Click to buy!
Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Donna Laframboise received three USB sticks with draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC's AR5. You can access them at Donna's site here.
Cartoons by Josh
View Printer Friendly Version
Is that "draft" or "daft" versions?
Oh, Josh ... that is absolutely fabulous ... a brilliant 'toon for a brilliant piece by Donna ... and a BIG thank you to Secret Santa, whoever and wherever you are :-)
What a way to ring in the New Year, eh?!
hilarious Josh, one of the best ever!
The Guardian should run it..... their readership would be so confused, should they be excited or appalled?
Superb, just superb.
Isn't that what it's all about - simultaneously frightened and aroused? Superb thought, cartoon maestro.
Say AR5 out loud, and you get "Arse". Sums up the contents nicely.
Perhaps Sid James and Kenneth Williams could be digitally brought back to life for the inevitable climate change lampoon in a few years time:
"Carry On Up The AR5"
.................I'll get me coat
50 shades of grey literature. Carry on up the Almora. Very nice Josh.
Very clever and very funny.
Thanks for the kind comments. I think there might be some sequels to this one ;-)
Uncannily similar to the old Cybermen from Dr Who!http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3hOt4G1spx8/TckfXEe-eUI/AAAAAAAAfUw/8Bf1Q99DWJc/s1600/CYBERMEN%2BINVASION%2BGUNS.jpg
I would love to see Michael Mann's face now :) Must be redder than a plum tomoato, with smoke gushing from his ears as his brain boils with indignation that someone has dared to reveal what was supposed to be the secret scientists bible.
Any bets on how long Pachauri will survive now? Days? Weeks?
Did you just refer to Mann`s BRAIN? Is`nt that pushing the joke one clic to far?
Rude Mike the red faced pine dearHad a very slimey proseAnd if you ever saw himHe'd tell you rudely where to go
All of the other realistsnow can laugh and call him names. They'll never let poor old mikey join in other AR games.
Then one foggy Christmas Eve Santa came to say: "Rude mike with your nose so bruised, please reveal your data's ruse?"
Then all the realists exposed him as they shouted out with glee, Rude mike the red faced pine dear, you'll go down to pen'itry!
Charlie Flindt (5:20 PM) -I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that initial reaction to their appearance!
Great laugh out loud cartoon, Josh. Hope you get syndicated :)
Harold W, suddenly I'm five again, and I'm hiding behind the sofa......
A great start towards the 2014 calendar!
Get well soonest Bishop. I'd be pretty confident that 99.999999% of those who visit your blog feel the same way.
Josh, is there no end to your talent and ability? Great cartoon and I am looking forward to the others you've got in the "works"
ilma630 Great take on the famous Christmas song. Well done! (It almost sounds like something which the late great Frank Muir might have written).
I think the person(s) who is(are) Donna L's source is(are) the enlightenment's proud progeny. Viva!
An inspired cartoon, Josh. Bravo!
Just to note, the FODs could have been read and reviewed by pretty much anybody that signed up as a reviewer following the advice I've been giving for the past 18 months both here on Bishop Hill and on twitter. I see Donna does not like the fact that someone from WWF wrote some review comments, but others including sceptics could easily have become reviewers and sent in comments if they'd wished. I still encourage you to do so for the SOD, which will come out in about 3 months or so.
PS the ZODs were leaked ages ago, they've been in the public domain in several places eg David Appell's blog.
PPS Josh, I had all 3 of these USB sticks in my bag when we went to the pub with Steve McIntyre in August. You obviously didn't buy me enough beer..... :-)
(It wasn't me that sent them to Donna though!)
I know, it's cherry-picking but even randomly choosing a name should bring up a scientist, I'd have thought. I picked a FOD at random and then picked a reviewer's name at random and these are her scientific credentials;
Ms. Susmita Dasgupta
And warmists say I don't have the background to argue the science?
Right, I am buying Richard Betts more beer.
It goes a little bit further than someone from WWF writing a review comment, for instance Donna gives a long list of references to advocacy group propaganda, but as each new revelation gets the same warmist response of "Move along! Nothing to see here!", we are used to it by now.
Richard B, you're quite right of course, any of us could have been reviewers, (I was tempted myself, I think I have quite a talent for data analysis, but earning a living takes precedence), but there are more subtle points here. Firstly the way that the NGO's present themselves, and elbow their way in to these things. Most of us here would, in my opinion, be pretty good at reviewing things critically (perhaps less good at producing them as you yourself do, but that's a different talent), but may be too shy to put ourselves forward. The NGO's in contrast have fixed ideas, and are driven to make sure that those ideas, however well or not well supported, are pushed into the limelight. There is a lesson for us all there. Secondly, the evidence from previous reports is that this partisan 'loading' of the reports, whilst probably obvious to the scientists such as yourself, is either not spotted or worse, actually approved of and encouraged by those that actually assemble the SPM, which at the end of the day is what will carry the attention.
