[Osx-nutters] Denial

[Stefano Mori]

On 2007-Aug-16, at 15:37, Mark Smith wrote:

> How about an analogy ?

Your description also shows how rigorous medical trials have to be.


> ...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.

OK, say co2 is a drug the planet is taking. We don't know the long  
term effects of continuing to take co2 in 100 years. It may have a  
mostly beneficial outcome, ie. better farming and greater economic  
output. Or it may have nasty side effects.

If you look at the effect it's had so far, you can see a population  
of billions supported by fossil fuels and a fairly reasonable  
climate. Who would go back and wipe from history the discovery of oil?

Now, if you want to demonstrate that in future, cutting co2 is better  
than the "existing alternative", you can't because that alternative  
hasn't played out yet.


> Their proposed study will be independently evaluated

All these climatologists know each other. In a medical trial, groups  
are split up and randomised and researchers are not supposed to meet  
and have opportunity to contaminate the results.


> 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.

A very important point. Has anyone demonstrated why the GCMs are  
capable of providing a reliable answer?


> 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".

Climatologists have dismissed criticisms from eminent statisticians  
on the basis that, "they are not in the field".



> 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.


Those who want us to cut co2 already accept that adverse events will  
likely occur from doing so. Some of these events really are severe,  
which makes the ethical reasoning that these people are using very  
questionable.



> 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.

For one thing, if a drug works you want to start giving it to  
patients sooner, as you say...


> 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".


Well, let's recap:

We haven't seen from experience the long term benefits and side  
effects of continued co2 production in the next century.

The field of climatology is not split into separate groups that are  
kept separate so that findings really can be independently evaluated.

Climatologists have been seen to do their own statistics, and refute  
criticism on statistical issues, even from statisticians.

Cutting co2 as a "cure" is already believed to bring adverse effects,  
while accepting that that continued co2 production would bring some  
benefits, and yet people believe that it is ethically acceptable,  
even imperative, to cut co2.

Just two or three of those are basic violations and your trial is  
very flawed. You might think the trial has reached a point where the  
answer is obvious, but the trial wasn't setup properly so whatever  
you've found is of little use.



> 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.


To stretch the analogy, what if someone scanned your body when you  
were one year old, and they ran that scan forward on a computer model  
and claim you will likely now have a lump at age 50 and they're  
advising you to take immediate chemo?

Stefano