> 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




>
> 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-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On 
> Behalf Of
> Zik Saleeba
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 20:28
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [EE]:: Global Warmimg - Al Gore
>
> On 10/15/07, Dr Skip <drskip@gmail.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
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> 

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