[Osx-nutters] Denial and, the end

[Stefano Mori]

On 2007-Aug-17, at 00:38, David Cake wrote:

> 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?

Mark's example was from clinical trials. So David, if someone  
suggests doing a double blind study, you say, "What?? Do people think  
there is a **conspiracy** amongst doctors??? Nonsense! The doctors  
should be able to see who's getting what, and they should all talk to  
each other liberally about what's happening along the way."

You yell conspiracy once more and God is going to revoke your right  
to a brain.




>>  > 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,


It's not.

You know whom this is a reference to because we went over this in  
great detail before. You even wrote a very long summary of all the  
findings from the report, but somehow skipped over the one pertinent  
point that actually was a valid criticism.



> 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.

What's that, a conspiracy by statisticians? Gawd.




> 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.


Well it seems that in the UK any cuts to our carbon footprint are  
going to be dwarfed by rising aviation. Hence the "YOU FLY THEY DIE"  
banner currently being waved around Heathrow Airport. I **suppose**  
that if we put a halt to most air travel then that's not too painful,  
for starters. Sure.




>>  > 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 baffles me is that every part of our economy and development  
seems to create carbon emissions--you build an office block and the  
steel was made using a very energy intensive process--you use bricks  
and those were fired in a kiln--etc. etc.--and yet cutting back on  
carbon emissions, having a "zero footprint"--will just be "minor  
surgery". It's stuff like that which makes it sound like all these  
protests against co2 emissions are just symbolic of a need to express  
valuing the environment, a new personal identity with nature, and not  
really to do with fixing it like an engineering problem that really  
needs fixing. And if you didn't understand that then it doesn't  
concern you.



> 	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).


As Jared said, we're not shifting our views here, although I've  
learnt more about yours.

The other evening I was sat in a pub and this woman catches my eye  
and then comes over to talk to us. As it happens, she's from Canada.  
She'd previously moved to Australia looking for a job in something to  
do with fighting global warming. Unfortunately while in Australia she  
didn't really find anything that good because, as she put it, people  
were not that bothered about it. So she then moved to England, as she  
figured this is the one place in the world where it's really taken  
seriously. So that's how she came to be in the beer garden of a quiet  
Oxford pub, on a lovely late afternoon, and sat next to *me*.

Now I'm nice in person, so we're all just chatting. She's talking  
about global warming and her job in carbon credit trading, and I ask  
her about how it's so often in the news. She agrees with me that yes,  
it's over-hyped in the news, and she says it's not as bad as how they  
make it sound. So now I'm curious and I ask, but what if this  
deflects attention away from other more important environmental  
issues, like various toxic chemicals? She says that global warming  
handles all that, because, by forcing people to cut back on co2, you  
are forcing them to cut back production. You are forcing cuts in  
production and hence consumption. She says, "so you are cutting  
people's greed".

I didn't ask her any more about it.

Stefano