The IPCC’s sixth assessment report (AR6) is due out any day now and I can barely sleep with all of the excitement. In fact, I’m so wide awake that I actually don’t need the wake-up call that it promises to deliver. That said, the scientists and activists have provided so many wake-up calls over the years, I can’t really understand how anyone could possibly still be asleep. And yet, apparently, we all are. Despite everything that the BBC and the Guardian have thrown at us down the years, stomping up and down whilst clashing their cymbals of the Apocalypse, we are still zedding away, waiting for the right fairy prince to come along to deliver the magical kiss of enlightenment. So yes folks, this is the one. All the other wake-up calls were just some geezers messing around. This one is the real deal. This actual wake-up call is actually going to be the actual, real wake-up call. And you know why? Well, I’ll tell you why. It’s because this time there have been developments in science that will shock you to the core. The climate scientists are about to announce a startling new discovery: When things are heated up they get hotter.

I’m sorry, I know, I should have broken it to you more gently. Perhaps if I had expressed myself in the measured language of Detection & Attribution it might not have been such a shock to the system. Perhaps I should have put it the way that Dr Friederike Otto expressed it:

“Every heat wave that is happening today is made more likely and more intense by climate change.”

Think about it. Not just some heat waves, but every heat wave. And not just those that are going to happen in the future, but all those that are happening today. Apparently, heating has that effect. It just can’t help but make things hotter, no matter what their current temperature and no matter when it is applied. This startling discovery has enabled attribution scientists to now speak out with much more certainty. As climatologist, Ed Hawkins puts it:

“That side of science has moved on a lot.”

Now, I’m sure there may be some of you out there scoffing to hear of this breakthrough in climate science. You might have wanted to hear instead of a dramatic reduction in the uncertainty of the climate sensitivity values upon which all model-based attribution studies depend – because, after all, that side of the science hasn’t moved on a lot. But that would be to misunderstand how climate science works. It isn’t the reduction of uncertainty that allows the scientists to talk with more certainty; it is the increased gullibility of their audience. All it really needed was for a whole bunch of them to have the great idea that, rather than allude to a future catastrophe, it would be better to draw attention to current extreme weather to get their message across. And, lo and behold, it starts to happen – current weather starts to get more extreme. Or, more accurately, everything that is happening today turns out to have been much more likely than it might have been had the scientists not had their great idea.

I should say no more. Frustrating though it may be, we are all going to have to wait until AR6 hits the streets before we can say for sure just how much the scientists are saying for sure. But, in the meantime, let me reassure you that they won’t have discovered anything that wasn’t as prescribed by AR5. Just don’t mention sufficiency.

49 Comments

  1. John, do we have a date for the release of AR6? We need to be ready for it, as it will be the one that generates the most alarmist headlines to date, as they ramp up the pressure ahead of COP26.

    Like

  2. Thanks John. I shall be elsewhere on that date, but I will look out for it on my return. Then again, I don’t suppose I’ll have to make an effort to look out for it – the radio, TV and websites will no doubt be full of the Apocalyptic warnings….

    Like

  3. Paul Homewood has been doing a good job putting today’s extreme weather into context using the extreme weather of yesteryear, most recently for 1971: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/07/31/extreme-weather-in-1971/

    Unfortunately the disasters of the far past don’t matter to today’s activists. That thing that happens next week – whatever it will be – will be caused by climate change. An identical event, fifty years ago, made worse by the living standards of the time, was just weather.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Jit,

    That’s precisely the point. If you take AGW out of the equation you will still get the extreme weather events. The frequency, however is an issue. Any increase in frequency under AGW is enough for the activists to claim that AGW is the causation, but that is using the term in a very narrow sense. Furthermore, we should never forget the flakey basis upon which these attributions are made, particularly with regard to local events. The models are still as suspect as ever and ECS uncertainty remains large. That’s the science that needs improving, not our understanding of basic thermodynamics. The science has not moved on at all in any important sense and yet we are all much more certain. This seems odd until one realises that AR5 said ‘make it so’.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. It’s probably worth adding that it wasn’t that long ago that an almighty bun fight broke out within the community of weather event attributors regarding the correct methodology to use. The likes of Trenberth and Mann accused the D&A crew of using techniques that significantly underestimated the risks, and the D&A crew responded by claiming that their critics were using a method that significantly over-estimated the risks. Either way, much bitterness and a fundamental schism developed within the ranks of climatologists, in which neither side had any confidence in the other side’s approach. I wonder if any of that controversy makes its way into the AR6 executive summary.

