🚀 go-pugleaf

Surfer wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:35:05 +1100, Oy rool out a carbon tax
> <gillard_lies@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> Surfer wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:58:14 +1100, Oy rool out a carbon tax
>>> <gillard_lies@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Surfer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 1)    The IPCC data has been pretty well discredited, 
>>>>>>
>>>>> This error was reported.
>>>>>
>>>>> IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error
>>>>> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55455/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__IPCC_admits_Himalayan_glacier_error
>>>>>
>>>>> But its been found and corrected.
>>>> This in no way absolves the IPCC of its gross ineptitude and its total
>>>> discreditation in claiming to be "scientific". 
>>>>
>>> Your ranting isn't scientific.
>> You clearly have no understanding of science, if you can't see the
>> significance of the fundamental blunder of the IPCC. 
>>
> 
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pd
> "....a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the
> underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of
> rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan
> glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and
> well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC
> procedures, were not applied properly...."

Glad you quoted this. It shows what un unscientific body of blunderers
the IPCC is. It also shows that they themselves don't understand the
significance of quoting a 4-digit date for the disappearance of (even
one) glacier implies.

> One paragraph wrong in a 938-page document doesn't sound like a major
> issue.

This is only because you don't understand the significance of the error.
And this is because you don't understand the scientific method. Tell me
then, how should they have stated the correct date?

> And remember that IPCC documents are publically available, so any
> errors are likely to be pointed out sooner or later by someone with
> relevant knowledge.
> 
>> What are your scientific qualifications BTW?
>>
> Using Google to look things up :-)

Thought so. Try looking up accuracy and precision in scientific
measurement, then tell us how "scientific" the IPCC is.

-- 
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention:

Jan 2005 __________
Jul 2005 ________
Jan 2006 _________
Jul 2006 ______
Jan 2007 _____
Jul 2007 ____
Jan 2008 ____
Jul 2008 ___
Jan 2009 ___ Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________
Jan 2010 _________________
Jul 2010 ______________________________

Where to next?