Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
"With sample sizes like that you need confidence in the randomness and when organsised partisan voting is present there is none."
Not quite right. Given a population size, a sample size, a given confidence level typically 95% or 99% and a percentage of the vote, it's possible to say something. This assumes that there is no pre-vote to select the 'electorate' which is reasonable.
For example, say 200 people out of a PH population of 250,000 voted on a similar poll and a similar result was obtained giving 63% support for the correct answer
that Sandy had nothing to do with a non-existent manmade rise in mean global temperature.
At the 95% confidence level, the confidence interval is approx 6.7 (+/-) which relates to between 56.3% and 69.7% of the population. At the 99% confidence level, the confidence interval is +/- 8.8 which is all basic stats.
Not quite right. Given a population size, a sample size, a given confidence level typically 95% or 99% and a percentage of the vote, it's possible to say something. This assumes that there is no pre-vote to select the 'electorate' which is reasonable.
For example, say 200 people out of a PH population of 250,000 voted on a similar poll and a similar result was obtained giving 63% support for the correct answer
that Sandy had nothing to do with a non-existent manmade rise in mean global temperature.At the 95% confidence level, the confidence interval is approx 6.7 (+/-) which relates to between 56.3% and 69.7% of the population. At the 99% confidence level, the confidence interval is +/- 8.8 which is all basic stats.
fido said:
Apologies if this has already been discussed ..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tri...
.. but another 'scandal' involving the BBC
The BBC is a scandal...http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tri...
.. but another 'scandal' involving the BBC
turbobloke said:
"With sample sizes like that you need confidence in the randomness and when organsised partisan voting is present there is none."
Not quite right. Given a population size, a sample size, a given confidence level typically 95% or 99% and a percentage of the vote, it's possible to say something. This assumes that there is no pre-vote to select the 'electorate' which is reasonable.
For example, say 200 people out of a PH population of 250,000 voted on a similar poll and a similar result was obtained giving 63% support for the correct answer that Sandy had nothing to do with a non-existent manmade rise in mean global temperature.
At the 95% confidence level, the confidence interval is approx 6.7 (+/-) which relates to between 56.3% and 69.7% of the population. At the 99% confidence level, the confidence interval is +/- 8.8 which is all basic stats.
Mostly above my head, but this "This assumes that there is no pre-vote to select the 'electorate' which is reasonable." amounts to the same as organised partisan voting.Not quite right. Given a population size, a sample size, a given confidence level typically 95% or 99% and a percentage of the vote, it's possible to say something. This assumes that there is no pre-vote to select the 'electorate' which is reasonable.
For example, say 200 people out of a PH population of 250,000 voted on a similar poll and a similar result was obtained giving 63% support for the correct answer
that Sandy had nothing to do with a non-existent manmade rise in mean global temperature.At the 95% confidence level, the confidence interval is approx 6.7 (+/-) which relates to between 56.3% and 69.7% of the population. At the 99% confidence level, the confidence interval is +/- 8.8 which is all basic stats.
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
"With sample sizes like that you need confidence in the randomness and when organsised partisan voting is present there is none."
Not quite right. Given a population size, a sample size, a given confidence level typically 95% or 99% and a percentage of the vote, it's possible to say something. This assumes that there is no pre-vote to select the 'electorate' which is reasonable.
For example, say 200 people out of a PH population of 250,000 voted on a similar poll and a similar result was obtained giving 63% support for the correct answer that Sandy had nothing to do with a non-existent manmade rise in mean global temperature.
At the 95% confidence level, the confidence interval is approx 6.7 (+/-) which relates to between 56.3% and 69.7% of the population. At the 99% confidence level, the confidence interval is +/- 8.8 which is all basic stats.
Mostly above my head, but this "This assumes that there is no pre-vote to select the 'electorate' which is reasonable." amounts to the same as organised partisan voting.Not quite right. Given a population size, a sample size, a given confidence level typically 95% or 99% and a percentage of the vote, it's possible to say something. This assumes that there is no pre-vote to select the 'electorate' which is reasonable.
For example, say 200 people out of a PH population of 250,000 voted on a similar poll and a similar result was obtained giving 63% support for the correct answer
that Sandy had nothing to do with a non-existent manmade rise in mean global temperature.At the 95% confidence level, the confidence interval is approx 6.7 (+/-) which relates to between 56.3% and 69.7% of the population. At the 99% confidence level, the confidence interval is +/- 8.8 which is all basic stats.
Grist, Skeptical Wossname, FakeClimate and Rabbit site hoppers will have spotted the vote and emailed each other after warming to the idea of cultivating votes to support 'the cause'.
WUWT visitors will have done the same, as such both sides of the debate have had equal access to the poll webpage and equal entitlement to a legitimate vote i.e. one vote for each person.
Organised partisan action is also known as an election or in this case a poll.
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
Whilst I have not too much time for on-line voting options (or indeed surveys of any kind) there is a theory that would suggest that if all parties are promoting their 'cause' the ultimate result is possibly still representative of the the plebian view.
If all parties are promoting the poll you mean (and even then I'm not sure it would be very representative given sceptics are a better organised internet force) Your sense of humour, right?
If not and you truly believe that the believers are poorly organised despite the best efforts of their controllers and huge sums of money pumped into them from governments, oil companies and 'charitable' foundations (amongst others) and the controlling unbrella organistions established to ensure solid on message co-ordination, then .... I'm aghast. Where have you been and what have you been reading?
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
Statistically one might assume that given a large enough number of sample votes (street surveys seem to randomise at about 1100 to 1200 participants) the accuracy of the resulting statistical analysis will be significantly accurate to a usable degree.
Whether they really are or not is another matter. Maybe. Although of course none of it may matter.
Not sure what you're saying here. With sample sizes like that you need confidence in the randomness and when organsised partisan voting is present there is none. Whether they really are or not is another matter. Maybe. Although of course none of it may matter.
So, reduced to an internet based effort to activate the troops the results, rough as they may be, still seem likely to be representative. Not that the result matters on any way for any practical purpose or subsequent action.
IMHO.
Scientists reject Sandy/Climate Link While Warmists Go Full 'Tabloid Climatology' & Claim Sandy Speaks!
Round Up of Hurricane Sandy Reactions from Political Blog Climate Depot.
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'These new 'Tabloid Climatology' claims by activists attempting to link any weather event to man-made global warming are disgusting. The 'new normal' for climate activists is their ever shifting claims as they morph the entire AGW argument to focus on extreme weather. They are exploiting any weather event to promote their religious like cause and a storm like Sandy is shamelessly used to gin up fear.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 Marc Morano, Climate Depot
NOAA's Martin Hoerling rejects 'Frankenstorm' climate link: 'This is not some spell conjured upon us by great external forces....unless you believe in the monster flicks of Universal Studios fame!'
Meteorologist Hoerling of NOAA: 'The immediate cause is most likely little more than the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent W. Atlantic in Oct....nothing unusual with that...As to underlying causes, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over N. Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change'
More from U.S. Govt Scientist Hoerling: 'Nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades'
Prof. Pielke Jr.: 'We've done long-term trends with respect to hurricane damage in the United States, and it's very safe to say that regardless of how [Sandy] plays out, there's a century-long time series with no trend in it — and that's in damage, the number of landfalls, or the intensity of storms at landfall. So, if you are looking for signals of long-term climate change, focusing in on any one storm is the wrong way to go about it to begin with'
Houston Chronicle's Science guy Eric Berger: '...it is a big stretch to go from there to blaming Sandy on climate change. It's a stretch that is just not supported by science at this time'
Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels on Sandy: 'It's also consistent with a planet with colder temperatures as well as one with warmer ones...More important, events like this are inevitable on a planet that has an ocean with the geography of the Atlantic (meaning a Gulf Stream-like feature), a large north-south continent on its western margin without a transverse mountain range to inhibit the merger of tropical warmth with polar cold, and four seasons in the temperate latitudes'
Hurricane Expert Chris Landsea: 'Any connection between AGW & hurricanes is almost certainly undetectable...and that this view is not particularly controversial among tropical cyclone climatologists.
