Goon Squad Fails To Distract Public From Fact That Climate Models Stink: Update 3

…newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests…
…He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=1

Realist: Did you read the original post, where this article was linked?

Points though for the clever attempt to change the subject from a discussion about the science to something else.

Why does accepting money from a “fossil-fuel” company imply a conflict of interest and accepting money from an environmental NGO or the government not?
And why do you call yourself ‘The Realist’? From this post I would suggest ‘The Fantasist’ might be more appropriate.
Has it ever occurred to you to try concentrating on the science instead of the ad hominem attacks on the scientists? Probably not, but for sure the end result is that you are going to look ridiculous when Soon et al is proved correct. Which it is.

There are plenty of signatures of people representing the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in that linked paper. One can only assume these people were legally capable of signing the contracts. Which makes it reasonable to assume that the SAO has no problems with their employees researching that particular topic and obtaining funds for that research. They signee the effing contracts, after all.

It is also quite reasonable to assume that parties who are hoping for a particular outcome will pay for research, if it furthers their business of political interests. The scientific method exists to find objective truths. If you don’t like the facts then you are free to ignore them, and at some point stop paying for more research. if you do like the facts, surely you will flaunt your scientific take on the matter, as if gives you political bonus points.

That goes for all parties nowadays in a political dispute. The science is part of the debate. Not the referee. Sciene will tell you what will happen if the theories are correct. Whether you take that advice is entierly up to you.

Anyway, why is the complaint that some research was funded by Big Oil and that some papers did not acknowledge that fact? The complaint should be that specific papers A, b and C did not acknowledge the fact that specific corporations funded the research the paper was based on.

I don’t know why “Big-Oil” money would necessarily be bad, in and of itself, to pay for any research?

Doesn’t “Big-Oil” bosses have families, don’t they have children, don’t they have back yards? Would they actually be invested in clean air, healthy nature, efficient lighting, and a non-melting world?

Why is there an assumption these “Big-Oil” ‘tycoons’ actually want to falsify science with the knowing intention of facilitating results they know would cause the death of their own legacies and progeny?

Wasn’t it the “Big-Oil” and “GASP-Coal” industries which voluntarily developed new technologies making their exhaust and by-products clean and “un-smoggy” when it actually became a problem?

I’m having a hard time reconciling the “Big-Oil” of the likes of the New York Times, a former newspaper; to that of the actual “Big-Oil” people.

Does not well-known tycoon, Carlos Slim, have a stake in the NYTimes? Is he not poised to make another bundle on the opening of Mexico’s energy sector to private investment (hello, oil and gas)? Is he not friendly with and an investment buddy of Dick Cheney?

There is a lot there that a Times reporter might find unsettling.

Matt,
Justin Gillis is close to completely nuts. He’s too far out there to be believed. The fellow who preceded him, whose name escapes me, at least had some scientific integrity. Compared to Gillis he was a “denier.” Gillis is the worst. He’s everywhere, talking, getting awards. And he doesn’t have a clue. He’s close to a moron on issues scientific. He will never change his mind, no matter what happens. If years down the road, even Schmidt, Trenberth, Mann & Hansen admit they were wrong, Gillis will go down with the ship, wondering why everyone else on the planet just doesn’t get it. Of all the clowns writing on climate change, and this would include the insipid Joe Romm, Gillis is the absolute worst. You would get a better response from talking to a wall. I actually dislike him. He really has made climate change (stupid term) “personal.”

Gillis’ major award is the Oakes award from Columbia.

“Established in 1993 by John B. Oakes’s family and friends, the award was previously housed at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environment and conservation advocacy organization for which Oakes served as a founding trustee.”

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/08/jschool_oakes_award.html

One of the current judges is Bill McKibben

http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/page/194-oakes-award-board-of-judges/195

I wonder whether he was a judge when Gillis won the award. Maybe a good question for Gillis is “what are your current communications with Bill McKibben, and how much were you in contact with him before you won that award?”

Since Gillis’ career has presumably benefited substantially financially from the award, and would benefit more from additional awards, a logical question would be how beholden is he to the environmental groups that sponser such awards?

So Gillis is a founding trustee of thie organization giving the Oakes award, and then he receives the Oaks award.

Anyone else catch that whiff?

Abe

Abe,

I think you misread my comment.

By the way, anyone get the dead tree version of the NYT?

I’m wondering what page they put this on.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/02/22/world/asia/ap-as-india-climate-panels-chief.html?_r=0

OK. I see that Oakes was a founding trustee and not Gillis. My appologies to all for my misreading of the facts.

I have noted that “news” organizations often use the exact same terminology and release virtually identical stories all at once. These organizations used as subjects would make a useful study in group-think and herd behaviour.

This going after Soon and funding is not new. Maybe the asking he be fired, but in 2011 Greenpeace went after him, in 2013 the Boston Globe did, in 2011 it was the Guardian. In all cases there is an attempt to show improper funding. So for three years these people have been yelling “fire” and still they have failed to get everyone to leave the building. Maybe everyone has noticed there’s no smoke and no flame?

Accepting money from a fossil fuel company does NOT count as a conflict of interest unless you disagree with global warming “science”. It’s not the funding, it’s the position taken by the recipient.

John M: Good questions all. Too bad Gillis would never answer them.

Sheri: Again, I agree that the discussion should be about its accuracy. If evidence of conflict were to arise, it’s a separate issue. Nevertheless, THIS post and its comment stream have devolved into a conversation about what Soon did or did not do and what people have and have not claimed he did or did not do. The theme is that he’s allegedly under fire for conflict of interest. I merely pointed out that, as far as I know, the only people with influence over Soon’s career trajectory believe it to be about whether or not he disclosed in accordance with job requirements. But again, I have no opinion on whether or not he failed to disclose. I don’t know and don’t care. But for those here who decry what’s transpired, the should decry what actually transpired, not what has not.

There’s no question that a large part of the community that accepts most of the IPCC’s conclusions believe that Soon engages in deception. I would make no such accusation without personally evaluating alleged instances, and I have no time to do so. I couldn’t care less who’s paid him. I’m only taking the time to thoroughly evaluate “Why Models Run Hot…” because: it’s engendered a significant kerfuffle; because I frequent this blog; and because I don’t have to learn the entire edifice of radiation physics and ocean/atmosphere/land geophysics starting with the Peano axioms to grasp it.

By the way, I don’t recall similar indignation in these parts over Ken Cuccinelli’s ludicrous attempt at a fishing expedition in an effort to discredit Michael Mann.

Cuccinelli demanded the emails of Michael Mann from the University of Virginia, a state university. The UVA fought the demand by hiring outside lawyers and claiming “academic freedom” among other things. However, the UVA readily provided the e-mails of Professor Pat Michaels when Greenpeace asked for them in December 2009. It makes the UVA look hypocritical. The UVA response depends on weather you are an AGW zealot or skeptic.

Here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if or where Dr. Soon gets his cash. Consider this:

1) Anyone can be biased out of personal conviction, not just money. In other words, lack of funding does not guarantee impartiality. This point is actually meaningless because of the next point. The left is diverting us from the fact that this is probably good science (LOOK, SQUIRREL!!!).

2) Let’s not forget he does SCIENCE. This means that the work can be challenged like anything in science. As a matter of fact, all science should ALWAYS be challenged. That’s what peer reviewed is supposed to be about. If there’s personal bias (a.k.a. shoddy scientific method) a good peer will find it.

Krillin Namek: Agreed (what squirrel??).

