On 8/1/2021 11:42 PM, raymond....@gmail.com
>> On 8/1/2021 8:13 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 00:47:53 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
>>> Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
>> You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
> How do know that that is all he has read about? And besides which, the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.
The statistical evaluation of a model produces a point estimate and a confidence interval around that point. So a model might suggest the climate change will end life on earth in, say, 200 years, with a confidence interval of x standard deviations. A model might say, for example that it is 95% confident that the life will end from climate change within 50 and 1000 years from now, with a point estimate of 475 years. Not a ver precise estimate. You need to know the precision with which the estimates are made to know how much confidence to have in the results.
>> You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.
> How has he said it wrong?
He said "It gives is various models." What is "it?" The data? That's wrong. You develop a theoretical model and test it using data. Data do not provide or produce the model.
>>> What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.
>> Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.
> No translation was needed.
I know. It was obvious.
>>> So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........
>> Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.
> Sadly true. But the more intelligent ones, and those who are not mere shills for business, will make them based upon the best scientific advice.
Of course they will. No one is arguing that. Not believing or questioning a statement made by scientist or a group of scientists is not "denying science," no matter how many times the accusation is made.
> Ray Hall, Taree