PDA

View Full Version : The Economist: Journalistic malpractice on global warming



wilbur
02-27-2010, 01:00 AM
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/



Good point. For example, a week ago Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, gave an interview to the BBC that was widely described as a debacle. The main reason was that the BBC reporter asked Mr Jones whether he would concede that global warming since 1995 has not been statistically significant. Mr Jones replied: "Yes, but only just," and went on to note that there was a measured global warming of 0.12°C per decade since then, and that it tends to be harder to get statistical significance out of shorter time samples.

This led to a Daily Mail headline reading: "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."

Since I've advocated a more explicit use of the word "lie", I'll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he said the opposite. He said the world had been warming at 0.12°C per decade since 1995. However, over that time frame, he could not quite rule out at the traditional 95% confidence level that the warming since 1995 had not been a random fluke.

Anyone who has even a passing high-school familiarity with statistics should understand the difference between these two statements. At a longer time interval, say 30 or 50 or 100 years, Mr Jones could obviously demonstrate that global warming is a statistically significant trend.



Good little piece - the journalistic malpractice - I like it... its been epidemic since the infamous emails.

Rockntractor
02-27-2010, 01:11 AM
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/



Good little piece - the journalistic malpractice - I like it... its been epidemic since the infamous emails.
Funny how he has resigned.

wilbur
02-27-2010, 01:19 AM
Funny how he has resigned.

Uh, he resigned temporarily, while the investigations by the university were taking place. To my knowledge he hasnt permanently stepped down.

But what have you got to say about the article... learned anything perhaps? Or are you just stalking again?

Rockntractor
02-27-2010, 01:23 AM
Uh, he resigned temporarily, while the investigations by the university were taking place. To my knowledge he hasnt permanently stepped down.

But what have you got to say about the article... learned anything perhaps? Or are you just stalking again?
Just stalking. I'm not looking for a new religion right now.

wilbur
02-27-2010, 01:28 AM
Just stalking. I'm not looking for a new religion right now.

Good. This definitely isn't the right place to look for that.

Rockntractor
02-27-2010, 01:32 AM
Good. This definitely isn't the right place to look for that.

Umm yeah right.:rolleyes:

Sonnabend
02-27-2010, 09:46 AM
The Hima;layas are melting...no, they arent
The seas will rise...no they wont
The polar bears are dying..,.no they arent
The world is warming...no it isnt.

All IPCC lies. All debunked.

It's over, wilbur. AGW is a lie and a scam.

Give it up.

wilbur
02-27-2010, 11:03 AM
The Hima;layas are melting...no, they arent
The seas will rise...no they wont
The polar bears are dying..,.no they arent
The world is warming...no it isnt.

All IPCC lies. All debunked.

It's over, wilbur. AGW is a lie and a scam.

Give it up.

I seem to recall you posting or reiterating the untruths contained within the daily mail article, as discussed in the OP. Now would be a good time to retract, and to rexamine all the other things that you believe to be true - but you learned from equally dubious sources.

Please spare us any more canned, robotic responses.

Rockntractor
02-27-2010, 11:18 AM
I seem to recall you posting or reiterating the untruths contained within the daily mail article, as discussed in the OP. Now would be a good time to retract, and to rexamine all the other things that you believe to be true - but you learned from equally dubious sources.

Please spare us any more canned, robotic responses.

Why don't you head to Hawaii and stand on the beach and watch for waves? There is Samoa water headed that way!

Jfor
02-27-2010, 02:35 PM
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/



Good little piece - the journalistic malpractice - I like it... its been epidemic since the infamous emails.

So, you are quoting a blog by the author M.S. Now, why should we even trust this source to be telling the truth when the author of said article can't even publish his own name?

Sonnabend
02-27-2010, 02:56 PM
I seem to recall you posting or reiterating the untruths contained within the daily mail article, as discussed in the OP. Now would be a good time to retract, and to rexamine all the other things that you believe to be true - but you learned from equally dubious sources.

What I know to be true is that AGW is a lie and a scam. Jones himself stated there has been no warming in 15 years. The Himalayas are not melting, the polar bears are not dying.


Please spare us any more canned, robotic responses.

Poor wilbur...deluded and demented to the end.

wilbur
02-27-2010, 03:26 PM
What I know to be true is that AGW is a lie and a scam. Jones himself stated there has been no warming in 15 years. The Himalayas are not melting, the polar bears are not dying.


Did you even read the OP? Did you even read what "Jones stated"? You just repeated the lie again! :p



Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he said the opposite. He said the world had been warming at 0.12°C per decade since 1995. However, over that time frame, he could not quite rule out at the traditional 95% confidence level that the warming since 1995 had not been a random fluke.


In other words, Jones stated there HAS been warming - but the statistical certainty for that specific time slice means that it still could be, statistically speaking, coincidence and not part of a trend. One can increase the statistical certainty by increasing the amount of data points, either by choosing to go farther back in time, or by waiting a few more years.

Seriously - read it.

Sonnabend
02-27-2010, 04:47 PM
In other words, Jones stated there HAS been warming - but the statistical certainty for that specific time slice means that it still could be, statistically speaking, coincidence and not part of a trend. One can increase the statistical certainty by increasing the amount of data points, either by choosing to go farther back in time, or by waiting a few more years.

Seriously - read it.

I did


And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0gm7hnKnb



No melting ice capa
No dying polar bears
no rising sea levels
no catastrophic hurricanes
no catastrophic drought

None of the end of the world doomscreaming made by Jones and his IPCC ilk.

And no, wilbur, AGW does not cause earthquakes either.

wilbur
02-27-2010, 05:12 PM
I did

No melting ice capa
No dying polar bears
no rising sea levels
no catastrophic hurricanes
no catastrophic drought

None of the end of the world doomscreaming made by Jones and his IPCC ilk.

And no, wilbur, AGW does not cause earthquakes either.

I think its pretty clear, that even when you read something on this issue, you don't understand it, as this thread clearly shows - your opinion isnt worth much here.

Rockntractor
02-27-2010, 05:14 PM
Why would anyone read anything from this discredited author!