Certainty: Newt, Tebow and Higgs

For a second time, I return to Botkins’ writing in the WSJ: “Certainty is NOT scientific”. I quote: ” One of the changes among scientists in this century is the increasing number who believe that one can have complete and certain knowledge. For example, Michael J. Mumma, a NASA senior scientist who has led teams searching for evidence of life on Mars, was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “Based on evidence, what we do have is, unequivocally, the conditions for the emergence of life were present on Mars—period, end of story.”  “This belief in absolute certainty is fundamentally what has bothered me about the scientific debate over global warming in the 21st century, and I am hoping it will not characterize the discussions at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, currently under way.”

 Mummas’ certainty is unwarranted unless NASA has more data than what they publish (not so crazy an idea), and Botkins’ claim regarding “absolute certainty”  about non-humankinds’ causality on climate change is pigheaded. At least, or worst, warming and climate change are 74 % humanmade (unless CO2 forcing is less than assumed: that is, climate sensitivity, the expected rise of 3.3 C foe every doubling of atmospheric CO2 may be less) by lower estimates. Even if it was 1, 2 or 3% human contribution, it should be enough to induce behavioural changes from the personal to the social, which is truly impossible in the USA. For example, any attempts to create more public transportation, a really good thing to check fossil fuel emissions, are met with collective  insanity. In fact, high speed energy efficient trains are considered  a betrayal of the american psyche and possibly unconstitutional, according to the GOP. NASA and the LHC stretch their sigmas of verosimilitud (plausibilty).

What is the certainty that Newt will be the GOP candidate? Decent,  if we trust polls (3.5 sigmas) . But the certainty that his ass gets whupped by Obama is even better certain (in excess of 4 sigmas). Im ok in this aspect of truth. However, his poor show against Obama in a runoff,  may shoot Mitt pass Newt. I predicted this months ago (I mean Obama winning by a long shot).

What is the certainty that TT will do a tebowing before during and after the games? Very certain (7 sigmas). What is the certainty that it will drive atheists crazy? 6 sigmas.

How certain is the Higgs? A definite maybe, as In the Dark claims (this is so good) (between 2 and 4 sigmas skewed to 2)


Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: