Post by thread:[EE]:: Global Warmimg

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: Global Warmimg - Al Gore'
2007\10\12@053952 by Dario Greggio

Al Gore got Nobel :)

2007\10\12@064848 by Dario Greggio

Al Gore got Nobel :)

2007\10\12@105144 by Dario Greggio

Al Gore got Nobel :)

2007\10\12@165545 by Jinx

> Al Gore got Nobel :) Oh. Just like Goebbels

2007\10\12@170530 by Bob Blick

--- Jinx <spam_OUTjoecolquittTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> wrote: > > Al Gore got Nobel :) > > Oh. Just like Goebbels Whew. Except that Joseph Goebbels didn't win the Nobel Prize. The only thing they share is the first initial of their last names.

2007\10\12@170829 by Russell McMahon

>> Al Gore got Nobel :) > > Oh. Just like Goebbels The Goebbels Prize ? R

2007\10\12@171654 by Jinx

> > > Al Gore got Nobel :) > > > > Oh. Just like Goebbels > > Whew. > > Except that Joseph Goebbels didn't win the Nobel > Prize. The only thing they share is the first initial > of their last names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball

2007\10\12@173031 by wouter van ooijen

> [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspam@spam@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Dario Greggio > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:52 PM > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [EE]:: Global Warmimg - Al Gore > > Al Gore got Nobel :) again? Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2007\10\12@181159 by Russell McMahon

>> > > Al Gore got Nobel :) >> > >> > Oh. Just like Goebbels >> >> Whew. >> >> Except that Joseph Goebbels didn't win the Nobel >> Prize. The only thing they share is the first initial >> of their last names. Well, he did get one, but it was given to him by its original recipient as a token of his esteem. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/khamsun.htm "Hamsun never joined the Norwegian Nazi party, but he wrote a series of pro-Fascists articles. Marie, his wife, was more close to Vidkun Quisling, the puppet head of Norway's occupation government. When Hamsun met in 1943 Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels, he gave Goebbels his Nobel Prize medal as a token of his esteem. These meetings have inspired stories, in which Hamsun is credited with saving Jews from the Nazis. However, the journalist and writer Arne Tumyr has claimed in his biography of the author, that these stories are not true, and that Hamsun only succeeded in infuriating Hitler with his complaints about the conduct of German troops in his home country." Russell

2007\10\12@184242 by Dario Greggio

wouter van ooijen wrote: >>[piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Dario Greggio >>Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:52 PM >>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. >>Subject: Re: [EE]:: Global Warmimg - Al Gore >> >>Al Gore got Nobel :) > > > again? :) Am sorry, today the list did not respond from 1:00 pm to 8:00pm circa... I tried resending the message some times .... ! -- Ciao, Dario il Grande (522-485 a.C.)

2007\10\12@184545 by Dario Greggio

Bob Blick wrote: >>>Al Gore got Nobel :) >> >>Oh. Just like Goebbels > > Whew. Did not mean to express any kind of political idea, but still I prefer Gore over Bush a whole lot...! -- Ciao, Dario

2007\10\12@190019 by Jinx

> Did not mean to express any kind of political idea, but still I prefer > Gore over Bush a whole lot...! Maybe he is a big cuddly Care Bear, and he certainly comes across as starkly diametrical to the Toxic Texan (not forgetting that Dubya has conceded that Hey, there is something going on with this weather thing), but something sure smells odd about his whole involvement in carbon credits I've heard and seen comment in the past few months about Gore being disingenuous re global warming, and it's simply cynical and Machiavellian ** manouevering to position himself as a late-entry candidate for the Presidency ** one who deceives and manipulates others for gain; whether the gain is personal or not is of no relevance, only that any actions taken are important only insofar as they affect the results

2007\10\12@192142 by Dario Greggio

Jinx wrote: > [...] > Machiavellian ** manouevering to position himself as a late-entry > candidate for the Presidency > > ** one who deceives and manipulates others for gain; whether the > gain is personal or not is of no relevance, only that any actions taken > are important only insofar as they affect the results Yep, being Italian I know (unfortunately?) who was Machiavelli :) -- Ciao, Dario

2007\10\12@200033 by Bob Blick

--- Jinx <.....joecolquittKILLspam.....clear.net.nz> wrote: > I've heard and seen comment in the past few months > about Gore I've heard bad things about you, too, but I wouldn't compare you to a Nazi - I'll wait until you win something like the Nobel Peace Prize before doing that :-) Cheerful regards, Bob

2007\10\12@201525 by James Newton

I would really prefer that we not discuss the president or candidates on this list. It is just too much bait for flame wars. -- James Newton

2007\10\12@203716 by Jinx

> Yep, being Italian I know (unfortunately?) who was Machiavelli :) Ah, I thought you might be a Scottish person, like Dario Franchitti ;-)) (there's another one but I can't think of it) Apparently "Machiavellian" as used today does not describe Machiavelli's works and position accurately. Although, being dead for 500 years, what's he going to do about it. Nothing, that's what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machievelli "The pejorative term Machiavellian as it is used today (or anti- Machiavellism as it was used from the sixteenth century) is thus a misnomer......It fails to include some of the more moderating themes found in Machiavelli's works and the name is now associated with the extreme viewpoint" If Gore does put his name forward, you know what's going to happen - he'll split the Democratic vote and the Republicans will get back in. And they won't need Jeb's help this time

2007\10\12@203818 by Jinx

> I would really prefer that we not discuss the president or candidates > on this list. It is just too much bait for flame wars 'mkay

2007\10\12@220718 by Rich

That is true. Machiavelli is much misrepresented today. The Prince is well worth reading. Incidentally, he never said "the ends justify the means." {Original Message removed}

2007\10\12@221554 by Vitaliy

Rich wrote: > That is true. Machiavelli is much misrepresented today. The Prince is > well > worth reading. Incidentally, he never said "the ends justify the means." For all intents and purposes, he did. :) Vitaliy

2007\10\13@000444 by Jinx

> I've heard bad things about you, too All true. Every last word !!! > but I wouldn't compare you to a Nazi - I'll wait until you win > something like the Nobel Peace Prize before doing that > :-) It's important you realise that the Goebbels reference can be found at the wikipedia link. It's probably little known in the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball "And Al Gore got Nobel at all"

2007\10\13@002942 by Rich

If those little songs were named "Germanic Verses" I wonder what would happen :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jinx" <EraseMEjoecolquittspam_OUTTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistspam_OUTmit.edu> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [EE]:: Global Warmimg - Al Gore {Quote hidden}>> I've heard bad things about you, too > > All true. Every last word !!! > >> but I wouldn't compare you to a Nazi - I'll wait until you win >> something like the Nobel Peace Prize before doing that >> :-) > > It's important you realise that the Goebbels reference can be found > at the wikipedia link. It's probably little known in the US > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball > > "And Al Gore got Nobel at all" > > --

2007\10\13@003756 by Jinx

> Incidentally, he never said "the ends justify the means." > > For all intents and purposes, he did. :) Machiavellian isn't a word you hear so much any more. Nowadays people "have agendas". Not just politicians of course, everyone

2007\10\13@041430 by Jinx

> If those little songs were named "Germanic Verses" I wonder > what would happen :-) A lady would come and see you, sit you down and tell you ever so nicely that you're hurting people's feelings "Do you think that's right ? Hmmm ? Hurting people's feelings ? No, of course it isn't, so what are you going to do ?" "mumble mumble mumble" "Sorry lovey, can't hear you" "I said mumble going to stop mumble hurting people's feelings" "Ah, I'm so pleased with that. Now, if I can just have some details for our files......."

