ant wrote:

geo wrote:

ant wrote:Here's a story about some "experts" that caused the death of a 19 year old girl that was used as a ginnie pig for an environmental air quality experiment.

https://junksciencecom.files.wordpress. ... office.pdf

Anyone hear about this?

Harry,
I'm sorry your worldview justifies something like this.
(am I being presumptuous?)

Jesus, how much time do you spend every day just looking for stuff like this? It boggles the mind.

About 5 minutes.

It boogles the mind just how much isn't reported in mainstream ideologically biased news, huh?

How newsworthy is this accidental death? People die all the time from a variety of mishaps. So why the focus on this one? You need to connect the dots for me.

[/quote]
How newsworthy is this accidental death? People die all the time from a variety of mishaps. So why the focus on this one? You need to connect the dots for me.[/quote]


A MISHAP??!
Is that your daily euphemism for us?

An environmental health climate study done on a human being that results in the death of said Human Being is a "mishap"
And we achieved exactly what in return for this "mishap" Geo?

Where's the empathy here?

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

ant wrote:

How newsworthy is this accidental death? People die all the time from a variety of mishaps. So why the focus on this one? You need to connect the dots for me.[/quote]


A MISHAP??!
Is that your daily euphemism for us?

An environmental health climate study done on a human being that results in the death of said Human Being is a "mishap"
And we achieved exactly what in return for this "mishap" Geo?

Where's the empathy here?

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

I don't enough details to make such judgements. Either do you. From the article:

"The cause of death has not yet been determined, pending the examination and report of the county medical examiner."

It sounds to me like a routine medical procedure which typically has a low risk. The patient may have had an adverse reaction. Again, why are you posting this here? What is your point?

Mr. Jackson said the university's inquiry showed that her death apparently involved "an
unusually high dosage of lidocaine. high enough to be potentially fatal." Lidocaine is a
topical anesthetic applied inside the throat to suppress the gag reflex induced by the
procedure, in which a flexible fiber optic bronchoscope is used to obtain brush biopsies
from tissue in the lower lobe of the lungs

Read the rest of the article/
There's pretty darn good indicators it's related directly to the experiments, Geo.

It's appalling that you're dismissing it as not newsworthy because the med exam report hasn't been read by you.

my goodness. geeezz

ant wrote:

Mr. Jackson said the university's inquiry showed that her death apparently involved "an
unusually high dosage of lidocaine. high enough to be potentially fatal." Lidocaine is a
topical anesthetic applied inside the throat to suppress the gag reflex induced by the
procedure, in which a flexible fiber optic bronchoscope is used to obtain brush biopsies
from tissue in the lower lobe of the lungs

Read the rest of the article/
There's pretty darn good indicators it's related directly to the experiments, Geo.

It's appalling that you're dismissing it as not newsworthy because the med exam report hasn't been read by you.

my goodness. geeezz

Okay, so it was an accidental death which resulted from incompetence or human error or maybe even malice. We don't really know at this point. But again, what is your point? Why do I have to keep asking the same question? You're the one who posted the article. Why is this news report relevant?

Can someone please please tell me what we're NOT going to blame on global warming?

http://m.sfgate.com/science/article/Mys ... 458563.php

ant wrote: Is this a prediction based on past observation? Has it been tested? Is this your opinion?

It is a straightforward implication of the website's interpretation of their analysis. Do you detect some problem with it? Do you understand the idea of cycles? Have you looked at the "cycles vs. data" graphs on the website? If the departure from cycle is GHG driven, then we add it to the up part of the cycle, as well as the down part. The result looks like the Al Gore hockey stick graph, but with a pause.

Scientists are people. They will explain their models if people want to understand.

You're losing it here like some crazy-ass cult leader.

I am not the one quoting crank websites. What motivates you to go find the smoke being put out by the denialists? A confused worldview.

I can list (and have linked to a list) all the crazy climate disaster predictions that have NOT come to pass, that were made by climate "experts"
You've ignored them. .

No, I did not ignore them, I pointed out that they are not integral parts of the basic model which implies that we need to do something about warming. Instead they are tangential efforts to make the models more accurate and comprehensive. This is a good thing - no mistakes would mean no one is publishing at the learning stage, but instead everyone is waiting until their model predictions are confirmed by experience. That would not be science. It would also mean, because of the cumulative effect of CO2 emissions, that it is too late to avoid losing the ice caps.

Do this. Make a list of mistakes whose correction reinforces the need to act. Find out which things the models "got wrong" by being too conservative. You could start with tundra methane and proceed to ice cap melting. Ocean acidification is another. A mistake is going to be random in effect - some will overstate the reason for concern, some will understate it. Classifying one side as evidence of bias is itself evidence of bias.

Or just stick to your confirmation bias, and get more info from the echo chamber for denialists.

Harry Marks wrote:I am not the one quoting crank websites.

Hi Harry, glad to see your pig singing teaching efforts. You are more patient than me. Here is a more successful example

ant wrote:

"an
unusually high dosage of lidocaine. high enough to be potentially fatal." Lidocaine is a
topical anesthetic used to suppress the gag reflex induced by the procedure

Sounds to me like it has more to do with why anesthesiologists have such high malpractice insurance rates than it is revealing about climate science.

Even the U.N. doesn’t agree with him on that one: In its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to human-caused climate change

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate ... 1429832149