    Ref. “When Philosophers Attack”:

    https://cliscep.com/?s=philosophers

    Also, the recent Northwest Pacific heatwave was such a surprise that many attribution scientists threw their hands up in horror, proclaiming that there must be something fundamental that was missing from the climate models for them to have failed so badly. I wonder if any of that consternation makes its way into the AR6 executive summary.

    Like

  6. C’mon everybody! We’ve seen this movie before and know what is going to happen.

    A powerful publicity machine magnifies the alarm, bombarding citizens with exaggerations and claims of certainty that are proven wrong as you dig down to their underlying scientific studies:

    – Public figures, news editors, and commentators make claims that are more alarmist than what individual IPCC authors say at the release of the report.
    – Individual IPCC authors make claims at the release of the report that are more alarmist than what the official press release says.
    – The official press release makes claims that are more alarmist than what the report’s summary for policy-makers says.
    – The summary for policy-makers makes claims that are more alarmist than the various chapters of the reports.
    – The chapters of the report make claims that are more alarmist than the studies they reference in the footnotes.

    The studies referenced in the footnotes are often actually peer-reviewed and generally make cautious claims about a possible trend spotted in one or a small number of locations or in a global computer model.

    Both types of studies are more speculative than definitive because, as they always acknowledge in the fine print, they are based on highly-uncertain measurements of highly-complex phenomena with many interacting causes, of which warming gasses generated by human activity are only one, and often a minor component.

    UN Horror Show

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Whatever the origins of the IPCC was it has become just a tool in what some are calling Menticide.
    Menticide is the inducement of mass psychosis.

    This video presents in detail some ideas that many here have pointed out quite well.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Well, the AR6 executive summary has now hit the streets, and I have to say it has been very predictable. Much talk of certainty, of only 10 years to save the planet, and of already irreparable damage.

    It wasn’t that long ago that all the world’s scientists were saying that there would be catastrophic consequences by the end of this century if we did not take immediate action to tackle climate change. When sceptics questioned the wisdom of all the world’s scientists, we were told ‘who are you to question the wisdom of all the world’s scientists?’ For our troubles we were denounced as deniers. Now, all the world’s scientists are saying ‘we all got it wrong – the catastrophe is already upon us and we just didn’t see that coming’. And nobody bats an eyelid. Apparently, there is still this thing called consensus that can survive a complete change of storyline as long as the change is consensually made. And, presumably, we are still deniers to question the new narrative.

    I wouldn’t mind so much if it were not for the fact that all the world’s scientists had gathered together back in 2005 to write a document (AR5) that spent a lot of time bemoaning how not enough had been done to exploit psychological techniques of persuasion. Its authors openly argued that, instead of warning about a future catastrophe, it would be psychologically much more effective to tell your audience that the catastrophe is already upon us. In that way you will instil the desired sense of urgency. The only problem is that this would require that all the world’s scientists agree to change their scientific narrative, and hope that nobody remembers the certitude with which the old one had been delivered. Presumably, they foresaw that such a change would be blithely accepted because no one is bothered about consistency anymore.

    What have we come to when all the world’s scientists can openly plot to apply psychological techniques that could only work when whatever they say about the science is accepted as gospel no matter how much it changes? What have we come to when they can say that the only uncertainty is in the detail and then sell a fundamentally contradictory narrative – and get away with it? Is this how religious narratives worked in the early days, I wonder.

    Joe Public: “Just a minute. You said he had died for our sins. Now you say he is still alive.”

    Apostle: “You’re not still being a denier are you?”

    Liked by 3 people

  9. My BBC page has this flash at the foot:

    “BREAKING:

    Scientists are about to publish a landmark report on the stark reality of climate change on our planet. Follow live updates and global reaction”

    I’ll have to read the actual report later, if I can bear it.

    Like

  10. Hunter: Re Menticide

    While much in the vid is relevant, using the term menticide diverts very much towards personal psychology and not social psychology (original meaning, and breaking a person down via drugs, torture etc), plus also towards what could all too easily be interpreted as a fully consciously implemented program from beginning to end. While a range of behaviours occurs and some of these even conflict, in order pf precedence terms the most important thing to grasp is that these phenomena are *self* inducing, at a group level. This also means they are far harder to combat. While self-reinforcing, the cultural elite are as much a symptom as a cause; they could not emerge without the mass behaviours.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. John, Jit et al: I haven’t read the report or the summary for policymakers. I did have a quick look at what was trending on Twitter around 13:40. The IPCC gets a mention, of course, but I’d say it’s a very weak signal

    The Twitterati seemed to be more exercised by Covid, of course, and by Stanley Johnson being interviewed on the Today programme about Alpacas. And that alerted me to veteran Tory MP John Redwood being interviewed at the end about climate policy. Redwood drew the line on enforcing the move to heat pumps from existing boilers. That’s where the wheels look to be falling off on the Tory side. AR6 WG1 is pretty much an irrelevance compared to that.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Don’t you guys get depressed by all this climate puff and spin? I should be reassured by what happened after previous COPs and ARs but the latest seems different. Yes the hype, downright lies and prevarications are at their usual cranked up state, yes contrary interpretations or even warnings of areas of disagreement are completely lacking – all is fully understood, there are no valid contrary viewpoints. Deniers are not only wrong but now are evil scum.

    I suppose this will pass, but the addition of attribution “science” to recent events makes my depression that much deeper. I shall have to read some Paul Homewood for balance.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Alan,

    I agree, it is all rather depressing. I try to look upon what is happening as a fascinating insight into human nature, but fascination only gets me so far.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Oh John, I agree that it can be “a fascinating insight into human nature”, but that only gets me more depressed.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I just caught Roger Harrabin on Radio 5 Live being asked by the presenters about WG1. He said the onus was on the UK as the chair of COP26 and because “we have loads of wind power” compared to other countries. But we’re finding we can’t even get rid of those pesky boilers, because Tory backbenchers are being difficult. And if we can’t do it, nobody else will bother. (Yippee!) He sounded in despair. He explicitly said that he was very depressed with the whole thing. Perhaps Alan, John and Roger should set up a mutual support group. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Richard,

    I can find consolation in Roger’s depression, but he and I are depressed for quite different reasons. He is depressed because the human race struggles to work out how to get the best out of domestic heating technology. He is worried about what this means for our prospects of getting climate change under control. I am depressed because the human race struggles to meet the challenge of working out how to get the best out of the prefrontal cortex, and I am worried about what this means for our ability to control anything.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Well, the top story on the BBC website is this of course, as are the 5 immediately beneath it. ‘Nuff said. Fortunately I’ve been busy all day, so (until now) have managed to avoid radio, TV and internet. It’s been quite useful in avoiding depression today.

    Like

  18. The Science & Environment Section of the BBC website is even worse. And it adds comment pieces like this (why, for goodness’ sake?):

    “Friends of the Earth NI reacts to UN climate change report”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-58147282

    “James Orr, Friends of the Earth NI director, said a UN report on climate change is “very alarming”.

    The report “is a code red for humanity”, the UN has said.

    Climate change legislation is being progressed at Stormont but is not yet in place.

    Mr Orr said the report showed the need for the Northern Ireland Assembly to take immediate action.”

    Lots of free space for quotes from the usual suspects on the BBC today.

    Like

  19. Clive Best’s summary of breakthrough science in our lifetime at Judy’s

    Progress in Climate Science:
    Estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity:
    1979 ECS = 3 ± 1.5C Charney Report
    1990 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC FAR
    1995 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC SAR
    2001 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC TAR
    2007 ECS = 2.0 – 4.2C – IPCC AR4
    2013 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC AR5
    2021 ECS = >1.5C – <4.5C – IPCC AR6

    The whole thread is worth tracking

    Like

  20. had to look up – code red

    1. A condition of heightened alertness or preparedness, especially to guard against imminent danger.

    2. A warning of or signal indicating imminent danger.

    probably not the IPCC/MSM meaning, but i’m digging a bunker/anderson shelter to be on the safe side – that guy from Belarus has got me worried 😦

    Like

  21. While it’s still the same day, the Today Programme chose to interview Piers Forster at length in anticipation of WG1, the AR6 installment, at 9am. Forster is now ‘Professor of Physical Climate Change and Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds’ according to Google. But he’s also one of the climate scientists who could be said to have triggered Nic Lewis’s emergence as a real force in the science of estimating ECS and TCR aka climate sensitivity. See Steve Mc’s introductory comments on 5th July 2011:

    Nic Lewis (a co-author of O’Donnell et al 2010) is a very sharp analyst who’s recently taken an interest in climate sensitivity estimates and has an interesting guest post at Judy Curry’s today.

    In his studies, he noticed that the IPCC’s representation in AR4 Figure 9.20 of the probability distribution for climate sensitivity arising from observationally-based Forster and Gregory 2006 differed substantially from the distribution in the original article. He reports that the alteration had the effect of fattening the tails of high-end climate sensitivity.

    That’s over ten years ago now, dealing with the dodgy detritus of AR4 from 2007. How time flies.

    And Today chose to interview the hero of that episode. Not.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. The BBC dedicated 7 stories on its homepage to Climate Change today. And, says the Spectator…

    “…BBC staffers were recently treated to an internal audience research briefing telling them how best to convey messages about climate change to different audiences. The briefing – which one insider described as being more reminiscent of ‘a campaigning organisation’ – identifies seven different groups of viewers and how to appeal to them: ‘progressive activists,’ ‘civic pragmatists,’ ‘established liberals,’ ‘loyal nationals,’ ‘disengaged battlers,’ ‘backbone conservatives,’ and ‘disengaged traditionalists.’ Explaining how ‘we need to talk to them in different ways’, the briefing ranks these groups…”

    “For ‘loyal nationals’ who are working class and authoritarian ‘boomers’ who feel patriotic but ‘threatened’, the guidance orders staff to ‘build on climate concern without feeding fears of climate migration.’ This group is the only one listed as voting for Brexit. Meanwhile, journalists are instructed to ‘build trust’ with ‘disengaged battlers’ by showing how ‘the benefits’ of climate action will help ‘people like them.’ For this ‘fatalistic, isolated, urban group’ a ‘middle class environmentalist lifestyle’ is judged to be an ineffective way of engagement. Both the ‘disengaged traditionalists’ and ‘backbone conservatives’ are listed in the research alongside the euphemistic label ‘British pride.’ The former group can apparently be won over by changing the messenger and a focus on ‘national pride in practical achievements’, while the latter – sceptical, male and working class – are allegedly susceptible to messages which talk about ‘manufacturing fit for purpose.’”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/revealed-the-bbc-guide-for-covering-climate-change

    Disgusting behaviour by the BBC which is in blatant contradiction to its charter.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. Andy,

    What can I say? One can usually discern when a banana republic coup has succeeded. It is when they have taken over the national broadcasting station and replaced the normal schedule with endless propaganda broadcasts.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. The BBC staff briefing was based on an ‘evidence-based toolkit’ produced by Climate Outreach (COIN) with funding and perhaps some intellectual input from The European Climate Foundation. The toolkit was itself based on a report produced by an international non-profit called More In Common* in collaboration with Climate Outreach, The European Climate Foundation and YouGov. That report was more about Brexit than climate change, though the latter got plenty of mentions.

    Full toolkit:

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/346265456_Britain_Talks_Climate_A_toolkit_for_engaging_the_British_public_on_climate_change

    (There’s an update but you have to register to download that.)

    MIC’s report:

    URL:www.britainschoice.uk/

    ===
    *More In Common was set up by Brendan Cox and others to honour the memory of his murdered wife but the only mentions of him at its website are in brief histories of MIC in French and German versions of two old reports. This is presumably because in 2018 he admitted to being a sex pest and resigned. Is sex pestery a good reason to erase him? Possibly, but how about his wife? Jo Cox gets only one mention at the website (and that’s somewhat tangential) despite MIC’s name being inspired by part of her maiden speech as an MP.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Vinny,

    >‘evidence-based toolkit’

    Sometimes it’s the most earnest people who say the funniest things.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Here’s one from the BBC today:

    “Global food supplies will suffer as temperatures rise – climate crisis report
    Politicians around world continue to respond to report from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/10/global-food-supplies-will-suffer-as-temperatures-rise-climate-crisis-report

    “Food production around the world will suffer as global heating reaches 1.5C, with serious effects on the food supply in the next two decades, scientists have warned, following the biggest scientific report yet on the climate crisis.

    Rising temperatures will mean there will be more times of year when temperatures exceed what crops can stand, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its sixth assessment report published on Monday.”

    Conveniently:

    “The full spectrum of the damage will not be fully revealed until next year, when the IPCC publishes the second part of its landmark assessment, which will cover the impacts of climate breakdown on key areas of human life and the planet.”

    I struggle with claims about food shortages from climate change, given that to date it has been almost entirely beneficial in that regard.

    This bit of the article was fun, though:

    “In Australia PM Scott Morrison pointed the finger at China, saying in a press conference on Tuesday that it could not be ignored that the developing world accounts for “two-thirds of global emissions”, and adding that China’s emissions “accounted for more than the entire OECD combined”.

    The Chinese government issued a statement to AFP saying that “China has insisted on prioritising sustainable, green and low-carbon development”. It added that President Xi Jinping intended to “strictly control” the growth of coal power plants.”

