J. Marshall Shepherd writes at CNN:
High profile legal cases like the O.J. Simpson or George Zimmerman trials have increased public understanding of “reasonable doubt.” Environmental Health News’ Peter Dykstra made a point that resonated with me. Science doesn’t operate on a “reasonable doubt” basis. If so, I suppose we would take our chances and not grab an umbrella because that 95% chance of rain is not 100%. Similarly, would most parents not take action because the pediatrician’s diagnosis has some uncertainty?
Statistical certainty values are not the same as likely-hood values, so the comparison is invalid. Not to mention that the IPPC certainty values are just a swag; there’s no real math backing them up. They could just as well be 5% in reality. If I thought my doctor was just making up numbers so that he could get more patients into his chemo program, then no, I would not let him treat my child.
Shepherd seems to have no idea what science is, nor does he have any awareness that evidence in science must take a statistical form that shows that a relationship has some reported statistical probability of the connection between two variable measures. This is pure drivel served up bu CNN as “expertise.” They believe the “scientists” without even bothering to ask them any pertinent questions about what their “evidence” is. It is utterly shocking. My fellow liberals, when will you wake up to this fraud perpetrated by environmental zealots masquerading as “scientists”?
I thought weather isn’t climate according to the warmists? A poor choice for an analogy coming from a global warming adherent. Unless of course, it’s the standard warmist caveat to “weather is not climate”*
*except when it helps our argument, but not when it doesn’t.