Any prediction in science must be made with some numerical indication of the "confidence" in that prediction, such as the probability. A common way of stating the confidence in a prediction is like so:
"Our central estimates for CO2-attributable warming and cumulative emissions at 1990–99 relative to 1900–09 were 0.492 uC and 0.338 Tt C, respectively. We calculated a probability density function for CCR based on the probability distributions of the constituent terms, which we used to estimate the mean and the 5th and 95th percentile
http://www
It is known to all scientists that the above statements are predictions that using the authors' conceptual model, and if applicable, computer model, are used to make those predictions. Subsequent observation will either support or contradict the model. That is the PURPOSE of the paper: to describe the model AND to put the falsifiable prediction into the public domain in advance of the test of that prediction.
All science is open to the public in this way, the public just doesn't bother to pay the subscription fees, not that it stops them from whining about outcomes they don't like! Anyway, to claim that these predictions are false assertions of certainty is ignorant, or dishonest on the part of little research, who has a lot more research to do before he speaks up again.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment