A diet of daily assertions that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are a big deal, isn’t evidence of anything.
– – –
A paper published today shows that attempts to blame extreme weather on human-caused global warming are “overconfident and probably wrong”, says The Global Warming Policy Forum.
The paper, by statistician and philosopher of science Dr William M Briggs, reveals that mainstream attribution science is beset by flaws of reasoning, modelling and data.
Dr Briggs points out that most attribution claims are based around comparing simulations of the climate today to simulations of the climate as it might have been without human activity. But as he explains, this approach has a fundamental problem:
We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity. Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like.”
And Dr Briggs also points out that even if we did know, it would still not be enough.
In order to attribute individual weather events to humankind, scientists need a perfect model of the climate. They do not have this. Therefore, claims that we are responsible for any particular weather event are at best overconfident, if not plain wrong.”
Claims made in so-called climate change event attribution
studies suffer from gross over-certainties and cannot be
trusted. The techniques used in these studies are in their
infancy and do not warrant the trust put into them. These
studies assume either (a) perfect forecasting models, or
(b) known, uncertainty-free causes of climate change.
Neither condition holds. Because of this, attribution claims
are far too certain or are wrong. They should not be used
in any policy decisions.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
April 14, 2021 at 03:42AM