3 ms·

Just based on the url. (After having spent years reading it, I’m not touching Wattsupwiththat anymore) “Silently slashes”: So silently that the information is

Just based on the url. (After having spent years reading it, I’m not touching Wattsupwiththat anymore) “Silently slashes”: So silently that the information is easily available everywhere and is published publicly. “AR5 Final draft”: Yes, it’s shocking that drafts change. It’s almost like the purpose of drafts is for them to be revised multiple times before they are published. And finally, it’s almost a 100% that the “slashing” happened to get sign offs from political leaders of governments, without which they wouldn’t be able to publish the reports. If anything, this only illustrates exactly why the IPCC reports are far too conservative.

roenxi 7y ago
> “Silently slashes”: So silently that the information is easily available everywhere and is published publicly. On this particular point; organisations do often 'silently' release to the public. For example, Westminster-styled governments are notorious for important things happening on Friday when the press is winding down or legislation never appearing in the talking points. It is possible to silently do something in the public sphere. Editing draft predictions does sound quite mundane though, they probably weren't trying to slip that under the radar.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  "This particular point" is not that it could not be done silently, but that is was not done silently.
Udik 7y ago
> So silently that the information is easily available everywhere and is published publicly. But "silently" doesn't mean "secretly". It just means that something is done without particular emphasis (maybe because it's not important, or maybe to avoid attracting attention). Note that our perception of the world is shaped more by what we collectively decide to pay attention to, rather than by all the information that is available. > “AR5 Final draft”: Yes, it’s shocking that drafts change [...] it’s almost a 100% that the “slashing” happened to get sign offs from political leaders of governments. So you're saying that the IPCC lied in its final draft? But in that case, did we pay attention enough to the fact that the official report was lying? Or we just let it slip silently? Also, I don't understand how the political leaders could- or would- decide not to sign off a scientific report for predicting further 0.3 degrees of warming per decade. On what grounds?

roenxi 7y ago

> “Silently slashes”: So silently that the information is easily available everywhere and is published publicly. On this particular point; organisations do often 'silently' release to the public. For example, Westminster-styled governments are notorious for important things happening on Friday when the press is winding down or legislation never appearing in the talking points. It is possible to silently do something in the public sphere. Editing draft predictions does sound quite mundane though, they probably weren't trying to slip that under the radar.

mannykannot 7y ago
"This particular point" is not that it could not be done silently, but that is was not done silently.

Udik 7y ago

> So silently that the information is easily available everywhere and is published publicly. But "silently" doesn't mean "secretly". It just means that something is done without particular emphasis (maybe because it's not important, or maybe to avoid attracting attention). Note that our perception of the world is shaped more by what we collectively decide to pay attention to, rather than by all the information that is available. > “AR5 Final draft”: Yes, it’s shocking that drafts change [...] it’s almost a 100% that the “slashing” happened to get sign offs from political leaders of governments. So you're saying that the IPCC lied in its final draft? But in that case, did we pay attention enough to the fact that the official report was lying? Or we just let it slip silently? Also, I don't understand how the political leaders could- or would- decide not to sign off a scientific report for predicting further 0.3 degrees of warming per decade. On what grounds?