Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
Not sure if this has been posted while I've been on the road but there is a lot more from IPCC that wasn't meant to be made public in their unique interpretation of 'open to scrutiny'.
Secret Santa Leak from Donna with the Sticks and the Downloads
Secret Santa Leak from Donna with the Sticks and the Downloads
This is a site maintained by Donna Laframboise.
Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.
http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.
http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
Ali G said:
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
I may accidently leave my transmission torrent seeding for awhile longer......http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
Ali G said:
This is a site maintained by Donna Laframboise.
Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.
http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
b-b-but how can that possibly be? I mean she got all the legal stuff straight already here:Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.
http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
DF said:
The confidentiality document includes this emphatic statement:
The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]
But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:
In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.
This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.
If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.
But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
See, the IPCC simply can't believe their confidentially agreement is valid because someone has already broke it - the logic is undeniable! The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]
But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:
In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.
This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.
If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.
But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
I also like the part about IPCC must now also shut down work on the next report because it's 'impossible' to continue. In your dreams freedumb-lovin' Donna 
kerplunk said:
Ali G said:
This is a site maintained by Donna Laframboise.
Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.
http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
b-b-but how can that possibly be? I mean she got all the legal stuff straight already here:Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.
http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
DF said:
The confidentiality document includes this emphatic statement:
The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]
But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:
In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.
This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.
If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.
But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
See, the IPCC simply can't believe their confidentially agreement is valid because someone has already broke it - the logic is undeniable! The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]
But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:
In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.
This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.
If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.
But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
I also like the part about IPCC must now also shut down work on the next report because it's 'impossible' to continue. In your dreams freedumb-lovin' Donna 
At least the IPCC are 'showing (some of) their workings' for the next report, although perhaps not in the manner they would have hoped.
You seem to be at odds with the spirit of openness, freedom of speech and democratic principles that DL espouses.
In my eyes, that counts against you - not that you would be at all bothered!
Guam said:
Yep this will be extremely effective for the ipcc not 
This thing is all over the web now this genie wont be going back in the bottle no matter how hard they try
All they have achieved by the legal letter to Donna is make the thing more desireable to have on principle
It will probably get hosted on Russian Govt servers lol.
Genie eh - nice genteel alternative to not being able to put the sThis thing is all over the web now this genie wont be going back in the bottle no matter how hard they try
All they have achieved by the legal letter to Donna is make the thing more desireable to have on principle
It will probably get hosted on Russian Govt servers lol.
t back in th donkey Can't see the fuss here. IPCC say all is open and transparent and now it is so stop complaining.
DF said:
The confidentiality document includes this emphatic statement:
The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]
But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:
In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.
This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.
If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.
But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
See, the IPCC simply can't believe their confidentially agreement is valid because someone has already broke it - the logic is undeniable! The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]
But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:
In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.
This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.
If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.
But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
I also like the part about IPCC must now also shut down work on the next report because it's 'impossible' to continue. In your dreams freedumb-lovin' Donna The point is not about the confidentiality agreement having been broken; rather it is that the IPCC terms of conifidentiality are justified, in their words, when they say that that
" The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]"
Which is the point upon which DL is basing her comment. By the IPCC's own observation their process, now broken for whatever reason, cannot be effective. Therefore, logically, they would wish to stop it one would suspect. But of course they don't because there is an entire media tsunami project well into development and execution and they would hate to pull the plug on that.
Of course I would give you credit for fully understanding that KP. Which is what makes your response somewhat disppointing since you seem to have ignored the logic of DL's observation (merely reflecting the IPCC's own stated position) and then resorted to insulting the messenger.
Should we take it that this desire to support state sponsored secrecy is part of your favoured philosophy?
It doesn't matter much if it is but it's always useful to know as much as possible about the person on the opposite side of a discussion.
Ali G said:
kerplunk said:
Ali G said:
This is a site maintained by Donna Laframboise.
Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.
http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
b-b-but how can that possibly be? I mean she got all the legal stuff straight already here:Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.
http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
DF said:
The confidentiality document includes this emphatic statement:
The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]
But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:
In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.
This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.
If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.
But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
See, the IPCC simply can't believe their confidentially agreement is valid because someone has already broke it - the logic is undeniable! The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]
But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:
In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.
This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.
If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.
But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
I also like the part about IPCC must now also shut down work on the next report because it's 'impossible' to continue. In your dreams freedumb-lovin' Donna At least the IPCC are 'showing (some of) their workings' for the next report, although perhaps not in the manner they would have hoped.
You seem to be at odds with the spirit of openness, freedom of speech and democratic principles that DL espouses.
In my eyes, that counts against you - not that you would be at all bothered!
turbobloke said:
I searched "fraudulent" and a bloody big list appeared....
Then I searched "deception" and an even bigger list appeared...
Edited by mybrainhurts on Wednesday 9th January 18:44
Met Office Climb Down How Did The Media Do?
It looks like the BBC did the story after David Whitehouse's devastating piece on the GWPF website yesterday. Whitehouse should get journalist of the year for his work on the standstill. He's been proven right. From now on I'm going to call him "The BBC's (Unofficial) Science Correspondent." What I might call Harrabin and Shukman is another matter.
