If Dr Curry's scientific position is «there is a considerable amount of uncertainty, therefore we should at least be able to draw some boundaries around them before pushing for
a consensus on certainty» (I hope my paraphrase is close to the mark), then advocating for a change in the process of conducting climate science follows logically.
Not exact matches
From there, they inferred the
consensus temperature change and the degree of
certainty about the change, Cressie, the author of two books
on spatial statistics, told LiveScience in an email.
In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report stated a clear expert
consensus that: «It is extremely likely [defined as 95 - 100 %
certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human - caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»
As we have pointed out before, in 1992, the «
consensus» was characterised very differently to today, and the UNFCCC agreements proceeded not
on the basis of scientific evidence and
certainty, but according to the precautionary principle.
There is no one
consensus on just how soon they'll occur, and how bad they'll be, because science, not being in the business of making prophecies, is not able to say with absolute
certainty just what's going to happen in the future.
Penetrating both the pretense that the
consensus arguments are «all about the science,» and the exaggerated claims of
certainty, is a great service, regardless of where one sits
on the political spectrum.
I see it happen often when some «skeptics» misrepresent the «
certainty» of the «
consensus» perspective
on AGW.
Given the acknowledged uncertainties and limitations expressed in the title, it is hard to believe that the graph showcased in the paper would later become the poster child of
certainty for a scientific
consensus on global warming — but it would become just that.
As to your fifth point,
on what basis do you conclude with
certainty that AGW
consensus has taken
on a «religious» status.
Recent arguments dominating the public discussion
on climate change seem to have been about the «scientific
consensus» achieving
certainty, rather than advising caution in the face of doubt.
The theme of the conference, «Restoring the Scientific Method,» acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific
certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based
on «post-normal science,» which substitutes claims of
consensus for the scientific method.
The theme of the conference was «Restoring the Scientific Method,» and based
on the premise that «claims of scientific
certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based
on «post-normal science,» which substitutes claims of
consensus for the scientific method.»
The ECJ approach neglects the negative effects
on fundamental principles built by a national constitutional
consensus and enshrined in the Constitutions, such as legal
certainty in criminal matters (v.g. the Taricco case) and to that constitutional courts can not look the other way.