Josh: The New IPCC report is a work of art

You may have heard that the IPCC SR15 report is due out Monday Morning 10AM Korean Time. Josh got an inside look at it, and says just like Banksy, it’s a technical work that is state-of-the-art.

I wonder how much it is worth?

Advertisements

52 thoughts on “Josh: The New IPCC report is a work of art

  1. I saw the Banksy pics, it seemed to change colour on the way through the shredder. You have to wonder if it was actually shredded. Shredding is a lot harder than rolling up the original and rolling out a pre-shredded copy. Was the auction house in on it?

    • “Shredding is a lot harder than rolling up the original and rolling out a pre-shredded copy.”
      _________________________________________________

      It would be technically very costly a pre-shredded copy to

      – mount into the frame so that it survives various shipments undamaged

      – roll out of the frame undamaged

      • Can’t see why.

        The artwork was only half-shredded – the painting stopped while the balloon was still in the upper frame. It would be simple to put two paintings together (the half-shredded one behind the intact one), and then operate a roller so that the front painting is rolled up while the half shredded rear one just drop out of the base.

        Much easier to get Sotheby’s to agree to the stunt as well, if there is no destruction of the artwork.

        • Agreed. One take up roller and one spool out roller are much more compact than a working shredder and require vastly less power.

          As the spool out roller works it gets smaller at almost the same rate as the take up roller gets bigger, so they can effectively overlap.

          An ingenious effort, however it was accomplished.

  2. It shreds itself. Wow, that’s brutal.

    How about its credibility?
    It sheds itself.

    How about circular reasoning?
    It weds itself.

    How about one part screws another part?
    It beds itself.

  3. ========
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ========

    Was the recent Slowdown caused by the super El Nino of 1998?

    If you take the GISTEMP temperature series, and replace the 1998 temperature anomaly with a new value, that is spot on the trend line, does the Slowdown disappear.

    Warning – the results of this article will be shocking, for some people.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/was-the-slowdown-caused-by-1998

    • I did that here with RSS data which shows that the trend ending in 2015 and starting after 1998 was actually negative. So the Pause was not only a pause but actually a downward trend for a ten year period. And that includes an el niño in the 2010 period which biases the trend in a positive direction.

    • AND if you take the 2016 Super El Nino spike and replace it with a likewise made up data point along the same trend line, the hiatus is again apparent

    • Sheldon I think you may be in for a shock. I am throwing the flag and you get a 15 yard penalty.

      We can all remember when this website on a monthly basis used to post pictures like this.

      https://i.postimg.cc/Bbdw4wpc/rss_with_el_nino.png

      I used to analyze the RSS data until it became contaminated by human hands. Let me illustrate.

      I downloaded data on 06/03/2017 and these were the results I got. I added a pause line because as time went on the pause line with a slope of 0 might return.

      https://i.postimg.cc/761gftqn/RSS_06032017.jpg

      There are other things that are interesting on this chart but let’s just focus on the slope of the overall linear fit and the slope of the pause line.

      Later that month on the 30th I was looking to see if new data had been added and it did look like things had changed. Indeed, the data had changed considerably as you can see below:

      https://i.postimg.cc/VkRv0yt6/RSS_06302017.jpg

      Note that the slope on the pause line in this chart is about the same as the overall slope shown on the first chart. They had the answer from the back of the book.

      https://i.postimg.cc/6QF7VkWN/rss_june_2017.jpg

      To further clarify here are the datasets on top of one another. The early data are all on top of one another. Not until you get to the El Nino do you start to see a difference and the difference widens as you go out in time. The later data were pivoted around the time of the El Nino.

      I have never analyzed the GISTEMP record because I had read on this website earlier that it too was contaminated by human hands with an agenda.

      BTW, here is another that might help you. You can note that the early June data and the UAH data parallel one another. The UAH data has not been contaminated.

      https://i.postimg.cc/BnWwy6m8/Moving_average.jpg

    • Sheldon
      I am throwing a flag. You get a 15-yard penalty. I will illustrate.

      Prior to the last prominent El Nino readers of this site were treated to a monthly picture that looked like this.

      https://i.postimg.cc/Bbdw4wpc/rss_with_el_nino.png

      I have been analyzing the RSS data for some time now. Back in 2017 I downloaded the RSS data and associated with the date I downloaded the data.

      The data you see in my analysis below came from 06/03/2017. There are other interesting facets in the chart but let’s focus on the overall slope of the data and the pause line. Yes, I do analyze the data to determine what date results in the lowest slope pause line.

      https://i.postimg.cc/761gftqn/RSS_06032017.jpg

      Toward the end of the month I went back to see if additional data were added. Instead I found that the data had changed, altered if you will.

      https://i.postimg.cc/VkRv0yt6/RSS_06302017.jpg

      Make note that the slope of the new pause line now approximates the overall slope in the previous chart. That is why the pause is dead. Note also the increases in slopes for this newer data.

      The data were altered by people with an agenda. They knew the answer they needed and they got it from the back of the book. I do not analyze GISTEMP. This site has reported similar contamination like trying to make the Dust Bowl years colder.

      The next figure lays these two datasets on top of each other. You don’t see differences until you get past or near the 97 El Nino, the pivot point. Note also that the differences widen as time goes on. The data were rotated which is reflected in the near tripling of the slope of the pause line.

      https://i.postimg.cc/6QF7VkWN/rss_june_2017.jpg

      I think the next chart makes it even clearer. At one time the RSS and UAH were approximately parallel. No longer.

      https://i.postimg.cc/BnWwy6m8/Moving_average.jpg

  4. Upon examination of the individual shreds, there appears to be not one shred of self-respect or of evidence amongst them.

  5. Outstanding mix of two pretentious ‘artworks’ where only special* people can see the true value.

    *Special people also admire the Emporer’s new autumn wardrobe.

  6. Brilliant. But Banksy’s art sold for only $1.4M, whereas the AGW scam is working on its 10th (or so) billion. Depressing, along with most other news today.

    Exception ! John McLean’s thesis! At least one new true scientist has made an appearance.

  7. Standby for todays release from the IPCC where they will double down and ask for large immediate emission cuts. This on a backdrop of increasing world emissions should make for interesting humour about who will pick up the baton.

  8. Like the Banksy artwork, the IPCC report will be worth more after it has been shredded because politicians can claim it says whatever they want it to say.

  9. I’ve done my history work: All GHCN listed stations having 120 years of monthly data in a row (less need for adjustments) are showing an interesting development of temperature: 70-95% of the rise compared to the pre-industrial level is caused by a 60-70 year cycle, currently on a high phase.

    There were 595 such stations listed. I used their GHCN-M unadjusted Monthly Mean data until 8/2018 for checking, and confirmed the lenght of the cycle by running a wavelet analysis on the unweighted average.

    But will the IPCC even mention this natural cycle today? If not, shredded again.

    • AMO – of course the IPCC will not mention the 60-70 year (or any other) natural cycle, because their charter limits them to considering only ‘Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Climate Change’. This is their perpetual ‘get out of jail free’ card for anything that may derail their colossal gravy train. The game was always and is rigged from day one. The only answer, IMO, is to point out that the UN is an unelected, unaccountable, supra-national body that has been hijacked by unnamed activists via the IPCC and needs to be called to account. So far the only person to have even tried to do this is President DJ Trump, who understands the rigged game that the UN is playing and refuses to play by the UN’s rules. At some stage (soon?) other countries’ leaders will realise this (duh) and that to play the game is to lose. Unfortunately out of the UN’s 200 odd members, most are Less Developed countries that are hooked on the UN’s promise of gazillions of free $$ money from the handful of Developed Countries, and they will scream blue murder at every opportunity if this free money is threatened. The next step may be that the US walks away from the UN altogether, but don’t hold your breath for that.

  10. “I wonder how much it is worth?” Possibly better questions, how much did it cost and what is the ROI?

    Alas, comparing it to a work of art might be more appropriate, art is intangible, complex and fleeting, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or the profiteer or activist).

    • Oh no according to the article it’s another last chance … at some point even the most stupid of the greens and activists must realize nothing is going to happen. The irony of them calling everyone else stupid.

  11. Some of it is already out and published. And it is ‘worse than we thought’ as expected. All this from just 1 degree C of warming too. Just wait until they hear we are now burning 100 million barrels of oil daily…

    “The impacts and costs of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) of global warming will be far greater than expected, according to a comprehensive assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released Sunday in Incheon, South Korea.

    “The past decade has seen an astonishing run of record-breaking storms, forest fires, droughts, coral bleaching, heat waves, and floods around the world with just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degrees Celsius) of global warming. [See: Hidden Costs of Climate Change Running Hundreds of Billions a Year] But much of this will get substantially worse with 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of warming, and far worse at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), according to the IPCC’s “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”, released Sunday and examining more than 6,000 studies.”

  12. It is a hox report.

    The main objective of such report “creating panic among member states” is to pressurise the nations to contribute to green fund of $ 100 billion for five years. Then UN agencies can make merry with that money for five years.

