Hvis din læge var en kvaksalver?

Diverse, Klima — Drokles on September 27, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Det er næsten ubærligt så meget vrøvl, der bliver væltet ud med FNs Klimapanels længe og med spænding ventede ca. 7 årlige rapport blev offentliggjort i Stockholm, hvor de sidste formuleringer også var forhandlet på plads. Ja, forhandlet, men mere om det senere. Connie Hedegaard kom med den slidteste af slidte klicheer ifølge Danmarks Radio

- Den dag hvor alle forskere er 100 procent enige om at advare mod klimaforandringer, så er det for sent. Hvis din læge er 95 procent sikker på, at du har en alvorlig sygdom, vil du med det samme lede efter en kur.

- Hvorfor tage større risici, når det er vores planets helbred, der er på spil, spørger Connie Hedegaard.

Det er ubærligt at en jernbanekonstruktør fylder en klimakommisær med så mange dumheder at hun til sidst tror at planeten har et helbred. Men las os se på patientens tal

screen-shot-2013-09-23-at-10-41-45-am

0916graphic

article-2294560-18b8846f000005dc-184_634x4272

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-03-13-kl-1158202

Patienten er så rask, som patienten altid har været, så hvorfor er lægerne så 95% enige om det modsatte? , hvad skal de have solgt (det er et retorisk spørgsmål). Judith Curry spekulerer også i de 95% sikkerhed, men hun havde den glæde at der faktisk var en journalist, der også undrede sig og spurgte hende

Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number.  Here is the exchange that I had with him:

Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 n 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?
.
JC: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors.  The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain.  How they can justify this is beyond me.
.
Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” ”Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.”  Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.
.
JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.
.
Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?
.
JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on.  All this has never been documented.
.
JC conclusion: Well, I have no idea what goes on in the sausage factory.  95% – take it with a grain of salt (or a stiff whiskey).  That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.  Uncertain T. Monster is not happy.

Donna Laframboise ved desværre godt hvad der foregår på pølsefabrikken kan man læse på No Frakking Concensus.

At the meeting, one sentence after another has been projected onto large screens. Diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians from dozens of UN nations have haggled, horse traded, and negotiated. Eventually, phrasing that everyone can live with has been agreed upon. Then they’ve moved on to the next sentence.

The meeting is closed to the public. It is closed to the media. No minutes are kept.

(…)

In 2010, IPCC insiders answered a questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a collection of the world’s science academies). Their anonymized answers paint an unflattering picture of these meetings.

First, here are some general impressions. The remarks appearing below are all direct quotes:

I suspect that…anyone who has not been involved in this process would scarcely believe how this meeting is managed; the expense, the length of the sessions, and the apparent pickiness of some of the discussion would strike many as a very poor way to conduct international business. (p. 114)

this was an agonizing, frustrating process, as every sentence had to be wordsmithed on a screen in front of representatives of more than 100 governments, falling farther and farther beyond a realistic schedule by the hour. In Brussels in 2007, the process ran all night on the two final days. (p. 334)

…I have observed the behaviour of the delegations from individual countries which certainly reflects a completely different mindset than my own as a scientist. The political intrigues which appear to be well known on the international scene are popping up again and again… (p. 43, a few typos edited out)

In my experience the summary for policy makers tends to be more of a political process than one of scientific précis. (p. 278)

This is a pure political process… (p. 373)

De er 95% enige fordi de har forhandlet sig frem til at det vil de gerne være fordi det lyder federe end kun de oprindelige 90%, der tyede på en svag usikkerhed og knap så selvsmagende som 100% der lyder som skråsikkerhed. Der er altid fare på færde når din læge forlanger alle dine penge for at kurere dig for en sygdom ingen kan se eller mærke.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress