The Secret Santa Leak (New IPCC Leak), page 1

The Secret Santa Leak (New IPCC Leak), page

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 9-1-2013 @ 11:01 AM by grobi77

The Secret Santa Leak (New IPCC Leak)

nofrakkingconsensus.com

A week before Christmas, three data sticks containing 661 files and amounting to nearly one gigabyte of material came into my possession. They were created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body currently at work on a high-profile report.
[...]
The IPCC has confirmed the authenticity of sample documents on these sticks. Today I’m making this massive collection of data, which I call the Secret Santa leak, public. Some of these documents are already online. Many others would only have been released by the IPCC years from now. Still others the IPCC intended to keep

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 11:01 AM by grobi77

I couldn't find anything about this new leak on ATS.
Hope it's not posted already.

I'm not a big fan of the secrecy of the IPCC (and I don't understand, why it's necessary)
So I appreciate the courage of the whistleblower.

I currently plod through the leaked documents.

But many heads are better than one

nofrakkingconsensus.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

ETA: official IPCC Statement (January 8, 2013) - PDF

edit on 9.1.2013 by grobi77 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 11:20 AM by yorkshirelad

Well as long as you make it clear for every document:
A. IPCC confirmation of authenticity
B. IPCC confirmation of accuracy
C. Independant confirmation of accuracy.

Any troublemaker can gather internal documents which are there to be verfied and then publish them as if they letting us in on a secret when in fact they are releasing discussion documents and unverified information.

Do you really think than any organistion in receipt of data from around the world assumes every word of every page is 100% accurate.

If so you are naive beyond comprehension. Please verify the nature of each document FIRST.

reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 11:53 AM by Trubeeleever

So what's the verdict, is SANTA true or not?

edit on 9-1-2013 by Trubeeleever because: Grammatical errors.

reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 11:57 AM by grobi77

reply to post by yorkshirelad

Did I understand you correctly?
I shouldn't post this leak as long as we have your points A, B & C and verified every document??

more links I just found:
phys.org...
www.google.com...

reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 02:22 PM by andypb

edit on 9/1/2013 by andypb because: Wrong thread...My bad

Pages: ^^TOP^^