“IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’“ (2012-12-13). What’s this? A GAME-CHANGING revelation about global warming? That’s, like, the tenth time! This one’s gotta stick, right Anthony?
Let’s see… this is a leak by an actual insider IPCC expert! Now that ought to get everyone’s attention! Oh, our expert is just Anthony Watts’ blogging buddy Alex Rawls and his “expertise” consists of being able to promise that he wouldn’t release any of the IPCC AR5 draft text. (Looks like he dropped that ball pretty quick via a bit of self-sainting: “As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report“.) Actual science credentials? Zip. He’s just another denialist nutter who thinks he’s the next Galileo.
But still, he must have found something juicy to break his earnest confidentiality pledge! Wazzit? Here’s the game-changing sentence Alec decided to hang his hat on:
The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.
Here’s what NewScientist said in covering the tomfoolery:
if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. “They conclude there’s very little evidence that it has any effect”
So the juicy sentence was just a minor aspect of a solar influence discussion (spoiler: the influence is big, obviously, but so invariant as to be irrelevant to modern climate trends). Really, how could there be anything “game-changing” in an IPCC report? It’s freakin’ based on the existing published science!
Is Alec stupid enough to think that a bit of draft text from a scientific summary would be how we suddenly recognise a paradigm shift in climate science? Apparently, yes. Alec also consider’s himself a national hero for bravely blowing his whistle. Both of these beliefs merit a solid whack on the side of the head.
A few other worthwhile comments on the matter:
- RealClimate – “A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success”
- Skeptical Science – “IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun”
- Scientific American – “Climate deniers used the leak to press their case but the new IPCC report closes the case on a human cause for global warming”
- NewScientist – “Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change”
- The Guardian – “Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report”
Wott's Up With That? 
Rawl’s got his head *handed* to him, on WTFiUWT, when the one bona fide scientist who frequents there, Dr. Svalgaard, basically told him, Watt’s and the rest of the nodding head minions that they were full of shit. It was thing of BEAUTY…;)
[Yeah, I was reading that this evening. Hilarious to watch Rawl and his supporters go off the deep-end! – Ben]
Pingback: Dana Nuccitelli’s holiday trick for sobering up quick: put a little less rum in your egg nog | Wott's Up With That?
The leaked report is a game changer because Alec Rawls points to “many empirical relationships” ie observations and measurements, while the later IPCC statement “they conclude there’s very little evidence it has any effect” is merely assertion and opinion as are all the comments you have listed. As Lawrence M Krauss recently stated “with measurement science then becomes settled”
[Somehow though you don’t seem to think Alec’s invocation of mysterious “empirical relationships” is assertion. If wishes were fishes… – Ben]