “Follow The Money!” – has always had a very good reputation for of stopping scoundrels dead in their tracks.
I would like to compare the number of AR4 to AR5 expert reviewers for each chapter of all three Working Groups (WG1, WG2, WG3) in both the First Order Draft (FOD) and Second Order Draft (SOD).
If the number of FOD and SOD expert reviewers significantly increased for a chapter in AR5 compared to AR4, then does that imply there should be a decrease in AR5’s ‘a priori’ agenda driven systematic bias of the authors, lead authors and of those higher up the IPCC’s organizational hierarchy?
I think the answer is clearly the number of expert reviewers is not related in any way to mitigating against the continuation and/or amplification of agenda driven systematic bias in authors, lead authors and higher personnel in the process.
As review of the content on 3 leaked flash drives evolves, I am looking forward to seeing if my thinking is confirmed. Bets for beer anyone?
John
{this comment was also posted at Bishop Hill’s blog}
You just cant turn a AGW the good way around, even clear science cant help. What even the pure logic of the matter will not work.
They have learn and is told that 3+3=7 so they believe that. Even if half the globe covert whit ice they will stay to global warming. How? They give a spin to it.
In Holland there is nujij http://www.nujij.nl/wetenschap/toekomstige-stijging-zeewaterniveau-door-smeltend.20871867.lynkx
Her you see some agwers who are twisting around to get there argument right even if you have the mat tho tell them different.
The new IPCC rapport will do the same to them, they will make it work there way one way or another.
We’re not even talking 1gb of data. Could easily fit on one cheap flash drive. But more easily hidden would have been a micro SD card inside your phone. Heck, create an anonymous Dropbox account and throw it there.
A suggestion to iskoob and Pokerguy:
This may seem to be a little like ethical ju-jitsu, but there is a way to use the consensus argument without violating the “consensus is not proof” stance. By providing an accurate survey of the current numer of climatologists and others acceptablle as “experts” by the general public, showing that the 97% figure is indeed incorrect, then it is not necessary to argue that the consensus is on our side. Instead, it simply raises an easily understood argument that if the Climate Panic crowd is falsifying this important fact, what else may they be falsifying? That, after all, is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Something as easily verifiable as a survey makes a powerful argument, even if it is not, in itself, proof of the position. It’s admirable that you do not want to stoop to their level, but it seems ill-advised not to use what tools are at hand.