In an earlier post we discussed how Duke University scientists in 2005
announced the sun is responsible for "at least" 30% of global warming
(up from the 25% predicted by the IPCC 2001 report).

In this post I would like to discuss the IPCC 2001 report conclusion
that the rise of greenhouse gases is "likely" responsible for the rise
in the rate of warming.

Specifically, the converse of the IPCC 2001 report stated (footnotes on
pp. 1, 6, 8, 13) that it is 33% *UNLIKELY* that the rise in greenhouse
gases has caused global warming.

How do we come up with this figure? Easy: the IPCC said that "likely"
is defined as the probability falling between 66-90%. As any student of
statistics knows or should know (Roger pay attention this is directed
to you), each and every point between a statistical range such as the
above is EQUALLY PROBABLE to be true. Thus when a study says
temperatures will rise by 1.5C - 5C (for example) when CO2 levels
double means temperatures can just as easily rise 1.5C as they can rise
5C (or anything inbetween). You cannot pick one endpoint as more
probable than the other.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the IPCC 2001 report is saying that it
is 33% _UNLIKELY_ that greenhouse gases cause global warming (with
whatever degree of confidence level they chose, probably 95%
confidence).

That there is a 1 in 3 chance that Ray Lopez, not Roger Coppock, is
right.

Think about that you eco-freaks of nature.

RL

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
In an earlier post we discussed how Duke University scientists in 2005
announced the sun is responsible for "at least" 30% of global warming
(up from the 25% predicted by the IPCC 2001 report).

This is just Loopey "I am a troll" Ray repeating one of his latest lies:
the study says 10-30% and can be seen he
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf

The rest of the same old idiocy in a new box snipped with no need for
comment.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Just like Bill O'Reilly - when caught in a lie, keep on lying.

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
In an earlier post we discussed how Duke University scientists in 2005
announced the sun is responsible for "at least" 30% of global warming
(up from the 25% predicted by the IPCC 2001 report).

In this post I would like to discuss the IPCC 2001 report conclusion
that the rise of greenhouse gases is "likely" responsible for the rise
in the rate of warming.

Specifically, the converse of the IPCC 2001 report stated (footnotes on
pp. 1, 6, 8, 13) that it is 33% *UNLIKELY* that the rise in greenhouse
gases has caused global warming.

How do we come up with this figure? Easy: the IPCC said that "likely"
is defined as the probability falling between 66-90%. As any student of
statistics knows or should know (Roger pay attention this is directed
to you), each and every point between a statistical range such as the
above is EQUALLY PROBABLE to be true. Thus when a study says
temperatures will rise by 1.5C - 5C (for example) when CO2 levels
double means temperatures can just as easily rise 1.5C as they can rise
5C (or anything inbetween). You cannot pick one endpoint as more
probable than the other.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the IPCC 2001 report is saying that it
is 33% _UNLIKELY_ that greenhouse gases cause global warming (with
whatever degree of confidence level they chose, probably 95%
confidence).

That there is a 1 in 3 chance that Ray Lopez, not Roger Coppock, is
right.

Think about that you eco-freaks of nature.

RL

Rewriting the IPCC documents now, are we, Loopy?

It's not too late to admit all your past lies and get
some of your creditability back. That would be the
honest thing, which is not what fossil fools can do.

There's a rumor that if a fossil fool ever tells the
truth, his gonads fall off. It seems to be true,
because most oil industry flunkies have trouble
relating to the opposite sex: almost 40-something and
living at home unmarried. I'm sure you know the
type.

Most fossil fool fibbers can't come clean so they change
their on-line handle and continue lying until that new
name has no creditability, too. We've got some trolls
here who have used up at least half-a-dozen names. I
wouldn't follow their careers, Ray, they're a bunch of
losers.

dan wrote:
Just like Bill O'Reilly - when caught in a lie, keep on lying.

A propagandist follows different rules from a scientist. Here, the term
"propagandist" is not necessarily pejorative. The propagandist could be
an advertiser, a political candidate, or any number of others whose goal
is to promote and persuade, rather than to engage in debate.

The three cardinal rules of the propagandist a

1. Keep repeating your message.
2. When challenged, see Rule #1.
3. When conclusively proven wrong, see Rule #1.

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
In an earlier post we discussed how Duke University scientists in 2005
announced the sun is responsible for "at least" 30% of global warming
(up from the 25% predicted by the IPCC 2001 report).

In this post I would like to discuss the IPCC 2001 report conclusion
that the rise of greenhouse gases is "likely" responsible for the rise
in the rate of warming.

Specifically, the converse of the IPCC 2001 report stated (footnotes on
pp. 1, 6, 8, 13) that it is 33% *UNLIKELY* that the rise in greenhouse
gases has caused global warming.

How do we come up with this figure? Easy: the IPCC said that "likely"
is defined as the probability falling between 66-90%. As any student of
statistics knows or should know (Roger pay attention this is directed
to you), each and every point between a statistical range such as the
above is EQUALLY PROBABLE to be true. Thus when a study says
temperatures will rise by 1.5C - 5C (for example) when CO2 levels
double means temperatures can just as easily rise 1.5C as they can rise
5C (or anything inbetween). You cannot pick one endpoint as more
probable than the other.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the IPCC 2001 report is saying that it
is 33% _UNLIKELY_ that greenhouse gases cause global warming (with
whatever degree of confidence level they chose, probably 95%
confidence).

That there is a 1 in 3 chance that Ray Lopez, not Roger Coppock, is
right.

Think about that you eco-freaks of nature.

RL


RL,
And none of the regulars could disprove you! just call you names. That shows
EXACTLY where they stand. Smear and discredit the messenger rather than deal
with the COLD hard FACTS.

