Postscript: Added after all the following.

That took an hour to write.
My *only* aim in all areas of science and engineering is to know the =

truth as well as it may be known. When I see organisations, small or, =

as in this case, very very very large and influential, prostituting =

the name of science and truth in the causes of vested interest in all =

its flavours with their promises of la =EDnsula Barataria, then I feel =

compelled to, yet again, summon up Sancho Panza and Rocinante and =

sally forth to tilt vainly at these giants who would usurp the place =

of sense and truth. And so, to battle ...

NB:    NONE of the following should be taken to mean that I think that =

anthropogenic global warming *definitely* isn't the major factor in =

global climate change. It may be. But so far that's not something that =

passes normal scientific scrutiny. Also, I think that we should be =

taking prudent measures to address what MAY be happening if there's =

any chance that failing to do so will cost us far more dearly in the =

long term than doing nothing now. And I've said that before here. BUT =

the present process is filled with lies and deception and it's not the =

way to do science or to find truth. By doing it wrong we are less =

effective than we could be and it costs a lot more in the process, and =

a lot of cynical people get rich along the way.
__________

It's 6:10am by the clock, or 5:10am real time biologically, as we just =

had daylight saving yesterday and it takes a day or three for the body =

to get accustomed to the change. Just back from the airport after half =

a night's sleep and dropping our daughter off for an unconscionably =

early flight 'across the pond'. Should be going back to bed, and I =

will, but I'll first dispose of the borderline accusations and see if =

I can shift them across to the IPCC.


-    First, yes I got the URL wrong and I was indeed, as you deduced, =

intending people to look at the most prestigious*pro* global warming =

site that there is. Thanks for the correct

            www.ipcc.ch

-    Second, in a number of emails on this list on this topic I have =

clearly (as far as I know) stated that the latest IPCC findings have a =

P value of 0.1, which is what has been noted in various journals. As =

far as I know The IPCC have not yet published all the details of the =

findings on which their earlier summary was based, but they may have =

done so. Either way, as long as they do not do a running revision, the =

detail data should support their published P=3D0.1 finding. You have =

correctly navigated their site and translated their woolly "very =

likely" to P=3D0.1, as I said. Note that they say >90% rather than >=3D =

90% and odds are it would more properly read ~~=3D90%. I don't know the =

exact figure but the important thing is that it's clearly not able to =

be categorised as P=3D0.05. This is significant because, as I have said =

a number of times [ =3D AIHSANOT], P=3D0.05 is the generally accepted =

boundary for statistical significance. P=3D0.1 is, as I have also said a =

number of times, either "not statistically significant" or sometimes =

"tending towards significance".

The gap between 0.1 and 0.05 is AIHSANOT not a minor one. Any number =

of thesis writers, investigators, researchers, and seekers after =

grants have AIHSANOT looked with dismay at a P=3D0.1 value for their =

data and known that it will not pass the hurdle of peer review/funding =

committee/ ... . This is the standard probability level at which =

statistical significance is attributed. AIHSANOT coin tossing and =

other real world experiences will have made many of us aware that =

quite unlikely *appearing* series of events / outcomes are a natural =

feature of events governed by the normal distribution. Even "tending =

towards significance" can either firm up into significance with time =

or, just as often, again fade back to less apparently correlated to =

the matter under investigation.

- Third, AIHSANOT the IPCC has a very very very strong vested interest =

in proving the "Global Warming" is principally anthropogenic in =

origin. Without attributing ANY purposeful cooking of figures, without =

suspecting ANY purposeful omission of data which badly hurts their =

aim. without thinking that ANY bad or biased or flaky science is being =

purposefully practiced, one can conclude that it is somewhere between =

"Virtually certain > 99%" and "Extremely likely >> 95%" probability of =

occurrence that all of the above has happened inadvertently. Based =

entirely on proven occurrences in the last decade or so this is =

observed fact and there is every reason to believe that this has not =

been totally eliminated. Human nature is such that in any large =

organisation, and the IPCC as an umbrella organisation for the whole =

GW drive is a very very large and diverse organisation, that someone =

somewhere will be failing to meet intended standards.

The important point from this AIHSANOT is that, with the very very =

very best science that money can buy, IPCC have not managed to =

demonstrate that their key thesis is statistically significant. This =

is NOT to say that it is in fact not true. Just that so far the most =

enthusiastically biased science that they can justify has not proven =

that it is.

