Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Well if Hillary says so, it must be true.
Look, as a planet, we don't have nearly enough data (from a time/trending standpoint) to make any definitive claims regarding global warming or the consequences thereof. Only small parts of the globe have been tracking climatological data with even the slightest accuracy, and even then, it's been less than 100 years in the making. In most of the midwestern US, the record high temperatures date back to the 1900's - 1910's - the dust bowl days.
The bottom line is this - the earth is a very big, very complicated mechanism. We don't understand it for squat. We have vast ecosystems dependent on greenhouse gasses to survive. Things GROW in a greenhouse...they thrive, in fact. The earth does a remarkable job of healing itself, it just moves far too slow for alarmists and academians' comfort.
Looking at a 50 or 100-year upward trend in temperatures in parts of the world and claiming that factories and automobiles must be shut down is like looking at CPU utilization on a server going up for a couple of milliseconds and saying "woop! it's getting busy! at this rate, it'll crash! turn it off!".
Nobody in the world is well-enough equipped to make a factual statement regarding whether or not global warming is in fact caused by factors within our control as humans, nor what effects global warming will have on the planet long-term. There are too many unknown variables at play - anyone who thinks they have them all is a quack. Until it's a matter of fact, it's simply a matter of competing opinions.
At what confidence level would you suggest that politicians and the general public begin paying attention? Say, 50%? In other words, if the predictions have a 50-50 chance of being right, is that sufficient?
Here's one way to evaluate the outcomes.
If the warming thing is wrong and we spend trillions of dollars reducing CO2, CFC and other emissions what would have we gained or lost?
Conversely, if the warming prediction is correct and we spend trillions of dollars to reduce the emmissions, what have we gained or lost?
What at some other thresholds, say 25% and 75% confidences? I'll bet that the curves would have different convexities for each of us but in all cases it will be leptokurtic and skewed to the upper CI. What do you think?
I think that by doing this kind of napkin-and-beer estimation you (we, I) can get a grasp on when we believe the it would be appropriate ot be alarmed and what the various outcomes would be.
This would be an interesting resampling problem to submit to a Stella analysis. Anybody have Stella? I used it back when it was Mac only but haven't used it in years. Golly, over a decade?