2007\10\13@044122 by Dario Greggio

Jinx wrote: >>Yep, being Italian I know (unfortunately?) who was Machiavelli :) > > Ah, I thought you might be a Scottish person, like Dario Franchitti ;-)) > (there's another one but I can't think of it) :) I don't know him ! > Apparently "Machiavellian" as used today does not describe Machiavelli's > works and position accurately. Although, being dead for 500 years, what's > he going to do about it. Nothing, that's what > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machievelli Yes, to some extents I agree, though in my opinion (more or less our schools opinion) Machiavelli is both remembered as a smart guy, and as the "teacher" of some "tough" way of behaving (in business, or politics). > If Gore does put his name forward, you know what's going to happen - > he'll split the Democratic vote and the Republicans will get back in. And > they won't need Jeb's help this time I'm afraid you're right... -- Ciao, Dario

2007\10\13@044227 by Dario Greggio

Vitaliy wrote: >>That is true. Machiavelli is much misrepresented today. The Prince is >>well >>worth reading. Incidentally, he never said "the ends justify the means." > > > For all intents and purposes, he did. :) Yeah, I guess you're right :) Though the reading is worth, definitely I agree. -- Ciao, Dario

2007\10\13@045020 by Jinx

> > Ah, I thought you might be a Scottish person, like Dario > > Franchitti ;-)) > > :) I don't know him ! If I said "Mr. Ashley Judd" would that help ? Current IRL and Indy 500 champeen. Nice guy. Beat our nice Mr Dixon in the series by half-a-cup of petrol (wouldn't *that* keep you awake nights)

2007\10\13@050112 by Dario Greggio

Jinx wrote: >>>Ah, I thought you might be a Scottish person, like Dario >>>Franchitti ;-)) >> >>:) I don't know him ! > > If I said "Mr. Ashley Judd" would that help ? Oh, sure :) one of the few actress I did fall in love with :) especially at Star Trek times, and later in a couple of movies too. Actually, as she's grown up, she's become just an average beautiful woman. Thx for the info Jinx. -- Ciao, Dario

2007\10\13@055355 by Jinx

> > If I said "Mr. Ashley Judd" would that help ? > > Oh, sure :) > one of the few actress I did fall in love with :) She is sweet. And very enthusiastic about Dario too, always there at the races in her sun-hat cheering him on PS, don't tell anyone I said petrol. Indy cars don't run on petrol. (Not that Stallone took any notice of that in his awful film Drivel) Indy cars doing their little bit for global warming (he said, dragging it by the feet almost back on topic) I should have remembered that. I should also remember a girl called Betty Bigbutt in my old school's pupil list, but can't place her. Think possibly that's someone having a larf ?

2007\10\14@172250 by Jinx

>Al Gore got Nobel :) I heard someone say this morning that Alfred Nobel is probably spinning in his grave Awesome. So what we do is get him to hold a couple of big magnets, wrap his coffin in copper wire, and he can take a little of the strain, forever greenly, off a Swedish power station

2007\10\14@174250 by Dr Skip

At least the UK high court isn't as easily bamboozled as the sheeple in the US.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm Quote: A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains "nine scientific errors".

2007\10\14@175444 by Jinx

> At least the UK high court isn't as easily bamboozled as the sheeple > in the US.... They're not all bowing http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gore's+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+ the+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd (or Google union new hampshire gore nobel) Saw a comment that the Nobel Peace Prize now has the same status and significance as The Eurovision Song Contest. Ouch, that's harsh

2007\10\14@215744 by Russell McMahon

> At least the UK high court isn't as easily bamboozled as the sheeple > in the US.... The court took as accepted fact his MAIN premise which NO climate scientist worth mention (incl therefore most in the IPCC) would find acceptable.

2007\10\14@222143 by Bob Axtell

Dr Skip wrote: > At least the UK high court isn't as easily bamboozled as the sheeple in the US.... > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm > > > Quote: > > A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient > Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains "nine scientific errors". > > An awful lot of Americans never bought it, Dr. It reminds me of "phrenology" in the turn of the last century, the study how depressions on one's head relate to success in life. Its just another of life's little noises, to be laughed at at some future time. We'll all be sitting around the table one future day and somebody will say "global warming" and everyone will politely chuckle. --Bob

