Tuesday
Jun122012
by 
Josh
Josh 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services -
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
Is Junk Science becoming endemic?
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
;)
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (18)
Love it Josh.
If the natsis (sic) haven't liked you before this, then they will hate you now.
Nice shot of the great hero Steve McIntyre.
The only thing wrong with this picture is that the dumping of crap is not the Green way. That's why their bullshit gets continually recycled.
Greg Barker on NIMBY landfill
http://www.gregorybarker.com/campaigns/6/stop-bexhill-landfill
Josh has got it wrong. Toxic waste is not suitable for landfill.
Brilliant, Josh ... as always :-)
That's pro bono work right there, from Steve.
Nice! - except that Steve Mc should be on an excavator (digging up the data) instead of the bulldozer (looks like he's burying). Sorry to be pedantic, but they're two tools with purposes opposite what I think you meant to convey.
http://iminco.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/EXCAVATOR.jpg
**Nevermind, I thought they were dumping adverse data, not AR5!
This cannot be the perfect time to be an aspiring AR5 IPCC author, or an 'old hand' for that matter.
Earlier versions probably got away with more than has even been exposed, little chance of that happening again: small wonder they want to keep everyone - including reviewers - in the dark as long as possible, or they would probably never be in a position to publish AR5 at all.
I am reminded that Pachauri's priceless excuse for the Himalayan glacier 'tiny error'/ monstrous deceit incident in AR4 rested on the Report's "over 3000 pages".Don't worry, sunshine, every page will get scrutinised this time round.
Another home run Josh!
Is the debris lying around on the ground the data that was discarded as trash?
Your best yet Josh.
Excellent!
For those who don't know this yet, the review of the First Order Draft of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 2 report has started.
If you are interested in being a reviewer, please email the Technical Support Unit:
tsu@ipcc-wg2.gov
Cheers
Richard
Smug alert!
"Nice! - except that Steve Mc should be on an excavator (digging up the data) instead of the bulldozer (looks like he's burying). Sorry to be pedantic, but they're two tools with purposes opposite what I think you meant to convey.
http://iminco.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/EXCAVATOR.jpg
Jun 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM | TerryMN"
Totally agree, Terry, I was going to make exactly the same point then noticed you'd beat me to it. An excavator would be perfect, and perhaps we could have the Bish. driving a high reach demolition truck battering at the IPCC ivory tower!!!
http://www.volvoce.com/dealers/en-gb/vcegb/products/demolitionequipment/Pages/introduction.aspx
Brilliant, Josh. Especially the 'tipping point'...
(Note to US readers - a tip is a garbage dump)
Richard Betts,
Last time I've read parts of the IPCC AR5 drafts--which, if I remember correctly, became, as ever(?), only in some cases (some chapters) available for the public through a leak--it was a bit like reading articles on climate issues in Wikipedia. In both cases I tend to have a nearly complete other (and often longer) text in mind than the "climatologists", from the first sentence to the last one. What are my greatest concerns? As I know that the "first" sentence should be considered/judged w.r.t. the following one and so forth, I think often, w.r.t. consistency, nearly the entire text needs a rewriting to present broader (scientific(/public(?)) perspectives. Big task! Important problems, for example, show up quite often even in the "basics" of ((C)A)GW: e.g. simplifications (often in context with "((catastrophic) Anthropogenic) Global Warming", or XY ppmv human caused atmospheric CO2 rise...) or number presentations (like "Global Warming" of 0.0XY°C thousand/hundred/... years ago, or sea level would rise (with a few 'adjustments') 30 centimeter per decade...) but there are plenty more. "Climatologists" have big tasks, don't they? The worst scenarios of, for example, James Hansen or Jo Schellnhuber, which are so frightening that nearly no Journal/Magazine is hyping them all the time, could become true, or the "climatology" could show that, all in all, the presently claimed understanding of GHG-AGW was (itself dangerously?) premature and false.
My apologies! My above comment should read '3 centimeter per decade' or '30 centimeter per century' instead of "30 centimeter".