Searching \ for '[EE]:: Global Warmimg - Al Gore' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=global+warmimg+gore
Search entire site for: ': Global Warmimg - Al Gore'.

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

face picon face
Al Gore got Nobel :)

2007\10\12@064848 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Al Gore got Nobel :)

2007\10\12@105144 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Al Gore got Nobel :)



2007\10\12@165545 by Jinx

face picon face


> Al Gore got Nobel :)

Oh. Just like Goebbels

2007\10\12@170530 by Bob Blick

face picon face
--- Jinx <spam_OUTjoecolquittTakeThisOuTspamclear.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

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

The Goebbels Prize ?

       

           R

2007\10\12@171654 by Jinx

face picon face

> > > 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

face picon face
> [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@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

face
flavicon
face
>> > > 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

face picon face
wouter van ooijen wrote:

>>[piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.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

face picon face
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

face picon face
> 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

face picon face
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

face picon face

--- Jinx <.....joecolquittKILLspamspam.....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
face picon face
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

face picon face

> 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

face picon face
> 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

picon face
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

flavicon
face
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

face picon face
> 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

picon face
If those little songs were named "Germanic Verses" I wonder what would
happen :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jinx" <EraseMEjoecolquittspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: [EE]:: Global Warmimg - Al Gore


{Quote hidden}

> --

2007\10\13@003756 by Jinx

face picon face
> 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

face picon face
> 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

face picon face
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

face picon face
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

face picon face
> > 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

face picon face
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

face picon face

> > 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

face picon face
>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

picon face
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

face picon face

> 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

face
flavicon
face
> 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

face picon face
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

face picon face
On 10/15/07, Dr Skip <@spam@drskipKILLspamspamgmail.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

face picon face
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

face picon face

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

face
flavicon
face
> 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}

> {Original Message removed}

2007\10\15@065302 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
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

face picon face
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

face picon face
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

face
flavicon
face
> 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

picon face
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...