The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Scientific certainty in an uncertain world > Comments

Scientific certainty in an uncertain world : Comments

By Kellie Tranter, published 24/3/2010

Scientists aren’t scare-mongering when, almost unanimously, they describe the challenges we face with climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Dear Kellie,

Your opening remark regarding the so called “precautionary principal” betrays a lack of understanding of “decision theory.” In any diagnostic situation one is challenged as where to locate the threshold level. One side of the threshold the test is positive, the other negative. Every test or battery of tests has four possible outcomes namely: true positive, false positive (FP), true negative, false negative (FN). Judgment is required in setting the FP and TN rates so as to maximise the pay-off. Increase the FP and automatically the FN deceases, or vice versa.

It is clear that you regard the threat of irreversible damage as so serious as to justify an exorbitant high FP rate for fear of that you may miss a positive call. In other words call every test for climate change positive, your FN rate will be zero, but your test will have no predictive value. Do you not care about the monetary and economic costs (including opportunity cost of spending money in more useful ways) of a FP result?

You refer to decision making by a court of law. My understanding is that in civil cases on 51% certainty is required (balance of probabilities) well in most scientific work the level for statistical significance is set at lease at 95%.

There is not space here to discuss the theory of causality in science. However, it could be argued that the seven criteria given in your paper do not meet the criteria given by the late statistician Sir Austin Bradford Hill.

In any case your phrase, “…isn’t there a common sense general argument in support of action……” To re- use your quote from the writings Leah Ceccarelli; your claim is but “sophisticated sophistry.”
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 5:34:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antigreen. There are liars, damned liars and statisticians.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 9:28:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the AGW community starts calling on us to apply the standards of legal proof, it's a pretty clear sign that they are losing the debate. How many people are unjustly sentenced every day; how many are stitched up by overeager police forces and prosecutors; how many evade justice with clever lawyers or simple perjury? Are we to have judges like Mr. Einfeld tell us what CO2 levels are acceptable, I wonder?

Remember the old legal saying: "If you don't have facts, attack the evidence. If you don't have evidence, attack the witness.". The AGW crowd seem to have internalised that fairly thoroughly by now.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 25 March 2010 5:53:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The evidence is all out there. It has been accumulating for the past 200 odd years.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 25 March 2010 6:40:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU - you want to be very clear; are you talking about the evidence for climate change which has been accumulating because climate change is occuring.. or are you talking about evidence that human industrial activity is in some way connected to climate change, the evidence for which - such as it is - has been falling apart? The debate is often entirely confused on that point. AGWers think that the sceptics are denying climate change itself, when the point has never really been the subject of debate - the earth has warmed slightly, that's obvious - the argument has always been over what is/has caused the change.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:31:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Scientists aren’t scare-mongering when, almost unanimously in both numbers and disciplines, they describe the challenges we will face with an average global temperature' decrease and we have another ice age.

It was not long ago that the majority of scientist preached this dogma along with many others that have slipped the notice of anyone who has survived the latest brainwashing fad. Be sure in twenty years time we will have another 'consensus'.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:41:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy