Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • May 24 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • May 24 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« New Commons inquiry: wind power | Main | UK government endorses IPCC secrecy »

Bury before publishing - Josh 172

Click image for a larger version

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (18)

Love it Josh.

If the natsis (sic) haven't liked you before this, then they will hate you now.

Nice shot of the great hero Steve McIntyre.

Jun 12, 2012 at 9:28 PM | Registered Commenterpeterwalsh

The only thing wrong with this picture is that the dumping of crap is not the Green way. That's why their bullshit gets continually recycled.

Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid, UK

Greg Barker on NIMBY landfill

Jun 12, 2012 at 9:57 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

Josh has got it wrong. Toxic waste is not suitable for landfill.

Jun 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrumpy Old Man

Brilliant, Josh ... as always :-)

Jun 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

That's pro bono work right there, from Steve.

Jun 12, 2012 at 11:12 PM | Unregistered Commentershub

Nice! - except that Steve Mc should be on an excavator (digging up the data) instead of the bulldozer (looks like he's burying). Sorry to be pedantic, but they're two tools with purposes opposite what I think you meant to convey.

Jun 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryMN

**Nevermind, I thought they were dumping adverse data, not AR5!

Jun 12, 2012 at 11:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryMN

This cannot be the perfect time to be an aspiring AR5 IPCC author, or an 'old hand' for that matter.

Earlier versions probably got away with more than has even been exposed, little chance of that happening again: small wonder they want to keep everyone - including reviewers - in the dark as long as possible, or they would probably never be in a position to publish AR5 at all.

I am reminded that Pachauri's priceless excuse for the Himalayan glacier 'tiny error'/ monstrous deceit incident in AR4 rested on the Report's "over 3000 pages".Don't worry, sunshine, every page will get scrutinised this time round.

Jun 12, 2012 at 11:57 PM | Registered CommentermikemUK

Another home run Josh!

Is the debris lying around on the ground the data that was discarded as trash?

Jun 13, 2012 at 12:39 AM | Unregistered Commentereyesonu

Your best yet Josh.

Jun 13, 2012 at 7:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby


Jun 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrederick Bloggsworth

For those who don't know this yet, the review of the First Order Draft of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 2 report has started.

If you are interested in being a reviewer, please email the Technical Support Unit:



Jun 13, 2012 at 9:11 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

Smug alert!

Jun 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Hughes

"Nice! - except that Steve Mc should be on an excavator (digging up the data) instead of the bulldozer (looks like he's burying). Sorry to be pedantic, but they're two tools with purposes opposite what I think you meant to convey.

Jun 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM | TerryMN"

Totally agree, Terry, I was going to make exactly the same point then noticed you'd beat me to it. An excavator would be perfect, and perhaps we could have the Bish. driving a high reach demolition truck battering at the IPCC ivory tower!!!

Jun 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

Brilliant, Josh. Especially the 'tipping point'...
(Note to US readers - a tip is a garbage dump)

Jun 13, 2012 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

     Richard Betts,

Last time I've read parts of the IPCC AR5 drafts--which, if I remember correctly, became, as ever(?), only in some cases (some chapters) available for the public through a leak--it was a bit like reading articles on climate issues in Wikipedia. In both cases I tend to have a nearly complete other (and often longer) text in mind than the "climatologists", from the first sentence to the last one. What are my greatest concerns? As I know that the "first" sentence should be considered/judged w.r.t. the following one and so forth, I think often, w.r.t. consistency, nearly the entire text needs a rewriting to present broader (scientific(/public(?)) perspectives. Big task! Important problems, for example, show up quite often even in the "basics" of ((C)A)GW: e.g. simplifications (often in context with "((catastrophic) Anthropogenic) Global Warming", or XY ppmv human caused atmospheric CO2 rise...) or number presentations (like "Global Warming" of 0.0XY°C thousand/hundred/... years ago, or sea level would rise (with a few 'adjustments') 30 centimeter per decade...) but there are plenty more. "Climatologists" have big tasks, don't they? The worst scenarios of, for example, James Hansen or Jo Schellnhuber, which are so frightening that nearly no Journal/Magazine is hyping them all the time, could become true, or the "climatology" could show that, all in all, the presently claimed understanding of GHG-AGW was (itself dangerously?) premature and false.

Jun 13, 2012 at 12:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

My apologies! My above comment should read '3 centimeter per decade' or '30 centimeter per century' instead of "30 centimeter".

Jun 13, 2012 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterSeptember 2011

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>