[Osx-nutters] Denial

[David Cake]

At 4:38 PM +0100 16/8/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>  > Their proposed study will be independently evaluated
>
>All these climatologists know each other.

	You do realise how close to conspiracy theory talk it sounds, right?

>  > 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".

	If this is a reference to McKitrick, then eminent means 
something different to what it used to.
	Yes, he's picked a few nits, which by and large weren't 
dismissed, and turned out be no big deal. He's also committed the odd 
howler of his own.
	Though I am beginning to think there is something in the 
view, held by many statisticians, that pretty much every paper that 
uses stats that aren't routine is a bit suspect if it doesn't have a 
statistician involved. Though medical research is a MUCH worse 
offender than climate science.


>
>
>  > 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.

	Severe? Well, that gets into actual active debate. The real, 
current, debate really has moved on from 'is AGW real' to 'what 
should we do about it', and part of that question is how much will it 
cost. Some actually eminent economists seem to think its not going to 
be that much - a few others feel differently. I don't think its 
settled, and I don't think it will truly be settled until we have 
concrete plans, but the initial estimates seem encouraging.

>  > 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?

	I think the problem with your analogy is, barring a little 
hyperbole, no one is likely to be as shcoked as you think they should 
be. Change chemo to anti-oxidants and regular screening, or minor 
surgery, or something, and a lot of people would find it reasonable.

	What if they checked your DNA and advised you to change your 
diet because you were prone to developing a particular kind of 
cancer, so you should take drugs to reduce the chances, and get 
screened regularly?
	What if they, based on a biopsy and family history, told you 
that you had a particular condition that had never manifested in your 
life, but that meant you had to avoid using certain very common drugs 
and medical procedures, including making relatively straightforward 
medical procedures much more dangerous and expensive? Used to work 
for a doctor that did this routinely (she tracked the particular 
condition through families).


	Cheers
		David