6 ms·

We leaked the upcoming IPCC report

76 points by st0ffregen 5y ago

ipccthrowaway 5y ago
Here are the two leaked files, not on google drive: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmThVcHpJy2fRbU246VcskLnA5H6V3sMBWt9ZtmCpcD8md?filename=summary_draft1.pdf https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmThVcHpJy2fRbU246VcskLnA5H6V3sMBWt9Ztm... https://ipfs.io/ipfs/Qmc8rPeP8g6MHyvvDLrLvfPV4exmU3kbBRTBr7a9YjT19N?filename=chapter01.pdf https://ipfs.io/ipfs/Qmc8rPeP8g6MHyvvDLrLvfPV4exmU3kbBRTBr7a...
aritmo 5y ago
"20 points by st0ffregen 3 hours ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | discuss" Submitted 3 hours ago, no comments, and collected 20 points? Looks like someone is upvoting this too much. https://archive.is/v9U4l https://archive.is/v9U4l Apparently, the upcoming IPCC report says we should invest heavily in preparing the economy for climate change. This website tries to pretend they do not come from the fossil fuel industry. They call for "economic growth" which means keep using fossil fuels and pretend the world is not burning.
- black_puppydog 5y ago
  Sorry I don't get it. This is literally the only mention of "growth" on the linked page: > It shows that we must abandon economic growth, which is the basis of capitalism. And the leaked documents are together over a hundred pages long. I'd expect readers to take a while, maybe even over the day or evening, to digest. What's the issue?
makerofspoons 5y ago
"Delayed action increases challenges to both economic and societal feasibility after 2030" This is coming from the historically conservative IPCC. They're still incorporating carbon capture technology that doesn't exist or doesn't exist at scale in projections (see C2.4 on page 17 of the PDF). While they admit in C8.2 (page 23) that these technologies are still in pilot stages and require commercialization, I would have liked there to have been more analysis of the risk that these technologies won't work at scale in section C10. Is it a near certainty we figure CCS out and the challenges are political and economic, or are there uncertain scientific and engineering challenges that remain?
- charbonneau 5y ago
  https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/05/04/so-you-want-to-build-a-carbon-capture-company/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/05/04/so-you-want-to...
- tejohnso 5y ago
  > after 2030 Why is it always in the future? We have ALREADY, REPEATEDLY, delayed action and we are CURRENTLY experiencing challenges in both economic and societal feasibility. Just look at the previous commitments and how far off we are. For example https://unfccc.int/news/climate-commitments-not-on-track-to-meet-paris-agreement-goals-as-ndc-synthesis-report-is-published https://unfccc.int/news/climate-commitments-not-on-track-to-... We've heard previously that we would have to make changes by 2010 to have a decent chance, and before that it was by 2000, and before that it was by 1980. No matter how many red line dates we pass, there's always another created. I suppose there's always a worse situation that we'll be in by some future date while we continue to do nothing, but in that case choosing a date is completely arbitrary as every second that passes is worse than the previous.
  - genewitch 5y ago
    the 1980 one is a bit disingenuous though, as climate scientists believed that we were going to move into an ice age unless we did something to stop it. I'm probably wrong, though.
TSiege 5y ago
Does anyone know if there is a better quality PDF available? I'd like to be able to search the document and copy and paste text, but it doesn't seem possible with this version
ipccthrowaway 5y ago
Meta: I posted the original material as ipfs links in a comment here, but it seems to have been flagged? I don't see anything in the guidelines that would justify this, besides "crap links". Was this an automatic flag?
- dang 5y ago
  Yes.
BoHerfIIIJrEsq 5y ago
> justice, equity and redistribution are essential to climate policy Hurry, we've got to do commie stuff to save the world! No thanks. Usually it just kills a bunch of people.
lowkey_ 5y ago
> justice, equity and redistribution are essential to climate policy > death cult of conservative economics > we must abandon economic growth, which is the basis of capitalism I've worked in environmental sciences, and am in the political sphere, and I'm really shocked at seeing an IPCC report attached to what looks like clear leftist propaganda, identifiable by its vocabulary, being upvoted on HN. Clean energy and less waste is the future. Economic growth is also the future. These can coexist. Attaching this all to communist talk-points around "redistribution" is so 2021 far-left, it's really jarring, and would be humorous if not frightening. Climate change is a serious issue, almost certainly the greatest issue of this century, and politicizing it into some communist arc is the absolute worst thing one could do to help enact change. It only sets us back. Edit: Here comes the downvotes, appears someone really wants this to be received positively.
- pavlov 5y ago
  These are the demands of Scientist Rebellion, from their "About Us" page on that site: • To achieve decarbonisation on the required scale demands economic degrowth, at least in the short term. This does not necessarily require a reduction in living standards. • For a just transition, the cost of degrowth must be paid for by the wealthiest, who have benefited enormously from the current destructive world order, while others have faced the consequences. • A just transition to a sustainable system requires the wealth from the 1% to be used for the common benefit. Sure, it's a leftist position. But these ideas are increasingly popular and probably worth debating on HN as well.
  - 1337shadow 5y ago
    > But these ideas are increasingly popular I would be interested in any source you have to back this up because I was seeing rather the opposite ...
    - pavlov 5y ago
      Recent polls suggest majority support for tax-based measures addressing wealth inequality. E.g. this one from March: https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/542914-poll-majority-say-wealth-tax-is-part-of-the-solution-to-wealth https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/542914-pol... "Fifty-six percent of registered voters in the March 5-8 survey said wealth inequality is a significant problem facing the country and billionaires paying a wealth tax is a part of the solution." I don't have historical poll data at hand, so I don't know how this has changed over time. My impression that it's become a more popular proposition recently (since the start of the pandemic) might be wrong.
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
I am glad to see sunshine on this matter, but...boy, that site is rather extreme. [UPDATE] I'm talking about the site; not the report. I do believe that climate change is an existential threat, and am rather disappointed that it looks like I'll get a front-row seat for the start of things, during my lifetime. It's just that I think extreme rhetoric, and extremist positions, are making global cooperation almost impossible.
- th0ma5 5y ago
  A moderate opinion is that we should ban all private combustion.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    I can live with halting all private combustion, but how do we get there? Who takes the hardest hit? Trick question. The answer is always "The poorest people." Unless we have a world war (which is likely to have an effect on the climate), where a dictatorial regime conquers all of the world, and imposes these types of things by fiat, we need to learn to work together, which does mean making compromises, and looking at root causes that may be several degrees removed, such as global poverty. Poverty is something that can be found at the root of so many troubles, yet people aren't particularly interested in addressing it. I have family that have been very involved in addressing poverty, and it's a tremendous problem. They are now engaged in an effort to get groups of people with widely divergent opinions and competing interests, to work together (to address poverty, and other pressing issues). It's really not simple, at all. When we go into "extreme" mode, our thinking becomes "binary." We -quite literally- become unable to even conceive ideas that would actually fix things.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    So for example, wood stoves in vermont are now banned under your proposal?
    - genewitch 5y ago
      I guess people can just freeze, or use the wildly less efficient electric grid to heat their homes (seriously, resistive heating is the least efficient, moreso considering the waste in generating it with heat and then inefficiencies with transmission. If you're going to use electricity to heat, at least mine bitcoin or something.
temp8964 5y ago
> It shows that we must abandon economic growth, which is the basis of capitalism. These people are insane. Not only they don't understand basic economics, but they are also brainwashed by far-left ideology. I see no possibility to have rational discussion with these people. It is just pathetic to have those insane people working in a science field which is somehow connected public policy.
black_puppydog 5y ago
Seems people are very taken aback by the "extremist rhetoric" of the group publishing this. Two comments: 1. Focus on the actual report, the leaked files. Top right corner, or somewhere here on HN there's a link to it. That document is the primary source here and might fit your taste better. Judge for yourselves what conclusions are presented there and whether those match the "extremist" ones you complain about. 2. To be completely clear here I'm more convinced than ever that any moderate response (and rhetoric) about the climate crisis at this point is the truly extremist stance to take. Recently courts have ruled that any semblance of incremental changes are, at this point, endangering the very lives of future and current generations. See e.g. the Shell case, I think in the Netherlands, or the recent constitutional court ruling in Germany.
- lowkey_ 5y ago
  It would've been much better served for OP to link to the actual IPCC report, so we could have a substantive conversation about climate, rather than everyone (understandably) being taken aback by the extremist and communist arc of the current link. (I've been reading the report, and it's definitely worth seeing even if you despise this "Science Rebellion" website).
  - black_puppydog 5y ago
    Maybe some mods can change the link to the pdfs? In any case they're not difficult to find and I trust the HN crowd wants to see the primary source anyhow.
- tejohnso 5y ago
  > any semblance of incremental changes are, at this point, endangering the very lives of future and current generations Yes, appropriate emphasis on current. Another example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58303792 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58303792
woodpanel 5y ago
genocidal system - so much for subtlety I guess the affiliation in rhetoric (or Favicons) with the nutjob upper-classist Extinction Rebellion is purely coincidental.
fasteddie31003 5y ago
I 100% believe in climate change. Seems like these guys really want a strong central government that what to influence everything from my diet to combat climate change. <sarcasm> It sounds like they will do in a fair and equitable manner, so that doesn't sound so bad </sarcasm>. I think the solution is more simple and relies on the free market. Just tax carbon appropriately.
TSiege 5y ago
It's upsetting to see this flagged for no understandable reason to me other than not liking the scientists rebellion's politics. The documents they leaked are vitally important given the immediate dangers of climate change. Whether you think their philosophy is extreme or not, it can't be denied that suppressing the sharing of leaked information from the IPCC is stifling the understanding to this crisis. Their language is extreme, but that is a result of the inaction and severity of the crisis. We have less than 10 years to completely change the global economic system to stave off the worst possible outcomes, civilization wide collapse. That is extreme, and it does no favors to not be alarmist about a situation so alarming. Maybe you don't agree with them, but instead of harping on their language as proving your point, try reading the report they leaked instead of flagging it

76 points by st0ffregen 5y ago

Here are the two leaked files, not on google drive: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmThVcHpJy2fRbU246VcskLnA5H6V3sMBWt9ZtmCpcD8md?filename=summary_draft1.pdf https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmThVcHpJy2fRbU246VcskLnA5H6V3sMBWt9Ztm... https://ipfs.io/ipfs/Qmc8rPeP8g6MHyvvDLrLvfPV4exmU3kbBRTBr7a9YjT19N?filename=chapter01.pdf https://ipfs.io/ipfs/Qmc8rPeP8g6MHyvvDLrLvfPV4exmU3kbBRTBr7a...

aritmo 5y ago

"20 points by st0ffregen 3 hours ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | discuss" Submitted 3 hours ago, no comments, and collected 20 points? Looks like someone is upvoting this too much. https://archive.is/v9U4l https://archive.is/v9U4l Apparently, the upcoming IPCC report says we should invest heavily in preparing the economy for climate change. This website tries to pretend they do not come from the fossil fuel industry. They call for "economic growth" which means keep using fossil fuels and pretend the world is not burning.

black_puppydog 5y ago
Sorry I don't get it. This is literally the only mention of "growth" on the linked page: > It shows that we must abandon economic growth, which is the basis of capitalism. And the leaked documents are together over a hundred pages long. I'd expect readers to take a while, maybe even over the day or evening, to digest. What's the issue?

makerofspoons 5y ago

"Delayed action increases challenges to both economic and societal feasibility after 2030" This is coming from the historically conservative IPCC. They're still incorporating carbon capture technology that doesn't exist or doesn't exist at scale in projections (see C2.4 on page 17 of the PDF). While they admit in C8.2 (page 23) that these technologies are still in pilot stages and require commercialization, I would have liked there to have been more analysis of the risk that these technologies won't work at scale in section C10. Is it a near certainty we figure CCS out and the challenges are political and economic, or are there uncertain scientific and engineering challenges that remain?

charbonneau 5y ago
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/05/04/so-you-want-to-build-a-carbon-capture-company/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/05/04/so-you-want-to...
tejohnso 5y ago
> after 2030 Why is it always in the future? We have ALREADY, REPEATEDLY, delayed action and we are CURRENTLY experiencing challenges in both economic and societal feasibility. Just look at the previous commitments and how far off we are. For example https://unfccc.int/news/climate-commitments-not-on-track-to-meet-paris-agreement-goals-as-ndc-synthesis-report-is-published https://unfccc.int/news/climate-commitments-not-on-track-to-... We've heard previously that we would have to make changes by 2010 to have a decent chance, and before that it was by 2000, and before that it was by 1980. No matter how many red line dates we pass, there's always another created. I suppose there's always a worse situation that we'll be in by some future date while we continue to do nothing, but in that case choosing a date is completely arbitrary as every second that passes is worse than the previous.
- genewitch 5y ago
  the 1980 one is a bit disingenuous though, as climate scientists believed that we were going to move into an ice age unless we did something to stop it. I'm probably wrong, though.

TSiege 5y ago

Does anyone know if there is a better quality PDF available? I'd like to be able to search the document and copy and paste text, but it doesn't seem possible with this version

ipccthrowaway 5y ago

Meta: I posted the original material as ipfs links in a comment here, but it seems to have been flagged? I don't see anything in the guidelines that would justify this, besides "crap links". Was this an automatic flag?

dang 5y ago
Yes.

BoHerfIIIJrEsq 5y ago

> justice, equity and redistribution are essential to climate policy Hurry, we've got to do commie stuff to save the world! No thanks. Usually it just kills a bunch of people.

lowkey_ 5y ago

> justice, equity and redistribution are essential to climate policy > death cult of conservative economics > we must abandon economic growth, which is the basis of capitalism I've worked in environmental sciences, and am in the political sphere, and I'm really shocked at seeing an IPCC report attached to what looks like clear leftist propaganda, identifiable by its vocabulary, being upvoted on HN. Clean energy and less waste is the future. Economic growth is also the future. These can coexist. Attaching this all to communist talk-points around "redistribution" is so 2021 far-left, it's really jarring, and would be humorous if not frightening. Climate change is a serious issue, almost certainly the greatest issue of this century, and politicizing it into some communist arc is the absolute worst thing one could do to help enact change. It only sets us back. Edit: Here comes the downvotes, appears someone really wants this to be received positively.

pavlov 5y ago
These are the demands of Scientist Rebellion, from their "About Us" page on that site: • To achieve decarbonisation on the required scale demands economic degrowth, at least in the short term. This does not necessarily require a reduction in living standards. • For a just transition, the cost of degrowth must be paid for by the wealthiest, who have benefited enormously from the current destructive world order, while others have faced the consequences. • A just transition to a sustainable system requires the wealth from the 1% to be used for the common benefit. Sure, it's a leftist position. But these ideas are increasingly popular and probably worth debating on HN as well.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  > But these ideas are increasingly popular I would be interested in any source you have to back this up because I was seeing rather the opposite ...
  - pavlov 5y ago
    Recent polls suggest majority support for tax-based measures addressing wealth inequality. E.g. this one from March: https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/542914-poll-majority-say-wealth-tax-is-part-of-the-solution-to-wealth https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/542914-pol... "Fifty-six percent of registered voters in the March 5-8 survey said wealth inequality is a significant problem facing the country and billionaires paying a wealth tax is a part of the solution." I don't have historical poll data at hand, so I don't know how this has changed over time. My impression that it's become a more popular proposition recently (since the start of the pandemic) might be wrong.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

I am glad to see sunshine on this matter, but...boy, that site is rather extreme. [UPDATE] I'm talking about the site; not the report. I do believe that climate change is an existential threat, and am rather disappointed that it looks like I'll get a front-row seat for the start of things, during my lifetime. It's just that I think extreme rhetoric, and extremist positions, are making global cooperation almost impossible.

th0ma5 5y ago
A moderate opinion is that we should ban all private combustion.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  I can live with halting all private combustion, but how do we get there? Who takes the hardest hit? Trick question. The answer is always "The poorest people." Unless we have a world war (which is likely to have an effect on the climate), where a dictatorial regime conquers all of the world, and imposes these types of things by fiat, we need to learn to work together, which does mean making compromises, and looking at root causes that may be several degrees removed, such as global poverty. Poverty is something that can be found at the root of so many troubles, yet people aren't particularly interested in addressing it. I have family that have been very involved in addressing poverty, and it's a tremendous problem. They are now engaged in an effort to get groups of people with widely divergent opinions and competing interests, to work together (to address poverty, and other pressing issues). It's really not simple, at all. When we go into "extreme" mode, our thinking becomes "binary." We -quite literally- become unable to even conceive ideas that would actually fix things.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  So for example, wood stoves in vermont are now banned under your proposal?
  - genewitch 5y ago
    I guess people can just freeze, or use the wildly less efficient electric grid to heat their homes (seriously, resistive heating is the least efficient, moreso considering the waste in generating it with heat and then inefficiencies with transmission. If you're going to use electricity to heat, at least mine bitcoin or something.

temp8964 5y ago

> It shows that we must abandon economic growth, which is the basis of capitalism. These people are insane. Not only they don't understand basic economics, but they are also brainwashed by far-left ideology. I see no possibility to have rational discussion with these people. It is just pathetic to have those insane people working in a science field which is somehow connected public policy.

black_puppydog 5y ago

Seems people are very taken aback by the "extremist rhetoric" of the group publishing this. Two comments: 1. Focus on the actual report, the leaked files. Top right corner, or somewhere here on HN there's a link to it. That document is the primary source here and might fit your taste better. Judge for yourselves what conclusions are presented there and whether those match the "extremist" ones you complain about. 2. To be completely clear here I'm more convinced than ever that any moderate response (and rhetoric) about the climate crisis at this point is the truly extremist stance to take. Recently courts have ruled that any semblance of incremental changes are, at this point, endangering the very lives of future and current generations. See e.g. the Shell case, I think in the Netherlands, or the recent constitutional court ruling in Germany.

lowkey_ 5y ago
It would've been much better served for OP to link to the actual IPCC report, so we could have a substantive conversation about climate, rather than everyone (understandably) being taken aback by the extremist and communist arc of the current link. (I've been reading the report, and it's definitely worth seeing even if you despise this "Science Rebellion" website).
- black_puppydog 5y ago
  Maybe some mods can change the link to the pdfs? In any case they're not difficult to find and I trust the HN crowd wants to see the primary source anyhow.
tejohnso 5y ago
> any semblance of incremental changes are, at this point, endangering the very lives of future and current generations Yes, appropriate emphasis on current. Another example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58303792 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58303792

woodpanel 5y ago

genocidal system - so much for subtlety I guess the affiliation in rhetoric (or Favicons) with the nutjob upper-classist Extinction Rebellion is purely coincidental.

fasteddie31003 5y ago

I 100% believe in climate change. Seems like these guys really want a strong central government that what to influence everything from my diet to combat climate change. <sarcasm> It sounds like they will do in a fair and equitable manner, so that doesn't sound so bad </sarcasm>. I think the solution is more simple and relies on the free market. Just tax carbon appropriately.

TSiege 5y ago

It's upsetting to see this flagged for no understandable reason to me other than not liking the scientists rebellion's politics. The documents they leaked are vitally important given the immediate dangers of climate change. Whether you think their philosophy is extreme or not, it can't be denied that suppressing the sharing of leaked information from the IPCC is stifling the understanding to this crisis. Their language is extreme, but that is a result of the inaction and severity of the crisis. We have less than 10 years to completely change the global economic system to stave off the worst possible outcomes, civilization wide collapse. That is extreme, and it does no favors to not be alarmist about a situation so alarming. Maybe you don't agree with them, but instead of harping on their language as proving your point, try reading the report they leaked instead of flagging it