Originally Posted by Botnst
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?
This is why we let the climate experts assess the data and make the predictions as they have been doing for the past 30+ years. They tend to understand the logic behind the science and the ramifications. We, on the other hand, at best choose the best experts we can find, read, learn and draw our conclusions [and by extension our votes] from that. At worst we hide or try to obfuscate the issues, minimizing the threat and hoping it will go away [sorta like the Permaglacier in Greenland]
They have assessed the data and made the predictions. They have explained the logic behind the science, now it is just time for us to act, not play more parlor games.
Some of the public has been paying attention for over 25 years. Some of us have been doing stuff for 25 years. Solar and windmill sound small but I am only on the grid 20% of the local average. Many others are too. Cars converting to alternative fuels has been gaining ground [soy, hemp, recycled cooking oil]. It does not sound like much but 25 years of small changes have finally started paying off. In Kentucky, clean coal is a term that would never have been used if it had not been for environmental protests in the 1970's. Lead would still be in fuel if protests of its dangers had not started in the 60's.
You have to be impressed when the group of scientists hired by the Republican controlled Congress to 'slow down' the environmental claims of other climate reports comes back and says [broadly paraphrasing] "yep, they were right." and the Congress had the balls to release the report.