    Like

  27. Monday’s #ClimateFearPornDay #ApocalysePRday seemed orchestrated
    and was not limited to the BBC
    Well done the Spectator for publishing this evidence so quickly

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Vinny Burgoo
    I edited your comment so that the link to the “Britain Talks Climate” document comes up. It’s 124 pages, and well worth a look. The cover photo shows an elderly Caribbean (?) gentleman and two guys and a boy who look Pakistani standing in an allotment. One of the Pakistanis has a watering can and the West Indian is holding a turnip. COIN has held special weekend seminars on the use of visual aids in promoting the climate story, and the document’s authors, Susie Wang and Adam Corner of Climate Outreach, and Jessia Nicholls of the European Climate Fondation, have clearly taken the message on board. Well done. I won’t say more, since I see they are offering free use of their Golden Questions and Calculator Tool to carry out independent audience analysis. Sounds a must.

    Like

  29. Clive Best it seems got it wrong about the ECS range being unchanged.

    As Roger says, that’s important. We await to see the critiques that I’m sure will follow. Use of paleo ‘data’ is really misguided, as is any reliance on CMIP6 models. Recent observations should be all.

    Like

  30. More from Roger Pielke jr, via Twitter:

    Liked by 2 people

  31. > Not just some heat waves, but every heat wave. And not just those that are going to happen in the future, but all those that are happening today. Apparently, heating has that effect. It just can’t help but make things hotter, no matter what their current temperature and no matter when it is applied.

    A rising tide raises all boats, John R. It works better for physical tides than economic ones but that’s a different discussion. What doesn’t rise with tides are sea walls. A rogue wave is less likely to slosh over the dike at low tide than high tide. One almost has to not want to get it to not get it.

    Like

  32. >”One almost has to not want to get it to not get it.”

    Actually, Brandon R. G., we can talk as much as we like about rising physical levels, but what is really the issue here is rising risk, which is a much more abstract concept. This article is not about denying the banal observation that the risk is rising, it is instead mocking the idea that some sort of scientific breakthrough in attribution studies was needed in order to draw that conclusion. What is needed is advances in science that enable the risks to be quantified with greater certainty. Professor Otto’s statement does not allude to such advances but, since it is a statement that can be made with certainty, it serves a purpose for those who wish to give the impression of advancement. The problem is that it is a statement that could have been made with a high degree of certitude even before attribution studies were a twinkle in Professor Otto’s eye. So let us not just talk about boats floating on water, let us also talk about waves and their causation.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Brandon R. G.,

    I note with some amusement that you were so proud of your recent comment on here that you thought it worth sharing with your mates over at ATTP. That’s alright, please be my guest. After all, I have done something similar in the past. The only problem is that experience has taught me that attempting any form of constructive debate over there is doomed to fail. Nevertheless, I have already responded to your comment here. If you have anything further to say in response, you are advised to do so below.

    But before you do, I should be at pains to recognize how you could so easily have taken a passage that was obviously intended to satirize earnestness and treat it as if it were actually stated in earnest – it’s an easy mistake to make when you are not paying attention. Just to remind you, however, that the point being made was that the banality of Professor Otto’s statement disqualifies it as an indicator of scientific advance. If you would now like to agree to drop the one-upmanship and instead engage in a mutually respectful discussion that stays on that topic, I am still forever yours,

    John R

    Liked by 1 person

  34. I have to say that I’m disappointed that Brandon R. G. hasn’t got back to me yet. Boiling this down to its essence, I had said that Professor Otto’s claim that the risk from heatwaves is increasing is a banal one. To which, Brandon R. G. responded by pointing out that Otto’s statement meant that the risk from heatwaves was increasing, and he couldn’t understand how I could fail to grasp that. It would have been nice for him to have explained his outburst, since he clearly thinks he scored a goal. I’d just like to know how that worked. Seeing him tittering amongst his chums over at ATTP isn’t doing anything for me. Or is that how so-called climateball is supposed to be played?

    Liked by 1 person

  35. John R.,

    I don’t know how I could have missed it since it was in ALL CAPS but I did:

    > The climate scientists are about to announce a startling new discovery: WHEN THINGS ARE HEATED UP THEY GET HOTTER.

    My only response is ha ha, joke’s on me. Cheers.

    Like

  36. Don’t worry about it, Brandon. On the internet, we are all one misunderstanding away from falling out. There’s just too much at stake — and there again, nothing that is more important than remaining tolerant.

    Like

  37. This week’s spiked podcast has a long section on the fallout from the IPCC’s report. They are particularly scathing about the sixth-formerish apocalypticism of mainstream coverage, the anti-democratic imposition of lowered lifestyles, & the significance of the rejection of obvious answers like nuclear.

    I listen to podcasts on spotify, but it seems there is a youtube version also. Worth a listen.

    https://www.spiked-online.com/podcast-episode/the-myth-of-the-climate-apocalypse/

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Thank you for pointing to that podcast Jit. Near the start Ella Whelan points in turn to Bjorn Lomborg’s piece in the New York Post on the big day of the big release, which I’d not noticed till now.

    In contrast to the hyperventilating media, the report is actually serious and sensible (and very, very long). It doesn’t surprise, since it is a summary of already-published studies, yet it reconfirms that global warming indeed is real and a problem.

    But it also highlights how much one-sided thinking takes place in the climate conversation.

    Lomborg goes on to give some very good examples of one-sided thinking in the media reports. All credit to him for that.

    But do I agree “the report is actually serious and sensible”?

    No. Just putting in a PAGES2K hockey stick as the first graphic in the SPM, unsupported by anything in the main report, is enough to show that it’s not. Nothing like.

    What about “it reconfirms that global warming indeed is real and a problem”?

    Nyet there too. I’m still with Freeman Dyson and the quote from 2016 I used in Missing Facts:

    Roughly speaking there are two totally different things going on in the natural world. It’s the carbon dioxide in the climate that everybody talks about and there are the ecological effects of carbon dioxide which have nothing to do with climate. Which nobody talks about. They are totally separate and different.

    In the case of the climate effects. This is a very complicated set of problems. We don’t understand climate, climate is very complicated and we are only beginning to understand what the effects of carbon dioxide may be. They’re maybe good or they’re maybe bad. But it’s not clear.

    But if you look at the non climate effects of carbon dioxide, there is evidence they are very strong. They are easy to observe, easy to measure. They are overwhelmingly beneficial.

    Maybe good or maybe bad. Problem not clear.

    And that creates a communication problem. I don’t want to bad-mouth Lomborg or even to be seen to do so. All the rest of what he writes is superb. And his is one of the few voices in the MSM fighting back against the hype. And being picked up by folks at spiked.

    Still, that’s where this lands for me.

    Like

  39. The Observer online today:

    “It’s now or never: Scientists warn time of reckoning has come for the planet”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/15/its-now-or-never-scientists-warn-time-of-reckoning-has-come-for-the-planet

    We should hold them to that headline – when COP 26 fails as badly as all the earlier COPs, they should shut up and accept that, by their own logic, it’s now time to give up, because (as they themselves have said) it will then be too late. They won’t, of course….

    The article is worth a read – the Observer throws everything at it this time.

    Like

  40. Mark,

    I look forward to the headline in the Guardian this November: ‘Earth doomed’. As you say, if they don’t run with it, they will have failed by their own journalistic standards.

    Like

  41. I’m beginning to find some time to dip into the AR6 WG1 report and there is lots of interest in there. I may even find enough time in the near future to write up an article covering what, for me, are the highlights. For example, there is the IPCC’s application of the ‘storyline’ approach and how they think it helps with attribution under ‘deep uncertainty’. Apparently, storylines:

    “…can also help in assessing risks associated with [Low Likelihood High Impact] LLHI events (Weitzman, 2011; Sutton, 2018), because they consider the ‘physically self-consistent unfolding of past events, or of plausible future events or pathways’ (Shepherd et al., 2018b), which would be masked in a probabilistic approach.”

    Well I’m all for an approach that overcomes the masking that occurs when probabilities are allocated (sarc).

    Honestly, if this is an example of what Ed Hawkins had in mind when he said that the science has moved on since AR5, then God help us.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Hunterson,

    Thanks for that video. That’s a great YouTube channel. I hope to watch more of those videos but there’s only so many hours in a day. I just watched the JFK moon speech one — first time I’ve ever listened to the whole thing. They definitely had better speech writers back then! The artwork makes an excellent accompaniment for anyone who wants to hear the whole thing, although the artist has a hard time capturing JFK’s likeness and has to label him. Drawing faces is hard!

    Like

  43. Mike, this very abbreviated musical version of the moon speech is the opener to Public Service Broadcasting’s album “The Race for Space”, an excellent potted history of the early era of space exploration full of contemporary news reports etc. Why do you want to go to the moon, JFK? “Because it is thayur.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.