Should we still apply the Sherlock Holmes dictum to climate change attribution?

Question

First, I'll recall for you the famous Sherlock Holmes dictum: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth."

This dictum has been applied to climate change attribution in many different forms. Basically, it is stated that unless one can find natural forcing(s) to explain recent warming, then it must be CO2 that is causing it.

However, a recent court ruling in the UK has rendered a judgement in a case which basically overturns the Holmes dictum for burden of proof. The reasons given by the court are outlined here:

"Lord Brandon rejected the 'Sherlock Holmes dictum', which runs to the effect that "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth", as a proper approach to causation for the following reasons:

1. it is open to the court to conclude that the party which bears the burden of proof has failed to discharge that burden;
2. the Sherlock Holmes dictum can only operate when all relevant facts are known; and
3. it is contrary to common sense for a judge to conclude that the occurrence of an event is extremely improbable but nevertheless find that the balance of probabilities test is satisfied (i.e. that the event was more likely to have occurred than not)." http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=471d7904-20d2-4fdb-a061-8d49b10de60d&l=7HVPC65

Most of the subjective determinations in the IPCC reports are based on Bayesian probability. (For example, see Box 1.1 here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html

Should the IPCC reconsider how it determines and delivers its assessments?

Answer 1

So, you are suggesting that unelected judges who have no scientific training should decide science for us. However, the Sherlock Holmes dictum does not apply to climate science, because there is nothing improbable about carbon dioxide being the cause of global warming. It is basic thermodynamics, as scientists have figured out over a century ago.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

Answer 2

It is how ALL scientific theory is developed. Once again you prove that you should stop your drivel because you haven't the slightest idea how science is advanced. The dictum comes from scientific discipline, Arthur Conan Doyle took it from science, not vice versa. When you studied construction of studies in college was that not the first principle you learned: the hypothesis can only be advanced by nullifying competing hypotheses?



Once again the hypothesis that deniers have poor education is supported.



In the particular UK civic case, a judge ruled that it does not apply in that case essentially because there were remaining probabilities of one of the other two possible outcomes -- they had not been eliminated a possibilities. So even if one wished to draw a scientific conclusion from one nation's civil law -- which would be stupid to start with -- one could not due it from this case. Note only is this a ridiculous confusing of scientific advancement with civil proceedings, it is also a poor reading of the judge's ruling based only on the judicial precedent is sets. Bad understanding of science plus bad understand of law.

Answer 3

I have posted this many times in the past. Studies and measurements show that the band above 700cm^-1, the edge of the band related to CO2 absorption that falls within the atmospheric window, is increasing energy retention. Along with this little fact there has been a measured increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you find something else that absorbs at the same frequencies as CO2 within the atmospheric window? And don't give me the old "Well it must be something we don't know about then"



At the same time as CO2 has been increasing atmospheric water vapour concentration has been increasing as well signifying a warming climate. Though some lines of water vapour do coincide with the absorption lines of CO2 they do not all do so and the entire band within the studies I've posted regarding CO2, that being over 700cm^-1, shows greater absorption.



If the current warming is not due to an increasing greenhouse effect please explain why nights are warming faster than days, why winters are warming faster than summers, and why the poles are warming faster than the equator.



If the increase in CO2 is not due to humans please explain how the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than they are emitting during a warming period. Please explain if you argue this assumption why human emissions at 33.5 billion tonnes per year are more than twice the atmospheric increase at roughly 15.6 billion tonnes per year. Just because you want to ignore the evidence does not mean it does not exist. What you are arguing is similar to arguing "If I take a knife and plunge it into someone's hand how do we know that the blood spurting out of that hand is due to the knife? It may be due to some other known or unknown phenomenon."



OM: See this is your downfall. Do you understand how science works? I can come up with alternatives to why the knife did not cause the blood. Of course they would most likely involve some invisible God-like being using his mind control techniques, invisible alien lasers or an unknown blood condition. This is exactly what you are trying to argue. If you are trying to draw a line between "the planet is warming" and "It must be mostly due to CO2" Then no, one should not come to that conclusion based on those two variables. However much more study has gone into this than just those two statements. Science deals with probabilities not absolute facts. If you want to call into question various chemical reactions because they may be caused by some invisible flying spaghetti monster then you go right ahead and do that. But that doesn't mean that the evidence pointing to those chemical reactions being true does not exist.



OM: I am well aware that you believe CO2 has increased temperatures 'somewhat and you can face palm yourself for thinking I meant otherwise. My response was regarding various types of 'denial arguments'. The fact is that we are actually measuring this. The fact is that CO2 is a forcing while water vapour is a feedback. Both are responsible for the increase in temperatures.

Answer 4

It’s clean international warming/climate replace is authentic. It’s the two clean the > contemporary < warming cycle has been happening because of fact the final ice age and that’s why the Sahara became grassland 10,000 years in the past yet is wasteland as we talk + has been wasteland for hundreds of years. the certainty the present warming trend all started long before there became any industry and while there have been infrequently any human beings is nice data people are no longer the reason. It additionally ability people are no longer the answer. The Earth is going with the aid of consistent climate replace cycles and has achieved so during its historic past. the precise mechanism isn't thoroughly understood yet seems to be concerning image voltaic activity and the axial tilt of the Earth because it orbits the solar - no longer human activity. observe that the Earth is outwardly on the top of the present warming cycle and can start up cooling quickly (“quickly” in geological words). all the carbon tax/carbon offset BS is in basic terms theft or extortion disguised as technological expertise. countries like China and India enjoyed the assumption of carbon taxes/carbon offsets – yet in straightforward terms while they might fake to be “undeveloped”. as quickly because it became talked approximately the two are undesirable polluters of > each and every form < they without warning weren’t so prepared on the assumption. in straightforward terms the international Left and countries like North Korea & Zimbabwe nevertheless love the assumption of carbon taxes. The Left loves the assumption because of fact they're committed to destroying the West customarily and the u . s . specifically. Getting the more advantageous international to break its very own commercial base is a few thing they want. Having the West concurrently provide loose guilt-money to countries like North Korea & Zimbabwe could in basic terms make it greater effectual. regrettably, scientific study has been compromised by making use of the politics of the placement. the educational community leans a ways to the Left, so researchers who “practice” human-brought about international warming (AGW) are rewarded with greater can provide, yet researchers who don’t “practice” AGW locate themselves cut back off. The politics of the problem are a difficulty because of fact we actually do could understand the way the Earth works if you desire to assume, assume, and regulate. We additionally could cut back unquestionably pollutants it relatively is poisoning our ecosystem, and countries like China & India shouldn’t get a loose holiday.

Answer 5

You have the wrong Holmes dictum. The relevant one is

"Be frank with me and we may do some good. Play tricks with me and I'll crush you."



You have been aping the anti-science trick-mongerers here for years, Mike.



Global warming IS counter-intuitive, and that is why it took many decades of intensive research to convince scientists (this all happened LONG before the hired fossil fuel industry liars you are aping had even HEARD of the subject), but in light of the massive scientific knowledge accumulated over the past decades, is it NOT improbable (that is an utter lie, and you know it, and it is far from the first one you have uttered here): In fact, it is VERY VERY probable.



The IPCC reports are huge, but it would not take as long to read them as the person-years you have ALREADY wasted here posting fake questions based on copy-cat deceptions denying that scientific reality.



Edit: What do you call someone who declares that he is not anti-Semitic and claims to believe that the Nazis were "at least partly responsible" for millions of Jews and other minorities being rounded up and killed in World War II, but spends his life copy-pasting from Holocaust denial blogs, in form of fake questions, and making endless false insinuations against 20th century historians?