Posted by Howard Lewis on 23/07/2023 13:18:30:
With Baz and Duncan in not wanting to someting unkown.
Winston Churchill said "There are liars, damn liars and statisticians"
Statistics can be presented in any way that supports the view that you wish to promote.
At work, we described such tactics as "weasel words"
"Have you stopped beating your wife"? Either you used to, or that you still do.
Howard
The video makes uncomfortable viewing for those who disbelieve in Climate Change or think fossil fuels are the only way of meeting energy needs. What they said 19 years ago about renewables is now clearly wrong.
Wrong about climate too. Since Kyoto in 1992, no evidence has emerged suggesting Climate Change isn't happening, or that Fossil fuels are innocent. And in the same period no significantly large new sources of fossil fuels have been identified anywhere in the world. Instead, all the evidence that has emerged – lots of it – is consistent with man-made climate change. Including a build up of temperature readings showing that global heating is proceeding faster than predicted.
Putting it bluntly, the figures strongly suggest the scientific consensus is right and climate deniers are wrong, wrong, wrong.
I'm afraid announcing 'Winston Churchill said "There are liars, damn liars and statisticians"' won't wash. Even if Churchill had said it, and he didn't, then the premise is wrong. Whilst true that false claims supported by massaged numbers are popular with advertisers and politicians, this does not mean that all statistics are false or misleading. Far from it!
Statistics is a branch of mathematics where both working and data can be, and should be, checked. Although rarely done by shoppers or voters, checking is a routine part of the scientific process. When science agrees statistics are valid, they are much more trustworthy than man-in-pub assessments.
The statistics relating to climate change can't be dismissed with a catch-phrase. Not good enough. When statistics are suspected of being wrong, the mistakes in the data, and/or logic have identified. In contrast, opinion, beliefs, conspiracy theories, previous experience and 'common sense' that don't bother with evidence, or make it up, are all valueless. Dismissing statistics as an entire discipline is wrong.
Why do people chose to believe nonsense in the face of evidence? Many reasons, none of 'em good I fear: Ignorance, embarrassment, lack of imagination, vested interest, stubbornness, pride, short-term advantage, wishful thinking, consequences too big or scary to comprehend, or small-c conservatism.
Maybe deniers just haven't twigged that energy policy that made sense in 1970 won't work in 2070. History suggests change is ongoing, whatever grandad thinks: energy in 1970 was very different to energy in 1870, and 1870 was nothing like 1770.
Truth is mankind has always had to face challenges and adapt to circumstances. We are no different and the game will be going on long after we are dead, and all our notions dust. In the meantime, the best moves in the game are made after identifying trends, not by fighting change on the assumption that nothing needs fixing.
If anyone wants to disagree with me, please explain what's actually wrong with the data and logic of a specific climate change statistic. No points awarded for claiming all statistics are untrustworthy because statistics are sometime deliberately used to mislead. It's the liars who can't be trusted, not a checkable scientific endeavour supported by checkable mathematics.
I vote for following the evidence, not fact-free opinion.
Dave
Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 23/07/2023 17:06:20