Access: The "leaked" IPCC AR5 draft Summary for Policymakers

“observationally-constrained projections ” !?
I assume this means that they would have projected a bigger increase had not reality got in the way.

Poor Greg. in his case too, the family name is not just a family name.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/laden#Adjective
The Romans had a saying for this, nomina sunt consequentia rerum

Looks like from Table SPM 1 we’re 7/8ths for sure “very likely” to “virtually certain” headed for our justly deserved Heaven on Earth, Tropical Paradise Climate, arriving sometime in the latter half of the 21st century – Girls Gone Wild and Mariachi Boys are not mentioned specifically, but assumed to come with the territory as a matter of obvious necessity.
Hence, I’m expecting the next Glaciation.

After going through this draft again, I think the IPCC should be disbanded this week before the SPM report is released and the scientists sent packing. Its about as far from a truthful document as it can get.

Steven Mosher says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:43 pm “…Of course all the models, the mean of all models shows more ice than the subset….” Whathisname, Brit geochronologist, must be in charge. One Siberian tree showed that the end was near, global meltdown was on its way. Otherwise, 200 Siberian trees said “Buy longjohns.” Which one was presented for show? How can you be partial to this scam?

If they explain The Pause by a decrease in solar forcing, they’ll have a hard time explaining why the very high solar forcing of the last 70 years didn’t cause most or all of the temperature increase up until 1998. The sun was more active in the last half of the 20th century than in any period of the last 1000 years.

VietnamVetsForTruth and Lt. John F. Kerry:
So, poster “Navy Chief” got info from another poster (onemorecaptiansmast) that Texas Tech University Lubbock Tx had purchased from the Defense Dept. all the records of the Vietnam (war/confilct/operation). Said Navy Chief being an active duty E-9 with intel back ground and high knowledge of documents ect. he and others went online to the archives post hast.
Once there on line and later in person in Lubbock the records included the full records of Lt. Kerry’s and all other swiftboats communication logs, all the records who went where, who went on missions, where they went, all the reports all of it down to minute details.
100% fact based from these records proven that Lt. John F. Kerry fabricated each and every one of his awards and citations.
Other info on his trip to Paris, his actions and things regarding his DD-214 and Discharge.
Yet, where is John F. Kerry this very hour.
These people we are dealing with discard facts like they throw out the trash from the compactor each morning. Then the start another day of putting out new trash.
The U.N. is a lie, they live by lies, the ones who put these lies together will lie about this to the end of time. The MSM will cover for them to their last page/electronic gasp.
Yet time is not on their side, and the sun comes up, the tides do what gravity says, the earth does not know they exist, the speed of light is unchanged, the red shift is real, the atom dislikes being smashed and Mother Nature will paddle these bad acting chrldren in her on time.
Drill for oil, drill for natural gas, use it in a responsible way.
These other ones will selfdestruct soon enough, more rope they lust for, let them have it.

De-funding the IPCC will kill it. The taxpayer-funded alarmists will belly up to the trough to spend other people’s money like it’s 1999.

