[Osx-nutters] Denial

[David Cake]

At 5:28 PM +0100 15/8/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>On 2007-Aug-15, at 17:06, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>
>>  I'm not sure you have fully  grasped  the subtile beauty of the
>>  Philip-Morris scientists position. If they were right  about the
>>  existence of some Q factor that predisposed people to both smoking
>>  and cancer then any policy that reduced smoking would increase cancer
>>  rates in both the smoking and  non-smoking populations. I was a great
>>  example of the PR art.
>
>You are not seeing the point that, when it comes to making forecasts, 
>everyone is required to demonstrate empirically why their forecast is 
>better, including Philip-Morris. The possibility of a Q factor is 
>real. That's not PR, that's just stating a fact, namely, that we 
>can't rule out the possibility of an unknown factor. That single 
>point should be obvious to everyone, and we don't need Philip-Morris 
>to tell us that. Now, did Philip-Morris demonstrate empirically a 
>forecast that a policy to reduce smoking will increase cancer? No, 
>they just waved some ideas around.
>
>The point is, how can you demonstrate empirically that the method you 
>have used to make your forecast is the best one to use? Some Q factor 
>*may* stop the sun from rising tomorrow, but we have one point eight 
>million empirical verifications of the forecast having worked 
>already. That's a reason we trust that the forecast will work again
>tomorrow.

	No, Stefano, you are missing the point that there really was 
no way to demonstrate who was right, except by actually reducing 
smoking (at least in some control group). Sure, the other scientists 
who said smoking causes cancer had plenty of statistical linkage 
between the two etc, but they had no strong understanding about how 
the mechanism worked (we still have only a very limited understanding 
of why some people get cancer from smoking and some don't, and we had 
very little idea then), they just had a more straightforward 
hypothesis.
	So, would you have acted to reduce smoking, given that SOME 
scientists said it was the wrong thing to do (who work worked for the 
cigarette companies), while the majority believed otherwise? Of 
course the hypothesis of the majority of scientists seems more 
reasonable, but it hasn't been tested, they only have data about what 
has happened so far. There hadn't been a previous reduction policy to 
confirm their hypothesis that a smoking reduction policy would save 
lives.
	If I understand your position correctly, applying the same 
standard of reasoning as you do to AGW to smoking would mean not 
applying those results to the population until we were 'empirically' 
sure. Watching a control group of enforced non-smokers for 20 years 
or something (if the Phillip Morris guys were correct, results of the 
previous control group who just happened not to smoke would be 
invalid), simply delaying acting by a few decades until you are 
'empirically' sure, rather than just most scientists being pretty 
sure. Of course, millions might die in the mean time....
	Or possibly,  you are just not seeing that the same level of 
supporting scientific data that we had for smoking causing cancer was 
both convincing, and actually lower than the level of scientific data 
that we have in support of AGW. In both cases we have a solid 
statistical link, but we have a MUCH better idea of the mechanisms at 
work in climate change (the maths is complicated, but largely 
understood, in the way that a complex/chaotic system can be - in the 
70s we had a limited understanding of some basic mechanisms of 
cancer, and there are some we still don't).
	Regards
		David