2007\10\14@232753 by Zik Saleeba

On 10/15/07, Dr Skip <@spam@drskipKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > > A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient > Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains "nine scientific errors". ...which was in fact simple misreporting since that wasn't what he actually said. `British judge concludes Gore's film is "broadly accurate."' http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/british-judge-concludes-gores-film-is-broadly-accurate/ --------- Justice Burton agreed that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." There were nine points where Burton decided that AIT differed from the IPCC and that this should be addressed in the Guidance Notes for teachers to be sent out with the movie. Unfortunately a gaggle of useless journalists have misreported this decision as one that AIT contained nine scientific errors. Let me name some of the journalists who got it wrong: Sally Peck in the Daily Telegraph, Nico Hines in the Times, Mike Nizza in the New York Times, James McIntyre in the Independent, PA in Melbourne's Herald Sun, David Adam in the Guardian, Daniel Cressey in Nature, the BBC, Mary Jordan in the Washington Post, Marcus Baram for ABC News, and (of course) Matthew Warren in the Australian. --------- Cheers, Zik

2007\10\15@014247 by James Newton

The personal bias in the face of facts is just amazing to me. Here is the actual findings in the case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html as Zik is pointing out, the judge did conclude that the film was "broadly accurate" and had only a few minor issues with differences in the wording and conclusions between the film and the IPCC. In several cases, the judge obviously got it wrong as is documented in scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php#m ore For example: The judge seems to think that the IPCC say the ice sheets in Greenland will take millennia to melt and therefore do not present a current threat as the film warns. In fact, the IPCC report at ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf does say that the ice sheets will melt if warming is sustained over millennia, but does NOT rule out it happening sooner: They simply point out that we don't know enough and call for more study. They do say that "Recent satellite and in situ observations of ice streams behind disintegrating ice shelves highlight some rapid reactions of ice sheet systems. This raises new concern about the overall stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the collapse of which would trigger another five to six metres of sea level rise." And the /current/ IPCC report, summary for policy makers, at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html specifically says that "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." And also says: "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%. (See Box TS.1.1 for more details)." Yet Gehard says that is not a statement of "confidence"? And Russell can not back up his claim that the IPCC have said in the past that they were less confident. I'm posting direct links to the ACTUAL findings of judges, the IPCC and the arguments that I could understand, like the IPCC "following the money" are not enough; people are posting yellow news twists on what this judge actually said, what the IPCC was supposed to have said in the past, and so on. Please, there are enough reasons to question Mans influence on Global Warming without resorting to these tactics. Let us restrict our discussion to the actual facts, with links to supporting statements, with real facts, and with logic, statistics, and some scientific basis. And in the mean time, is it such a bad idea to do what we can to reduce our footprint on the earth? If we can error on the side of caution, why not? -- James. {Original Message removed}

2007\10\15@015626 by William \Chops\ Westfield

On Oct 14, 2007, at 8:27 PM, Zik Saleeba wrote: > `British judge concludes Gore's film is "broadly accurate."' This is a bad precedent. Lawyers voting on validity of scientific theories. We are all doomed. BillW

2007\10\15@023022 by Russell McMahon

> Yet Gehard says that is not a statement of "confidence"? I think it was Gerhard. But, Indeed. And he's correct. Scientifically as well. As I've painstakingly explained on numerous past occasions. > And Russell can not back up his claim that the IPCC have said in the > past > that they were less confident. While we're on the subject of people misrepresenting people ... :-) That's not what I've indicated at all. It may yet be felt to be true. Or not. You can go back and check what I DID say about why I haven't spent the time I want to wasting my time talking myself blue on the subject, but will yet do so. A few days more now and ... :-) Busy busy busy ... . BUT as I've also sais, you can also use your engineering nouse and a mild amount of knowledge of human nature (let alone politics) to extract a good indication of the IPCC data just from the material that James posted just now. Why the statisticians and mathmeticians amongst us don't rise with howls of pained anguish every time he posts the same material and point out what it is clearly really saying I don't know. I may get to tell you in a few days. I don't have too too high an expectation thay anyone will listen. In preparation you could gaggle up "statistical significance" and even degrees thereof (aka just made it / rather better / quite good really don't you think ... ). Or read my comments thereon from past posts. Clue: 95% has a certain niceness to it. <95 <> 95. And 90 <<< 95 in a normal tail inm many flavours of reality. and one wonders if some people at IPCC think > means >= or even ~=. But I don't know if they do or not. If they gave out their data someone wouyuld tell us rather quickly. But ... :-) Back to (hopefully very profitable) work. R {Quote hidden}> > I'm posting direct links to the ACTUAL findings of judges, the IPCC > and the > arguments that I could understand, like the IPCC "following the > money" are > not enough; people are posting yellow news twists on what this judge > actually said, what the IPCC was supposed to have said in the past, > and so > on. > > Please, there are enough reasons to question Mans influence on > Global > Warming without resorting to these tactics. > > Let us restrict our discussion to the actual facts, with links to > supporting > statements, with real facts, and with logic, statistics, and some > scientific > basis. > > And in the mean time, is it such a bad idea to do what we can to > reduce our > footprint on the earth? If we can error on the side of caution, why > not? > > -- > James. > > {Original Message removed}

