4 ms·

It was 3,000 pages. The error cited here was the difference between "below sea level" and "prone to flooding". Even Knuth would be hard-pressed not to make an e

It was 3,000 pages. The error cited here was the difference between "below sea level" and "prone to flooding". Even Knuth would be hard-pressed not to make an error of that magnitude in a 3,000 page volume.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
So, rushed is what you're saying.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  No.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    So, a review would NOT have found the error? It was disguised in some way? It was not obvious? Simply being contained in a large document is not an excuse - a review includes multiple reviewers, each checking the accuracy of parts of the document. Given enough time, the error would be found, and in fact WAS found given a little more time - that's the point of the article after all.
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      Look guys, I know we're all in favor of the world admitting the obvious - global changes are here and mounting. But when this shoddy report is published to the world, rushed and badly reviewed, it does a disservice to all of us. I hate to be the messenger, but good intentions are NOT enough to change the world.
      - thaumaturgy 16y ago
        I will not argue with you over this, only point out that the majority here do not seem to agree that the report is "shoddy", "rushed", or "badly reviewed", and labeling it as such does not make it so. If the most "glaring" error that the AGW "skeptics" could find after sifting through a 3,000 page report with a fine-toothed comb is a difference between "prone to flooding" and "below sea level" -- and if that error was primarily the result of faulty government data, rather than primarily the result of faulty research methods -- then that's actually indicative of a really fucking solid report. The strategy among the "skeptics" here seems to be to find minor errors in this report, and then try to use those minor errors to cast a shadow over the rest of the report. What they don't want anybody to notice is that they aren't actually arguing with any of the conclusions of the report. Well, fortunately, people are noticing this, and calling them out for using this ridiculous tactic. So, go ahead and keep attacking it on those grounds, but you're not likely to convince many people here. The only thing that's being accomplished is to make the "skeptic" view look more and more absurd.
        JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        The report is launched into a political environment. Any errors, such as grossly misstating the economic impact of sea level etc, is guaranteed to be seized upon by greedy shortsighted folks (politicians) and used for political capital. That is also abundantly clear to everyone. If you insinuate I am somehow trying to convince anyone that global warming is wrong, your zeal is clouding your judgement - my simple remarks were directed simply at the unfortunate fact that the report was released before a review found the errors - which was what? a matter of weeks?

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

So, rushed is what you're saying.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
No.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  So, a review would NOT have found the error? It was disguised in some way? It was not obvious? Simply being contained in a large document is not an excuse - a review includes multiple reviewers, each checking the accuracy of parts of the document. Given enough time, the error would be found, and in fact WAS found given a little more time - that's the point of the article after all.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    Look guys, I know we're all in favor of the world admitting the obvious - global changes are here and mounting. But when this shoddy report is published to the world, rushed and badly reviewed, it does a disservice to all of us. I hate to be the messenger, but good intentions are NOT enough to change the world.
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      I will not argue with you over this, only point out that the majority here do not seem to agree that the report is "shoddy", "rushed", or "badly reviewed", and labeling it as such does not make it so. If the most "glaring" error that the AGW "skeptics" could find after sifting through a 3,000 page report with a fine-toothed comb is a difference between "prone to flooding" and "below sea level" -- and if that error was primarily the result of faulty government data, rather than primarily the result of faulty research methods -- then that's actually indicative of a really fucking solid report. The strategy among the "skeptics" here seems to be to find minor errors in this report, and then try to use those minor errors to cast a shadow over the rest of the report. What they don't want anybody to notice is that they aren't actually arguing with any of the conclusions of the report. Well, fortunately, people are noticing this, and calling them out for using this ridiculous tactic. So, go ahead and keep attacking it on those grounds, but you're not likely to convince many people here. The only thing that's being accomplished is to make the "skeptic" view look more and more absurd.
      - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        The report is launched into a political environment. Any errors, such as grossly misstating the economic impact of sea level etc, is guaranteed to be seized upon by greedy shortsighted folks (politicians) and used for political capital. That is also abundantly clear to everyone. If you insinuate I am somehow trying to convince anyone that global warming is wrong, your zeal is clouding your judgement - my simple remarks were directed simply at the unfortunate fact that the report was released before a review found the errors - which was what? a matter of weeks?