Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ok....I guess you dont want to focus on solutions until its 100% certain but would rather keep rehashing your concern about how a model was used 30 years ago.
|
I make decisions and judgments on less than 100% certainty. I just found the information you posted humerus given some of the past exchanges on the Iraq war and the level of certainty concerning WMD, for example.
Everyone is missing the point on the model used in '71 and how new information lead to new conclusions. Consider it dropped from my point of view.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
In science, you never reach 100% certainty. There is always doubt that the effect you have discovered is not real. Most sciences have an agreed upon level of doubt which they accept. In my field (Psychology) that doubt (also called "alpha") is usually acceptable if it is less that 5 %. If alpha is less that 5%, we call the effect statistically significant.
|
Is that level of error acceptable in all forms of science? Of course not, there is not always doubt.
In your field how did they determine that <5% statistically significant rather than 0? Probably because there are unknown variables that can not be controlled for in every circumstance. As this concept applies to climate models, there are also variables that cannot be controlled for and 90% certainty may be as good as it can get, I understand that. But, the earth may be like one of those patients that doesn't respond the way normal modeling would predict. And we may still be in the relative dark-ages when it comes to understanding climate change on this planet.