I’ve been posting on blogs all morning. Overwhelmingly the reaction has been hostile. That could be because those sites which are hostile were first off the mark, but I notice that the BBC and Guardian are both pumping out the propaganda.
In a way I think this increased confidence by the IPCC is a bonus. It is just so preposterous and so simple to understand that one can’t be more confident when you’ve got every major prediction wrong, that this report is getting some very hostile comments such as the following:
Before it was “very likely”. Now it is “extremely likely”. Another 15 years with no warming and they will be dead certain.
I’ve used the analogy in the past that when an avalanche is about to fall, it is usually preceded by a host of lesser avalanches. This is not a small avalanche. It is a substantial crack in the propaganda front on global warming and growing as I watch. Whilst it may not be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back it is a clear indication that the whole rotten edifice is going to go sometime soon.
There is an edge of hysteria to the Beeboid coverage.
A few years ago it was possible for them to say “the debate is over” (untruthfully but with some believability) – being up to “95% certainty” is not as good.
“I am the great and powerful IPCC, ignore the lack of warming for 18 years behind the curtain”
I was just reflecting … the game was billed as a major fixture between sceptics and alarmists – cheerleaders sure look professional but when you get out onto the field on forums it is as if the other side are only primary school kids.
As you say, the cheerleader like the BBC are getting hysterical because none of their “side” on the field is at all convinced they can win.
The following is a comment from the InterAcademy Council review of the IPCC process and procedures in 2010:
“The IPCC uncertainty guidance urges authors to provide a traceable account of how authors determined what ratings to use to describe the level of scientific understanding (Table 3.1) and the likelihood that a particular outcome will occur (Table 3.3). However, it is unclear whose judgments are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgments were determined. How exactly a consensus was reached regarding subjective probability distributions needs to be documented.”
I couldn’t find any such documentation regarding the “extremely likely” in the SPM. Perhaps it’s in the AR5 WG1 report coming out soon? Or perhaps it doesn’t exist. Hmmm…
I would be very surprised if there was any process other than sticking their finger in the air.
Spot on ”””Before it was “very likely”. Now it is “extremely likely”. Another 15 years with no warming and they will be dead certain””