Rob Ryan: There’s a difference between Cuccinelli, as attorney general, looking at possible fraud at a state university and the media demanding someone employed at a university be fired because they don’t like the conclusions of a paper he wrote. Had the media been out demanding Mann be fired because they did not like his ideas, there should have been an outcry here. Can’t say for sure if there would have been, but personally, I would have written about why that’s improper and should not be done. Now, if the attorney general or the university had started an investigation based on evidence that Soon may have falsified data and/or Soon was hiding information, that would be different. Cuccinelli was not questioning Mann’s funding.

@Rob Ryan

“Maybe so, maybe not. But, regardless of the assertion’s alleged juvenile nature, Monckton IS a nut and a liar as well. And, on the topic of addressing the merits vs. the person, Monckton wrote a post regarding Dr. John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota (which Monckton disparagingly referred to as a “Bible College”), who’d posted a lengthy piece on Monckton’s misquotes, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations of various scientists’ work in a presentation Monckton had made…”

The main flaw in asserting that Monckton is a “nut” and a “liar” is that I’ve read some of the writings of John Abraham. I would certainly characterize that fellow as — a goof, to put it mildly. This was going back a while, but Abraham’s was authoritatively promoting either debunked or highly controversial global warming claims, and as a mechanical engineer, was speaking completely outside his areas of expertise (irrespective of his own claims to the contrary). One of my engineers is a mechanical engineer and sorry, while they are useful at doing things like designing car parts, I wouldn’t go to him for information on global warming theory on that basis alone. If my memory is correct, Abraham’s gave Monckton a whack, and Monckton gave Abraham’s a much harder whack back. That doesn’t mean I agree with all of Monckton’s views. I once listened to one of Monckton’s climate lectures with the specific purpose of making a list of things I thought were misrepresentations or errors, and I was able to come up with a small list. However, his views are certainly far more reasonable than, say, Mann or Hansen, or some of the other leading lights of the global warming environmental industrial complex–who do make genuinely crazy claims. If you’ve got one side claiming the planet is doomed based on various theories, and the other side arguing that it isn’t, be careful if you characterise the world-is-not-about-to-end side as “liars” or “nuts”. That doesn’t do wonders for impressions of your critical thinking skills, Ryan.

I think of Monckton as the skeptic’s Al Gore. He’s bombastic and loud and attracts attention. He appears to be somewhat more scientific than Gore, though I suppose he could do as Gore does and claim he’s just following the skeptic science and presenting it, thus absolving himself of the need for a science degree. Both sides of the climate debate tend to have spokespersons who are not scientists, perhaps because someone with a media or theology degree makes a much better spokesperson. Sadly, this is about selling science, not about educating the public in many, many cases. This is not to insult the salespersons—they are an unfortunate necessity in today’s uneducated world where authorities are the ones running our lives and people live in the dark, happily uninformed and thus not responsible for anything they believe or do.

I don’t know what Monckton’s contribution to the paper was—whether it was technical knowledge or not. I would hope with three additional authors, any errors would be caught and corrected, irregardless of who made them.

@DAV

“One can only wonder if Avandia suffered a similar fate.”

One of the great flaws of amateur skepticism is that it’s done by amateurs. A skeptic can be just as wrong as anyone else and quite frequently is. My father started taking Avandia, developed a heart condition, my doctor immediately took him off Avandia (curious, that, eh?) and then later while undergoing testing prior to his surgery — scheduled that morning–was sent home because his doctors couldn’t find anything wrong with him.

You may say, hah! That’s only an anecdotal story! And that would be a fair call. But as far as anecdotal stories go, it’s about as causal as you’re ever going to get. And it’s part of recurring pattern of medical problems based on thousands of similar case studies. Now a skeptic’s defense might be, “But the clinical trial showed the drug was safe!”

Indeed, in cases such as these, one has to start asking the question: where did the clinical trial go wrong? Instead of adopting the religious belief that clinical trials are always infallible.