2007\10\15@065302 by Gerhard Fiedler

James Newton wrote: > And the /current/ IPCC report, summary for policy makers, at > http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html specifically says that > "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since > the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in > anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." And also says: "In this > Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate > the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment, of an outcome or a > result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely > likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%. (See > Box TS.1.1 for more details)." > > Yet Gehard says that is not a statement of "confidence"? I wanted to stay out of here, because what I've said so far has been largely ignored, but since you're citing me (or questioning me) here, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier. First, there is a difference between a probability of a future event, calculated using a model and some input data, and the confidence in that model. What you were citing are the probabilities, not the confidence levels. As I wrote before, the IPCC's report is full of probability figures. (Well, not necessarily the actual figures, but expressions like the ones you cited, which can be translated into figures using their "Uncertainty Guidance Note".) But that same "Uncertainty Guidance Note" also gives expressions to be used for confidence levels, right next to the expressions to be used for probabilities; this is cited from an earlier post of mine: G> From their "Uncertainty Guidance Note for the Fourth Assessment G> Report" at G> <ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4_UncertaintyGuidanceNote.pdf>: G> G> -------------------- G> Very High confidence: At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct G> High confidence: About 8 out of 10 chance G> Medium confidence: About 5 out of 10 chance G> Low confidence: About 2 out of 10 chance G> Very low confidence: Less than 1 out of 10 chance G> G> [...] G> G> Virtually certain: > 99% probability of occurrence G> Very likely: > 90% probability G> Likely: > 66% probability G> About as likely as not: 33 to 66% probability G> Unlikely: < 33% probability G> Very unlikely: < 10% probability G> Exceptionally unlikely: < 1% probability G> -------------------- See, the second set of expressions talks about probabilities, and the first set talks about confidence levels. As you can easily verify, the highest confidence level they think they need a suggested wording for is 90% (that would be Russell's "P=0.1") -- they call it a "very high confidence". There's no suggested wording for 95% confidence (19 out of 20, in their way to put the figures, or "P=0.05" in Russell's way). So back to your question: No, talking about probabilities is /not/ the same as stating the confidence level of those probabilities. Try yourself what I suggested in my post on Oct 06 and search the report for any of the IPCC's suggested confidence level expressions (like I did), and then report whether your findings are different from mine. (To refresh the memory: I didn't find any of them. They just don't seem to mention them, even though they obviously found them important enough to add a set of suggested expressions to their "Uncertainty Guidance Note". I didn't search all parts of the report in all versions, though, so I may have missed some. But so far /nobody/ has cited /any/ confidence level from an IPCC report.) I asked then, and still wonder, "why don't they use the suggested confidence level expressions to go along with the suggested probability expressions"? A probability (as result of a calculation using a model and input data) without a confidence level (regarding the model and the input data) is not worth much. So whenever you talk about such probabilities, you need to state the confidence level to make any sense. This as in "Using my new model X, it is 'very likely' that it will rain where you are when you read this post. The confidence in the model is 'very low', though, considering past data." The first sentence doesn't really give any information to assess the quality of the model, just the result when applying it. It is the second sentence that talks about the quality of the model. Applying this to the issue at hand, I don't really doubt that they get to a probability of 97.5% of something happening when using model Y, but I'd like to know more about the quality of the model -- which would be expressed as confidence level. /That's/ the issue I was talking about (and if I understood correctly, Russell also). And nobody has brought forward any mention of any confidence data in the IPCC's report, nor any explanation why they don't state the confidence level together with the probabilities. (They themselves seem to think that this is something that should or could be done, or else they wouldn't have a set of suggested expressions for confidence intervals in their Uncertainty Guidance Notes.) [We're not used to this, from our work, because the confidence level of scientific models we're working with is much higher than of the data we're working with, so we just stay on the side of the data with our considerations. But once you accept confidence levels for your models below 99.9% (and according to their suggested wording, they mostly work below that level), you really need to start using confidence levels for the models, too.] > And Russell can not back up his claim that the IPCC have said in the past > that they were less confident. Please try to find (and cite here) a single statement of confidence level (NOT probability!) in their report (or, better yet, one that supports that a certain conclusion has a confidence level above 90% or 95%). > And in the mean time, is it such a bad idea to do what we can to reduce our > footprint on the earth? If we can error on the side of caution, why not? Now this is a completely different question, and I think you know I agree with you on this. But this doesn't put the confidence data into the IPCC's report. Gerhard

