- 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.
Inlägg
Welcome to IPCC logical analysis. Here's another:
SvaraRadera1 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:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/paper-change-in-concentration-of-any.html
Yes, logic can be useful.
SvaraRaderaBut 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?
Because "climate change" is a new-age dogma outside the realm of logic
SvaraRadera