Intergovernmental AR5 patch up - Josh 240

AR5 has landed and the press conference didn't disappoint, it was laugh out loud at times. 

Cartoons by Josh

Comments

[Radical Rodent]

Good one, as usual, Josh!

Actually, Sir Mark Walport was right, in his BBC Breakfast Show interview, when he said, “… humans have contributed to global warming.” It is just that he missed out that so is every other species of animal and plant on the planet; it is just a question of scale, even if the human contribution may well be insignificant.

[Martin A]

I get The page /www,cartoonsbyjosh.com could not be located on this website.

comma in the url? (after www?)

[Fixed, thanks!]

[stewgreen]

- Bottom line for the new AR5 : There are 2 different things : real world EVIDENCE by validated science, which is not the same as "scientists say" (cos that is just the OPINIONS of those scientists who run to the media and note that they usually started as activists first before they became scientists).
- The validated real world evidence does show a strange steadily rising CO2 trend over 100 odd years , but doesn't show a clear link * to temperature & climate patterns AND doesn't seem to show that we are on a clear trend to certain catastrophe. The rest of what the IPCC say is just noise.
* If they had found a clear link then their predictions of future temperature etc wouldn't have been the rubbish they have been so far.

BTW in the trailer for Radio 4's 1pm news prog "On AR5 ...we will also be speaking to rival group of scientists who disagree".. wow they are letting us skeptics speak ?

[PMT]

Alternative caption:-
"I've got no credibility, get me out of here."

[stewgreen]

(Radio 4 just played a preview I recognise as Bob Carter)
- now 13.10 they are giving Carter a fair airing ..brilliant
and he is explaining how the 95% is not a scientific measurement, but rather a guess or feeling by "expert opinion".. and calling that science is a travesty.
13.15 now they are asking a 3 member panel about Carter's words

..bottom line "Is that 95% figure science ?" Answer : no it's opinion

[stewgreen]

Oh and as Bish says how can confidence go up from 90% to 95% ?
Only if the models had been successful should confidence have gone up
- in the face of the failure of models to accurately predict reality, the confidence should have gone down.

[Paul Matthews]

stewgreen, quite right. Since AR4 we've had
* another 6 years of no warming
* climategate
* papers saying models don't match observations.
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/extremely-likely/

[Joe Public]

@ stewgreen at 1:24 PM

"............ how can confidence go up from 90% to 95% ?"

Simple.

Play roulette.

After a run of 17 Reds, most amateur gamblers are more-confident of a black from the next roll.

The fact that the mathematical odds remain unchanged is irrelevant; it's their confidence which has increased.

[Stuart Baker]

It's all looking a bit End-of-the-Soviet-Empire to me. Statements of - not slightly qualified, not tempered by experience - but *increased* certainty, plus commencement of widespread finger-pointing at governments, media, the public for not getting it about the end of the world. Look out for ominous silences, wholesale attempts to brush over the traces, burn the internet and book tickets to Cuba. It'll happen soon enough, but just like the fall of the USSR we'll only know officially once it's been confidently (100%) hind-cast by the media and the politicians.

[Pharos]

BBCbeebie Science.

[Beancounter]

95% is only 5.5 % more certain than last time. Not much to show for 5 years work.

[steve]

When bodies like the IPCC lie to me that is bad enough, but when they don't even bother to make a good job of it then its insulting - like saying "we think you are so dumb you will believe this"