Go read Donna

I'm feeling rotten. Go read Donna over at WUWT. There's a whole lotta leakin' going on.

Donna's own longer version of the article is here.

Comments

[Josh]

Bad Luck. No consolation that almost everyone seems to have had the bug. Hope you get well soon.

[Robin Guenier]

Or go read Donna's longer post here. Amazing stuff.

[omnologos]

It's WG2, already described in unflattering ways by RC at the time of the previous -gates.

Bah! Humbug! of an IPCC report...

[Richard Drake]

What a great way to put it:

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.

As I said on Climate Etc. the other day: "Leakers. Keeping climate science honest since November 2009."

[Richard Drake]

In the longer article what Donna says about confidentiality is brilliant, starting with

All three data sticks contain a copy of an IPCC confidentiality document (also available on the web here). Although it begins with a solemn assertion that the “IPCC places a priority on openness,” the remainder of the text makes it clear that this organization has the same relationship to transparency that vampires have to sunlight.

The whole section is of immense importance.

[Paul Matthews]

The earlier WG1 leak came from a reviewer. This one seems to come from deeper inside theIPCC , since it includes all the reviewer comments, which reviewers dont get to see.

[FergalR]

Get well soon your excellency.

[Richard Drake]

Very interesting Paul. And indeed, get well soon, Bishop.

[Tim Channon]

Yep, nice evidence voodoo works. Mann got a doll play kit for christmas including a wooden mallet thing with a bent end, at least it is now.

(before anyone takes that the wrong way, is always one, is humour)

Mend soon Bish.

[geoffchambers]

A quick look, more or less at random, at “WG2 chapter 10.2.1. Energy Demand” suggests to me that the whole IPCC process is insane, and that anyone taking it seriously is mentally retarded.
Take the introductory paragraph:

The general patterns are that in countries and regions with already high incomes, climate-related changes in energy demand will be primarily driven by increasing temperatures: heavier use of air-conditioning (hence increasing electricity demand) in warm climatic zones, and lower demands for various energy forms (electricity, gas, coal, oil) in temperate and cold climatic zones, while increasing incomes will play a marginal role.

Take a random ten year period in the future for a random country or region, and think about it. Average income will probably increase by anywhere between 0 and 100%. Gas and oil prices may go up 100% or down 50%. Add in political change, technical change, population growth somwhere between -5% and +20%, and anything else you can think of. Then try to estimate what effect a rise in temperature of one fifth of one degree will have on the use of air conditioners.

It’s insane. And the same insanity is repeated page after page for three thousand pages every five years.

[diogenes]

Geoff

I just hope that the future of the UK will be higher temperatures - and a little less precipitation - than we have seen for the last few years! But I do agree that the assumptions are CRAP

[omnologos]

I have taken the liberty of reposting Geoff's comment as "Insanity at the IPCC".

[sHx]

"Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute" is how each page ends. The best laid plans of mice and rats.

[sHx]

BTW, if you haven't read Donna Laframboise's piece at her blog yet, do it now. It is dynamite.

[shub]

Never a dull moment.

[David]

My condolences, Your Grace. Its not funny...
What IS funny is all that wonderful stuff which Donna has collated from the Secret Santa leaks - oh, we are going to have Such Fun....