Climate change being a big issue right now. I hear a lot about science deniers some of these science deniers are educated bright people. In the area of climate are statistical comparisons more accurate or better to work with than science that uses modeling to predict long term weather outcomes. I have no idea how developed this science is yet but I don’t feel confident in the reports I have seen.
I’m not sure what distinction you’re making. The models are based on the statistics. You calibrate the models based on what we’ve already seen, and then you use them to predict what we’ll see later. What else could the models be based on, and how could one use the statistics absent the models?
I know they are using statistics but I also thought they were calculating things like mass and how much heat things would hold and then tying in air currents and water currents, things like that are what I don’t trust as much. they seem like they are always getting better but still have a ways to go.
Yes this is known as computational physics and forms the backbone of all engineered products such as cars, airplanes, rockets, etc. Your lack of trust may be misplaced.
Science always starts with an observational theory based on a statistical preponderance of associated events. Apples released from trees nearly always went down. Hmmm.
There is always room for the school of thought that coincidence isn’t necessarily causation. As in the proposition that the moon is more important than the sun, because it gives us light at night, while the sun only shines in the daytime.