    The global average temperature anomaly is built on manipulated – adjusted temperature data. Scientists have shown this for USA [raw and adjusted].

    Even with the adjusted data series the trend part for 1880 to 2010 data series is 1.34 oC from 1880 to 2100.

    According to IPCC the global warming started in 1951. That means the raise in temperature from 1951 to 2100 is 0.91 oC. This is not global warming.

    According to IPCC more than half of this is due to greenhouse effect inwhich global warming a part. If we assume global warming part is 50%, then global warming from 1951 to 2100 is 0.455 oC.

    If we correct this with USA raw data, then it is around zero degrees only.

    Don’t panic!!!

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  13. “…the Weather on Earth is worse than we thought! Changes 1.5d now and then. Up and down,… quick, back to those spaceships we arrived in and back to anthro-home world described by father Erich von Däniken (chariots of our forefathers),….”. Does anyone know where we buried them back in about 4000bc?

  14. If rotting pond mud emitted BS instead of methane, the IPCC would have by now created a disease- ridden Everest of the stuff.

    Oh, maybe it has.

  15. I’ve never read so much nonsense as this propaganda from the biased BBC’s Matt McGrath, full of even more lies and propaganda from his favourite corrupters, Greenpeace and WWF.

    There is absolutely no doubt that “climate change” is the biggest ever scientific scam, designed to take both your money and your freedom and hand it over to unelected and incompetent bureaucrats such as those at the UN.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309

  16. I was interested in these two statements from the IPCC Special Report:
    “Warming from past emissions would continue but there was medium confidence these alone were unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5C.”
    “To meet a target of 1.5C warming, global net human C02 emissions would need to decline by about 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050.”

    So, there’s a good chance (about 1 in 3) that 1.5°C is already committed, so we should simply focus on adapting to that outcome.

    As to reducing emissions by 45%, we need to remember that UNFCCC (and Paris) require zero reductions from developing countries that produced 63% of 2010 emissions. So, developed countries (including Russia, Taiwan, etc) will have to reduce their emissions by 122%. Sheer fantasy.

    At the same time, developed countries have to transfer $100 billion pa to developing countries as reparations. Without the USA!

    • We in the UK will be ‘Alright Jack’ as, post-Brexit, UK will be in decline and, therefore, neither a developed nor a developing country. The countryside really will be a green and pleasant land considering the amount of CO2 we will be pumping out!

  17. UN Paris agreement is final and “climate science” is settled. IPCC and FCCC are done.

    UN Secretary General António Guterres should draw the inevitable conclusions himself before others do it for him.

  18. I was disappointed with Banksy – it would have been edgier (and more of a spectacle) to have the work spontaneously combust

    However – nice one Josh

  19. I propose a performance art piece where somebody publicly burns a hard copy of the new IPCC report to symbolize the imminent threat of a catastrophic hot house Earth caused at the hands of human beings.

    Write a grant to the National Endowment for the Arts, make it a community affair to wheel in all manner of related sub causes, like protecting some local species, forbidding some local pipeline development, promoting wind and solar power, … have a beer garden, with live entertainment before and after, … get notable public officials to give speeches, … bring the kids and your beach chairs, … have some local musicians play a set or two, … use lots of fossil fuel to market, advertise, and put on the event.

    Forget shredding. Burn the damn thing. Then smear on the ash like war paint in the name of environmental justice, where WE are the warriors fighting for Earth. I think a woman should do the actual burning, … no, a transexual, … no a cross-dressing transexual of a different race than white and a different nationality than American.

    This is just a rough draft of the idea. I’ve got to flesh it out in more detail (uh oh, was that a sexist use of lnaguage? –“flesh it out”?)

  20. Anybody would have to be an idiot to think that the Banksy shred was any surprise to the auction house. I mean, the painting shredded right on cue, immediately after it sold at its highest bid. Somebody had to push a button. I don’t think the artist built a voice recognition activation device into the shredder that recognized the word, “sold”, in exactly the right environment at exactly the right time.

    Furthermore, the painting only partially shredded, leaving a part UNshredded, still in the frame, which created a partial-painting-shredded-in-a-frame artifact of its auctioning, making it MORE than what it was before, and, thus, this ensemble is now itself a transformational art work of a former artwork, … transformed by the occasion, designed to transform at a particular occasion –a destructive unfolding as part of its new creation or re-creation before everyone’s eyes.

    Of course, it increases in price now. Or decreases — I think it should decrease, because the stunt just seems to transparently contrived to me, thereby insulting any really smart person’s intelligence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *