Main Page Contact Register Log In

So what is the correct way for a non-climatologist to form an opinion on the GW issue?

I'd recommend considering that it is not science. In the same sense that you wouldn't think of political science as science.
For example, if polysci professors were convinced that a 0.5% increase in say "democratic anarchists" would increase say "income inequality" by 3% over the next few decades - you probably wouldn't take them too seriously. How could the model be so refined? Do they really have enough examples to model something with so many parameters?

Note: democratic anarchist and income inequality were selected just for the example. I don't think there is any connection.

How about economics? I'd consider that in the same boat, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see someone throwing around precise numbers like that.

I guess it's just a result of having precise models. As long as you have the numbers, you might as well throw them around, regardless of how approximate and misleading they are.
Replies (1)