Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

It looks remarkably like discussing changing some (out of context) wording from "remarkably well" to "within estimated uncertainties". ie the opposite of what you suggest

 

So you'd agree that they are adding a qualifying remark to their report.

[truman]

It looks remarkably like discussing changing some (out of context) wording from "remarkably well" to "within estimated uncertainties". ie the opposite of what you suggest

 

Wouldn't it be more honest to say "the data fits the model except for this 300 year period and we don't know why" Instead of making it sound like it all follows the model...?

[nightrider]

What is an estimated uncertainty?

 

you do not measure x=5, you always measure x=5+-y so all you can say is x lies in the range:

 

5-y -> 5+y

 

and y is your "estimated uncertainty"

[nightrider]

It looks remarkably like discussing changing some (out of context) wording from "remarkably well" to "within estimated uncertainties". ie the opposite of what you suggest

 

but they clearly state it does NOT lie within the uncertainties for a 300 year period. So it is pretty misleading to actually say it is (though anyone would see this if they publish the graph I guess).

[truman]

you do not measure x=5, you always measure x=5+-y so all you can say is x lies in the range:

 

5-y -> 5+y

 

and y is your "estimated uncertainty"

 

Well to me that's a tolerance...?

[convert]

Well to me that's a tolerance...?

 

No a tolerance is usually quite small in relation to the prime factor, and uncertainty factor can be much larger relative to the data it refers to.

[truman]

No a tolerance is usually quite small in relation to the prime factor, and uncertainty factor can be much larger relative to the data it refers to.

 

fair enough..

[splodgeyAl]

What is an estimated uncertainty?

I'd imagine an estimate of how much one dataset varies from another

 

So you'd agree that they are adding a qualifying remark to their report.

Yes

 

Wouldn't it be more honest to say "the data fits the model except for this 300 year period and we don't know why" Instead of making it sound like it all follows the model...?

I didn't read the discussed change as sounding like it fits. Do we know what wording actually appeared in the report? This is one email from what looks like an on-going discussion.

 

but they clearly state it does NOT lie within the uncertainties for a 300 year period. So it is pretty misleading to actually say it is (though anyone would see this if they publish the graph I guess).

They say it doesn't fit without the estimated uncertainty.

[Greybeard]

It doesn't matter what posters to this forum think - the 'powers' that control our lives and that section of the media in thrall to them will have their way on this issue. The 'science' has convinced the politicians and convinced politicians are unable to contemplate they might have been misled by expert opinion, especially when they've paid good money (our money) for that expert opinion.

 

And the issue itself will probably not be resolved for another ten years when trends can be reviewed, hopefully by an international team of scientists working with publicly available data and no secret agenda.

 

Meanwhile the taxpayers of the West will have been forced to cough up billions to hand to third world régimes to stash away in their Swiss bank accounts.

[truman]

 

Meanwhile the taxpayers of the West will have been forced to cough up billions to hand to third world régimes

 

And this is what it's all about folks...redistribution....