I'll get there.
Perhaps.
If/when I get time I want to spend time waffling on properly. If one 
is going to be torn to shreds by the shee..., er, peeples then one 
should at least choose one's own ground

But you are entirely able to arrive at the same conclusion yourself 
from the data that you and others have several times posted, plus an 
understanding of how engineers and scientists write things down, plus 
a consideration of the Footfall narrative, plus ... .

>From that source alone:
Tell me, son, this thesis data that you've submitted, does it meet the 
committee's criteria for statistical significance?.

It's very likely that it does, Sir.

But can you give me a figure, son.

Well, it's more than likely, sir.

Is that more very likely than likely?

Well, sir, when I rounded the data to one significant figures, then, 
yes, it was more very likely than likely. In fact when I rounded it to 
2 figures I got the same result.

Well, son, we're very likely to be getting somewhere then.
Do you think then, son, that it's more extremely likely than very 
likely?

Well, sir, when I rounded my data to some figures or other it did seem 
certain that it was very likely that was the best answer.

But, son, didn't you say somewhere in here that there was a 
significant ...

Ah, that was a slip of the tongue. Mere populist usage in an unguarded 
moment. You'll see that if you look at the subsequent amendments that 
in the few places where I previously said "significant" I've expressly 
gone through and changed the wording to some version of "likely". So 
no, sir, I don't now say anything about significance anywhere.


> 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)."

> All of which, I believe, means P=0.05

Definitely doesn't.

> or at least more certain than 0.1.

Taken at face value it might.
And should.
Taken at probable meaning it'sless certain.

Read my hamburger wager terms.

Questions to go on with.

1.    Given the following P values, based on IPCC literature, which 
one most properly represents the IPCC degree of certainty in their AGW 
premise, and how do you know.

    .01    .05    .1    .33    .5    .66    .9    .95

2.    Given your knowledge of how things work, within what range do 
you think the actual P value "extremely likelyly" lies.


> I hear you arguing that the IPCC is biased,

Actually no.
Just obstructionist.
They do the most biased science that they can get away with. But, we 
all do that.

> that they are not a consensus,

Even no to that.
They no doubt have a large majority of people "in their camp" 
regardless of why.
What they don't do is encourage others who oppose them or make it easy 
to see them.

> that there are a significant number of scientist who say P=0.1

Yep :-). The IPCC ones :-).


Anon.


        R

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