Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
Dark days ahead as Australia's Chief Scientist relies on falsehood and Trojan numbers.

Prof. Chubb: [...] With respect to this cooling stuff, I have seen the claim, but the evidence that I have seen is that the last decade has been the warmest decade that we have ever had on this planet, so I do not know what this cooling stuff means.

Mr HUSIC: Finally, do you think the government's carbon price legislation that has been put before us is
sufficiently based on the science around climate change?

Prof. Chubb: [...] There are some uncertainties in it—of course there are—but, as I said, if you are 95 per cent certain your house is going to burn down, what do you do? Nothing?

Mr HUSIC: Thanks, Professor.

Re: Dark days ahead as Australia's Chief Scientist relies on falsehood and Trojan numbers.

"95% certain that your house is going to burn down?"

This should probably say

"If you are 95% certain that you want your house to burn down!"

Re: Dark days ahead as Australia's Chief Scientist relies on falsehood and Trojan numbers.

It is impossible to be 95% certain of anything. You are either certain of it, certain that it is untrue, or uncertain.

One can talk of being '95% confident' but a more accurate phrase would be "I estimate the probability of this to be .95 [or 95%]"

Re: Dark days ahead as Australia's Chief Scientist relies on falsehood and Trojan numbers.

They can be 95% certain of the results;but,what if the data used is not accurate?

Most disease studies use data from death certificuts and about 30% of the death certificuts give the wrong cause of death as verified by autopsy.