SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
JWD
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 1st, 2007, 4:46 pm

The nine ‘errors’ in Al Gore’s excellent movie were NOT declared to be scientifically wrong by the judge, only inconsistent with the scientific consensus in the IPCC reports ppauper’s post of Thu Nov 22, 07 03:28 PM contains the usual contrarian strategy of nitpicking and implication of false generalization. The right-wing contrarians want us to forget that the judge said that Al Gore’s film is “broadly accurate” and “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact”. Contrarians like ppauper naturally IGNORE that dominant assessment, and instead want to trick us into believing that the film is just a “pack of lies” by focusing on the nine ‘errors’. Now these nine ‘errors’ [NOTE THE QUOTATION MARKS used by the judge] were NOT judged as “scientifically wrong” by the judge. Indeed he explicitly refused to do any such thing, except for saying that these nine points in the film “may” have been in [real scientific] error. The so-called ‘errors’ were merely those nine points in the film that were, in his judgment, different from the consensus science in the IPCC reports. Specifically the judge said:… It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions… All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report……a new Guidance Note has now been produced which the Defendant proposes to include in the pack, and which, to my satisfaction, addresses all of the above 9 'errors', both by drawing specific attention to where Mr Gore may be in error and/or in any event where he deviates from the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report…Polar bears and the IPCC report Now the judge, while doing his best, obviously couldn’t read the totality of the 3,000 pages of the IPCC reports (nor could the lawyers), and this no doubt impacted his designation of the ‘errors’. Moreover his criteria for ‘errors’ were very narrow. Let’s take polar bears, the subject of one of the ‘errors’. The film presented bears drowning, for which the judge estimated had limited evidence. But drowning is only one way that bears are impacted by global warming. Whether a bear drowns or starves is irrelevant to the dead bear. Here is a quote directly from the 2007 IPCC Vol. II Impacts full report showing that polar bears are – yes indeed – likely to be seriously impacted by the reduction in sea ice:Changing climatic conditions in Arctic and sub-Arctic oceans are driving changes in the biodiversity, distribution and productivity of marine biota, most obviously through the reduction of sea ice…This reduction is likely to seriously impact other predators, e.g….polar bears (Ursus maritimus), dependent on sea ice for feeding and breeding (see Chapter 4, Box 4.3; Sakshaug et al., 1994)…For more on the judge’s decision see RealClimate (ref). For the latest reports on climate change and polar bears, see the usgs.gov reference.Refs:Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Vol. II, AR4, IPCC, Ch. 15 Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic), Sect. 15.4.3.2, Likely general effects of a warming ocean climate, Page 668.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -untruths/ http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/ ---------
Last edited by JWD on November 30th, 2007, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 4th, 2007, 10:53 am

QuotePoor countries appeal for help in fighting climate changePosted Mon Dec 3, 2007 9:09pm PST NUSA DUA, Indonesia (AFP) - Representatives from some of the world's poorest nations Tuesday appealed for help in dealing with crippling floods, droughts and other extreme weather caused by climate change.As nearly 190 countries gathered on Indonesia's resort island of Bali to try and hammer out a roadmap for creating a fresh pact to combat global warming, poor countries said any new deal must give them more money."Financially we do not have enough to adapt to the impact," said Thy Sum, a conference delegate from Cambodia's Climate Change Office."We need to call on the rich countries to provide meaningful financial and technical support to cope with climate change."A landmark paper by the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said earlier this year that while industrialised countries are largely to blame for global warming, least developed nations will suffer most.The group of scientists warned that damage to the Earth's weather systems this century will doom poor countries to worse hunger, water stress and damage from violent storms, droughts and floods.Such dire consequences are already being felt in some countries, experts said here."What we are experiencing in Bangladesh is exactly what the climate change scientists are predicting," said Mozaharul Alam, from the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies.Bangladesh saw at least 3,400 people killed in a cyclone last month, with hundreds more missing feared dead and 360,000 left homeless.Relief agency Oxfam said that current levels of aid to poor nations to deal with climate change are "an insult", and said poor countries needed 50 billion dollars a year to adapt to global warming."We believe the rich and the most polluting countries should pay the vast share of that money," said Oxfam campaigner Charlotte Sterrett.For Ursula Rakova, an activist from the low-lying Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea, the need is immediate.Rising sea levels are forcing island residents out of their homes and on to the mainland where food, medicine and education need to be paid for."Our atolls are shrinking, the population is getting bigger. We don't have any land anymore," she said at a press conference on the sidelines of the Bali meeting, which runs until December 11.Delegates aim to agree on an agenda for negotiations for a new pact to come into effect when the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.Nice new climate change website.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 4th, 2007, 2:15 pm

Hanukka candles cause global warming
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 4th, 2007, 2:30 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: JWDThe nine ‘errors’ in Al Gore’s excellent movie were NOT declared to be scientifically wrong by the judge, only inconsistent with the scientific consensus in the IPCC reports That statement by mrs dash is untrue.Period.In his ruling, MR JUSTICE BURTON stated:QuoteThere are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports. i.e. algore's shameful propaganda film was declared to be both scientifically wrong and at times to depart from the self-declared ``consensus'' For example:Quote2. Error 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. In other words, algore is presenting as fact things which have not happened.QuoteError 15: Death of polar bears.In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description. In other words, algore invented the study he is citing.
 