Rob Ryan: “Oh Look, a Squirrel”

Will: It may not be so much that the trials “go wrong”, but rather the trials cannot mirror the real world. There is no way to know how individuals will react to drugs (I’m a one-person menu for drug reactions—none of which could possibly have been forseen in any clinical trial). There is also no way to test combinations of medications. Many people are on multiple medications. No clinical trial can possibly find even a small percentage of these multiple drug reactions. Clinical trials just tell you the really serious, commonly seen reactions in a small group of individuals. It’s not the clinical trials that are the problem. It’s people’s lack of knowledge of what clinical trials can and cannot do and what is realistically possibly when it comes to medications. I had an elderly friend who seriously could not understand why we could not just make medications without side effects. Yes, medications can have very serious side effects. Taking any drug comes with risks—I definately understand that. I also know there is no realistic way to avoid this and we just have to deal with it.

In your previous post, you (rightly) said – I paraphrase – that the purpose of science is to make verifiable predictions: and that a theory which doesn’t live up to the predictions it makes is just plain wrong.

You find it very difficult to understand why this very simple, and wholly uncontroversial (since the enlightenment) fact, has somehow been forgotten by so many people. Actually, not “forgotten”: if it had been forgotten, the response to somebody reminding them would have been gratitude, not fury.

Strangely, there is a non-academic, non-scientific book, written over 60 years ago, which predicted modern society – and the modern attitudes which so baffle you – almost perfectly: and, indeed, explained how and why they were to arise.

Moreover, the fact that admitting having read this is the equivalent (or worse – in some circles) of admitting a desire for underaged sex, suggests that these people recognise themselves within its pages.

I speak, of course, of Atlas Shrugged.

Sheri,

“Will: It may not be so much that the trials “go wrong”,”

Of course. Of course. The world is a complicated place. You can’t just look at the numbers in a drug trial and because you don’t see the problem there, declare the problem is imaginary and assert foul play. The amateur web site DAV linked to fumed that it was all about greedy solicitors. Never as simple as that.

(A reminder. The reason why we’re discussing this relates back to the claim that money taints, but apparently there are two types of money, one morally virtuous the other not so.)

Damn. The A$$holes came out in force for this thread. Seems like a mass banning is in order, they are just to Damned stupid to get the point!

Will,

It’s a far cry from “my dad had problems when taking X” to “X is a dangerous thing and should not be marketed”. It’s like the person who gets sick one day after eating at some restaurant then claiming it was food poisoning and demanding the restaurant be closed. All you can really say then is “maybe” but it IS human nature to immediately jump to cause and effect, hence “lucky charms”, etc.

I do note that many of the supposed risks where determined through meta-analyses which results in an inherent confirmation bias. Furthermore, An FDA study which prompted a CYA alert in 2007 and it was later by a couple of months determined by it advisory committee that while there seemed to be more risk to Type 2 patients than a placebo the risk was no higher than those with other Type 2 drugs such as say, metformin. So now, your dad seems to have a problem so the first warning was correct and the second malfeasance. Guess they should have consulted with you, eh?

For Type 1 users, the major problem seems to be water retention leading to heart failure which is the same problem associated with salt. My view is maybe for some but hardly for all.

There are few statistical procedures employed in the health fields that avoid meta-analyses and worse, resist the worship of model parameters and p-values. Until these are relegated to the rare study, I’m going to “Yeah, sure!” to most of them. In other words, skepticism. This is “amateurish” to you?

More on topic, the warnings on Avandia have been widely distributed particularly by the media but the later findings of the Advisory Board not so much. The reports may be exaggerated — maybe even biased — but, in their favor, at least they aren’t ad hominem attacks.

Rob Ryan said:

While I agree that the argument regarding the paper should be strictly about the content and its accuracy and don’t care where Dr. Soon got his funding (though there are plenty of examples of results of studies be slanted to favor the funder, see pharmaceuticals for plenty of such) and I deplore ignoring the paper on the basis that Soon got such funding (though I’ll stipulate not for this particular paper), nevertheless, as I understand it the issue isn’t whether Soon was conflicted or engaged in deception. The issue is that he was supposed to have disclosed and he did not. Yes, moving from there to “you can’t trust anything Soon writes because he was funded by xxx” is wrong headed.

