Hi New Judge, I’m willing to end the discussion, but it you end with an attack, then of course you must expect me to respond.
First, the issue of burden of proof. //This has nothing to do with the "burden of proof" in legal matters. There are two: "the balance of probabilities" (or "more likely to be true than not") has nothing to do with confidence limits and is not relevant to this discussion. //
In this we also disagree. It is about how we determine “truth” You take issue with my assertion that the anthropogenic nature of climate change is “true”
The difference is, I suspect that we are using different criteria to determine “true”.
My take on this is that the 95% confidence test is the right test. In this the whole scientific community agrees with me, and that test is far more rigorous and robust than the tests used in the legal profession
You appear to think that if there is a mathematical possibility that the proposition is slightly flawed, then it cannot be claimed as true. To me, this looks like a legal stunt.
There is a mathematical possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow. There is a mathematical possibility that Brighton and Hove Albion will win the FA Cup this year.
Yet no-one would argue – if I claimed that the sun will rise tomorrow– that my claim is untrue.
The question is more about the size of probability that these propositions are false than any absolutist criteria. In all fields of human endeavour, we have to find a technique to deal with conflicting and confusing information.
In the world of lawyers (you will know more about this than me) that path is found through precedent, courtroom theatricals; speed of thought and huge intellect.
I have no doubt that your intellect is far greater than mine, and I would never seek to suggest that you are incapable of destroying people like me in the courtroom.
And in all honesty, I think that is what is going on here. You appear to be adopting a policy of requiring that ‘truth’ is defined by absolute certainty with no room for even mathematical uncertainty.
As we both know, the world does not work like that. No-one in the professional world could make any progress if that were the criterion for truth.
My argument is that the whole scientific community accepts the statistical nature of scientific truth and have mathematical techniques to evaluate the uncertainties. Those techniques are far more robust than in any other field of human endeavour.
Furthermore, as I noted earlier, anyone is free to challenge the data and the statistical analyses. I know of no reseach in any credible scientific journal that has successfully challenged the established reality that anthropogenic climate change is true.
I am sure you can find articles by Nigel Lawson, Vaclav Klaus and other ill-informed, biased commentators that are designed to confuse the issue and pull in the gullible and foolish, but those are not on the same level as the science.
Oh, and while you claim to understand statistical analysis, I think it is clear that you do not. I’m not going to get into that detail here, but perhaps you would like to remind yourself by reading the text:
https://stattrek.com/estimation/confidence-interval.aspx
In the end, I have presented research supported by well over 99% of climate scientists and published in leading journals such as “Science” and “Nature”
You have presented some assertions and courtroom antics, and no evidence whatsoever.
I fear that in this case your deep-held prejudices have got in the way of your impartiality.
Like you, I am happy to leave it here, but I suspect that will not be the outcome.