Warmists said to me "scientists say we have to act now", I say "Rubbish you don't act on 'scientists say' you only act on properly validated science"
"Pah, you want certainty ..and there is no certainty in science .. only confidence limits"
"Rubbish I say there is certainty if you define your terms correctly.. let me explain
Is there Never certainty ?
Well please name a properly validated science that turned out to be be wrong after time ?
But Published peer reviewed science is just opinion & can often turn out to be wrong .. that may have the confidence limits you speak of.
- astrology, divining, ulcers caused by stress' - never have been validated science, never been properly validated.
- 'stomach ulcers caused by bacteria' - science cos properly validated.
- Darwin's theory of evolution, yes validated for many specific circumstances, but possibly not 100% universally defined.
Refinement of existing science
Science says that X bacteria causes Ulcers, then you find that when you just take a tiny number of bacteria X it never causes ulcers. That doesn't invalidate your previous validation , it's just that you have to include that bacteria must reach the QUORUM trigger level before they can cause ulcers.
He probably meant to say
| "no certainty in complex science like climate science" or is thinking about theoretical science like theories or archaeology which is damm difficult to prove. Or though you can prove aspects of evolution by observing it in the lab.
The "It's accelerating" justication
, surely warmists have rowed back from that compelling stance. |
Anne Glover the Scottish gov scientist advisor who became the EU science advisor was on the radio.So I looked her up and the view here on BH was that she parotts Warmist Dogna cos she has taken the "authority says" excuse instead of bothering to read up properly.
- One claim she made a couple of years back is "We know it's accelerating" that is an inspire to action point. But surely no one can accept that these days, cos where is the evidence ? Most indicators like temp, ice, sea level, spring date, extreme weather are static, not in the accelerating band.
That seems to me a major change from the warmist position of a few years ago.
Belief Bias means people prefer scams
- people biased to believe rather than be skeptical, means selling scams is easier than selling sound advice.
Take now ..On this island 20% of the people are taken in by the pyramid scam business, do I spend time to explain to them , but their thanks to me is like 5% of the love they had for the scammers when they believed in it. And I have to do that as a public service, cos normal people don't pay you to stop them losing, they only pay you to help them win.
- One thing with my customers I was always saving them from scams, and research into that takes time. Now when you stop someone losing $2000 that is good for the customer.
but the stupid customers are more excited to pay some bad guy $2,000 who promises to make them $10,000 rather me who saves them the $2,000 by proving that guy was a scammer.
How does that apply to climate, they want to believe warmists' but not the skeptics. I think it is when they are given a story/narrative they have a bias in favour of believing rather than questioninginstead of starting out 50/50 in the middle. They believe
1. Warmists story
2. The Warmists story of warmists being big oil nutters
..so what's the warmists story ?
they will believe the scammers story
over the debunkers