angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 6, 2020 at 11:35 pm
ATTP are we reading this the same way?
–
“The key results are that for long-timescales (many decades) internal variability contributes little to the total uncertainty (essentially, it averages out).”
–
I do not see this as the key finding, rather a statement of the parameters being put in.
By definition internal variability is defined as fluctuations around some predetermined real value.
As time goes by the fluctuations balance out and the true value is revealed shed of dross. In other words it must always reduce to zero
Atomsk’s Sanakan @AtomsksSanakan. May 27
“Update thread citing published studies, along with comments debunking Judith Curry’s cherry-picking in the service of ideologically-motivated denialism on hydroxychloroquine:“
–
Missing in action. Why?
Lancelet study Chloroquine Debunked
New England Journal of medicine. Debunked same author
–
Most of the studies you quote have been extremely hastily put together with pal not peer review and rushed into print.
They all have massive flaws consequent.
As they fall apart, one by one, will you guarantee to return here and issue a mea culpa for your mudslinging?
–
The fact that you’re still willfully ignoring the fact that previously reputable Journals have thrown science out the window is expected from a committed ideologue.
–
How to redeem a scrap of integrity, if you ever wanted.
Be more skeptical in the right way.
Put up lists of both sides.
Just for fun and fairness.
There are papers out there for hydroxychloroquine.
Give their references too.
–
As an aside, Atom, I was extremely unbelieving at first based on my medical training. Chloroquine was an antimalarial drug. And a cramp treatment.
Viruses and bacteria or parasites are extremely different and require different mechanisms of treatment.
The medications being for totally different reasons would normally never treat both types of life forms.
My rationale for non belief was based on science, what I had been taught up until that moment.
–
That changed when I learnt of the mechanisms of interfering with viral RNA reproduction in cells. Scientifically proven.
Are you aware of that?
Of course you are, petal.
Research dating back to 2004 or earlier as an antiviral.
Are you aware of that?
If not, why not?
–
Why knock the study of it as a helpful treatment when we have precious little else?
You show a great interest in scientific topics.
You certainly have a skeptical mind, with blinkers on.
–
Ideology.
If the drug does work you would have to thank Trump for helping promote it.
Guess your attitude is best summed up by better millions die than Trump gets any credit, even if vicarious ( He did not invent it though he might take credit).
What a great and commendable attitude, man.
WordPress.com / Gravatar.com credentials can be used.
