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

0 0 vote
Article Rating
76 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
September 26, 2013 7:39 am

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.

Gary
September 26, 2013 7:40 am

Scientivist – my word of the day.

September 26, 2013 7:45 am

I love the cartoon but must admit it slightly takes the fun out of IPCC Bingo when there are only 5 options.

September 26, 2013 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?

vuurklip
September 26, 2013 8:05 am

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel of Circus Clowns

@njsnowfan
September 26, 2013 8:05 am

Nice… LOL
No #6
#6 Disagree or ask question with me on Twitter and I will block you!!!!

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yogyakarta
September 26, 2013 8:07 am

I think your sense of humor is tvisted.

TeeWee
September 26, 2013 8:37 am

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.

GH05T
September 26, 2013 8:39 am

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.

DesertYote
September 26, 2013 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 🙁

Latimer Alder
September 26, 2013 8:59 am

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]

Andy
September 26, 2013 8:59 am

@DesertYote
#7. Did I mention I wrote a book with a forward by Bill Nye the Science Guy?

Rud Istvan
September 26, 2013 9:06 am

Josh, terrific. This one needs to get to MSM outlets.

Lord Leach of Fairford
September 26, 2013 9:51 am

Argumentum ad pecuniam

September 26, 2013 9:53 am

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

Editor
September 26, 2013 9:54 am

> 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.

benofhouston
September 26, 2013 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

David L.
September 26, 2013 10:09 am

Great job Josh! This is the best one yet! It so clearly summarizes the “data” behind the AGWH (H for Hoax)

lallatin
September 26, 2013 10:11 am

… since they missed the 04-01-13 release date.

Mike M
September 26, 2013 10:12 am

Hilterem as in Hilter Skilter ?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
September 26, 2013 10:38 am

#8. Do you hear voices in your head?

rsminus3
September 26, 2013 10:44 am

Josh, Great toon. When is the 2014 calendar going to be available?

Duster
September 26, 2013 10:46 am

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.

milodonharlani
September 26, 2013 10:49 am

Duster says:
September 26, 2013 at 10:46 am
Argumentum ad voluntarium surditas?

Zeke
September 26, 2013 11:08 am

All you need to know is Juvenal. (:

Graham
September 26, 2013 11:17 am

Argumentum ad BovineExcrementium

September 26, 2013 11:28 am

Duster says: Pretty sure it would an “argumentum ad lalalala” I’m pretty certain there’s no real Latin for that.
“Argumentum ad aures surdas”

David Ball
September 26, 2013 11:35 am

Veni, Vidi, Conquunter.

David Ball
September 26, 2013 11:40 am

I came, I saw, I cooked.
Is what I am trying very hard to say. 8^D

milodonharlani
September 26, 2013 11:47 am

David Ball says:
September 26, 2013 at 11:40 am
Veni, vidi, cocto.

Bruce Cobb
September 26, 2013 11:49 am

My question: How many shades of gray literature did you use?

David Ball
September 26, 2013 11:49 am

Best.Mods.Ever.
Thank you.

David Ball
September 26, 2013 11:52 am

milodonharlani says:
September 26, 2013 at 11:47 am
Hey, thanks. I was gettin’ there. Having a pretty rough day over here. lol

Mick
September 26, 2013 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?
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/ReportNewsRelease.html

September 26, 2013 11:53 am

I once questioned my oldest daughter why she was taking Latin. Silly me! I did not realize at the time it would be so important in the debate of climate. 😉

milodonharlani
September 26, 2013 11:55 am

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.

Sasha
September 26, 2013 12:02 pm

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

M Courtney
September 26, 2013 12:15 pm

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.

M Courtney
September 26, 2013 12:19 pm

But seriously; Google Translate sorts the Latin.
It’s the thought about the nature and causes of error that is of value.

milodonharlani
September 26, 2013 12:27 pm

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.

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

Loved the Nobble prize
DaveE.

Bill
September 26, 2013 12:49 pm

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.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
September 26, 2013 12:51 pm

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

September 26, 2013 12:52 pm

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.”

September 26, 2013 12:57 pm

There is medium confidence that I will buy Josh’s 2014 calendar.

AndyG55
September 26, 2013 1:00 pm

Where’s Lord Monckton when you need him.
I’m sure he would fix all your bad attempts at Latin in seconds. 🙂

Janice Moore
September 26, 2013 1:09 pm

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!

Nomen Nescio
September 26, 2013 1:24 pm

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.

TRM
September 26, 2013 1:28 pm

” 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.

Jeff Mitchell
September 26, 2013 1:28 pm

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.

September 26, 2013 1:35 pm

@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?)

milodonharlani
September 26, 2013 1:39 pm

Michael Craig says:
September 26, 2013 at 1:35 pm
What a cowardly crybaby!

milodonharlani
September 26, 2013 1:43 pm

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)

Jeff Mitchell
September 26, 2013 1:43 pm

IPCC = IPeCaC. Makes you want to retch.

Frank Kotler
September 26, 2013 1:47 pm

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!

steinarmidtskogen
September 26, 2013 2:05 pm

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”)

Janice Moore
September 26, 2013 2:08 pm

Jeff Mitchell — laugh (gag) out loud, heh.
@ Milodon Harlani and Steinar Midtskogen — THANK YOU for the Latin translations (and the wit).

Jim Clarke
September 26, 2013 2:21 pm

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.

Gunga Din
September 26, 2013 2:28 pm

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.

Gunga Din
September 26, 2013 2:29 pm

(Was that bathroom humor?)

September 26, 2013 3:17 pm

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

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 26, 2013 3:35 pm

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.

September 26, 2013 4:12 pm

Where’s the pig latin ?

RACookPE1978
Editor
September 26, 2013 4:53 pm

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 …

rogerknights
September 26, 2013 8:20 pm

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.)

Fernando (in Brazil)
September 26, 2013 8:37 pm

Argumentum ad pseudo modelorium
Ave! Bob Tides Daily
=====
good job, Bob

Janice Moore
September 26, 2013 9:02 pm

@ 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.)

steinarmidtskogen
September 26, 2013 9:27 pm

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

Greg Goodman
September 26, 2013 10:57 pm

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

noaaprogrammer
September 26, 2013 11:14 pm

Argumentum ad hotairium

g1lgam3sh
September 27, 2013 7:26 am

I like to post this for the warmistas.
http://lifesnow.com/bingo/

DesertYote
September 27, 2013 9:17 am

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 😀 (Look it up, if you dare)

Brian H
September 27, 2013 10:41 am

The neologism “Scientivist” may have a future. Not tea bags.

Brian H
September 27, 2013 10:47 am

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

DesertYote
September 27, 2013 12:08 pm

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.
###
🙂

Gunga Din
September 27, 2013 2:51 pm

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.)

%d bloggers like this: