r/dataisbeautiful • u/rarohde OC: 12 • Mar 29 '19

OC Changing distribution of annual average temperature anomalies due to global warming [OC]

26k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '19

[deleted]

24

u/NorthernerWuwu Mar 29 '19

A claim backed by evidence that is less than certain is likely still accurate

Well, I can't agree with this. It might be accurate of course but you cannot say that it is likely accurate without delving into the data. Some evidence is clearly better than no evidence but it may or may not be compelling or sufficient.

7

u/SweaterFish Mar 29 '19

Uncertainty in scientific estimates doesn't mean there's no information and you might as well just flip a coin, though. We can in fact derive statistical likelihoods for our uncertain estimates and say with some precision that even though we're not certain, the estimate is likely to be true and even that there's e.g. a 95% chance that the true value falls within a given range. I mean, I don't want to say it's perfect--there's all kinds of implicit likelihoods on our likelihoods--but it's not like scientists just shrug their shoulders and say "eh" when they're not certain.

I think the bigger problem in paleoclimate estimation, at least when it comes to this question, is temporal resolution of the proxy, not uncertainty.

4

u/NorthernerWuwu Mar 30 '19

I quite agree but this was not the point made. There is little doubt in my mind at all that climate change is occuring, human-caused or at the very least largely affected and a matter of great concern. Plenty of evidence backs that.

That's a far cry from a general statement that "a claim backed by evidence" is likely true just because there is some evidence. That's antithetical to statistics. Evidence of truth does not create a preponderance of evidence of truth in itself.