User avatar
JWD
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 5th, 2007, 2:45 am

Distortion of the judgment of Al Gore’s excellent movie An Inconvenient Truth (AIT)ppauper’s post of Dec 04, 07 03:30 PM contains blatant distortions. The the nine ‘errors’ [NOTE THE QUOTES] were NOT judged as literal scientific errors, since the judge refused to analyze scientific questions at all, but rather in reference to deviation from the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report and the evidence presented by the defending expert witness Dr. Stott. Here is what the judge said in this regard with paragraph numbers from the judgement (ref): 23. … It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions… 23…All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report…37. … where he deviates from the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report…. Note that the word ‘error’ above is in QUOTES. These ‘quote’ marks are the JUDGE’s notation to indicate that the nine ‘errors’ are NOT being judged as literal scientific errors, but only in reference to the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report. The judge was also careful in Sect. 37: … where Mr Gore may be in error…This is also evident from the judge’s discussions (Sect. 24-33) of seven of the nine ‘errors’ which contain these clauses: …not in line with the scientific consensus…According to the IPCC…there is general scientific agreement…the scientific consensus is…it is generally accepted that…It is common ground that…The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report…. The other two ‘errors’, cherry picked by ppauper in his post, are unique in not containing such clauses.The sentence recorded by ppauper only describes the judges definition of the word error (without quotes) as departing …from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports. Sect 19 is also clear: …errors, or departures from the mainstream… Direct distortions of the judgment by ppauperppauper’s post directly distorted the judgement, which it claimed to QUOTE, but the post FAILED (on purpose) to include the quotation marks on the word ‘errors’ contained in the judgment (Sect. 24-33). Again, the ‘quotation marks’ were put there by the JUDGE, because (as he said) the judge was NOT analyzing the scientific questions, but rather referring to the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report. Of course ppauper completely distorted the judgment of the entire film by calling it a shameful propaganda film and neglecting (on purpose) to mention the JUDGE’S main description of the scientific content of the film (Sects. 17.i): * I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear: i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact…Finally, RealClimate and others have persuasively argued that these nine ‘errors’ were not scientific errors (refs). Refs:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /2288.html RealClimate on the nine ‘errors’:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -untruths/ See also:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-che ... gor_1.html Deltoid: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10 ... _thing.php ----------
Last edited by JWD on December 4th, 2007, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053
 
User avatar
JWD
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 5th, 2007, 12:57 pm

A bear lie In reference to 'Error' 15: Death of polar bears, ppauper’s post on Tue Dec 04, 07 03:30 PM contains the following incorrect statement: In other words, algore invented the study he is citing.Here is the study:http://www.springerlink.com/content/p235r60mu4878820/ Charles Monnett and Jeffrey S. GleasonAbstract During aerial surveys in September 1987–2003, a total of 315 live polar bears were observed with 12 (3.8%) animals in open water, defined for purposes of this analysis as marine waters >2 km north of the Alaska Beaufort Sea coastline or associated barrier islands. No polar bear carcasses were observed. During aerial surveys in early September, 2004, 55 polar bears (Ursus maritimus) were seen, 51 were alive and of those 10 (19.9%) were in open water. In addition, four polar bear carcasses were seen floating in open water and had, presumably, drowned. Average distance from land and pack ice edge for live polar bears swimming in open water in 2004 (n=10) were 8.3±3.0 and 177.4±5.1 km, respectively. We speculate that mortalities due to offshore swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) years may be an important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming. We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.There are plenty of other studies that show global warming is putting stress on polar bears – and in addition to many other species. Again, it hardly matters to a dead bear whether it dies of starvation or drowning.-----------
Last edited by JWD on December 4th, 2007, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 5th, 2007, 2:33 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: JWD A bear lie In reference to 'Error' 15: Death of polar bears, ppauper’s post on Tue Dec 04, 07 03:30 PM contains the following incorrect statement: In other words, algore invented the study he is citing.Here is the study:http://www.springerlink.com/content/p235r60mu4878820/ ARE YOU RETARDED ? DID YOU NOT READ MY POST OR THE JUDGEMENT ?I saidQuoteQuoteError 15: Death of polar bears.In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description. In other words, algore invented the study he is citing.The study you linked is the one the judge referred to which the judge said did not support algore's description.So it is a ``bear lie'' by algore and also by mrs dashQuoteThere are plenty of other studies that show global warming is putting stress on polar bearsthen why did not algore's lawyers present then to the judge when asked ?
 
User avatar
JWD
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 5th, 2007, 3:54 pm

The Bear Facts ppauper is increasingly standing on thin ice with respect to the judgment of Al Gore’s excellent movie An Inconvenient Truth AIT, whose overall scientific content the judge praised by saying * I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear: i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact…Now ppauper is obsessed with polar bears. On Sat Dec 01, 07 05:46 PM, I posted the following information about polar bears in the IPCC report, which ppauper in the usual style of his nitpicking distorted contrarian mindset is ignoring:Polar bears and the IPCC report Now the judge, while doing his best, obviously couldn’t read the totality of the 3,000 pages of the IPCC reports (nor could the lawyers), and this no doubt impacted his designation of the ‘errors’. Moreover his criteria for ‘errors’ were very narrow. Let’s take polar bears, the subject of one of the ‘errors’. The film presented bears drowning, for which the judge estimated had limited evidence. But drowning is only one way that bears are impacted by global warming. Whether a bear drowns or starves is irrelevant to the dead bear. Here is a quote directly from the 2007 IPCC Vol. II Impacts full report showing that polar bears are – yes indeed – likely to be seriously impacted by the reduction in sea ice:Changing climatic conditions in Arctic and sub-Arctic oceans are driving changes in the biodiversity, distribution and productivity of marine biota, most obviously through the reduction of sea ice…This reduction is likely to seriously impact other predators, e.g….polar bears (Ursus maritimus), dependent on sea ice for feeding and breeding (see Chapter 4, Box 4.3; Sakshaug et al., 1994)…For more on the judge’s decision see RealClimate (ref). For the latest reports on climate change and polar bears, see the usgs.gov reference.Refs:Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Vol. II, AR4, IPCC, Ch. 15 Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic), Sect. 15.4.3.2, Likely general effects of a warming ocean climate, Page 668.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -untruths/ http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/ ---------
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13477
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 5th, 2007, 10:57 pm

Polar bears amuse me, they are my "favorite animal." But I don't give a fuck if every one of them dies. It's called individual tastes and preferences.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13477
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 5th, 2007, 11:14 pm

I don't care much for sheep either, the kind of sheep who think they give a fuck about a polar bear just because some sucker told them they should.
 
User avatar
Alan
Posts: 10209
Joined: December 19th, 2001, 4:01 am
Location: California
Contact:

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 5th, 2007, 11:26 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: JWDThe Bear Facts ppauper is increasingly standing on thin ice with respect to the judgment of Al Gore’s excellent movie An Inconvenient Truth AIT, whose overall scientific content the judge praised by saying * I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear: i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact…Now ppauper is obsessed with polar bears. On Sat Dec 01, 07 05:46 PM, I posted the following information about polar bears in the IPCC report, which ppauper in the usual style of his nitpicking distorted contrarian mindset is ignoring:Polar bears and the IPCC report Now the judge, while doing his best, obviously couldn’t read the totality of the 3,000 pages of the IPCC reports (nor could the lawyers), and this no doubt impacted his designation of the ‘errors’. Moreover his criteria for ‘errors’ were very narrow. Let’s take polar bears, the subject of one of the ‘errors’. The film presented bears drowning, for which the judge estimated had limited evidence. But drowning is only one way that bears are impacted by global warming. Whether a bear drowns or starves is irrelevant to the dead bear. Here is a quote directly from the 2007 IPCC Vol. II Impacts full report showing that polar bears are – yes indeed – likely to be seriously impacted by the reduction in sea ice:Changing climatic conditions in Arctic and sub-Arctic oceans are driving changes in the biodiversity, distribution and productivity of marine biota, most obviously through the reduction of sea ice…This reduction is likely to seriously impact other predators, e.g….polar bears (Ursus maritimus), dependent on sea ice for feeding and breeding (see Chapter 4, Box 4.3; Sakshaug et al., 1994)…For more on the judge’s decision see RealClimate (ref). For the latest reports on climate change and polar bears, see the usgs.gov reference.Refs:Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Vol. II, AR4, IPCC, Ch. 15 Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic), Sect. 15.4.3.2, Likely general effects of a warming ocean climate, Page 668.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -untruths/ http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/ ---------From an interesting site about the Northwest passageMakes one wonder: how did the polar bears ever make it through this earlier warming period that is implied by the graphics?
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 6th, 2007, 2:01 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: AlanFrom an interesting site about the Northwest passageMakes one wonder: how did the polar bears ever make it through this earlier warming period that is implied by the graphics?lol !
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 6th, 2007, 2:02 pm

