Dr. Judith Curry on the AR5 Draft leak:
The leak of the SOD was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.
Full story here
“One of the hardest things to do is to stand up in front of an audience and admit that you have made a mistake, even when the mistake was genuine.”
WRONG,WRONG,WRONG. If you do not have the fortitude,or morals,to admit a wrong,then we are heading for the hole faster then I thought.
Know the trick: Look them in the eye, and state that there is a flaw out there. Find it.
I’m reminded of the story of the Hoover salesman out in the boonies of the mid-southern hills, who dumped a pail of dirt on a homemaker’s rug and vowed to eat his hat if his vacuum cleaner didn’t suck it all up, satisfactorily. The hausfrau handed him his hat and told him to start in, because the house didn’t have any electricity.
The IPCC has dumped a lot of dirt on the rug, and now has a hard time finding power for their machine.
==============
Gunga Din,
I believe the correct metric is: how many Olympic-size swimming pools would be filled if the rug was 1/2 inch thick?
•••
kimmy:
You’re too young to remember, but that vacuum cleaner salesman was Lou Costello, from a skit by Abbott & Costello.
D Böehm says:
December 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Gunga Din,
I believe the correct metric is: how many Olympic-size swimming pools would be filled if the rug was 1/2 inch thick?
================================================================
Maybe that’s what their problem is! Their rug is measured in inches but the Olympic pools use the metric system!
(But how did the Ancient Greeks measure their swimming pools? Cubits? More research funds are needed.)
@Tom in Florida,
“Jim, the IPCC has told so many lies they no longer know where the rug is.”
The IPCC has told so many lies that no longer know what a rug is. 🙂
Recall the oft-repeated and favorite slogan of the warmers: “the science is settled”. You don’t hear it these days. The peer reviewed system of publications failed to throttle fruitful discourse in climate science, thanks to the science blogs like WUWT and Judith Curry.
Once again, thanks are due to Alec Rawls, who is to be congratulated for his leadership. The benefits of his act continue to issue forth and will for years, I predict.
In retrospect, now is probably a better time to have reached a wider review than with the earlier rounds. We have the history of previous reports to demonstrate the way in which the process has been inaccurate in the past, and a greatly improved store of detailed measurements.
The previous iterations have successfully condensed a good proportion of the subject matter – it is much easier to argue about the accuracy and objectivity of the current draft in that context.
I feel there are also more experts in the field who are realising that maybe they have an opportunity to make a name for themselves by standing up (even if they risk being wrong, because that is guaranteed in at least some details)
Re: sweeping stuff under the rug and adjusting their way out of the mess they have created.
You know, in a way, the vast amount of pro AGW papers used and cited within the past IPCC reports is what will be the nail in their coffin as regards being able to ‘hide’ corrections – because I don’t think they can retrospectively run back and republish that vast catalog of ‘errors’ (yeah, I know, it was probably bad science too!)
Of course, they could always come out and say something like ‘Ah, we’re still not certain, as the science and observations don’t match – so can we have more cash, and we will try again for another 20 years, please, pretty please?’
Be in no doubt, many of the ‘97%’ of alleged climate scientists secretly harbor doubts. You can’t look at the projections and reality and fail to have doubts, yet they have nailed their flags to the mast, painted themselves into a corner, dug themselves into a hole – it’s going to take gold medal scientific and public relations gymnastics to get out of this (if it continues to fail to warm).
————-
Anthony, please use headlines such as “Quote of the Week: Dr. Judith Curry on the AR5 Draft leak” so it is easier to find these things in the archive.
There is “the search for truth” and there is a “cause”. These don’t seem to be the same.
Seconded1
REPLY: Done.
the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job
The problem, Dr Curry, is if the IPCC does do a better job it will remove any justification for its own existence.
I suggest the IPCC formally be merged into the UN so it can quietly molder away in an office in Geneva or somewhere sinecure-ish, so the rest of us can be spared their increasingly silly hysteria.
Here’s something else she said, which is even pithier:
From her Week in Review 12/15/12 post:
I’ve downloaded the SPM and a few of the chapters. The extreme overconfidence of many of their conclusions is bewildering.
Just how many knots can a pretzel have? Giving it another twist does not a straight line make. Hugely entertaining, though. I wonder if the “climate scientists” responsible for that huge pile of dung under that little tiny rug, cry themselves to sleep at night. I’m surprised they can actually leave the house – I should have thought shame would prevent them from showing their faces.
Most people will not even look at the rug, or even notice the lumpy thing. They will simply uncritically believe whatever they are told.
You don’t have to fool all of the people all of the time, or even most of the people, you only have to fool just enough to ram through your agenda, which is simply seize power and don’t let go. Once you have enough power it simply doesn’t matter what the truth is, you can assure that no one will ever here it, and even if they do, they will be unable to do anything about it.
Winning the truth or scientific argument is not winning, seizing the power is.