I think you have misunderstood. Soon correctly disclosed his funding sources for the paper under question, and no other disclosure was requested or required. This is not under dispute.

What Briggs is reacting to is the media’s effort to smear Soon based on his funding for unrelated efforts. It’s a complete non-sequitur from discussing the paper Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.

I note no journalist has taken up William’s challenge to share when they have performed similar due diligence, in regards to funding, just before they did the perfunctory ‘Ctrl+V’ on a press release.

The only checks they bother with are just in case they offend an advertiser.

DAV,

The point I was making which you may have missed, is that you can’t just ignore the case study data because you’re not seeing a problem in the clinical trial data. There are lots of reasons for that, all perfectly reasonable, and Sheri touched on a few.

Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.gPge2EW8.dpuf

Will,

Ignoring data? No. Ignoring conclusion based on faulty methods. Yes. Repeating questionable conclusions? Well …. It would seem that is the issue here.

DAV,

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Can you work on your basic communication skills please?

Let’s assume you’re disagreeing otherwise we have nothing to chat about. Let’s say a clinical trial runs for a year and doesn’t show up any problems. Let’s say people on the treatment start reporting serious medical problems after 12 months. Let’s say the animal studies point to the same types of problems. Let’s say there is now a fairly substantial set of case studies all pointing to issues that are highly problematical. What are you suggesting? All of this additional data should be ignored because the original clinical trial wasn’t able to detect these problems? I’m assuming you’re not that foolish but if you are, that would be good to know now, so I can ignore your posts in the future.

Here ya go then, straight from the mouth of the EXPERTS, but thanks for defending science!

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Colorado Democrat Senator:
“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. . .Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

Club of Rome:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or. . ..one invented for the purpose.”

Will,
Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Not sure what you think I should be agreeing with. I’m apparently not the only one with deficient communication skills. You made the rather bold statement Avandia is quite a dangerous drug with severe potential side effects such as heart attack and also implied the Vioxx case was similar. You gave no reason for saying these but later related one case involving Avandia (your father) which may or may not be relevant. I too had a different and far more minor reaction to Avandia (Avandamet, actually) however when my doctor changed my prescription he changed everything instead of merely prescribing a replacement for the Advandia. Changing four things is not the best way to uncover problem sources.

Prior to that, I merely pointed out that the evidence presented to the Vioxx jury was, in at least one respect, highly misleading and wondered if the evidence against Avandia wasn’t equally misleading. What that has to do with “ignoring clinical trial data” is beyond me.

As for FDA action, they issued a warning however further study suggested the warning was perhaps unnecessary.

I also note that the methods often used in assessing clinical trials involve questionable statistical methods in reaching conclusions. Just as with climate models, the models of clinical trials may not be as useful as touted.The use of those questionable methods is rife in the industry. It’s not at all hard to find examples of them. NumberWatch alone has documented many of them. Some of it appears here.

So what is it you’re not sure about? I stated “Ignoring data? No.” and “Ignoring conclusion based on faulty methods. Yes. ” Why do you find it confusing? I certainly am not for getting the right answer for all the wrong reasons which is what you seem to be getting at. That’s not the same as ignoring the data. If the methods are wrong how do you know the answer is right?

DAV,

I didn’t realise you were basing the entire case against Avandia on the basis of a few comments I wrote here, as opposed to carefully evaluating all the information out there ( if you were that interested). You linked to an amateur skeptics blog who only looked at the clinical study numbers and concluded that criticism of Avandia was all part of a scam run by greedy solicitors. Given the fact that his analysis was ludicrous, I was not sure why you bothered to throw up such a link here.

You linked to an amateur skeptics blog

You of course are a professional skeptic. You should check out John’s credentials. It is you who is the amateur here. As for Advandia, I think I know more about it than you. I research every drug prescribed to me. Stop with the snotty arrogance already.

