“I could not help myself. It’s the Middle East.”
Rerunning the frog and the scorpion, Tony Watts rolls out the AR5 draft and Andy Revkin is shocked as are some of the usual players. Why Eli asks, given the way in which the draft was made available to anyone who asked, would anyone be surprised that one of the scorpions would take a shot?
The logical deduction is that the draft had been pretty well scrubbed, that the IPCC knew this would happen and basically does not care what the clowns do. The bottom line which AR finds pretty fast:
It is extremely likely* that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s. There is high confidence that this has caused large-scale changes in the ocean, in the cryosphere, and in sea level in the second half of the 20th century. Some extreme events have changed as a result of anthropogenic influence. [*In panel terminology, "extremely likely" denotes a 95-percent likelihood.]
Posts
25 comments:
You see, iCCCP wants to enforce the sun to emit energy in lower levels, so those who live in the sunny areas will have less tan. The side effect of this is that the role of the sun in the unchanging climate will be diminished. It's an intergovernemental conspiracy against sunbathers. Why are the sunbathers so discontent with this, I can't understand, for if succesful, the conspiracy would allow them to bathe for longer and with less tanning lotion. Anyway, the CC effect doesn't exist.
The leak was as inevitable as the burning of the Gävle goat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A4vle_goat
Now leaking documents covered by NDA is, in the skeptic book, "morally justified". I bet Peter Gleick is pleased to see that "skeptics" agree with him.
Oh wait, Peter Gleick is a communistogreennazi which must be hanged because, well, he did what "skeptics" do but he's a terrorist. I forgot that important point.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3654926.htm
MARK COLVIN: So what have these people done? Is this just a case of cherry-picking a sentence?
STEVE SHERWOOD: Yeah, it's a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.
You haven't said what everyone else said, which spoils the unanimity: that IPCC simply shouldn't try to keep these things non-public, since they will so obviously leak.
Interesting that they said "more than half" rather than "most", so that folks like Judith Curry could understand.
Or maybe that was actually one of Curry's suggestions.
~@:>
Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report
Weasel, why bother? It's good to have these things before the politicians get their hands on them.
Leaks are good.
After all, what would Arpy do if he couldn't leak? (besides arp, arp, arp, that is)
~@:>
Hmm. On the one hand, I like the ACPD model of posting drafts, reviews, and review responses to papers publicly. And so the idea of a more open IPCC drafting process is tempting.
On the other hand, I understand the value of an private drafting process - there's a reason that internal drafts in government are NOT open to FOIA, for example. And with the IPCC, there's the extra issue that people will start quoting drafts before they are finalized, which could lead to confusion (e.g., a town making a sea level adaptation plan quotes the draft AR5 projections... which then are doubled, or halved, before the next report).
On the third hand, the IPCC drafts are very useful reference volumes for those of us in the field - even though they can't be drafted, we can quickly find out what the key papers are in a given field.
On the fourth hand, it is so easy to sign up to be an expert reviewer that many of the benefits of an open process are already available.
So, in conclusion, the one change I would like would be a spreadsheet where we could see responses by the authors to each of the comments on their chapter.
-MMM
(as an aside, the self-justification that Alex Rawls used for leaking the draft despite the confidentiality agreement is absolutely ridiculous. As is his reading comprehension and understanding of solar implications. But that's probably obvious to most readers of this blog)
Let me see if I have this, Peter Gleick impersonating a member of the Heartland Board to obtain internal documents, that's a crime worthy of countless posts, one attracting 71 updates.
Alec Rawls impersonating a climate scientist, and tearing up his confidentiality agreement to obtain a draft of IPCC AR5. That's fine.
Viscount Monckton impersonating a delegate to disrupt UN climate talks, no problem.
Moderator DBStealey also logging on as posters Smokey and Boehm to peddle the site party line, yep, we're cool with that.
Richard Courtney signing himself PhD on open letters, when he's never actually studied for a Doctorate. Shhhh!
The moral bankruptcy doesn't seem to be getting any less over there.... LOL!
If the iCCCP can legislate that the sun not put out so much energy, people will be less suntanned and albedo will increase in a feedback.
Rib Smokin' Bunny
The shear magnitude of the conspiracy fright and "they're-coming-to-get-us" paranoia on that wuwt thread are just incredible!
Thomas, bugger your Gävle goat. This is more like drunken frogs hopping around a Siljan maypole, no?
Perhaps a 'leak' was inevitable in today's world. Regardless, the claim of game-changing evidence in the report is completely ridiculous, as I wrote at Maribo.
Hey Phil, don't forget Phil Clarke, a UK IT consultant impersonating a scientifically literate human being!
Hey Phil, kT just said "that's fine".
With the IPCC sucking all the cosmic rays out of battlestar galactica, and using chemtrails to demagnetize the iron sun, how can we hope for Earth to last until the Maya End of Shopping Days next friday ?
IEHO the Gävle goat is the local Chamber of Commerce version of Burning Man in a snow desert. With luck they even push the season and serve semlor. For enough of those Eli would guard the damn thing.
If people haven't plowed through comments, that might try, as per V. Gray.
Since the IPCC authors required to look at every comment, they should be able to tag each comment, such as:
2: really useful, thanks!
1: useful
0: OK, nothing special
-1: pretty dumb
-10: total waste of time.
Or something like that, and when the dust settles, put out a report that enumerates the contributions of ever reviewer. Of course, it would be nice if there were a cutoff, of the from "you've filed 10 -10s, so we can throw everything else from you away and not waste our time."
As it is, the process allows the useless to waste a lot of time and still call themselves "reviewers."
But to know that, you have to grind through a lot comments.
A prize could be given for most time-wasting commenter.
Actually, Mr. Bowers, that's not fine. I'd be interested in viewing Mr. Clarke's serious website, the one tackling the complex and difficult and serious issues - the problems and solutions. Hint: the 'veracity' of human induced climate change is no longer one of issue.
Yawn again.
The more time you waste on deniers, the less time you have to think.
That is their goal. They're like little bunnies, you wipe their butts, give them a bath and tuck them into bed, and then get to work. Explaining to them the realities of the world they live in should be reserved for when they are old enough to understand the issues. I don't try to explain the workings of condensed matter physics to bunnies, I just repair their cell phones and computers and move on to the next big thing.
Only one word does not fail me: noblecausecorruption.
Semla vinner tråden.
Hey Phil, don't forget Phil Clarke, a UK IT consultant impersonating a scientifically literate human being!
They're mutually exclusive? That's news to me and several of my IT colleagues - and probably the university that awarded me my degree in Pure and Applied Physics.
But if you have an example of my scientific illiteracy, I'm all bunny ears.
Post a Comment