Almost Friday Funny – 5 answers from the IPCC on AR5

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…

Josh_IPCC_AR5

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

Cartoons by Josh

Josh

About these ads

76 thoughts on “Almost Friday Funny – 5 answers from the IPCC on AR5

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. @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 :(

  6. 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]

  7. 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

  8. > 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. milodonharlani says:
    September 26, 2013 at 11:47 am

    Hey, thanks. I was gettin’ there. Having a pretty rough day over here. lol

  12. philjourdan says:
    September 26, 2013 at 11:53 am

    The names of logical fallacies are certainly a relevant study, even if the entire Latin lingo isn’t.

  13. IPCC report: Britain could cool if Gulf Stream slows
    Britain’s climate could get cooler over the next 80 years, a major UN report on global warming is to suggest.

    By Richard Gray, and Nick Collins, in Stockholm

    26 Sep 2013

    For the first time the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to give a clear prediction of how global warming will affect currents in the Atlantic Ocean.

    It will say that the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic, which includes the Gulf Stream, will weaken by between 20 and 44 per cent by the end of the century.
    Scientists claim that such a slowdown in the Gulf Stream, which gives Britain its mild climate, will have a major impact on the UK, causing cooling of around 1 degree C and disrupting weather patterns.

    The Gulf Stream carries warm water from the equator to the west coast of Britain, making the country’s climate warmer than it otherwise would.

    Here’s the hilarious bit :

    “Scientists warn that the resulting cooling would mask the impacts of global warming on the country, but will also play havoc with the country’s weather.”

    So “cooling” will mask the “warming”! Who would have thought!

    And now it’s cooling that “will play havoc” with Britain’s weather! And no, you are not dreaming and I am not making this up. Check it out for yourselves. These guys are in real trouble.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10337064/IPCC-report-Britain-could-cool-if-Gulf-Stream-slows.html

  14. Lord Leach of Fairford says at September 26, 2013 at 9:51 am….
    Surely: Argumentum a sui interest (grammar pedant)

    And also for all Party Political Broadcasts.

  15. But seriously; Google Translate sorts the Latin.

    It’s the thought about the nature and causes of error that is of value.

  16. M Courtney says:
    September 26, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    Google Translate doesn’t work all that well for English to Latin. It will if you understand how Latin works, though.

  17. Meanwhile the report has not been released yet and Jeff Masters has a post out saying the report is Authoritative and Conservative and is the MOST rigorous and important report in history. Oh and also that the oil companies have an extremely well funded campaign against the science.

  18. Mick says: September 26, 2013 at 11:53 am

    On a slightly more serious note….Judith Curry writes, the questions she would put at the top of her list are…
    How have you responded to the IAC recommendations? If you have not yet implemented the IAC’s recommendations, then why not?

    Yes, it was at top of my list, too … and on Sep. 23, during the “opening” session (before they went so “transparently” behind closed doors), Pachauri’s pontifications included yet another porkie! See:

    IPCC’s AR5: Pontifications from planet Stocker, Pachauri & Steiner

  19. Tee Wee writes: “the EPA and the White House) will be deadly serious about the IPCC report.”

    Well, mate, your country and mine (Britain) will catch on eventually, but we have to wait our place in the queue. Australia is first to twig it, abolishing its Ministry of Global Warming Scare Stories. Canada next. Germany, the green vote having bombed, will shortly starve the windmill-and-solar industry of the subsidies weighing down the real economy. China and Russia, which never shared the GW delusion, will be worried that their energy and solar panel industries can no longer screw the West. Question is this, mate: Is your US government stupider and slower than mine? Sorry mate. The British government is the stupidest. We’ll win.

    To your national credit, though, you have Michael Mann. When it’s all over I suggest that you organize a Public Subscription to erect a statue of him. Caption: “Never in the field of human con-tricks was so much screwed from so many, thanks to you.”

  20. Where’s Lord Monckton when you need him.

    I’m sure he would fix all your bad attempts at Latin in seconds. :-)

  21. Dilectissime Josh,

    Gavisus sum, ut semper, de cartoon tua. Quae dicis de IPCC vera sunt.
    And, GREAT WORK for Bob Tisdale’s new book’s cover!

    Vale,

    Janice
    (no, I do not know Latin — I have letters written by C. S. Lewis to Don Giovanni Calabria (:))

    And here they are!
    IPCC’s Top Seven — doing…. research!

  22. Sasha, “The Gulf Stream carries warm water from the equator to the west coast of Britain” The Gulf Stream also carries celebrities from the USA to far flung vacation spots.

  23. ” Bob Tisdale says:September 26, 2013 at 7:39 am
    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. ”

    You tease! Spill it now! I’m going to go nuts wondering all night now.

  24. If you add a new Latin argument, put down the rough translation for us. That way when we do the translation via google, we’ll sort of know what we’re doing. We might even learn something :) Thanks.

  25. @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!!!!
    _______________________________________________
    Double LOL… Here is my first Twitter response and the result to Mann:

    Here is Mann’s tweet: http://postimg.org/image/f50dwspw1
    Here is my response: http://postimg.org/image/pgcqpghld
    Here is the result: http://postimg.org/image/doovenmz5/

    (Question: How do I post those so they are links?)

  26. Jeff Mitchell says:
    September 26, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Two whose meaning might be obscure:

    Argumentum ad voluntarium surditas (argument from willful deafness, aka “lalalalalala”)

    Argumentum ad aures surdas (argument from deaf ears, ditto)

  27. Q: How can you possibly increase your certainty from 90% to 95%?

    A: We’re 100% certain that humans are responsible for 100% of the warming this millennium, so we added that to our previous 90% and divided by 2. Basic science!

  28. What’s IPCC without a Latin motto? Any suggestions?

    Scientia si calescit (“It’s science if it’s getting warmer”)
    Simulanda quae meti non possunt (“That which cannot be measured must be modelled”)

  29. Jeff Mitchell — laugh (gag) out loud, heh.

    @ Milodon Harlani and Steinar Midtskogen — THANK YOU for the Latin translations (and the wit).

  30. Yes, the cartoon is funny at first, but when you realize that it is also literally true, it becomes a very sad thing. The IPCC has no scientific or rational argument for projecting catastrophic warming. None! The whole movement and all of the restrictions, regulations and cost increases are based solely on logical fallacies. It is frightening that so many people are fooled by such things.

  31. R Taylor says:
    September 26, 2013 at 7:58 am

    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?

    ======================================================================
    Arguing in the commode?
    I think #4 covers that.

  32. Josh, the Mann-like cartoon character in your post answers questions using such simple logically fallacies so to him we should give this advise:

    adversus solem ne loquitor

    [don't argue the obvious (literally 'don't speak against the sun')]

    John

  33. Appeal to pity:

    An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam or the Galileo argument)[1][2] is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.

    “We are 95% certain it’s much much worse than we thought” doesn’t seem to quite match up. That’s more of a “Think of all the puppies that will pant to death in the heat!” argument.

    ===

    Future movies we’d like to see:

    Based on a concept from a Twilight Zone episode, original series:

    To Serve Mann

    We’d prefer a documentary.

  34. Lord Leach of Fairford says:
    September 26, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Argumentum ad pecuniam

    Rather, Argumentum ad peculiariam
    .. Strange and odd arguments from liars …

  35. David A. Evans says:
    September 26, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Loved the Nobble prize

    For a Nobel Lie.

    steinarmidtskogen says:
    September 26, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    What’s IPCC without a Latin motto? Any suggestions?

    Omni in verba. (On our say-so.)
    (Unsure of the correctness or completeness of the Latin–the word for “our” may be missing.)

  36. @ Gunga Din, no, lol, it was T.P. humor:

    More people prefer…

    (Mann had a voice double for the TV version of the ad to make him sound nice.)

    “Softer (science) makes it better!”

    (Disclaimer: The trees selected to produce this scientific, super-top-secret, paper were selected completely at random. Any resemblance to reality produced in our factory is purely coincidence. The man in our ad is only an actor — not a real scientist. We repeat, NOT a real scientist. Manufacturing process is a trade secret. Do not try this at home. Always wear a helmet. Do not insert hand into mower while running. This disclaimer void where not already prohibited by law.)

  37. rogerknights says:

    Omni in verba. (On our say-so.)
    (Unsure of the correctness or completeness of the Latin–the word for “our” may be missing.)

    Nostro verbo (lit. “on our word”)
    Quia ita dicimus (“Because we say so”)

    I was trying to express the passive of a deponent above. Better use the impersonal there: simulanda quae meti nequit

  38. Today’s winner of the IPCC latin moto contest is….. steinarmidtskogen , with:
    Quia ita dicimus (“Because we say so”)

    Congratulations

  39. benofhouston says:
    September 26, 2013 at 10:02 am

    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
    ###

    Even though I work as a Instrumentation Engineer, my main interest, and area of current study, is carnivore biology. At first glance “bacculum” looked like a somewhat different word. I almost spewed coffee :D (Look it up, if you dare)

  40. Brian H says:
    September 27, 2013 at 10:47 am

    DryYote:
    I dared. But you misspelled it. Only one “c”. Not to be a pr*** about it.
    ###
    :)

  41. I can tell this was a funny thread. Wish I paid more attention in Latin class. All I remember is how to sing “Davy Crockett” in Latin.
    “Fons summa monte in Tennessee. Regnum campus terra liberie…”
    (I didn’t say I remembered how to spell it.)

Comments are closed.