Oh please... The vast vast majority of deniers are science illiterate fools! They aren't the least bit interested in information that comes outside their own echo chambers.
It's hard to believe a tech website is floating with so many ignoramuses.
How in the hell do people believe this is a valid argument?
It's like saying,
3+ 2 = 5, and then saying 3+1 also equals 5. As if cutting 2 in half doesn't count....
I don't think I'm different than anyone else. I haven't time to become an oceanographer or climatologist. I sat in on a lecture about the photo-chemistry of carbon emissions. But I understand probability and statistics, I understand scientific method and data-gathering, and I understand that if there was a day four years ago when average temperatures were higher than historical averages all over the world but in three places including my own local region, it is my perception and the temperatures in those three areas (It was Shanghai, Santiago Chile, and So-Cal) which are "outliers".
First we had Katrina. Then we had Sandy. And now we have world-wide weather patterns that are bizarre. We had wildfires all over Texas a few years ago, and fire damage all over the West over the last several years.
So for your armchair non-scientist, you'd think this small sample of events would lead to a suspicion that human-induced climate change is real.
In other words, if there is no certainty about anything, then high probabilities of something are worthy of acceptance and action.
So getting back to the topic anticipating this weekend storm above Greenland, if someone has concern about "probabilistic uncertainty," I'd say the short-term uncertainty of interest involves this storm. There's no big likelihood that the storm forecast will prove incorrect. So what damage will it do? This week's unraveling storms have already done enough.