richardscourtney says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm
“,,,
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
…”
///////////////////////
Further to Richard’s post regarding the role of the IPCC, the interpretation that he expresses is a possible interpretation of the remit (that he quotes) and probably it is the interpretation held by a cynic. That interpretation does not necessarily follow from the wording used. It appears that the IPCC have allowed themselves to become subverted, probably as a consequence of the fact that many of the lead scientists are also activists (some more so than others, and some more of an activist than a scientist) and it is because of this subversion that the IPCC reports have become so politicised as opposed to taking a comprehensive and objective investigation into the science which is relevant to assessing the risk of human induced climate change.
So for example, the failure to address some of the issues such as
(i) Why does the satellite temperature data set from 1979 to 1998 differ so starkly to that of the various thermometer data sets? This would include an investigation as to whether the warming shown in the land based data sets is a consequence of UHI, and/or lack of screen maintenance and/or station siting issues, and/or station drop outs and/or the consequence of adjustments/homogenisation of the data over this period.
(ii) Why computer model projections have departed so substantially from observed reality? Are computer models fit for purpose, and what level of confidence should be had in their projections?
(iii) Why is Antarctic ice not melting and why is global ice extent still normal and why is the Arctic behaving to that of the Antarctic?
(iv) Is climate change truly to be regarded as global or is it better viewed as a local or regional phenomena? In particular how is each significant area of the globe (say divided into continents, possibly sub-divided into NSWE and mid) responding and why the different response to what is thought may be a well distributed driver?
(v) To what extent are any of the data sets fit for purpose. What are the true error margins/confidence levels applicable to eacg data set. What, if any, conclusions can be drawn from them.
(vi) To what extent is there correlation between CO2 levels and rate of change in CO2 levels with temperature in the various data sets, and then where any time period does not correlate (ie., temperatures fall, or temperatures remain static) to examine that time period and seek to explain why temperatures fell or remained static or the rise in temperature did not accelerate over and above previous temperature rises which took place when CO2 emissions were relatively low.
(vii) The proper understanding of natural variation. Indeed, this is in practice the holy grail of the climate change issue. Because until we fully understand natural variation what it comprises of, what are the individual forcing events, how these operate and the lower and upper bounds of each and every constituent forcing, it is impossible as a matter of logic to separate the signal of manmade induced temperature changes from the noise of natural variation. I emphasise the importance of this since until natural variation is fully known and understood, it is quite impossible to examine the temperature record and assess whether CO2 has any role whatsoever, by which I mean whether CO2 has a warming effect, a cooling effect, or simply neutral, still less the strength of any positive or negative effect. So for example, until natural variation is fully understood I could make out a case that adding CO2 has a negative effect on temperature. I do this as follows: when the record shows warming I assert that CO2 had a negative effect but natural variation was very highly positive and thus dominated the cooling effect of CO2 leading to a net increase in observed temperatures , when temperatures were static, I claim that CO2 was cooling but at this time natural variation was weakly positive such that one cancelled out the other such that there was no change in the observed temperature, and when it shows cooling I assert that CO2 had a cooling effect but at this time natural variation was entirely neutral such that CO2 dominated temperature at that time leading to a cooling of the observed temperature.
I could carry on with this list, but my point is that the remit expressly calls for a “comprehensive, objective” assessment of the scientific issues and yet the IPCC ignores this call. This is not because of the wording of the remit, but rather a consequence of subversion of the IPCC by those who do not want to see a thorough comprehensive and objective investigation and assessment of the science. Indeed, if one were being objective, the report would emphasise the shortcomings of the science and in particular the key data sets which are not fit for purpose and which are being extrapolated and interpreted beyond reasonable measure.
Further the remit provides that whilst the “reports should be neutral with respect to policy” they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.” The use of the word “may” does not actually compel the IPCC to deal objectively with policy etc, it is at liberty to choose whether or not to do so. However, when discussing adaption and mitigation (human induced climate change on “potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”), it ought to set out how adaption may proceed and its consequences, and how mitigation may proceed and its consequences (this will depend upon the extent to which CO2 emissions should be cut and the pace of such cuts, but the socio-economic consequence of the policy to reduce CO2 by substantial levels in the absence of replacing energy production by way of nuclear is the deindustrialisation of the globe generally and the developed world in particular returning the developed world back to the levels of poverty and quality of life as seen in the third world and keeping the 3rd world in its present state and condemning its citizens to continue to live in poverty, hunger and have a poor and short life expectancy). It should also look at the extent CO2 is actually mitigated (ie, reduced globally) by the various policies that the policy makers are considering and/or have implemented and accordingly should examine the net reduction of CO2 by such schemes as carbon trading (no world wide reduction of CO2 merely a redistribution of where CO2 is emitted and therefore not a policy of effective mitigation), the introduction of windfarms, because of the unreliable nature of wind necessitating the need for conventional back up which back up is not running at optimum efficiency, there being little if any net reduction in CO2, ditto solar and hence to what extent these achieve the goal of mitigating emissions etc.
I could go on. I accept that the remit of the IPCC is not well drafted but if one were to interpret the remit in the spirit of its intention, it would be adequate. It is not the remit itself but rather the fact that the IPCC has become subverted which has meant that a comprehensive and objective study into the science has not been conducted, this has led to a failure to express the risk of human induced climate change correctly (which is that presently there is inadequate data, coupled with the fact that we lack the knowledge and expertise, to assess what if any risk there is of human induced climate change, but as matters presently stand we are unable to deduce the signal to CO2 from the noise of natural variability such that whilst all risk cannot be ruled out, the risk does not appear substantial).
It is the natural world that sets the game and makes the rules (this is why natural variation must as a pre-cursor be fully understood). It is man’s arrogance that he considers that he can set himself above this. It is the first pictures of the Earth, from space, that led some to consider how vulnerable planet Earth is, when in reality it simply emphasises how insignificant man is. The fact that ants and termites emit more GHGs than man reinforces this view. We are but a pin prick on the planet, and it will survive as it always has not withstanding the fire and brimstone that it the globe has gone through these past 4.5 billion years until such time as the sun expands and boils off the oceans, and then the atmosphere and eventually engulfs and consumes the planet (or if, upon its expansion, the sun does not quite engulf the planet, the planet will be left as a burnt out rocky mass orbiting close to its star the energy from which star will eventually fade away). Until then, sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.