To cite two very significant examples:

-     The famous "hockey stick" global warming curve which was much =

promoted was found to be due to incorrect management of data and it is =

now recognised by all in the field that it in no way represents =

observed phenomena. Not surprisingly, the fact that this was =

discovered by people outside the IPCC is not surprising as with the =

best will in the world it is hard to see that one's directions are =

wrong when one is intricately encased within the machinery. It is felt =

by some that the 'hockey stick' was a result of purposeful cooking of =

data, but it is unnecessary to attribute to malice that which can be =

explained by good old every day human nature. This subject has been so =

very thoroughly discussed on web that Gargoyle is an ample reference =

source.

-    It has long been claimed that NASA satellite data showed a =

significant amount of ocean level increase (millimetres) in the last =

decade. It has quite recently been shown, and acknowledged by NASA, =

that the apparent increase was caused by a change in NASA data sources =

in the year 2000 without a corresponding change in processing =

methodologies. Unfortunately NASA, for whatever reason, declined to =

release their data sources to independent researchers who suspected =

that this is what had happened and they had to laboriously reverse =

engineer the data to demonstrate the error existed. NASA subsequently =

confirmed this was the case and have now revised their published data =

to remove the statistically significant (apparent) variation. I'll not =

dig up a reference now but anyone who cares can find it in a prior =

post of mine or, if preferred, email me and I'll dig it out when next =

awake.

________

It's worth noting as an aside that the measurement of ocean levels is =

a far far far far more complex task than is appreciated by almost =

everybody. Variations of over 5 metres are caused by ocean currents =

such as the Gulf Stream. Variations of a metre or more can be caused =

by multi-seasonal variations such as El Nino, and decades long and =

ocean wide cyclical variations may drop levels on one ocean side by a =

metre or more and raise it on the other side by a similar (but not =

identical) amount simultaneously. So, measurements of changes in =

sealevel due to "new" mechanisms can only be made after properly =

modelling a large number of cyclical variations whose magnitude may =

exceed the expected measurement by factors of more than 1000 to 1. I =

can dig out references to all this if desired but so can Gargoyle.

_______________

SO

> Your rephrasing of their statement to, "there is no statistically
> significant indication that anthropogenic global warming is the main =

> or a
> statistically significant contributor to climate change", is at best =

> very
> misleading.

No.
Not at all.
The statement by the IPCC is very misleading and verging on (from one =

side or the other) attempts to turn clear scientific knowledge into =

populist lies.
The phrase "not statistically significant" will have been heard in a =

number of meetings amongst IPCC scientists over the last decade, but =

it never gets into the briefings for politicians or almost any of the =

news releases.

> I'm tempted to say that this is an intentional agenda driven
> totally dishonest misrepresentation of the IPCC's conclusions. =

> However,
> there is the possibility that you simply misread the report so, I =

> won't
> accuse you of outright lying and intentional dishonesty.

It's interesting to see that you exclude the option of my being =

correct :-)

1.    I have no agenda apart from wanting to know the truth as well as =

it may be known.

2.    I am not "tempted to say" - I DO say, that the IPCC are an =

agenda driven organisation misrepresenting their own scientific =

conclusions to politicians and the public generally in order to pursue =

their aims. Their public statements are not false per se but they are =

dumbed down and couched in such language as to purposefully mislead =

while appearing and purporting to make clear.

While many of their member scientists may well not be either outright =

liars or intentionally dishonest it is about impossible to not =

categorise the organisation as a whole in any other terms.

_______

Let's run part of that again ...

> Your rephrasing of their statement

My "rephrasing" is simply taking what they have said and turning it =

back into the clear scientific statement that they started out with.

They started with a good clear scientific statement and then, with no =

doubt the best intentions of rendering it intelligible to the masses, =

wrapped it in cotton wool and hid it's true scientific meaning. What I =

did was to restate their starting point.

FINDING their actual numerical starting point on their site may (or =

may not) be slightly harder than finding what they say they mean by =

"very likely".

_____________

>  If you continue to insist that we should ignore the actual report =

> and believe the words that
> you, and you alone, are saying then I'm willing to change my mind =

> about your
> motives.

Jawas at dawn.
25:1 petroil ratio.
No chainguards.
Please advise the contact details of your second.

and

> that you, and you alone ...

Sancho, bring me my armour!
If I am the only person telling you (or everyone else) what all =

scientists everywhere understand when they see a P=3D0.1 figure, and/or =

if you don't know that yourself already, then I really have a hard job =

ahead of me :-).

If you can produce the actual P value that the IPCC based their "very =

likely" on *AND* demonstrate that it does not mean essentially just =

what I've been saying then I'll be willing to change my mind about you =

:-). [[Don't take that badly. Please. It's easy to let the 'big boys' =

confuse the general populace and sometimes it needs more than gentle =

murmurings to get people to see how many clothes the emperor really =

has on. If it turns out that he's more fully dressed than is presently =

apparent I'll be happy to admit it]].


        Russell


 =


-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist