Comments on: THE AMA JOINS THE WARMISM SCAM http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/03/07/ama-joins-the-warmism-scam/ Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate Mon, 21 May 2012 18:18:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Global Warming Debunked, AMA Hardest Hit | The Lonely Conservative http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/03/07/ama-joins-the-warmism-scam/#comment-464293 Global Warming Debunked, AMA Hardest Hit | The Lonely Conservative Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:25:16 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/03/07/ama-joins-the-warmism-scam/#comment-464293 [...] as heat waves, said Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the APHA.David Catron, who blogs at Healthcare BS, commented at the time that:The American Medical Association is determined to drive its membership [...] [...] as heat waves, said Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the APHA.David Catron, who blogs at Healthcare BS, commented at the time that:The American Medical Association is determined to drive its membership [...]

]]> By: nyp http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/03/07/ama-joins-the-warmism-scam/#comment-463776 nyp Mon, 07 Mar 2011 23:20:22 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/03/07/ama-joins-the-warmism-scam/#comment-463776 First, I'm not a physician. Second, nothing in my post said that one should "extrapolate what appears to be a linear trend" from a sample that does not meet the test of statistical significance, especially where there are as many variables as there are with global climate. However, according to the pretty-near universal consensus of qualified climatologists, if one extends the data points backwards in time (not forwards, as you suggest) there is a clear warming trend and this trend is statistically significant. For example, if one looks at data from the 1980s onwards, and certainly from the 1950s onwards, the evidence of global temperture increases meets all tests of statistical significance. That is what Dr. Jones said in his interview. It is precisely the opposite of what the blog post suggested. First, I’m not a physician.
Second, nothing in my post said that one should
“extrapolate what appears to be a linear trend” from a sample that does not meet the test of statistical significance, especially where there are as many variables as there are with global climate. However, according to the pretty-near universal consensus of qualified climatologists, if one extends the data points backwards in time (not forwards, as you suggest) there is a clear warming trend and this trend is statistically significant. For example, if one looks at data from the 1980s onwards, and certainly from the 1950s onwards, the evidence of global temperture increases meets all tests of statistical significance. That is what Dr. Jones said in his interview. It is precisely the opposite of what the blog post suggested.

]]> By: Rich http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/03/07/ama-joins-the-warmism-scam/#comment-463775 Rich Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:47:21 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/03/07/ama-joins-the-warmism-scam/#comment-463775 That fact that the data don't reach the level of significance for which the study was designed means that, literally, the chance that the trend occurred randomly is too high to draw any conclusions from the presence of the trend. Are you suggesting, nyp, that we dismiss the statistics and scientific method? Should we conclude that since the data don't meet a level of significance (said level being established before the study was undertaken) that we can extrapolate what appears to be a linear trend and claim that the extension, which hasn't happened yet, IS significant because it is drawn over a longer period of time (into the future)? There are a host of drugs and treatments that are as yet unavailable (unapproved for use in the US) because the studies failed to show significance at this level, but did show a "trend." Are you willing to take any of them? Would you similarly dismiss the statistics in that case? I am not suggesting we ignore the apparent trend. Trends in such studies are useful indicators that perhaps more study is needed. But to make national or global policy decisions on them is frightening. Either we use statistics appropriately or we don't use them at all. Physicians, especially, should know better. That fact that the data don’t reach the level of significance for which the study was designed means that, literally, the chance that the trend occurred randomly is too high to draw any conclusions from the presence of the trend.

Are you suggesting, nyp, that we dismiss the statistics and scientific method? Should we conclude that since the data don’t meet a level of significance (said level being established before the study was undertaken) that we can extrapolate what appears to be a linear trend and claim that the extension, which hasn’t happened yet, IS significant because it is drawn over a longer period of time (into the future)?

There are a host of drugs and treatments that are as yet unavailable (unapproved for use in the US) because the studies failed to show significance at this level, but did show a “trend.” Are you willing to take any of them? Would you similarly dismiss the statistics in that case?

I am not suggesting we ignore the apparent trend. Trends in such studies are useful indicators that perhaps more study is needed. But to make national or global policy decisions on them is frightening. Either we use statistics appropriately or we don’t use them at all. Physicians, especially, should know better.

]]> By: nyp http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/03/07/ama-joins-the-warmism-scam/#comment-463772 nyp Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:43:04 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/03/07/ama-joins-the-warmism-scam/#comment-463772 You have both misquoted and misinterpreted Dr. Jones' statement. He did not say that global temperatures had not "risen statistically since 1995." Rather he said (as a careful scientist) that the rise in global temperature since 1995 is not statistically significant because the period of measurement is too small and the amount of variability is too great. "BC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." As he makes clear in the interview, when one extends the trend lines the statistical significance becomes clear. And the fact that, on an absolute basis, global temperatures have increased in a nearly linear manner from 1995 to the present is pretty much unquestioned in the scientific community. You have both misquoted and misinterpreted Dr. Jones’ statement. He did not say that global temperatures had not “risen statistically since 1995.” Rather he said (as a careful scientist) that the rise in global temperature since 1995 is not statistically significant because the period of measurement is too small and the amount of variability is too great.
“BC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

As he makes clear in the interview, when one extends the trend lines the statistical significance becomes clear. And the fact that, on an absolute basis, global temperatures have increased in a nearly linear manner from 1995 to the present is pretty much unquestioned in the scientific community.

]]>