Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by DocMartyn

0
0

Steve, will you make sure you have the proxy selection criteria posted before any proxies are collected?
The very act of looking at proxies before choosing a criteria invalidates them.

If you want to look at what Earth shatter result and how it is dealt with:-
‘A prospective randomized trial of perioperative seizure prophylaxis in patients with intraparenchymal brain tumors’
Wu et al., (2013) J Neurosurg 118:873–883, 2013.
Background
81% of neurosurgeons reported that they prescribed prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) to patients without a history of seizures. Phenytoin is the most commonly administered anticonvulsant.

Abstract Result
The trial was closed before completion of accrual because Bayesian predictive probability analyses performed by an independent data monitoring committee indicated a probability of 0.003 that at the end of the study prophylaxis would prove superior to observation and a probability of 0.997 that there would be insufficient evidence
at the end of the trial to choose either arm as superior. At the time of trial closure, 123 patients (77 metastases and 46 gliomas) were randomized, with 62 receiving 7-day phenytoin (prophylaxis group) and 61 receiving no prophylaxis (observation group). The incidence of all seizures was 18% in the observation group and 24% in the prophylaxis group (p = 0.51)….

The prophylaxis group experienced significantly more adverse events (18% vs 0%, p < 0.01)

Conclusion
Although the lower-than-anticipated incidence of seizures in the control group significantly limited the power of the study, the low baseline rate of perioperative seizures in patients with brain tumors raises concerns about the routine use of prophylactic phenytoin in this patient population.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
So a type of drug treatment, used for 40 years to control seizures was found to do more harm than good. The results are quite stark, but no one spliced in better, feelgood, datasets.


Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Latimer Alder

0
0

@Jonas N

Care here, please.

There is no subject the putz likes to talk about more than ‘himself’. His interventions here are all designed to allow that possibility. It is an ego-trip.

Please do not assist him in achieving his aims.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by patrioticduo

0
0

“Science in general, and climate-change science in particular, is no longer exclusively — or even primarily — an academic pursuit.”

And you support that kind of “science”? I hope you’re not forced one day to fly on a plane created by this kind of science.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Joshua (the nice putz)

0
0

Be afraid, Jonas – be very, very afraid.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Beth Cooper

0
0

Hmm but naked like the emperor as they be,
what with the current freeze in the north and
possible cooling in the south, they’re likely
soon ter be blue with the cold and should
beware of frost bite too.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by timg56

0
0

fan,

RE: Seriously … the cherry-picking nonscientific selectivity of synthetic denialist “outrage” is getting to be kinda goofy, isn’t it?

Not so goofy as posting non-relevant links and attaching artifacts most often used by 14 year old girls.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by k scott denison

0
0

Mr. Mosher, you are clearly an intelligent individual. Which is why it is so disappointing when you write a comment like this. Where is the outrage? Where is YOUR outrage? This paper has been so discredited it is now a total laughing stock. Yet the PR aspect of the paper was successful. Where are the *real climate scientists* like yourself and our host screaming at the top of their lungs about this?

Instead what we read is “give the boys a break, they’re young.” Pathetic.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by k scott denison

0
0

Joshua | April 2, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Reply
Here’s what I love.
——
Here’s what I love: that Joshua has no sarcasm detector.


Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by patrioticduo

0
0

I don’t really care how pampered or arrested or street wise hardened, eloquent and erudite or not marcott et al all might be. Their work and their actions regarding it is all I really care about. Some of the most obnoxious sounding, looking and behaving creatures produce wonderful work. Meanwhile, I remember someone once telling me that “Satan often reappears as the latest new PhD”. From that pragmatic viewpoint, Shakun and Marcott et al produced a paper that is demonstrably wrong. Shakun at least, went on the NYT record with a hand waving/wringing exercise that at best exaggerated the findings of the paper or at worst completely misrepresented it. When the paper is examined we find deep flaws and that the original thesis bears little resemblance to the publicly published article. The authors then produce a ham fisted FAQ. Instead of publishing the FAQ through NYT or some other outlet where the sun would shine just as brightly upon it as Shakun’s original interview and NYT article, they choose to present the FAQ to the public through the graticule of RC). The FAQ fails to address the fundamental questions and now the authors appear to have disappeared themselves from the public light now that their work has been shown to be questionable at best or outright fraud at worst. As a backdrop to all of that, Michael Mann preempts the skeptics attacks by publicly stating that the Marcott paper will be attacked by the skeptics. So, for all of you who would defend this entire ugly episode is there anything in all of this that any of you find even slightly repulsive?

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by timg56

0
0

Josh,

Love the new moniker.

Though I’ll disagree with you on this:

I will say, however, that I think that “putz,” being a Yiddish term, should be reserved for use by tribe members about tribe members. Unless you are a tribe member, next time please call me a dick like Willis did.

Two points:
– you don’t rise up to the standard of a dick. For a comparison check WEB (though he has shown restraint of late – not meeting dick criteria at all).

– having attended my first bar mitzvah before my first communion, I don’t accept your reservation of the term putz to a select tribe. (And assuming I did, which tribe would it be? There are 12, aren’t there?)

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

I don’t think JCH was expressing disbelief regarding people’s ability to judge people in 30 seconds, timg. Even if this ability was reliable, its accuracy might not be optimal, as evidenced by humans’ ineptitude to choose leaders. Besides, you have to consider the possibility that, in a comedy of menace, more than one person is a moron.

In no way do I wish to defend JCH by my comment, BTW, in case someone would wish to over egg the pudding, go a bridge too far or stretch the limits of justified disingenuousness.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Please mind your machismo, cowboy.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Jonas N

0
0

Latimer A

I think the Joshs on this thread are doing a good job for the real skeptical side, in illustrating what it is about.

He wants to deriede “skepticism” as he calls (writes) it, but ends upp defending the indefensible and accusing thosw who point out the obvious ..

And you find the same MO everywhere among the commenters. And hardly ever anybody who really defends the warmist stance based it its merits.

Gavin (and RC) want to give that impression, but are doing so with the a delete button close by, while saying that they are not really speaking for the authors.

If Josh and David Appel are spaking for themselves, that would actually be a step up. However, they too are mostly arguing backwards, that others should accept whatever is fed to us, because we don’t really know.

You know, the story we were being fed before ClimateGate ..

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by timg56

0
0

lolwot,

Blogs such as RC, SkS and the rarely visited DeSmogBlog are great recruiting tools to the sceptical side of the debate. (You know, the one that we are told is over.)

But go ahead and demonstrate the fact you can’t recognize free and open debate.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by DocMartyn

0
0
I would like to see each of the proxies that reach the modern era being calibrated to the recorded <b>LOCAL</b> temperature. Using only these we should be able to see the actual scale of the changes in the past and confidence levels.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Should we infer from this that Tony’s reinforces the established viewpoint?

Considering the page views, this might be a fair exchange.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

ClimateReason  “It would be interesting to hear why Fan believes the Kinnard study is ‘strong.’”

Thank you for asking this rich and engaging question, ClimateReason!

Verifiable features  The 2011 Kinnard “blade” is stronger than the 2013 Marcott “blade” in that the 20th century “blade” of the Kinnard study (a) reflects far more proxies (69 for Kinnard et al.) and (b) has far finer temporal resolution (5 years for Kinnard et al.), and (c) reflects are far sharper, far more priminent “blade” (blade-to-noise ratio of order 3-5 for Kinnard et al.).

A Judith Curry-type “suspicion”  Marcott et al. naively perceived that their 2013 “weak hockey-stick blade” innocuously affirmed the 2011 “strong hockey-stick blade” of Kinnard et al., and therefore Marcott et al. (correctly and reasonably) regarded their study’s significance originated in its being the first attempt to quantify global temperature for the entire Holocene.”

An Anthony Watts/WUWT reaction

•  Thirty-six WUWT stories condemn ‘Marcott’..

•  Precisely *ZERO* WUWT stories even mention ‘Kinnard’.

WUWT, the world wonders?

Conclusion  The main mistake of Marcott et al. was to drastically underestimate the degree to which the denialist community ruthlessly and relentlessly pursues the objectives of denialism via the methods of demagoguery.

So it’s not complicated, eh ClimateReason?

The Main Mystery  Why do denialists obsess about the “weak blade” of Marcott et al. (2013) while ignoring the “strong blade” of Kinnard et al. (2011)?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Joshua (the nice, but silly, pissant progressive, bacon-loving putz)

0
0

Lol! “nuance.”

Here’s a tip, kim. Pekka doesn’t change as a reflection of the light that you shine on his opinions. It is only your perspective of him that changes. Your vision of him as “ugly” or “dark” or pretty or light is a product of the lens you are wearing.

Here’s another hint: maybe you should try to stop reverse engineering someone’s attributes from your perspective on their opinions. Give it a shot.

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by kim

0
0

I hear Joshua recursing furiously.
=========

Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

More nuance, Joshua:
Not the nature of people,
Only their value, or
With even more nuance:
The value of their opinion.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images