Complete analysis of the many flaws in Lord Monckton’s article:
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_monckton_equation

In attacking Dr. Soon, green journalists display a quite stunning world view. Behind their writings you can see their logic:

Climate scientists are paid to publish results supporting Global Warming.
Dr. Soon’s results don’t support Global Warming.
QED Dr. Soon is paid by those against Global Warming.

Seeing all the fame and fortune going to true believers, they can not imagine a scientist motivated by his own integrity. After all, in their view, all published results are bought and paid for.

Green journalists attacking Dr. Soon reveal their operating assumption: Climate science is totally corrupt. . .well, 97% corrupt.

BerkelyMan: A quick reading shows the same arguments warmists have against everything they disagree with–“you used the wrong time scale, the wrong period, the wrong graph” which translate to “do it OUR way or it’s wrong”. I see nothing new or unique in this write-up, though I will bravely wade through the usual mantras and see if anything new jumps out. It amazes me that the argument from warmists is “Our way or the highway, Our conclusion or you cherry-picked, used the wrong years, the wrong stats, etc.” It would be so much more honest if they just said they are gods and no disagreement is allowed. Yes, I will come back and note if my assessment turns out to be wrong on further reading and I’ll even explain what I found, which is more than you get from the “expert scientists”.

DAV/Will: In discussing how the science works at the FDA, I believe that people miss the part where negative reactions are to be reported to the FDA and the FDA will further analyze the reactions. It’s an extension of the original studies, based on the reality of the incomplete nature of clinical testing. It’s actually a pretty good scientific way of handling limited testing. As for court cases, these have absolutely nothing to do with science, clinical trials or anything other than the personal injury lawyer making a lot of money if he can convince jurors drug companies are evil and need their money taken. (I’m doing an honest assessment–courts have nothing to do with science. You don’t get a scientific assessment from a judge or a jury of 12 randomly picked people.)

Sheri,

Wasn’t suggesting court cases settle science. It’s my understanding that Merck voluntarily pulled Vioxx after losing the lawsuit where some really bad science was presented because they didn’t think it worth risking another suit. The suspicion that Vioxx is nasty lingers. Note the comment by Will.

As an aside and considering the topic of the blog post, it’s ironic that Will engaged in ad hominem attack on NumberWatch instead of defending his apparent position on Vioxx.

Further reporting sounds good but can’t really replace experimental trials. Like when I had a mild reaction to Avandamet the doctor changed ALL of my prescriptions so it’s really hard to tell if Advandemet was a problem or if it was mere coincidence which is quite likely. Bet my “problem” wasn’t reported to anyone, My doctor was keen on relegating paperwork to his staff and, unless he made a point of it, my encounter fell though the cracks. If not, it’s not clear what the FDA would do with another click in the “upset stomach” column.

Prof. Briggs, I enjoyed your Breitbart article and have been reading this post, and comments, all of which confirm my conclusions about leftists of all stripes, particularly journalists. Perhaps, though, you’d be willing to entertain a slightly off-topic question:

Based on the evidence that we currently have available, is there any reason to be concerned that human activities are causing a significant deviation in the earth’s climate from what it normally would be without human activities? To me, this is the question that counts. Even even though I believe that the current climate alarmism is politically motivated and a money/power grubbing hoax, this does not mean that the conclusion is entirely wrong.

So, is there any evidence that human activity is affecting the earth’s climate now, or any evidence that it will begin to affect the climate in the near future (say, the next few decades)?

DAV: It is just impossible for any clinical trial to find all possible outcomes. We would never have any new drugs (personally, I’m not sure why we do. I’d have just closed the factory due to people not understanding risk). The FDA has a site where you can report adverse reactions. That’s on the documentation that people don’t read and then end up suing and getting money because they didn’t bother to read the documentation. Not all reactions need to be reported–my list of drug reactions is huge. It’s probably not relevant to anyone else. I have reported some reactions. Again, it’s up to the patient to read the documentation, ask questions, etc. Everyone wants that fantasy world where science answers all questions in full. Life’s risky, bad things happen and that’s just how it is.