Environmentalists sue to block wind farm they kill the liddle tweedy boirds
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 6th, 2007, 2:24 pm

We've been through this with mrs dash before (see eg the incident where she had another user's posts deleted and claimed that it was because they were pornographic).Once again, mrs dash is caught in a lie and hubris kicks in and she refuses to admit it.QuoteOriginally posted by: JWDIt is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact…and again, I've repeatedly said that the judge did not quantify "substantially" and that the same statement could be made about star trek.according to my Merriam-Webster,"substantially" means>>being largely but not wholly that which is specified You seem to be taking that to mean 100% based upon scientific research and fact: that is clearly not the case as the judge would have used "entirely" or "completely" rather than "substantially".It could mean 51% based upon scientific research and fact: as stated, the judge did not quantify it.algore has produced a science fiction film painting a doomsday scenarioQuotePolar bears and the IPCC report Now the judge, while doing his best, obviously couldn’t read the totality of the 3,000 pages of the IPCC reports (nor could the lawyers), and this no doubt impacted his designation of the ‘errors’.That's disingenuous and irrelevant.In his scaremongering science fiction film, algore said: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The judge asked his lawyers to produce the study which algore claimed to be citing. They couldn't because algore made it up. QuoteMoreover his criteria for ‘errors’ were very narrow.indeed, this nit-picking judge used the criterion that they be demonstrably false. Some of them, algore appears to have simply made up.In dashland and goreland, things that are demonstrably false but further one's political agenda are considered neither errors nor lies. QuoteThe film presented bears drowning, for which the judge estimated had limited evidenceno, the judge ruled that algore's side had ZERO evidence for what algore claimed:algore: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." Not "limited evidence", ZERO evidence
 
User avatar
JWD
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Uh-oh another climate change thread...

December 6th, 2007, 4:44 pm

More distortionsppauper is having hallucinations about Al Gore’s excellent movie, about which the judge said (17.i): the AIT is “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact” . The conclusion from ppauper that AIT is a “science fiction film” is absurd. With an appropriate guidance note, the judge approved the film for showing in the schools and dismissed the case against the film. Polar bears are – yes indeed – being harmed by global warming Now, as the judge was using consistency with the IPCC reports as the standard against which the film was being measured, it is EVIDENT that neither side found the reference in the Impacts IPCC volume II report that I quoted before. There is, as I now reflect, an excellent explanation for that. This IPCC report apparently and unfortunately was not available at the time of the trial; the only IPCC reports quoted in the testimony are volumes I, III; I believe that volume II was published later. It is evident at least to me that had he seen it, this evidence would logically have changed the judge’s opinion. Here is the quote again, Changing climatic conditions in Arctic and sub-Arctic oceans are driving changes in the biodiversity, distribution and productivity of marine biota, most obviously through the reduction of sea ice…This reduction is likely to seriously impact other predators, e.g….polar bears (Ursus maritimus), dependent on sea ice for feeding and breeding (see Chapter 4, Box 4.3; Sakshaug et al., 1994)…Finally, the reference below that I just found says: the amount of Arctic sea ice has decreased, bears are now seen swimming unusually far off shore, 4 bears were seen drowned (probably caught in a storm), and MANY OTHER bears have likely similarly drowned. SWIMMING IS ASSOCIATED WITH EXTENSIVE OPEN WATER & MAY LEAD TO DEATHS During September 2004 an unusual number of bears were seen swimming offshore (10 of 51(20%) versus 12 of 315 (4%) in 1986-2003). Following an abrupt windstorm (below), 4 dead bears were seen floating far offshore (versus 0 in all previous years). Those bears are believed to have drowned as a result of the storm. The survey has about 10% coverage so it is likely that many other bears also drowned but were not seen.The film’s statement is very similar: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." Perhaps Gore was using this reference? Guess the lawyers didn’t find this one. Bottom line It is without question that the contrarians like ppauper are nit-picking these small points in an effort to discredit this excellent and popular film, because their strategy is to prevent mitigation efforts to combat the increasingly evident serious potential impacts of global warming.Refs:Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Vol. II, AR4, IPCC, Ch. 15 Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic), Sect. 15.4.3.2, Likely general effects of a warming ocean climate, Page 668.http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ess/Poster%20 ... ec2005.pdf.------------
Last edited by JWD on December 6th, 2007, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On