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
@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?)
Michael Craig says:
September 26, 2013 at 1:35 pm
What a cowardly crybaby!
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)
IPCC = IPeCaC. Makes you want to retch.
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!
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”)
Jeff Mitchell — laugh (gag) out loud, heh.
@ur momisugly Milodon Harlani and Steinar Midtskogen — THANK YOU for the Latin translations (and the wit).
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.
======================================================================
Arguing in the commode?
I think #4 covers that.
(Was that bathroom humor?)
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
Appeal to pity:
“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.
Where’s the pig latin ?
Rather, Argumentum ad peculiariam
.. Strange and odd arguments from liars …
For a Nobel Lie.
Omni in verba. (On our say-so.)
(Unsure of the correctness or completeness of the Latin–the word for “our” may be missing.)
Argumentum ad pseudo modelorium
Ave! Bob Tides Daily
=====
good job, Bob
@ur momisugly 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.)
rogerknights says:
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
Today’s winner of the IPCC latin moto contest is….. steinarmidtskogen , with:
Quia ita dicimus (“Because we say so”)
Congratulations
Argumentum ad hotairium
I like to post this for the warmistas.
http://lifesnow.com/bingo/
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)
The neologism “Scientivist” may have a future. Not tea bags.
DryYote:
I dared. But you misspelled it. Only one “c”. Not to be a pr*** about it.
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.
###
🙂