[Osx-nutters] Denial

[Mark Smith]

How about an analogy ?

...In *registered* clinical trials, the investigators have to state  
their aims at the outset. These aims can have some specific  
complexities, but in general, if evaluating a drug, a device, a  
procedure, or a regime, the investigators are aiming to demonstrate  
equivalence to, or an improvement over an existing alternative.

Their proposed study will be independently evaluated in order to  
determine whether it is ethically acceptable, sufficiently safe and  
whether, as designed, it is predicted to be capable of providing a  
reliable answer to the questioned raised. This can generally be  
abstracted to a statistical issue and as such, accredited  
biostatisticians are required to review such studies. In countries  
with reasonable ethical standards, such a study will never be  
approved, if an accredited biostatistician casts reasonable doubt  
about its "power".

Once approved such a study can be stopped if so-called serious  
adverse events arise, though it is not certain that serious adverse  
events will result in a study being stopped.

Interestingly what will *always* result in a study being stopped, is  
if an independent reviewer concludes that, according to the results  
obtained at an interim time point, the question is already answered.

What this means is, that from this point onwards, there is at least  
one arms of the study that is no longer ethically acceptable. Either:

	(a) that being tested has already been shown to be better than the  
alternative and it is therefore no longer ethically acceptable to  
deny it those patients in the control group, or:

	(b) that being tested has been shown to have issues that make its  
continued application as specified in the trial ethically unacceptable.


I view the current state of affairs in the climate argument as having  
reached such a point. I don't believe that when "it" says "the debate  
is over", that "science" means, we know all the answers, we know  
exactly what to do, but rather that it is saying "it is no longer  
acceptable to doubt the evidence".

To stretch the analogy: Continued naysaying, procrastination and FUD  
about global warming is akin to advising someone with a rapidly  
enlarging lump, night sweats, pain and weight loss, to stay away from  
doctors until they have died of multiple metastases.

mark.