UPDATE: The real bombshell of the report is now evident, see it here

Below is a collection of reactions today to the IPCC AR5 leak on the website stopgreensuicide.com (now down) but also reported on WUWT here.

Donna Laframboise, author of The Delinquent Teenager book about the IPCC:

The IPCC Leak: This is What Transparency Looks Like

On its Twitter feed the IPCC says it intends to issue a statement about the leak. Perhaps it will keep some prior remarks by its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, in mind (bold added): “The IPCC is a totally transparent organization…Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage.” – magazine interview, May 2009 “The objective and transparent manner in which the IPCC functions…should convey conviction on the strength of its findings to all rational persons…” – testimony to a US Senate committee, February 2009 “[The IPCC’s] work is carried out with complete transparency and objectivity…” – speech to heads of state, December 2008 “So you can’t think of a more transparent process…than what we have in the IPCC. I would only put that forward as valid reasons to accept the science and the scientific assessments that are carried out.” – newspaper interview, June 2007

From James Delingpole at The Telegraph:

Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up

I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it’s business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme.

From Tom Nelson, a collection of Twitter and website reactions:

PM – Draft IPCC report leaked 14/12/2012

MARK COLVIN: So you’re saying that you’ve managed to basically eliminate this idea that sunspots or whatever are more responsible for global warming than human activity. STEVE SHERWOOD: Based on the peer-reviewed literature that’s available now, that looks extremely unlikely.

Twitter / RichardTol: an alternative way to write …

an alternative way to write an IPCC report http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/first-order-draft-109-markets-and.html …

Twitter / IPCC_CH: The #IPCC is looking into the …

The #IPCC is looking into the publication of material that appears to be draft of an #AR5 report and will issue a detailed statement later

Twitter / RichardTol: because the IPCC refused to …

because the IPCC refused to acknowledge the existence of the internet, we now have an uncontrolled release of material http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html …

Twitter / RyanMaue: Well deserved warm-up on the …

Well deserved warm-up on the way for Astana Kazakhstan, from -40°F to -15°F for highs. Asian cold-vortex! pic.twitter.com/hs3qso3L

Twitter / RyanMaue: IPCC SREX is nary a year old. …

IPCC SREX is nary a year old. Didn’t find anything new in AR5. Why not just cancel the whole thing and blow the remaining budget on Rio?

Twitter / BigJoeBastardi: United States taxpayers have …

United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, from this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/#more-75705 …

Twitter / RyanMaue: Expect climate advocates to …

Expect climate advocates to say IPCC too conservative bc of influence by so-called deniers. Watch as they throw colleagues under bus.

@KenCaldeira on @IPCC_ch: “There’s kind of a…

@KenCaldeira on @IPCC_ch: “There’s kind of a pretense with these IPCC reports that it’s this latest science that’s happened in the last two or three years that’s really going to make the difference, that’s going to tip the balance in favor of action. I think really we’ve been filling in details in the last 30 years and the picture hasn’t changed substantially.”

Flashback: Warmist Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC lead author, says “it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices”

From physicist Lubos Motl at The Reference Frame:

I was agnostic about both claims but now I see that Rawls is surely having a point but my excitement is much weaker than his. In fact, I would say that not much is changing in the IPCC.

From Jo Nova:

Draft IPCC report leaked (the evidence is so overwhelming it has to be kept secret!) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

What was the point of keeping the IPCC draft secret? The point is so the IPCC can control both the content and the PR. The IPCC wants a free kick, and they get one if the world doesn’t see how they arrive at the conclusion, and if critics can’t specifically point to errors or flaws until weeks after the giant press circus has done its megaphone production. It’s how the media game works. First they release the “up and coming” scary headline. (Already done for AR5.) Critics can’t criticize what they can’t see. Then they release the Summary with a three ring display of terrifying headlines. The black box that justifies it is shown off in all its mysterious glory: 4,000 experts labored for 5 years, produced 2,000 papers, 2 million emails, and rigorously, savagely dissected the science to give you this ominous, frightening message. Pay us your tithe! We will stop the Storms! The inner workings of the black box are held in the Sacred Vault. Those who question it are “deniers, nutters, conspiracy theorists, believe the moon landing was faked, are simultaneously paid by Exxon and suffer from ideological mental deficits — they wouldn’t accept any evidence anyway because they are old white male conservatives (that’s why we have to save the world by hiding the science — it simply is not a fair competition: the IPCC only has billions in funding, the support of the UN, most large banks, all western governments, most university money managers, the thought police in the press, the $176b carbon trading market, and the $257b renewables investment scene. Skeptics have wit, evidence, and the world wide web.) Then finally they release the long paper with a few more headlines, but the circus has moved on. The people “know” the message. The press is bored, and the critics will need weeks to study the massive document in any case.

From NYT’s Andrew Revkin:

Leak of IPCC Drafts Speaks to Need for New Process – NYTimes.com A WikiLeaks-style Web dump of drafts of the 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides fresh evidence that the organization’s policies and procedures are a terrible fit for an era in which transparency will increasingly be enforced on organizations working on consequential energy and environmental issues.

From Jeff Condon at the Air Vent

IPCC – Full Speed Ahead

Thanks to some very hard working bloggers and readers who care at WUWT, the IPCC second order draft has been released. Steig 09 appears to be much less prominently referenced in the second order draft than in the zero order which is still too often. I take it as an indication that some people have actually figured out that S09 was not in any way accurate. Still, in the Second order draft, the IPCC is reporting warming values so high that they are not supported by either the S09 paper or the O’Donnell correction.

From Dr. Roger Pielke Jr on Twitter

IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific lit http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/279628063946469376

Related articles

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...