Seen elsewhere

 

Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Steve Jewson on Bayesian statistics | Main | BBC links to BH »
Thursday
Sep262013

BREAKING! IPCC responds - Josh 239

We are all very excited about the IPCC Summary for Policymakers coming tomorrow, Friday 27th September, but today we can reveal an exclusive pre-press conference handy crib sheet to all your questions. Yes, all of them.

Thanks to all those who asked 5 questions - here are the 5 answers...


H/t Judith Curry's post here and liberally borrowed from Lord M's post at Watts Up With That

Click image for larger version

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (27)

Excellent yet again Josh. Many thanks.

Sep 26, 2013 at 3:14 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

The truth in cartoon form..... works for me ^.^

Sep 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Love it!

Sep 26, 2013 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterDonna Laframboise

And now I've got coffee on my keyboard. LOL. When you were young did you ever think latin could be funny?

Sep 26, 2013 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Thank you !

Sep 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterNicias

You have missed out another one - ably demonstrated by the Slyme-go. I paraphrase below...

...The HadGEM2 model is one of the most skillful models within the IPCC AR5 in simulating many aspects of the mean climate variability. Results based on it are used to form the perturbed parameter ensemble which develop the probabilistic projections that underpin UKCP09, together with the various alternative CMIP3-generation models. The fact that these are based only on the PPE is not an issue because this relationship is an emergent property of the detailed physical processes sampled by the PPE. Because of this one could argue that the model provides a more physically consistent representation of the real world than spatially sparse observational data. So I must be right....

Argument from a mixture of Complexity and Irrelevance?

Sep 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

Dodgy Geezer, do read Lord M's post linked above, it has loads of them, very funny too ;-)

Sep 26, 2013 at 4:17 PM | Registered CommenterJosh

Spock to Climate Alchemist:

Long live and lie though your teeth......

Sep 26, 2013 at 4:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

Sep 26, 2013 at 3:34 PM | Donna Laframboise - "Love it!"

Me too. And I also loved this. Thanks (to you and Josh).

Sep 26, 2013 at 4:53 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

Slyme-go. Sep 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM Dodgy Geezer

I'd suggest pointing out people's misdeeds but avoiding mocking their names.

Sep 26, 2013 at 5:57 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Josh's cartoons are quite possibly the only redeeming feature of 25 years of the IPCC

Sep 26, 2013 at 6:13 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

@Martin A

...I'd suggest pointing out people's misdeeds but avoiding mocking their names....

Her response to Nic, after the work he put in, was a direct insult. I felt that the least I could do was return the compliment. Paul Gallico said something about this, I believe...

Sep 26, 2013 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

Her response to Nic, after the work he put in, was a direct insult.

No question about that. My view is that, since insults reflect badly on the person passing them out, let them get on with it but avoid joining in.

The Slingo/Met Office response spoke volumes about their attitude and the extent of their desire to establish the realities of climate variation.

Hiding things they would prefer to avoid being subject to view behind the fig-leaf of 'peer review' is one of the characteristics of climate scientists that would convince me, even if I could not assess their analysis for myself, that what they are up to does not justify the title 'science'.

Sep 26, 2013 at 7:25 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Excellent Josh!

I swear, that bald guy looks more intelligent in your drawings than they ever do in real life. You're being much too kind, make them a little more real looking. Drool, spittle flying as they rant, flushed faces, beet red big noses, offside mustachios, uneven sideburns, hair comb-ups-and-overs, handlebar ears...

Or just ignore me and keep doing the best climate drawings ever!

Sep 26, 2013 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterATheoK

Brilliant, Josh ... And for any "follow-up" question, the response is ...

Argumentum ad terminatum: "Yes, but this does not materially alter [whatever we said before]"

Sep 26, 2013 at 8:33 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Oh yes, Hilary. It is worthy of a separate cartoon - perhaps one where a building is falling down, and each brick is labelled "the structure is still fundamentally sound."

Sep 27, 2013 at 4:00 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Great stuff Josh; reblogged it at the talkshop.

Dodgy Geezer: Quoting the ever fragrant Julia:
"one could argue that the model provides a more physically consistent representation of the real world than spatially sparse observational data."

One could, but one should always bear in mind that one's model was originally parameterized using that same sparse observational data. What's that? it wasn't? You mean the whole shebang was pulled out of thin air by people who'd misread what Manabe and Wetherald said?

Tell us it ain't so Julia....

Sep 27, 2013 at 8:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterRog Tallbloke

Got anything intelligent to say? Or has Lord Monckton got your tongues? (up his British nether regions)

Sep 27, 2013 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterBlackSheep

God, that's freakin' hilarious! Yet again! What a mastery of wit and caricature! Mike Mann has a beard! Toilet paper! 'Cos, you know, like, it's crap! Hoot!

How could it be that this genius is reduced to posting in places like this?

Sep 27, 2013 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered Commenterbill

...Got anything intelligent to say?...

Why, yes. This, lifted from a comment by Pointman at JCs:

"The Polar bears stubbornly refuse to go extinct, indeed the buggers are thriving, the glaciers don’t appear to be disappearing, sea levels have stayed boringly level, we haven’t been subsumed by hordes of desperate climate refugees, the polar ice caps haven’t melted, the Great Barrier Reef is still with us, we haven’t fought any resource wars, oil hasn’t run out, the seas insist on not getting acidic, the rainforest is still around, islands have not sunk under the sea, the ozone holes haven’t got bigger, the world hasn’t entered a new ice age, acid rain appears to have fallen somewhere that can’t quite be located, the Gulf Stream hasn’t stopped, extreme weather events have been embarrassingly sparse in recent years and guess what? The world isn’t getting any warmer either. Indeed, it’s stayed roughly the same, or arguably become slightly cooler, in the last fifteen years....."

Sep 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

Sorry, mistake. Indeed, it’s stayed roughly the same, or arguably become slightly cooler, in the last fifteen years....."
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb6525.gif

Sep 27, 2013 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterren

It is so sad that folks like you think ignorance is a good trait to have. Sure the folks that said beware of the Visagoths were coming were mocked this same way. The majority of the deniers are funded in one way or another by the fossil fuel industry. There is a reason for more intense storms, droughts superfires and more. Sandy made many a believer out of folks like you. But it is your right to disbelieve - I just wish there was a way to hold you accountable when your BS is shown to be just that. I am not hoping for a disaster and I do whatever is in my power to lighten my carbon footprint, as a lifelong gardener, I know that things are changing and by no measure for the better. Good luck with your ignorance - sure it is working good for the one home planet we have.

Sep 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered Commentercbreef

Dodgy Geezer, I said 'intelligent' not farcical denialist propaganda.

Sep 28, 2013 at 3:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterBlacksheep

"There is a reason for more intense storms, droughts superfires and more. Sandy made many a believer out of folks like you."

Yes, yes, yes! The gods are testing our faith. Either that, or gods are punishing us for our sins. The gods want us to leave fossil fuels in the ground, no doubt. Ten thousand doomsday scientists living off tithe can't be wrong.

"The majority of the deniers are funded in one way or another by the fossil fuel industry."

Naargh! They've all been possessed by evil spirits.

"But it is your right to disbelieve"

Yep! As long as they don't bring the wrath of gods upon us or we'll burn them on the stakes.

Dude, you'd have made a fine crusader during the Medieval Warm Period. Better late than never for you and your doomsday cult.

Sep 28, 2013 at 7:17 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

"Dodgy Geezer, I said 'intelligent' not farcical denialist propaganda."

Impressive rhetorical skills. Beat that, Dodgy!

Sep 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

Cbreef and Blacksheep are fine examples of warmists. They manage to use at least one of the answers from the catoon in their grumpy little comments. PS if Cbreef knows where this fossil fuel money is coming from could s/he let us know because we'd all like to apply for some.

Sep 28, 2013 at 8:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Perhaps a bit too late to this argument, but Blacksheep (Sep 28, 2013 at 3:39 AM) (not, I hope, anything to do with the beer with that label), what is there about Dodgy Geezer’s list that is “farcical denialist propaganda”? Everything that he stated is easily verified by simple checks on the internet. Google around; you might be surprised.

Cbreef (Sep 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM): “…majority of the deniers are funded in one way or another by the fossil fuel industry…” Before you pour your bile upon us, check out the credentials of Al Gore and Pachauri – both were (and still are?) swell-funded by the fossil fuel industry. As for more intense storms… are you sure about that? The level of tropical storms has been the lowest ever recorded for several years. Sandy was not unique; New York has been swamped at least 4 times in recent history: 1938, and three times in the 19th century – all ex-hurricanes more severe than Sandy (cat.1). As for drought, have you heard of the dust-bowl of the 1930s? Superfires? …oh, you probably mean the forest fires in Australia last year… are you aware that fire is an essential part of the ecosystem of the eucalyptus forest? There are many plants around the world that cannot germinate without fire. You are obviously connected to the internet, so, before you rant, check your facts.

Sep 28, 2013 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>