2007\10\15@164225 by James Newton

Ah, I see the difference Gerhard (and sorry for the miss-spelling as well). Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I do see that as a flaw in the IPCC report, and I should also be clear that I don't feel the IPCC is without bias, as Russell and others have argued very successfully. My only concern, in general, is that while there are many points that are yet to be hashed out, I would like to see the conversation limited to verifiable statements in clear language, with links and references that can be proven. If you can't remember where you heard it, please don't post it. In this case, you posted a reference and the language was perfectly clear and correct from your point of view, but I simply didn't understand it. I'm glad to hear you can see some agreement with my own position re: Erring on the side of caution. -- James Newton. {Original Message removed}

2007\10\15@164429 by James Newton

Sorry if I didn't hear you correctly, but I do know that I have yet to see the source for that confidence statement of P=0.5 and I'm trying to ask people to not post statements like that without a reference in the future, so I'm sort of using you as an example in a way that is probably not totally fair to you. My apologies. -- James Newton {Original Message removed}

2007\10\15@182101 by Russell McMahon

> Sorry if I didn't hear you correctly, but I do know that I have yet > to see > the source for that confidence statement of P=0.5 0.1

2007\10\16@074024 by Gerhard Fiedler

On 2007-10-15 18:42:41, James Newton wrote: > Ah, I see the difference Gerhard (and sorry for the miss-spelling as > well). Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. Thanks for reading it, and acknowledging it. I needed that :) -- it seemed so completely lost in the discussion. > I do see that as a flaw in the IPCC report, and I should also be clear > that I don't feel the IPCC is without bias, as Russell and others have > argued very successfully. That's the point (for me). Them not adding any hint at their models' confidence data does seem to be meaningful. Now, if they had added a phrase like "the confidence levels of the used models are at this point difficult to assess and therefore we will depart from general scientific practice and leave any confidence levels out of this report", I think this could have increased substantially my own confidence. But writing a report like this without even mentioning once confidence levels (well, they do, in a FAQ, and that one is not reassuring) seem quite odd and, for me, casts a shadow of doubt on all the rest. It really looks as if they tried to hide something, and I wonder what that is, and why hide it. > I'm glad to hear you can see some agreement with my own position re: > Erring on the side of caution. I think that at least between you, Russell and me, there's no disagreement on this. But for me this doesn't have a lot to do with GW, AGW and the like; it has much more to do with a generally livable environment. Which is a different thing for almost everybody, and few if any hard facts enter that area. AIUI this discussion was always about the confidence levels in the IPCC's report. And while I also don't know where Russell took his 90% (or 0.1) number from, the fact that they don't suggest a wording for a higher confidence level combined with the fact that they don't give any confidence levels in their report (until someone actually posts where they give them) to me sounds like a strong indication that the confidence levels in general are worse than that. I just don't think they had left them out if they could have added "with very high confidence" to every result. Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...