In short, the issue here is not who comments, but whose comments are allowed to carry the day. In leaking this Donna is throwing a gauntlet down to you and your colleague. Will this be another report hijacked by special interests, or will it be what it should be.
Are you going to pick up that gauntlet?
That's 'colleagues' Richard, I know there are lots of you!
Apologies for the convoluted syntax in the comment above, blame the beer and my latin teacher :)
re: colleaugue, singular
I was hoping that meant that Richard and Tamsin had been put in charge of all of the IPCC.
From what I’ve gathered over the years, the SPM is written by the NGOs, along with various national government reps. Only a sprinkling of scientists involved at that stage.
You’re right, of course, that the ZODs, FODs and SODs would be available to anyone that signed up as reviewers, but this release includes the reviewer comments too. I don’t think reviewers usually get to see the other reviewer comments or am I wrong on that? If I’m right, then it’s this which will provide the interest. Being able to see which comments are ignored and which are acted upon. With previous ARs, we’ve had to wait until well after the main release to get to see them.
Never mind the beer, next time steal his bag!Brilliant cartoon as usual.
I think Skiphil that by virtue of having bought one of my kids a Hornby Railway set (Harry Potter version) a while back I have more than enough qualification to head up the IPCC myself! I would of course have Richard and Tamsin as the chief scientific advisors!
I went and took a look at WG1 Chapter 10."Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional"
Talk about a bunch of blinkered folk running around with hammers looking for anything that resembles a nail and repeatedly voicing SWAGs*. I was expecting some conciseness and conservative, accurate language - what a disappointment. Is it just me - or does the word simulation always precede the word observation?
I'm paid on occasion to produce technical reports upon which a variety of decisions depend further up the chain and I have to stick to the facts, provide supporting observations and reasoned analysis - communicating my conclusions in as direct and unambiguous a way as possible acknowledging all uncertainties, Speculation and flights of theorizing can be added for entertainment purposes in a comment section after the conclusions.
That a 108 page document of global interest is presented without embedded links and does not appear to be a "live" collaborative document is positively neolithic (although pagination appears correct!) . Can anybody tell me if 21st century document management is active within IPCC ?
What a mess.
*SWAG = Scientific Wild Assed Guess
Well said CumbrianLad
Your response Richard?
Jan 8, 2013 at 11:56 PM | Cumbrian Lad
I agree, it's not who has commented, but whether their comments are acted upon that matters, and that is down to the lead authors such as myself - and we should do this on the basis of the science. I very much do pick up Donna's gauntlet here, as she has specifically mentioned my chapter (Chapter 4, on terrestrial ecosystems) and indeed she seems to speak of it quite favourably. If the WWF person has made a point that is justified scientifically then we'll accept it, but if they haven't, we'll reject it - and in either case, we'll have to document why, and our responses will be officially released once the report is published (although I wouldn't be surprised if they were also leaked along with the next drafts....!)
Jan 9, 2013 at 12:42 AM | Laurie Childs
It's not true that the NGOs write the SPM. The SPM is still written by the scientists, but yes government reps are involved because they ask for certain points to be made clearer - the report will be used by them in their decision-making so they want it to be clear enough to be informative. The content is definitely not dictated by the governments - it all has to be based on the material in the chapters, and the responsibility for summarising that material in the SPM is still with the scientists.
I'm involved in writing the Technical Summary, which is the stage between the main chapters and the SPM. Governments are not involved in that at all, that is entirely the scientists. So, you'd be able to test for undue influence of government reps in the SPM by checking for inconsistencies between the SPM and TS.
Jan 9, 2013 at 12:37 AM | Skiphil
Thanks very much for the vote of confidence, that's very kind of you!
As Donna has pointed out some of those scientists, writing the reports, are also NGO scientists, or have very close links to them (an example - Greenpeace and the renewables report, which led Mark Lynas to come up with the he's a denier' like McIntyre, rather than think it acceptable)
that situation was a greenpeace lead author, highlighting his own study in a press release (report to come out weeks later) which highlighted an extreme and very unlikely case for reneables...
has anything reallchanged for AR5 (wg 3 & 2)?
ie Mark Lynas, who is not exactly a sceptic said of this:http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new-ipcc-error-renewables-report-conclusion-was-dictated-by-greenpeace/
"I don’t know if I count as a ‘reasonable person’ or not, but that is precisely what I have done in the above post. Having looked into this issue in a bit more depth, it appears that Working Group 3 in particular – but not exclusively – is riddled with NGO people (hat tip Donna Laframboise here and here).
This really has got to stop. No campaigners or industry people (those with either an ideological or financial interest) should surely ever be allowed to be IPCC lead authors. Why has this situation been allowed to develop at all?"
And a few days later: Mark Lynas again:http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/
"And why – when confronted with this egregious conflict of interest and abuse of scientific independence – has the response of the world’s green campaigners been to circle the wagons and cry foul against the whistle-blowers themselves?
That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have been naively led astray by him.
Well, if the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’.
Indeed, McIntyre and I have formed an unlikely double-act, posing a series of questions – together with the New York Times’s Andy Revkin – to the IPCC report’s lead author Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, to which he has yet to respond."
----------------so it is the conections and affiliations of the lead authors that is important, and seeing how they respond to all those review comments is very imnportant. And as Richard wants, the final report and comments, SPM's, etc should all be released at the same time..
and it wouldn't hurt to release everything, after each review stage is completed, along the way
Jan 8, 2013 at 9:31 PM | Richard Betts
I see Donna does not like the fact that someone from WWF wrote some review comments, but others including sceptics could easily have become reviewers and sent in comments
If that's your "take-away" from Donna's very long and thorough essay, then I would respectfully suggest that your preference for "skimming" rather than reading is not serving you very well at all. Because you seem to have missed the point ... by a country mile!
Then, again, since you seem to be a very dedicated "company man" when it comes to IPCC matters, perhaps it is serving you quite well after all :-)
I'm not involved in writing the IPCC at all. Too junior :) My boss Tony Payne is a lead author though.
I notice the Bish got quite a few donations earmarked for beer recently.
Which makes me think a Josh's 'Beer for Betts' fund could be winner.
Alinsky eat your heart out, we've found another way to undermine the establishment!
Mr Betts if the claims is the report represents the 'best science' is it not fair to expect the report to at least meet the standards of a undergraduate handing in essay, when it comes the use of references ?
Remember its the IPCC itself that made great claims about its science based credentials, whilst having a large amount of its data coming from articles in newspapers and magazines which have no scientific validity.
@peterwalsh. Ah yes, the late great Frank Muir. A writer and broadcaster of immense talent and whit. My feeble efforts pale into insignificance compared to his - the occasional snippet of inspiration like this ditty.
RB @ 8:44. Please reread yourself with a view to understanding the corruption inherent in 'but yes government reps are involved because they ask for certain points to be made clearer--the report will be used by them in their decision-making so they want it to be clear enough to be informative.'
This should be blindingly obvious, and perhaps some sort of guide to rectification of the mess we are all in. I haven't even mentioned the corrupting influence of NGOs which is blindingly obvious as well, and to all the participants, including you.============
I would like to compare the number of AR4 to AR5 expert reviewers for each chapter of all three Working Groups (WG1, WG2, WG3) in both the First Order Draft (FOD) and Second Order Draft (SOD).
If the number of FOD and SOD expert reviewers significantly increased for a chapter in AR5 compared to AR4, then does that imply there should be a decrease in AR5's 'a priori' agenda driven systematic bias of the authors, lead authors and of those higher up the IPCC's organizational hierarchy?
I think the answer is clearly the number of expert reviewers is not related in any way to mitigating against the continuation and/or amplification of agenda driven systematic bias in authors, lead authors and higher personnel in the process.
As review of the content on 3 leaked flash drives evolves, I am looking forward to seeing if my thinking is confirmed. Bets for beer anyone?
Jan 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM Richard Betts
Yeah, thanks Richard, for such an elegant demonstration of the seduction of corruption. It's sort of a push me-pull you that's being wreaked upon science. The NGO's push it in, and the GovReps pull it out. You might just as well be a dead horse for all the objection by scientists to this vicious beating.
Ah, but the harness is lined with velvet.=========================
'harness is lined with velvet...' Hah.
Does anybody think that participation of skeptics in what appears to be a flawed process (allowing WWF and Greenpeace reviewers anywhere NEAR the IPCC document) would have brought credibility to it, and the added advantage of buying their silence?
Alex Rawls' AR5 dump was #1
So this AR5 dump given to Donna L is #2.
It is likely there will be more AR5 dumps . . . si my naming convention is practical . . . just add a number as each new dump occurs.
Shub,does it appear to you that no skeptics participate in this process?
I don't know...clearly Rawls et al participated. ..?
The IPCC have sent Donna a scary scary legalistic notice asking her to remove the documents from her website
Something tells me she won't be rushing to comply...
Latimer, thanks. It is a delight to see an IPCC apparatchik having to type "no frakking consensus" in a legal document.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.