Jan P: Yes, I am saying funding sources do not need to be reported. If a scientist is bought, then they are bought. I certainly care about the integrity of science–though I do severely and angrily HATE the term “cherry-picking” which is code-speak for “I don’t like your answer so I’ll accuse you of cherry-picking.” No one ever uses all of the data. Everyone makes choices. To accuse someone of cherry picking is to say “I know nothing of the scientific method”. (Yes, even when skeptics do it.)

Actually, I do really hope that. Briggs may claim corrupt scientists publish AGW rhetoric, but I do not. I claim the science has problems and state why. I do say the behaviour of scientists in AGW is often problematic–refusing to release information, name calling, attacking the speaker and not the science, etc. Whether or not they are corrupt, stupid, incompetent, really believe what they did, made an honest mistake, fear competition–who knows? The problem is the behaviour makes the scientists look bad. AGW recognizes that or they would not do studies on how to sell the science.

I made clear my position on Monckton, here and elsewhere. Check comments in the last couple of posts.

I totally agree with your last statement–the paper is all that matters and whether or not it does what it is claimed to do.

Doug Lee: I have an answer to your question. We don’t know, we can’t know. How would we know what the “normal climate” would be without humans? There is no way to separate that unless we fully understood every single part of the climate system, could make perfect predictions and thus could model what would happen with the human component taken out–maybe. In reality, we don’t know and we can’t know. We do affect the climate, we have no idea how much or to what end. (Actually, we could know perhaps if 99.999% of humans were wiped out. Not sure we want to know that badly…..)

JMJ: You can’t have credibility if you have government funding and want pollution regulation, either. The government has a vested interest in regulating industry and using pollution abatement to do it. Which does in every public university out there. No more research funded by the government. Actually, I’m okay with that.

Okay, my comments are getting mixed up on threads. I moved those parts of the above comment to the “Today’s Posts are at” thread where they belong. I will try to keep up inthe future, or feel free to note that I am in the wrong thread and severely chastize me.

It is just impossible for any clinical trial to find all possible outcomes.

No but the only real reason for self reported anecdotes can only be a solution if it leads to more clinical trials. It’ no different than anywhere else. Report a bug and hopefully someone investigates. BTW: Is there really only ONE clinical trial?

As for self-reporting, in my rather varied career, I once delivered Chinese food. There were sometimes people claiming food poisoning but surprisingly never more than one at any given time. People aren’t very good at cause and effect. Likewise, in the software field, users very often misidentify problems. A followup study should be in order. Hopefully, the FDA does or orders one.

Okay, my comments are getting mixed up on threads.

There is a surprising similarity between the two blog posts so quite understandable.

—
My dratted phone keeps bugging me to explore all of the wonderful features associated with the latest download. I did so but it still won’t stop nagging. When I got it I didn’t think of it as a marriage.

DAV:
“Phase 1 studies are usually conducted in healthy volunteers. The goal here is to determine what the drug’s most frequent side effects are and, often, how the drug is metabolized and excreted. The number of subjects typically ranges from 20 to 80.
Phase 2 studies begin if Phase 1 studies don’t reveal unacceptable toxicity. While the emphasis in Phase 1 is on safety, the emphasis in Phase 2 is on effectiveness.
Typically, the number of subjects in Phase 2 studies ranges from a few dozen to about 300.
Phase 3 studies begin if evidence of effectiveness is shown in Phase 2. These studies gather more information about safety and effectiveness, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs. The number of subjects usually ranges from several hundred to about 3,000 people.”
(From http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143534.htm)

Phase four is post-marketing studies.
These studies are no where nearly as large or plentiful as people think. I read somewhere it only takes two studies that show the drug works to get approval. The number of failed studies is irrelevant.