re: #644 RogueOne

You cannot say, logically… “We don’t have all the information and we don’t fully understand all the information we do have” and then say “We’re 95% certain one input is the cause of all the warming”. That doesn’t make sense.

Well, actually, that would be wrong. You can logically say that you can’t be 100% certain because you don’t have all the information, but you have enough information to be 95% certain.

But getting past that - (although Ludwig says differently) from what I’ve seen the IPCC is saying that there is something on the order of 90% certainty that CO2 emissions are 51% likely to be causing anomalous warming. I don’t think that any climate scientists are claiming 100% certainty here - so the question I would have is whether your argument there is a straw man?

en.wikipedia.org