Says Poirot who links and links and links and hasn't got a clue about any of it.

We'll see what Agro comes back with. In the meantime why don't you toddle down the back and check how the rest of the pixies are going.

For anyone who's interested, here's an enlightening article by Michael Mann on Richard Muller - whom Mann perceives as something akin to a white knight on a Trojan horse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/michael-mann-richard-muller_b_4313508.html

Gave me another perspective on Muller, who it appears was only ever playing "catch-up" anyway.

(I predict cohenite will give Mann the shortest shrift of the two:)

Dear Poirot.

The climate scientists predicted on Thursday that Sydney would be fine and sunny on Saturday. I just looked out my window and it is pouring with rain.

LEGO,
You must have scientific evidence to prove you saw it raining and that is was raining!

Once again cohenite has offered a wealth of misinformation.
The guidelines quoted by cohenite, and attributed to the IAC were in fact taken from the IPCC's own guidelines (written 2005, or 5 years prior to the IAC report);

Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note_ar4.pdf

NOTE; The IAC DID NOT “provide(d) a stats 101 primer for the different types of "uncertainty"; they merely reproduced an Excerpt of the IPCC's own guidelines.
It should also be noted, cohenite's (mis) quote:
"[The IPCC should] be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident in it”
Was also taken from the same Notes for AR4 (written 5 years before the IAC report):

"6. Be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident in it [3]. Views and estimates can also become anchored on previous versions or values to a greater extent than is justified. Recognize when individual views are adjusting as a result of group interactions and allow adequate time for such changes in viewpoint to be reviewed."

Were you being deliberately misleading, cohenite, or just sloppy? This is a classic example of typical denialist strategy; misquotes, poor use of sources and use of highly questionable sources.

Crap Grim; I get sick of being called a liar by the hounds of AGW.

In respect of Uncertainty this is a list of the IAC conclusions about the IPCC reports:

Uncertainty: Many conclusions of AR4 were based upon little or no evidence, and were not traceable to the underlying science if it existed.
•Unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature was used in violation of even the weak procedure then existent and was almost never appropriately flagged.
•There was no traceability in the assignment of ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood.
•Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) were used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes when there was insufficient evidence i.e exaggeration
•The confidence scale was used to assign subjective probabilities to ill-defined outcomes.
•Formal expert elicitation procedures were not used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.
•Inappropriate use of unpublished and non-peer reviewed material which has not been critically evaluated compounds the uncertainty of any conclusions.
•High confidence was attributed on little evidence and to vague statements.
•Many statements have weak evidentiary basis.
•Conclusions were stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute.
•Authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence.
•Anonymous unsubstantiated ratings are worthless.
•WG2 SPM assigned high confidence on little evidence.

All are referenced to parts of the IAC report; for instance this one:

•Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) were used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes when there was insufficient evidence i.e exaggeration

Can be referenced to recommendation 11 on page 40 of the IAC report here:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf

Of course the IAC used bits and pieces of past IPCC reports; that is what it was evaluating!

The only ones doing the misleading here and anywhere the scam of AGW is being discussed are the AGW groupies like Grim.