As it was well buried I'll haul this out and make one last (perhaps 
:-) ) comment.

>  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.

I'll accept your apologies in due course :-).

If I alone were standing up for truth and telling you what the IPCC's 
own science says, using normal everyday scientific language, then I 
would be no less right, but the world would be a sorry place.

Fortunately there are numerous people commenting on the IPCC's P=0.1 
figure. I found a few with the quickest of Gargoyling and there will 
be any number if one wishes to spend the time digging. I do not overly 
feel the need to spend the effort digging up factual references about 
factual data for people who call me a liar after I've been as clearly 
stating the available information as clearly I reasonably could for 
quite some while. Gargoyle, properly used, will provide all the 
assistance you need to establish both my veracity and the fact that I 
am not a lone voice.

Sadly, the IPCC published their policy guidance documents and related 
material in early 2007 but at that stage declined to "initially" 
publish the detailed data on which it was based. They said that this 
would be released in due course. This decision has been, not 
surprisingly, roundly condemned in some quarters. Just as 
unsurprisingly , in other quarters it causes no concern at all. Also 
not surprisingly there seems to be significant correlation between the 
areas of concern and non-concern and a group's conclusions about the 
IPCC's work in general. When what is meant to be the greatest issue 
facing mankind today is conducted behind closed doors with (very) 
voluminous interpretive reports being issued but with the data on 
which they are based 'not available' then it needs a few voices crying 
in the wilderness to wake up those who care to listen.

The cynic may wonder if the IPCC is hoping to create a political and 
action 'bow wave' with their conclusions prior to releasing the data. 
Or perhaps hoping that more processing or new data will help firm up 
the indications of statistical significance. Or ... ?

By all means, after ignoring anything I have said that is clearly 
"just" opinion, if I have said anything that is clearly or apparently 
non factual, point it out and I'll either show why you are wrong or 
alter my position. My ain is to know truth, not to manufacture my own 
version to combat IPCC's variety.



            Russell










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