Registered On: December 24, 2013
“The sooner you realise that not everyone sees everything you say to be some great gospel truth in this the better.”
I don’t expect anyone to think anything that I say is the gospel truth, BRI. None of that alters the fact that if scientists — any scientist in any field — is going to make predictions using a computer model then you have to make it very clear what the errors are, ie the confidence intervals, of the calculations.
Climate scientists NEVER do this and for one extremely “good” reason. Quite simply the variables and errors involved in these models are such that the confidence interval would be so low as to render the predictions invalid.
The other very simple fact is that if you’re going to base predictions on anything other than a computer model then you need to say so. The problem here, of course, is that without some form of statistical/mathematical framework, i.e. computer model, the only prediction you can make is general, e.g. it’s likely the earth will continue to warm for the next 20 to 50 years.
The irony, of course, is that I would entirely agree with such a prediction. But it’s hardly the basis for spending trillions and trillions of dollars because there wouldn’t be enough evidence to justify doing so. The climate scientists — and politicians — need something that’s far more concrete and alarming enough to “justify” their claims.
I can tell you with 99.999999999999999999999% certainty that not building the Cumbrian mine won’t make a scrap of difference to climate change. It will, however, with 100% certainty deprive what I believe would be more than 2,000 people of a job.