= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Carbon dioxide, climate sensitivity, feedbacks, and the historical record: a cursory examination of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (11)
I would have to disagree with this. I'm sure you would agree that you need to be careful before concluding that a bunch of weak evidence, put together, adds up to strong evidence. The classic example is psychic phenomena. There is lots and lots of weak evidence of psychic phenomona; including (allegedly) controlled experiments.
In the case of climate research, there is a potential problem of systemic bias. As climategate revealed, many climate scientists are more than disinterested observers; they are advocates for a position.
By analogy, imagine if Uri Geller wanted to convince the world that psychic phenomena are real. If he had 1 or 2 pieces of really strong evidence, it might be convincing. But if he presented 100 pieces of weak evidence, you would correctly dismiss his argument.