Josh writes:
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
Josh
Thanks, Josh and Anthony. That was perfect.
And for your viewing pleasure, I’ll have another video uploaded to YouTube tomorrow morning that will reveal a very curious relationship in the warming rates of model outputs. Very curious indeed! You’ll be able to watch it here at WUWT.
Scientivist – my word of the day.
I love the cartoon but must admit it slightly takes the fun out of IPCC Bingo when there are only 5 options.
I humbly suggest to Josh and Lord M that they are underestimating the IPCC. To the extent that there is ignorantiam, it seems willful. Would any of the IPCC farce be worth effort if not for simple Argumentum ad Commodum?
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel of Circus Clowns
Nice… LOL
No #6
#6 Disagree or ask question with me on Twitter and I will block you!!!!
I think your sense of humor is tvisted.
While we joke about this the media (the EPA and the White House) will be deadly serious about the IPCC report. We could see more Executive Mandates, more EPA rules and perhaps even their armed SWAT Teams will swing into action like they did in Alaska. The liberals take this very seriously and so should we.
RTaylor, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam isn’t calling the IPCC ignorant. It is the logical fallacy that something must be true simply because we can’t prove that it is false or we know of no other alternative. You are likely correct that the IPCC knows exactly what it is doing.
@njsnowfan says:
September 26, 2013 at 8:05 am
Nice… LOL
No #6
#6 Disagree or ask question with me on Twitter and I will block you!!!!
###
Argumentum ad bellicus?
I haven’t used Latin in decades, its a bit rusty 🙁
STM that few True Believers are noted for being the life and soul of the party. Nor for their joie de vivre and light-hearted approach.
There is very little that they will hate more than having their sanctimonious pomposity ridiculed by Josh (and others). More power to your pen, mon brave!
And I think I see the beginnings of a sea change in opinion (at least in UK) where the rapt attention to their every speculative and vapid utterings is being replaced by a much tougher ride from the serious interviewers like Neill and Paxman on TV and in the print media.
To survive both the ridicule and the tough questions they will have to up their game considerably. It would not be wise to simply ignore a hard question from Jeremy Paxman, nor to assert ‘Trust Me I’m a Climatologist’ to Andrew Neil. Even worse t refuse (a la Schmidt) to share a platform with a ‘sceptic’ on the grounds that you can’t bear to be in the same room.That way lies ruin. And yet their deliberate avoidance of such engagements over the past decade has left them intellectually weak and flabby – and lacking ‘game time’.
Manchester United or Barcelona or Real Amdrid did not achieve their present eminences by always refusing to play other teams and just relying on soft kickarounds with each other behind closed doors. Our climo brethren have (mostly) done exactly that. And the effects are beginning to show.
Tomorrow publication will open up a minefield for them. Few, I think, will cross it unscathed.
[Real “Madrid” ? Mod]
@DesertYote
#7. Did I mention I wrote a book with a forward by Bill Nye the Science Guy?
Josh, terrific. This one needs to get to MSM outlets.
Argumentum ad pecuniam
My five questions addressed to the IPCC Bureau about both the fear inciting exaggeration and the premeditated bias in their assessment activities:
1. Who is(are) the intellectual source(s) of such irrational behavior? Individual names please, not inane references to your charter / framework / etc.
2. When the first truly skeptical and independent audit of your subjective leadership starts within the next 6 months, will you finally be honest about the gaming of the assessments?
3. Where is the rational justification of your support of secrecy?
4. How can you help to remedy your damage to the reputation of modern science?
5. Why do you even keep up your false premise that the danger / harm of burning fossils must exist? You were told to look for it, you did not unambiguously find it. Why keep that false premise and longer?
John
> liberally borrowed from Lord M’s post at Watts Up With That
When I read that, I thought to myself there should be cartoon samples of the various Argumenta (Argumenti? Hey, I only had one year of Latin….)
Thanks for finishing that post so well.
Now, I’m thinking the IPCC deserves an argumentum just for itself, thoughargumentum ad petitionem principii,the circular-argument fallacy, where a premise is also the conclusion, seems to be the central point of the IPCC’s charter.
Deserte, the proper term is argumentum ad bacculum, “arguing to the club”
Also, you missed argumentum at Hilterem (while a subset of ad hominem, it’s an important distinction) and the sharpshooter falacy in modeling
Great job Josh! This is the best one yet! It so clearly summarizes the “data” behind the AGWH (H for Hoax)
… since they missed the 04-01-13 release date.
Hilterem as in Hilter Skilter ?
#8. Do you hear voices in your head?
Josh, Great toon. When is the 2014 calendar going to be available?
DesertYote says:
September 26, 2013 at 8:48 am
@njsnowfan says:
September 26, 2013 at 8:05 am
Nice… LOL
No #6
#6 Disagree or ask question with me on Twitter and I will block you!!!!
###
Argumentum ad bellicus?
I haven’t used Latin in decades, its a bit rusty 🙁
Pretty sure it would an “argumentum ad lalalala” I’m pretty certain there’s no real Latin for that.
Duster says:
September 26, 2013 at 10:46 am
Argumentum ad voluntarium surditas?
All you need to know is Juvenal. (: