Conservative War On Science

[ToadBrother]

As I said, Waldo, I'll look at this later - but published papers are the currency of real science in the end.

Not in climatology, apparently. I'm anxious for Tim to point to all the anthropology and cosmology being done via blogs...

[TimG]

Would you apply your extraordinary blog claim to biology or physics? My goodness, it takes so much time to wait for peer review, clearly we have to go linguistics blogs to find out the latest research on the relationship of Sumerian to Elamite.

Here is a perfect example of a math paper on the Riemann Hypothesis being debated in blogs:

http://climateaudit.org/2008/07/07/climate-scientists-and-the-riemann-hypothesis/

The idea that blogs have no place in science is as antiquated as the type writer.

[ToadBrother]

Here is a perfect example of a math paper on the Riemann Hypothesis being debated in blogs:

http://climateaudit.org/2008/07/07/climate-scientists-and-the-riemann-hypothesis/

The idea that blogs have no place in science is as antiquated as the type writer.

You'll note I didn't say they didn't have a place, but if you think primary research is being done via blog, you're out of your mind. And there's damned little control on blog quality, whereas at least a published paper has the benefit of a process.

You're trying to give your sources an up on published work, and you've got to know that's utterly ridiculous. I come back to it time and time again, you seem ignorant of how science is done.

[Michael Hardner]

Why a paper? Would you even read paper?

Here is one that makes the point: http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/

Now you can go running to your favorite alarmist blogs and find various nit picks about the details. Here is a post that discusses main points and addresses the minor points of criticisms:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2773

The basic conclusion is the proxies tell us nothing useful.

The first link needs to be published so we can look at what other scientists say about it.

The second link is just stupid. Somebody putting the entire debate into entirely personal terms.

There's no point in posting a paper like the 1st one for the public. Blogs can help communicate the nature of the science, in the same way that we discus it here. I would suggest that science journals open moderated forums to explain the science to civilians.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

TimG... minor points of criticism... that's what you're calling the initial formal response coming at MW2010? (notwithstanding, of course, despite all their difficulties, misunderstandings, improper methodology, improper data use/selection and outright politicized wording within their paper, McShane and Wyner still managed to reproduce a 'hockey stick'... oh my! Denialtown somehow... somehow... managed to gloss over that little tidbit.

That's something I didn't get about the 2nd blog... with all of it's bluster about body checking Mann to the boards and that puerile language, there still seemed to be warming happening from 19th century onwards.

[TimG]

That's something I didn't get about the 2nd blog... with all of it's bluster about body checking Mann to the boards and that puerile language, there still seemed to be warming happening from 19th century onwards.

Of course you completely miss the point. That post provided graphs with the uncertainty intervals that should have made it painfully clear that these reconstructions are pure noise and provide no useful information. You really need to learn to understand the concept of statistical significance when it comes to these reconstructions. The shape of the line means nothing.

[waldo]

That's something I didn't get about the 2nd blog... with all of it's bluster about body checking Mann to the boards and that puerile language, there still seemed to be warming happening from 19th century onwards.

well... yes... cause Briggs plays for the McIntyre team

since Timmay seems to want to play blog wars, as follows, a targeted link that speaks directly to the link/paper TimG is touting as a testament to "all that is McIntyre"... where McIntyre is fronting fellow statisticians who know nothing of climate science (McShane & Wyner - M&W2010). The following blog link is actually from the blog of a noted working climate scientist - Eduardo Zorita... I trust you'll appreciate and recognize Zorita's body of publications, past work positions, education, etc.

McShane and Wyner on climate reconstruction methods - Posted by eduardo... a very informative article with pointed criticism of M&W2010

blog wars... cause he who has the most links wins! (of course... my powder is still very dry)

[Michael Hardner]

Of course you completely miss the point. That post provided graphs with the uncertainty intervals that should have made it painfully clear that these reconstructions are pure noise and provide no useful information. You really need to learn to understand the concept of statistical significance when it comes to these reconstructions. The shape of the line means nothing.

I didn't read the whole blog, I admit. But the first step of regression analysis, as I have done it, is to look at the data points and come up with a hypothesis. The graph from 1800s on looks pretty strong to me.

What was the correlation factor they came up with then ?

[Michael Hardner]

well... yes... cause Briggs plays for the McIntyre team

since Timmay seems to want to play blog wars, as follows, a targeted link that speaks directly to the link/paper TimG is touting as a testament to "all that is McIntyre"... where McIntyre is fronting fellow statisticians who know nothing of climate science (McShane & Wyner - M&W2010).

The thing is... an analysis of statistical methods in climate science would be a completely valid topic, for a journal of statistics.

But I don`t think these things are being published in that field either ? or are they ?

[normanchateau]

"...the Conservatives were presented this week with a sensible way of addressing their stated concerns about coercion of Canadians. The Liberals introduced a motion, later passed by the combined Opposition, removing the nominal but never-used threat of jail time for failure to complete any mandatory census...

But the government had the same response for this expression of Parliament’s will as it had for science, fact and commonsense. It doesn’t care and it isn’t budging.

Tory MP Steven Blaney was still repeating the blarney that the long-form questionnaire wants to know what cereal you have for breakfast, which is simply not true.

His colleague [Conservative MP] Dean Del Maestro, who says he has taken "a lot of statistics courses," said he has never heard the argument that voluntary surveys yield less valuable data than a mandatory census. Was he on Mars all summer?"

Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorials/1204970.html

At the risk of addressing the initial thread topic, and therefore being totally ignored, I'm pointing out that Harper's war on science and statistical significance continues.

Apparently the Harper government has no need for accurate statistics. In explaining why the Harper government was building more jails while crime in Canada was on the decline, the Harper government claimed that "unreported" crime was increasing:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Stockwell+says+unreported+crimes+rising/3353984/story.html

[TimG]

Apparently the Harper government has no need for accurate statistics.

It seems to me that whenever statistics are quoted in the media they are invariably used as justification for expanding government regulation and control. Sometimes I wonder if we would be better off with fewer statistics of any quality.

[waldo]

The thing is... an analysis of statistical methods in climate science would be a completely valid topic, for a journal of statistics.

But I don`t think these things are being published in that field either ? or are they ?

collaborative efforts are underway... bridging the so-called 'gap' between climate science and statistics... the 'gap' that McIntyre lives to (attempt) to leverage. The much failed paper that TimG touts (that McIntyre hyped), McShane&Wyner2010, was published in the journal "Annals of Statistics". One of the published refutations to that paper is the first link I previously provided... a comment also accepted and published within that same journal. Again:

A COMMENT ON “A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?” BY MCSHANE AND WYNER

let me quote a relevant closing comment from the above link's paper... one that speaks directly to your question:

Problems in climate research such as statistical climate reconstruction require sophisticated statistical approaches and a thorough understanding of the data used. Moreover, investigations of the underlying spatial patterns of past climate changes, rather than simply hemispheric mean temperature estimates, are most likely to provide insights into climate dynamics (e.g. Mann et al., 2009, Schmidt, 2010). Further progress in this area will most likely arise from continuing collaboration between the statistics and climate science communities, such as fostered since 1996 by the joint NSF/NCAR Geophysical Statistics Project.

NCAR's Geophysical Statistics Project -- GSP

what you see in the McIntyre touted/failed McShane&Wyner2010 paper is an effort from 2 isolated statisticians who know nothing of climate science... did not understand the climate science papers they were presuming to target... questionably did not even read the climate science papers they were presuming to target... got their climate science 'knowledge and understanding' from "blogs"... and did not bother to actually consult with climate scientists. Hence their very failed paper - one that the self-styled auditor, McIntyre, has pulled away/back from. Of course, he's already milked it for all it's worth and his minions ate it up - right TimG?

[normanchateau]

It seems to me that whenever statistics are quoted in the media they are invariably used as justification for expanding government regulation and control. Sometimes I wonder if we would be better off with fewer statistics of any quality.

Doesn't the Harper government's plan to spend billions of dollars to house criminals on the basis of an increase in "unreported" crime argue against your position?

[waldo]

At the risk of addressing the initial thread topic, and therefore being totally ignored, I'm pointing out that Harper's war on science and statistical significance continues.

Apparently the Harper government has no need for accurate statistics. In explaining why the Harper government was building more jails while crime in Canada was on the decline, the Harper government claimed that "unreported" crime was increasing:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Stockwell+says+unreported+crimes+rising/3353984/story.html

noted: more technical, non-politically slanted climate change related discussion does not belong in this thread.

[normanchateau]

It seems to me that whenever statistics are quoted in the media they are invariably used as justification for expanding government regulation and control. Sometimes I wonder if we would be better off with fewer statistics of any quality.

One could argue just as well that the absence of statistics can be used to justify expanding government control. The Harper government will be spending approximately ten billion dollars of taxpayer's money to build more jails and justifies this increase by claiming an increase in "unreported" crime rather than statistical evidence (which shows a decline in crime):

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/845272--ottawa-s-prison-plan-won-t-work-critics-say

[Michael Hardner]

collaborative efforts are underway... bridging the so-called 'gap' between climate science and statistics... the 'gap' that McIntyre lives to (attempt) to leverage. The much failed paper that TimG touts (that McIntyre hyped), McShane&Wyner2010, was published in the journal "Annals of Statistics". One of the published refutations to that paper is the first link I previously provided... a comment also accepted and published within that same journal. Again:

A COMMENT ON “A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?” BY MCSHANE AND WYNER

If we can lose the `presuming to target` angle - as it turns the science back into the professional wrestling angle that the blogs perpetuate.

That`s a good read - very understandable to non-scientists like ourselves.

It`s a recent response, though, so we`ll have to see what MW respond with. It`s a nebulous area, and indeed the inclusion or exclusion of data points needs to be done carefully, and - of course - with subject matter of knowledge of what constitutes good data.

I`m very glad that this discussion is happening in a scientific publication. Let`s see what happens.

As a side note - I`m very confused by something in this paper. Although the blog that Tim linked to characterized the MW paper as a bodycheck - or some other hockey analogy - Mann summarizes something from their study:

Using their reconstruction, MW

nonetheless still found recent warmth to be unusual in a long-term context: they estimate

an 80% probability that the decade 1997-2006 is warmer than any other for at least the

past 1000 years.

This tells me a few things - MW indeed are doing real science, as if they were just out to utterly discredit Mann et al they would have come up with something more extreme. Also, MW have found warming at an 80% confidence level. That`s not the 95% that statisticians would use, but still not a body check by any means.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Keepitsimple]

At the risk of addressing the initial thread topic, and therefore being totally ignored, I'm pointing out that Harper's war on science and statistical significance continues.

Apparently the Harper government has no need for accurate statistics. In explaining why the Harper government was building more jails while crime in Canada was on the decline, the Harper government claimed that "unreported" crime was increasing:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Stockwell+says+unreported+crimes+rising/3353984/story.html

The critics were jackasses....

Stockwell Day 1, media 0:

Unreported crime jumps at an ‘alarming’ rate, proving his ‘absurd’ argument was right

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, Toronto Sun

Last Updated: October 2, 2010 11:19pm

Board President Stockwell Day took a pounding from Ottawa’s chattering classes for observing the amount of unreported crime in Canada is increasing at an “alarming” rate.

Some pundits mocked Day by arguing, incorrectly, that since “unreported” crime can’t be measured, it was absurd for Day to claim it was rising.

Others ridiculed him for (accurately) citing “six-year-old” data from 2004, even though that was the most up-to-date information available at the time.

Last week, Statistics Canada released its latest figures on unreported crime, based on crime victimization data compiled for the General Social Survey (GSS), a scientific poll of 19,500 Canadians over the age of 15, conducted once every five years.

The numbers confirm exactly what Day said.

Unreported crime in Canada is increasing at an “alarming,” or, if you prefer, a statistically significant rate.

The GSS estimates in 2009, only 31% of crimes were reported to police, part of a steady drop since 1999, when 37% were reported. (In 2004, it was 34%.)

Only an estimated 29% of violent crimes such as sexual assault, robbery and physical assault were reported in 2009, a level Statistics Canada describes as stable since 1999, when it was 31%.

However, there have been significant decreases in the reporting of household crimes (break and enter, motor vehicle/parts theft, household property theft and vandalism), down from an estimated 44% of all incidents in 1999 to 36% last year.

Similarly, reported theft of personal property dropped from 35% of all incidents in 1999 to 28% last year.

It’s also estimated 88% of sexual assaults weren’t reported to police in 2009.

One major reason why so much crime goes unreported is the victim believes, rightly or wrongly, the incident is too minor for the police to become involved. (Another is the victim believes reporting the crime won’t do any good.)

But that doesn’t mean the GSS only covers minor crimes.

It’s estimated one in five unreported sexual assaults are sexual attacks, involving physical violence or threats.

To be clear, the latest statistics support Day’s argument the increasing incidence of unreported crime is, indeed, alarming.

This comes, remember, in the face of a political and media culture on Parliament Hill that overwhelmingly opposes Conservative attempts to toughen the criminal justice system and can barely conceal its contempt for such efforts.

.............and it goes on....

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/10/01/15553901.html

[waldo]

This tells me a few things - MW indeed are doing real science, as if they were just out to utterly discredit Mann et al they would have come up with something more extreme. Also, MW have found warming at an 80% confidence level. That`s not the 95% that statisticians would use, but still not a body check by any means.

no - M&W re-use (in it's entirety) MBH's data... however, they improperly select (from) and use that data... notwithstanding their improper methodology/procedures, etc. Again, the Zorita blog link will run you through a point-by-point critique of M&W2010.

[waldo]

The critics were jackasses....

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/10/01/15553901.html

whaaa! Simple... from a survey... that shows a whopping, wait for it, wait for it... 3% reduction in unreported crime. Certainly that justifies Harper Conservatives spending $9 Billion on new prisons. Oh wait, a significant impact on that survey are such things as failing to report theft, failing to report vandalism... lock em up! The Harper Conservative, Stockwell Day, 3% factor!

[Michael Hardner]

no - M&W re-use (in it's entirety) MBH's data... however, they improperly select (from) and use that data... notwithstanding their improper methodology/procedures, etc. Again, the Zorita blog link will run you through a point-by-point critique of M&W2010.

As long as blogs, videos or whatever only are used to help us understand the formal scientific debate, and not to debate the science directly.

[normanchateau]

The critics were jackasses....

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/10/01/15553901.html

You might want to read the numbers that you posted before condemning the critics. Stockwell Day claimed that "unreported" crime was increasing at an "alarming" rate. In 1999, 31% of violent crimes were reported. In 2009, 29% of violent crimes were reported.

Yes, that's a slight increase in "unreported" crime over 10 years. Now go and look at actual violent crime rates over the years and you will see that the decline in violent crime rates is greater than the slight increase in "unreported" violent crimes.

Incidentally, the "unreported" crime numbers come from Statistics Canada but they're not from census data. They're from a poll conducted by Statistics Canada.

[Keepitsimple]

You might want to read the numbers that you posted before condemning the critics. Stockwell Day claimed that "unreported" crime was increasing at an "alarming" rate. In 1999, 31% of violent crimes were reported. In 2009, 29% of violent crimes were reported.

Yes, that's a slight increase in "unreported" crime over 10 years. Now go and look at actual violent crime rates over the years and you will see that the decline in violent crime rates is greater than the slight increase in "unreported" violent crimes.

Incidentally, the "unreported" crime numbers come from Statistics Canada but they're not from census data. They're from a poll conducted by Statistics Canada.

You've picked up on one figure and misrepresented it - don't you think? Whether it's 29% or 31% reported - that means 70% of violent crimes are unreported. It's pretty hard to get any worse than that. As for not coming from the census data - what does that have to do with anything. Statistics Canada has gone out of there way recently to commend themselves on doing such a good and unbaised job....well, they've been doing this survey for quite a while and it encompasses over 15,000 responses.....so I think we'll have to assume the survey has some statistical consistency and merit.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

You've picked up on one figure and misrepresented it - don't you think? Whether it's 29% or 31% reported - that means 70% of violent crimes are unreported. It's pretty hard to get any worse than that. As for not coming from the census data - what does that have to do with anything. Statistics Canada has gone out of there way recently to commend themselves on doing such a good and unbaised job....well, they've been doing this survey for quite a while and it encompasses over 15,000 responses.....so I think we'll have to assume the survey has some statistical consistency and merit.

no, Simple... please, calm down now... to be accurate, the survey figures are actually 31% for 2009 (of the 19,500 survey participants) versus 34% for 2004... that's total crime, not specifically violent crime... and it's over a 5 year period. Within the 2009 survey the number drops to 27% for the period covering the most recent 12 months - again unreported total crime. In terms of actual described violent crime (sexual assault, robbery, physical assault) the survey reports a figure of 6% unreported violent crime (of the 19,500 survey participants). Simple... 6%... that's quite a disparity from your suggested 70% unreported violent crime - hey?

of course, the survey's real tidbit that Harper Conservative Crime Busters don't want publicized is the one that speaks to overall safety perceptions of the public... as in the 2009 survey, 93% (of the 19,500 survey participants) said they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their personal safety from crime... down 1% as compared to the 2004 survey's figure of 94%. Oh my - just how will Harper Conservatives spin the 6% unreported violent crime and 93% personal safety satisfaction figures... spin, in order to substantiate the $9 Billion new prison costs?

Edited October 3, 2010 by waldo

[Saipan]

of course, the survey's real tidbit that Harper Conservative Crime Busters don't want publicized is the one that speaks to overall safety perceptions of the public... as in the 2009 survey, 93% (of the 19,500 survey participants) said they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their personal safety from crime...

What does that mean? That they were not victims yet?

just how will Harper Conservatives spin the 6% unreported violent crime and 93% personal safety satisfaction figures... spin, in order to substantiate the $9 Billion new prison costs?

Why does it need any "spin"? Liberals [lower case l] are constantly moaning about overcrowded prisons. And yet general public is pissed about dangerouns criminals being relased back on the streets repeatedly, because of overcrowded prisons, and because Liberals love to defend scum.

But the funniest part is that while they made fun of Day about unreported crime Liberals themself KNOW how many unregistered guns are there. Long guns that is

Edited October 4, 2010 by Saipan

[waldo]

no, Simple... please, calm down now... to be accurate, the survey figures are actually 31% for 2009 (of the 19,500 survey participants) versus 34% for 2004... that's total crime, not specifically violent crime... and it's over a 5 year period. Within the 2009 survey the number drops to 27% for the period covering the most recent 12 months - again unreported total crime. In terms of actual described violent crime (sexual assault, robbery, physical assault) the survey reports a figure of 6% unreported violent crime (of the 19,500 survey participants). Simple... 6%... that's quite a disparity from your suggested 70% unreported violent crime - hey?

of course, the survey's real tidbit that Harper Conservative Crime Busters don't want publicized is the one that speaks to overall safety perceptions of the public... as in the 2009 survey, 93% (of the 19,500 survey participants) said they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their personal safety from crime... down 1% as compared to the 2004 survey's figure of 94%.

What does that mean? That they were not victims yet?

let see... results from a survey titled 'Victimization' suggest that 93% of the surveyed participants indicate they feel satisfied/very satisfied with their personal safety from crime... feel safe within the current level of crime that confronts them.

Oh my - just how will Harper Conservatives spin the 6% unreported violent crime and 93% personal safety satisfaction figures... spin, in order to substantiate the $9 Billion new prison costs?

Why does it need any "spin"? Liberals [lower case l] are constantly moaning about overcrowded prisons. And yet general public is pissed about dangerouns criminals being relased back on the streets repeatedly, because of overcrowded prisons, and because Liberals love to defend scum.

I will indulge you as I appreciate that as a part of a new MLW member introduction, you received a glowing recommendation from MLW member 'jbg'... nuff said!

in the concept of large deficit spending, Opposition parties have raised concerns over the failure by Harper Conservatives to rationalize a $9 Billion dollar expenditure for new prison construction. Harper Conservatives gained no traction over claims that crime rates were increasing... cause they're not. So we're left with Harper Conservatives rallying to the cause over a survey that purports to claim unreported crime is on the rise... yup, within a survey, we read about a 3% rise in unreported crime (over the previous 5 years period). Wow! But within that same survey... the survey Harper Conservatives are attempting to leverage, we read that of the unreported crime, only 6% of that unreported crime is described as 'violent crime'... and... 93% of survey participants indicate they are satisfied/very satisfied with their personal level of safety. So, ya... in that context, spin to rationalize Harper Conservatives wanting to spend $9 Billion on new prison construction.