Bishop Hill, 08 January 2013
The fact that the UK Met Office had changed its near-term global warming forecast quietly on Christmas Eve was noticed by some Met Office watchers, especially the ever-interesting Tallbloke’s Talkshop website which reported it on January 5th. This piece started a flurry of blog comments. We at the GWPF republished the story the same day on our website. The GWPF published my analysis of the considerable implications of the Met Office revision on the 7th January. The analysis was distributed via CCNet at 11:51 am, including hundreds of journalists.
GWPF, 09 January 2013
These figures show that in all likelihood we will have had no warming in the past 20 years. That is almost as embarrassing as the Met Office’s Barbecue Summer forecast. This suggests that the Government’s climate change policies, including wind farms, are a waste of money and based on dodgy advice. Why should we trust Met Office forecasts about the climate for 2050 or 2100 if they get it wrong for the next decade?
Daily Express, 09 January 2013
It looks like the BBC did the story after David Whitehouse's devastating piece on the GWPF website yesterday. Whitehouse should get journalist of the year for his work on the standstill. He's been proven right. From now on I'm going to call him "The BBC's (Unofficial) Science Correspondent." What I might call Harrabin and Shukman is another matter.
Bishop Hill, 08 January 2013
The fact that the UK Met Office had changed its near-term global warming forecast quietly on Christmas Eve was noticed by some Met Office watchers, especially the ever-interesting Tallbloke’s Talkshop website which reported it on January 5th. This piece started a flurry of blog comments. We at the GWPF republished the story the same day on our website. The GWPF published my analysis of the considerable implications of the Met Office revision on the 7th January. The analysis was distributed via CCNet at 11:51 am, including hundreds of journalists.
GWPF, 09 January 2013
These figures show that in all likelihood we will have had no warming in the past 20 years. That is almost as embarrassing as the Met Office’s Barbecue Summer forecast. This suggests that the Government’s climate change policies, including wind farms, are a waste of money and based on dodgy advice. Why should we trust Met Office forecasts about the climate for 2050 or 2100 if they get it wrong for the next decade?
Daily Express, 09 January 2013
turbobloke said:
Met Office Climb Down How Did The Media Do?
These figures show that in all likelihood we will have had no warming in the past 20 years. That is almost as embarrassing as the Met Office’s Barbecue Summer forecast. This suggests that the Government’s climate change policies, including wind farms, are a waste of money and based on dodgy advice. Why should we trust Met Office forecasts about the climate for 2050 or 2100 if they get it wrong for the next decade?
Daily Express, 09 January 2013
From The Express...These figures show that in all likelihood we will have had no warming in the past 20 years. That is almost as embarrassing as the Met Office’s Barbecue Summer forecast. This suggests that the Government’s climate change policies, including wind farms, are a waste of money and based on dodgy advice. Why should we trust Met Office forecasts about the climate for 2050 or 2100 if they get it wrong for the next decade?
Daily Express, 09 January 2013
Article said:
Professor Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at University College London, said: “I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘Global warming has stopped’.”
He added: “Even if the global mean temperature were to remain unchanged, if the geographic patterns of temperature and rainfall change, the consequences will still be potentially severe. We only need to look at what is going on in Australia at this very moment.”
So...Global Warming hasn't stopped - the very idea!He added: “Even if the global mean temperature were to remain unchanged, if the geographic patterns of temperature and rainfall change, the consequences will still be potentially severe. We only need to look at what is going on in Australia at this very moment.”
Buuuut even if it has - the very localized weather that no Global Warming caused is 'potentially' there for all to see!
WTF?!?
Guam said:
I think the poor prof may have visions of tenures in "climate science" vapourising as fast as the Australian scrub!
Good grief. I sincerely hope that what Prof. Rapley is reported to have said was in fact the result of some journalistic mangling by either the reporter or a sub-editor.Or is he entirely unaware of the very particular environmental attributes of Oz that have always resulted in huge fires and huge floods on a regularly irregular but quite cyclical basis?
If he is unaware, which I really find very hard to believe, then our education system is in deeper trouble than I thought.
If he is aware then it rather sounds like someone somewhere is peddling phrases of disinformation.
Thinking about it, one can't rule out the possibility of both.
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 9th January 22:53
nelly1 said:
So...Global Warming hasn't stopped - the very idea!
Buuuut even if it has - the very localized weather that no Global Warming caused is 'potentially' there for all to see!
WTF?!?
I wonder if he was saying the opposite when we were struggling with the snow a few winters ago, I seem to remember that it was just weather then.Buuuut even if it has - the very localized weather that no Global Warming caused is 'potentially' there for all to see!
WTF?!?
Anyway global warming is happening......
I know for a fact it is , just watched part of a BBC wildlife program about polar bears, a short synopsis of the program goes like this, pictures of fluffy bear cubs ahh pictures of open water , explanation of how global warming is the cause of the lack of ice and lack of food for the bears and repeat till the end,
This is from the BBC one of the most trusted media outlets in the world so it must be true ........
I really don't know why I watch the BBC it does my blood pressure no good at all.
Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 9th January 21:12
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff