I want this thread closed down right now. Ray and I tried to keep this topic alive and failed. Those who were responsible for the closing of that thread should not be allowed to raise the topic again. I'm completely serious about this!
Alan
Alan,
Perhaps the discussion should be directed towards the fundamental requirements of the scientific methodology before a degree of certainty about an issue can be achieved, so that those who don't have a scientific background might learn something.
For example, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the significance of the DXOMark measurements regarding camera noise. However, those who possess a reasonable amount of scientific competence should be able to carry out their own tests, comparing different models of cameras, shooting the same scene under the same lighting conditions, then comparing the results. That's a relatively easy problem to solve.
However, whenever there is a huge number of variables that can have an effect, and relatively long time-spans are involved before a significant effect occurs, there has to be a degree of scientific uncertainty.
Those who create certainty in such circumstances are either delusional or have their own non-scientific agenda, in my opinion.
A good analogy, with similar complexity to the climate change issue, is the effect of factors such as diet, exercise and pharmaceutical drugs on human health.
We can be certain about the immediate effects of certain drugs because the effects can be observed within hours, days, or weeks. However, long term negative effects are much less certain.
Likewise with certain health foods, supplements, and herbs. Their beneficial effects can take many years before they become apparent, and even then one cannot be sure to what extent other factors in one's lifestyle have contributed to the effect.
For example, how does one determine with scientific certainty that taking Resveratrol supplements will prolong one's life? Experiment with short-life creatures such as mice?
Consider the continuing confusion about the benefits of excluding saturated fats from one's diet. In order to be scientifically certain about the issue one would need to conduct long-term experiments under controlled conditions, which is virtually impossible with humans. The closest we might get is to recruit a number of twins at an early age, and persuade them to lead, as far as possible, an identical lifestyle, with the exception that one of the twins eats a fat-free diet, and the other twin includes all natural, saturated fats in his/her diet, such as pure butter, full cream yoghurt and milk, grass-fed beef, coconut oil, and so on.
However, even with such a relatively controlled experiment, it would be necessary to ensure that the part of the diet of each twin which included either saturated fats, or fat-reduced food, contained the same calorific value, otherwise one of the twins could become overweight, which could affect the health outcomes, and introduce other variables. In other words, both twins would be eating the same amount of vegetables and other healthy foods, but the twin who included saturated fat in his diet might drink just half a bottle of full cream milk for every full bottle of fat-reduced milk drunk by the other twin.
If the thread is closed down, I would request that it not be removed, so that those with an inquiring mind might learn from my words of wisdom.