As I said in a comment the other day, there is deductive science, inductive science and inventive "science". The latter works by knowing the conclusion before you start (CO2 is the cause) and make some observations. Flood, drought, wind, calm etc and then invent a physical process that links observations to conclusion.
"'Alarmist' green groups made 'exaggerated' claims about global warming, UN climate change scientist says Prof Myles Allen criticises 'unhelpful' alarmism by some NGOs as UN report says science is clear that drastic action is now needed to tackle climate change " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11204289/Alarmist-green-groups-made-exaggerated-claims-about-global-warming-UN-climate-change-scientist-says.html
Not that Prof Allen would be alarmist (up to 11 degrees C by end of century, flooding, etc.), but he must be worried about the gravy train coming to a halt!
It all looks as though the 'Bible Puncher Gore' and the green blob are having a fit of hysterics.
Synthesis:the act or process of combining often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole For synthesis read synthetic Synthetic:philosophy relating to or involving synthesis; not analytic. or sham, bogus; also insincere
Without going back and reading the IPCC reports, I recall that it could only blame mankind for 50% of the waming . Statement from the fifth IPCC report in 2013: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010." Then there was the report that could not attach storm and tempest to global warming. Synthesis looks like a political cover up
I still wonder if the arrogant little nerds who invented the nomenclature for these reports ever thought it all properly through, with FAR, SAR, TAR, before they realised that they were going to have to re-title the next three reports, FAR, FAR, SAR, & had to opt for AR4 & AR5. If they had thought it all through, they would have thought of the simple AR system which can go on indefinitely, but let us hope & pray that they will soon be abandoned in the not too distant future! Also, why was it that when the initial report was published, it had downgraded much of the alarmism, but now it seems to be scream it from the highest steeple!
Absolutely priceless! One of your best Josh, and that's a hard competition.
The paradox: If the IPCC scientists are right and the science is settled, we don't need them. They are superfluous because we then need e.g. nuclear scientists and engineers, etc., not stadions filled with climatologists.
Or come to think about it, we don't need them anyway. At some point in the future we will need to replace at least part of those fossil fuels with other energy sources. This is nothing to do with climatology, but with energy policy, directed to fulfil people's needs, many of them of a better life. Climatologists and all the "folk climatology"* seem more like an obstacle than a help to reach that goal by promoting green Kool-Aid.
* Excellent term coined by Richard Drake, if I remember correctly.
A lady walks into a bar. She shows the bartender the ‘synthesis report’ ransom note and she says, “What can I get for that?”
The bartender strokes his chin then says, “Hmmm, probably 10-15 with time off for good behavior. Before you go, have a cocktail on the house, they don’t serve them in the joint.”
I am reminded that, in the 1850's, Her Majesty's government was of the unanimous view that the typhoid epidemic gripping London was due to 'miasma' (bad air) - when of course it was due to contaminated drinking water - and that view didn't half take some shifting...
But - hey - we live in more enlightened times, don't we..?
Reader Comments (30)
No pressure!
Aesop's Fables
This latest IPCC utterance should be catalogued as number 585 in the "Perry Index"
Or, alternatively as number 210A next to "Cry Wolf"
Luv it!
As I said in a comment the other day, there is deductive science, inductive science and inventive "science". The latter works by knowing the conclusion before you start (CO2 is the cause) and make some observations. Flood, drought, wind, calm etc and then invent a physical process that links observations to conclusion.
Its full proof.
The IPCC report in nutshell, great stuff!
[NO] [we]
[WON'T]
Those ISIS people will cost a few ££££ to kill as well.
Verry funny!
Its full proof.
Nov 3, 2014 at 2:22 PM | Registered CommenterEuan Mearns
And FOOL Proof
This needs to be made into posters and on T-shirts.
PS As this is the 5th report, I think the last line should be
"'Alarmist' green groups made 'exaggerated' claims about global warming, UN climate change scientist says
Prof Myles Allen criticises 'unhelpful' alarmism by some NGOs as UN report says science is clear that drastic action is now needed to tackle climate change "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11204289/Alarmist-green-groups-made-exaggerated-claims-about-global-warming-UN-climate-change-scientist-says.html
Not that Prof Allen would be alarmist (up to 11 degrees C by end of century, flooding, etc.), but he must be worried about the gravy train coming to a halt!
Phillip Bratby:
The T-shirt strikes me as a very good option. So what goes on the back? I'd suggest this. As raspberries go that could be powerful.
There you go. A couple of T-shirts bought for Christmas.
had you thought of getting it published so that we can all give their report the honours it deserves?
Custom Printed Toiler Paper Rolls
Mike: Your link doesn't work for me.
[J: fixed]
This is what a global warming sceptic looks like.
T-shirts for christmas yes, yes
It all looks as though the 'Bible Puncher Gore' and the green blob are having a fit of hysterics.
Synthesis:the act or process of combining often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole
For synthesis read synthetic
Synthetic:philosophy relating to or involving synthesis; not analytic. or sham, bogus; also insincere
Without going back and reading the IPCC reports, I recall that it could only blame mankind for 50% of the waming .
Statement from the fifth IPCC report in 2013:
"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010."
Then there was the report that could not attach storm and tempest to global warming.
Synthesis looks like a political cover up
I still wonder if the arrogant little nerds who invented the nomenclature for these reports ever thought it all properly through, with FAR, SAR, TAR, before they realised that they were going to have to re-title the next three reports, FAR, FAR, SAR, & had to opt for AR4 & AR5. If they had thought it all through, they would have thought of the simple AR system which can go on indefinitely, but let us hope & pray that they will soon be abandoned in the not too distant future! Also, why was it that when the initial report was published, it had downgraded much of the alarmism, but now it seems to be scream it from the highest steeple!
Genius!
Funny how the cartoon is so much cleverer than the report.. :-)
KUDOS -- BEST EVER!
Very good Josh, so I have plagiarised it for my own blog on the IPCC synthesis report.
Breitbart puts it this way: BUY OUR SNAKE OIL OR THE WORLD GETS IT.
Excellent!
...Quick, get it down to the lab for finger printing.
Paul: James Delingpole's succinct, punchy and accurate on this one - thanks for the pointer.
Absolutely priceless! One of your best Josh, and that's a hard competition.
The paradox: If the IPCC scientists are right and the science is settled, we don't need them. They are superfluous because we then need e.g. nuclear scientists and engineers, etc., not stadions filled with climatologists.
Or come to think about it, we don't need them anyway. At some point in the future we will need to replace at least part of those fossil fuels with other energy sources. This is nothing to do with climatology, but with energy policy, directed to fulfil people's needs, many of them of a better life. Climatologists and all the "folk climatology"* seem more like an obstacle than a help to reach that goal by promoting green Kool-Aid.
* Excellent term coined by Richard Drake, if I remember correctly.
The Galileo Movement in Australia has put out a (black) T-shirt with the front reading
Santa Claus
Tooth Fairy
Easter Bunny
Climate Change
I don't know if there are any left but...
http://www.galileomovement.com.au
& this joke inspired by Josh’s cartoon . . .
A lady walks into a bar. She shows the bartender the ‘synthesis report’ ransom note and she says, “What can I get for that?”
The bartender strokes his chin then says, “Hmmm, probably 10-15 with time off for good behavior. Before you go, have a cocktail on the house, they don’t serve them in the joint.”
John
T-Shirts are a better bargain than erm ... these - if you hadn't seen them yet.
Is there a graphologist in the house?
The handwriting style too much resembles the Climategate hacker's
I am reminded that, in the 1850's, Her Majesty's government was of the unanimous view that the typhoid epidemic gripping London was due to 'miasma' (bad air) - when of course it was due to contaminated drinking water - and that view didn't half take some shifting...
But - hey - we live in more enlightened times, don't we..?
Josh, we in the USA need to be able to purchase this as well.
Any hope you can arrange for that?
And of course we need the 2015 Calendar.......