onsdagen den 7:e juli 2010

Muir Russell: IPCC Conclusions Not Based on Science

Sir Muir Russell summarizes his CRU inquiry as follows:
  • This was not about forming a view on the content or quality of the scientific work and the conclusions drawn by CRU.
  • We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
Let's subject these statements to a logical mathematical analysis:
  • (1) The scientific work was not an issue.
  • (2) The conclusions of the IPCC assessments were not undermined.
Combining (1) and (2) we conclude that what Muir Russell effectively says is:
  • IPCC conclusions are not based on scientific work.
Seems correct.

3 kommentarer:

  1. Welcome to IPCC logical analysis. Here's another:

    1 All our conclusions are based on models
    2 We haven't validated the models and don't even know how to validate or determine confidence levels
    3 We are "over 90% confident" in results from the models

    Claes, I just posted the latest G&T paper if you haven't seen it:


  2. Yes, logic can be useful.

    But how is it possible that an English Sir (probably Lord after the suceessful review) does not understand simple logic? Would be interesting to hear an explanation from the Sir himself. How do you alert him to
    what he is saying? I guess he does not read blogs?

  3. Because "climate change" is a new-age dogma outside the realm of logic