Clifford

"Clifford" wrote in message
news:0edEf.13515$Ix.5493@trnddc07...

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
In an earlier post we discussed how Duke University scientists in 2005
announced the sun is responsible for "at least" 30% of global warming
(up from the 25% predicted by the IPCC 2001 report).

In this post I would like to discuss the IPCC 2001 report conclusion
that the rise of greenhouse gases is "likely" responsible for the rise
in the rate of warming.

Specifically, the converse of the IPCC 2001 report stated (footnotes on
pp. 1, 6, 8, 13) that it is 33% *UNLIKELY* that the rise in greenhouse
gases has caused global warming.

How do we come up with this figure? Easy: the IPCC said that "likely"
is defined as the probability falling between 66-90%. As any student of
statistics knows or should know (Roger pay attention this is directed
to you), each and every point between a statistical range such as the
above is EQUALLY PROBABLE to be true. Thus when a study says
temperatures will rise by 1.5C - 5C (for example) when CO2 levels
double means temperatures can just as easily rise 1.5C as they can rise
5C (or anything inbetween). You cannot pick one endpoint as more
probable than the other.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the IPCC 2001 report is saying that it
is 33% _UNLIKELY_ that greenhouse gases cause global warming (with
whatever degree of confidence level they chose, probably 95%
confidence).

That there is a 1 in 3 chance that Ray Lopez, not Roger Coppock, is
right.

Think about that you eco-freaks of nature.

RL


RL,
And none of the regulars could disprove you! just call you names. That
shows EXACTLY where they stand. Smear and discredit the messenger rather
than deal with the COLD hard FACTS.

You got us. We better call Greenpeace and tell them the charade is over...

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

"Raymond Arritt" wrote in message
news:b3dEf.769588$xm3.274476@attbi_s21...
dan wrote:
Just like Bill O'Reilly - when caught in a lie, keep on lying.

A propagandist follows different rules from a scientist. Here, the term
"propagandist" is not necessarily pejorative. The propagandist could be
an advertiser, a political candidate, or any number of others whose goal
is to promote and persuade, rather than to engage in debate.

The three cardinal rules of the propagandist a

1. Keep repeating your message.
2. When challenged, see Rule #1.
3. When conclusively proven wrong, see Rule #1.

Yep, that's loopy all right. And O'Reilly as well.

In article ,
"dan" wrote:
"Raymond Arritt" wrote in message
news:b3dEf.769588$xm3.274476@attbi_s21...
dan wrote:
Just like Bill O'Reilly - when caught in a lie, keep on lying.

A propagandist follows different rules from a scientist. Here, the term
"propagandist" is not necessarily pejorative. The propagandist could be
an advertiser, a political candidate, or any number of others whose goal
is to promote and persuade, rather than to engage in debate.

The three cardinal rules of the propagandist a

1. Keep repeating your message.
2. When challenged, see Rule #1.
3. When conclusively proven wrong, see Rule #1.

Yep, that's loopy all right. And O'Reilly as well.


Still, O'Reilly's a paragon of virtue compared to Hannity.

In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
Right you are again Clifford. Truth is, there is absolutely nothing
controversial about my post--it is exactly as stated by the IPCC--many
people don't realize that a range from X to Y means X is just as
probably as Y--there is no need to pick either endpoint as 'more'

No, but if the data is normally distributed, the center is more probable than
the extremes.

probable than the other. I could have just as easily said "IPCC 2001:
Greenhouse gas warming 10% UNLIKELY", which would have been an
_equally_ valid statement.

Or "existence of atoms 0.00000000001% unlikely."


In other words we have a 1-in-3 (best) case
or 1-in-10 (worse) case that there is no anthropogenic global warming,

That's not what the statistics mean.

according to the (biased) IPCC, with a (typical) 95% confidence. Yet
another reason not to panic over GW.

As for the regulars here--they are polemicists like myself but with one
critical difference--I have stated I am a 'useful troll', that I have
an open mind about GW (I doubt it is real, but I am open to
suggestion), and agree that for policy reasons we should tax gasoline
to encourage transition faster to nuclear, solar and clean coal and the
like. By contrast, my critics, RC, CB, LP, Dan etc (mostly
non-scientists, typical is CB--who I think is a girl) are rabid eco-nut
fanatics--on-line cyber eco-terrorists, who have a "cult-like"
mentality, refusing to consider alternative scenarios.

We believe in the power of science; you believe in the power of Tinkerbell.


The only mantra
they chant, like the Buddha worshipping RC, is "The IPCC said AGW=GW so
we must stop all human activity (and roll over and die)". This
nihilism is popular in Asian religions and cults, and resonates with
these Neo-Club of Rome doomsdayers.

Small wonder the 'real world' has all but forgetten about GW after a
few years in the spotlight. And once a recession hits, it will be
forgotten faster. Shame, because if presented intelligently, a good
case can be made that we need to think about (not necessarily act, just
think about) transitioning out of fossil fuels--and GW is a good
'excuse' to do this (the actual impact of GW remains to be seen, and
many reports indeed say the USA will do better with a small temperature
increase). Nuclear (fission then fusion) is the obvious choice over
fossil fuels. But post "3 Mile Island" nuclear is (wrongly) taboo in
the US, so perhaps GW is a good Trojan Horse to reintroduce America to
the benefits of nuclear, as the French already know. We will wait and
see. One thing is for sure--it's much too early to act just yet.

Cheers,
RL



Clifford wrote:

RL,
And none of the regulars could disprove you! just call you names. That
shows
EXACTLY where they stand. Smear and discredit the messenger rather than
deal
with the COLD hard FACTS.

Clifford