(Landsea concluded that hurricanes should not be the 'poster' representing a human influence on climate)
Meteorologist Dr. Karsten Brandt: 'by looking back at the global data available over the last decades, there's no indication or evidence showing there's been an increase in storm activity. The data don't show it...Luckily we don't need to worry much about increasing storms in the future'
Sandy disrupts climate vigil in Boston: 'A storm many environmentalists see as linked to climate change has forced the end of a climate vigil in Boston'
Brendan O'Neill in UK Telegraph: 'After every natural disaster that occurs these days, we do two things. First, we guffaw or shake our heads in stern disapproval at those religious freaks who blame said disaster on mankind's sin. And second, we nod in vigorous agreement with those eco-experts who blame said disaster on man-made climate change'
Climate Depot: 'McKibben and other warmists are practicing a form of witchcraft. They are attempting to convince the public that check writing, SUVs and home energy use are causing bad weather. They are exploiting any weather event to promote their religious like cause and a storm like Sandy is shamelessly used to gin up fear.'
Round Up of Hurricane Sandy Reactions from Political Blog Climate Depot.
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'These new 'Tabloid Climatology' claims by activists attempting to link any weather event to man-made global warming are disgusting. The 'new normal' for climate activists is their ever shifting claims as they morph the entire AGW argument to focus on extreme weather. They are exploiting any weather event to promote their religious like cause and a storm like Sandy is shamelessly used to gin up fear.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 Marc Morano, Climate Depot
NOAA's Martin Hoerling rejects 'Frankenstorm' climate link: 'This is not some spell conjured upon us by great external forces....unless you believe in the monster flicks of Universal Studios fame!'
Meteorologist Hoerling of NOAA: 'The immediate cause is most likely little more than the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent W. Atlantic in Oct....nothing unusual with that...As to underlying causes, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over N. Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change'
More from U.S. Govt Scientist Hoerling: 'Nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades'
Prof. Pielke Jr.: 'We've done long-term trends with respect to hurricane damage in the United States, and it's very safe to say that regardless of how [Sandy] plays out, there's a century-long time series with no trend in it — and that's in damage, the number of landfalls, or the intensity of storms at landfall. So, if you are looking for signals of long-term climate change, focusing in on any one storm is the wrong way to go about it to begin with'
Houston Chronicle's Science guy Eric Berger: '...it is a big stretch to go from there to blaming Sandy on climate change. It's a stretch that is just not supported by science at this time'
Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels on Sandy: 'It's also consistent with a planet with colder temperatures as well as one with warmer ones...More important, events like this are inevitable on a planet that has an ocean with the geography of the Atlantic (meaning a Gulf Stream-like feature), a large north-south continent on its western margin without a transverse mountain range to inhibit the merger of tropical warmth with polar cold, and four seasons in the temperate latitudes'
Hurricane Expert Chris Landsea: 'Any connection between AGW & hurricanes is almost certainly undetectable...and that this view is not particularly controversial among tropical cyclone climatologists.
(Landsea concluded that hurricanes should not be the 'poster' representing a human influence on climate)
Meteorologist Dr. Karsten Brandt: 'by looking back at the global data available over the last decades, there's no indication or evidence showing there's been an increase in storm activity. The data don't show it...Luckily we don't need to worry much about increasing storms in the future'
Sandy disrupts climate vigil in Boston: 'A storm many environmentalists see as linked to climate change has forced the end of a climate vigil in Boston'
Brendan O'Neill in UK Telegraph: 'After every natural disaster that occurs these days, we do two things. First, we guffaw or shake our heads in stern disapproval at those religious freaks who blame said disaster on mankind's sin. And second, we nod in vigorous agreement with those eco-experts who blame said disaster on man-made climate change'
Climate Depot: 'McKibben and other warmists are practicing a form of witchcraft. They are attempting to convince the public that check writing, SUVs and home energy use are causing bad weather. They are exploiting any weather event to promote their religious like cause and a storm like Sandy is shamelessly used to gin up fear.'
deeps said:
Quite amusing to watch Lord lawson bash Caroline Lucas live on BBC news this afternoon They were debating disturbines, Lawson destroyed her points as "a complete reversal of the truth" and added that she lives in a parallel universe 
.
He remains well informed and is usually good value in the studio or as a location interviewee. Nothing to lose - he can tell it as it is. Good to hear that Lucas had her ass wiped. They were debating disturbines, Lawson destroyed her points as "a complete reversal of the truth" and added that she lives in a parallel universe .turbobloke said:
No it's not the same thing. The vote wasn't on WUWT and accessible only to climate realists.
I didn't say they were all WUWT votes, but we don't know how many and that's kind of the point.turbobloke said:
Grist, Skeptical Wossname, FakeClimate and Rabbit site hoppers will have spotted the vote and emailed each other after warming to the idea of cultivating votes to support 'the cause'.
evidence? speculation? Show me a warmist site doing it and I promise to go and take the piss turbobloke said:
WUWT visitors will have done the same, as such both sides of the debate have had equal access to the poll webpage and equal entitlement to a legitimate vote i.e. one vote for each person.
Organised partisan action is also known as an election or in this case a poll.
But everyone knows there's a race on at election time.Organised partisan action is also known as an election or in this case a poll.
Remember the Climategate message from within The Team about not worrying over detail as (to paraphrase from memory) '000s of PhDs' signing up is what matters. That approach works both ways, PR matters to warmists so it must matter to realists and even though online polls are one of the minor oxygen lines sustaining junk bunk and gigo there's nothing wrong with cutting them, everything right in fact.
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Like I said, there's no such thing as acceptable vote rigging.
How's it going on the nonsensical supposition that Sandy was caused by a non-existent manmade rise in global mean temperature?
It's could be rising-temperature-related - the northern hemisphere is very warm these last few months. Not sure how it fits in with 'expected responses' to a warming world yet - hurricane frequency is supposed to go down but intensity up. Sandy is low intensity but huge in size so erm dunno.How's it going on the nonsensical supposition that Sandy was caused by a non-existent manmade rise in global mean temperature?
The calmest sun in a century may rustle up more hurricanes in the season that officially began Tuesday.
Research by Robert Hodges and Jim Elsner of Florida State University found the probability of three or more hurricanes hitting the USA goes up drastically during low points of the 11-year sunspot cycle, as is now the case.
Our star is just beginning to eke out of the lowest period for sunspots in a century.
Years with few sunspots and above-normal ocean temperatures spawn a less stable atmosphere and, consequently, more hurricanes, researchers say.
Years with more sunspots but still above-normal ocean temperatures yield a more stable atmosphere and thus fewer hurricanes.
"The effect is actually amplified under certain conditions,"
said James Elsner, a geography professor at Florida State University. Hodges is his graduate student.
"With fewer sunspots, there's less energy at the top of the atmosphere," Elsner said; therefore, the atmosphere above the hurricane is cooler. When that happens, the differential creates more atmospheric instability and stronger storms, energizing what might otherwise remain tropical storms into hurricanes.
Chances of three or more hurricanes hitting the U.S. increase from 20% to 40% in years when sunspots are in the lowest 25%, compared with years when they're in the highest 25%, the researchers found.
There's only a 25% chance of at least one hurricane hitting the United States in peak sunspot years.
The chance spikes to 64% in the lowest sunspot years.The scientists studied the frequency of hurricanes and sunspots from 1851 to 2008, adjusting for other hurricane-influencing factors such as El Nino and changes in sea-surface temperature.
They recently presented their findings in a poster at the American Meteorological Society's conference in Arizona. Their work also was published this month in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters.
LongQ said:
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
Whilst I have not too much time for on-line voting options (or indeed surveys of any kind) there is a theory that would suggest that if all parties are promoting their 'cause' the ultimate result is possibly still representative of the the plebian view.
If all parties are promoting the poll you mean (and even then I'm not sure it would be very representative given sceptics are a better organised internet force) Your sense of humour, right?
If not and you truly believe that the believers are poorly organised despite the best efforts of their controllers and huge sums of money pumped into them from governments, oil companies and 'charitable' foundations (amongst others) and the controlling unbrella organistions established to ensure solid on message co-ordination, then .... I'm aghast. Where have you been and what have you been reading?
Globs said:
By Jim Waymer, Florida Today
The calmest sun in a century may rustle up more hurricanes in the season that officially began Tuesday.
Research by Robert Hodges and Jim Elsner of Florida State University found the probability of three or more hurricanes hitting the USA goes up drastically during low points of the 11-year sunspot cycle, as is now the case.
June 2010?The calmest sun in a century may rustle up more hurricanes in the season that officially began Tuesday.
Research by Robert Hodges and Jim Elsner of Florida State University found the probability of three or more hurricanes hitting the USA goes up drastically during low points of the 11-year sunspot cycle, as is now the case.
BBC radio 4; Climategate Revisited. Am listening with interest.
ETA rather short, but reasonably evenhanded given it's on the BBC.
ETA rather short, but reasonably evenhanded given it's on the BBC.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Thursday 1st November 01:40
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
Whilst I have not too much time for on-line voting options (or indeed surveys of any kind) there is a theory that would suggest that if all parties are promoting their 'cause' the ultimate result is possibly still representative of the the plebian view.
If all parties are promoting the poll you mean (and even then I'm not sure it would be very representative given sceptics are a better organised internet force) Your sense of humour, right?
If not and you truly believe that the believers are poorly organised despite the best efforts of their controllers and huge sums of money pumped into them from governments, oil companies and 'charitable' foundations (amongst others) and the controlling unbrella organistions established to ensure solid on message co-ordination, then .... I'm aghast. Where have you been and what have you been reading?
Well, I could be wrong but I get the strong impression that the "warmist" side of the discussion is promoted by some well funded but unofficial web sites, some of which are blogs or blog like whilst the "non-warmist" side certainly have a number of bloggers but they are, so far as I am aware, unfunded other than by donations from their readers and perhaps a little advertising.
It's interesting that your perception is that the "warmist" sites don't have many followers whereas the "non-warmist" sites do.
My impression was always that involvement levels were quite similar if one took into account the split in public affiliations to each side. I say "was" because to be quite frank I stopped bothering with the "warmist" blogs some time back as they seemed to be under some form of group control for the most part and I found their style annoying to read. One got the impression that there were and presumably still are a lot of embedded academics (various levels) who have plenty of time available to write articles, monitor blog responses and control influences. There seemed to be little if any openmindedness and whilst that can also be true for the "non-warmist" web resources one usually finds more openness, IMO, and a willingness to accept posts with opposing opinions and discuss them
Not long after that I stopped bothering with most of the "non-warmist" sites too but mainly because to me the points of interest and influence seemed to have shifted, politically, from any serious pretence that science was a driving force directing proposed policies. The whole project had moved oout of R&D and into production mode. A different team was in charge. The "non-warmists" spotted that from time to time and would, perhaps, discuss ways to try to reign in the political excesses.
The "warmists", however, seemed to support the view that their success could really only be delivered by coercive political means. This, in my perception, was hardly a surprise since it was axactly the approach they had been taking and developing for several decades, as was becoming quite clear in public by that time. The last thing the "warmists" wanted was any regular open debate and certainly no dissemination of even the thought that the CO2 based theory might not be as clear cut as it had been made out to be. Every influence was to be brought to near and deployed in a consistent way with certainty. Hence so many seminars and training sessions ans the creation and distribution of papers like the one called "Warm Words" (iirc) that at some length advised interested parties about the words to use to re-inforce the AGW message and subconscious ideas underpinning the messageby careful choice of words and phrases. Propaganda management would be a closer and shorter description.
So it all came down to "framing", the theory being that if you frame the question to your advantage the message will eventually get though and change people's views at a social conscince level at which point momentum can be sustained without having to bother about science, facts or, by inference, honesty.
No matter what "the science" does or does not tell us the political drive will continue for some time yet. On the internet the "battle" seems destined to be fought out by the Elite footsoldiers for the "warmists" and a random loose grouping of "citizen's militia" for the "non-warmists". Neither group has the full ear of any government of course. All of that manipulation goes on in the background as well hidden as it can possibly be from the attentions of the citizenry.
What exactly is the point of arguing against the existence of organised warmistry in the light of the Jo Abbess affair and subsequently the ability of Believers - and others - to sign up for email alerts on climate coverage in the news and blogosphere in order to head over and swamp the news items and articles with acts of faith? Didn't some PHers sign up and post alerts on here? Some people have short memories, or selective recall. Like the faith itself, it's a lost cause, but that's beside the point.
Michael Mann's ego gets another bashing.
Yesterday's edition of his university's student magazine carries a full page ad placed by the National Review.
Don
--
Yesterday's edition of his university's student magazine carries a full page ad placed by the National Review.
The Collegian said:
CONGRATULATIONS, PENN STATE! *
Dr.Michael Mann— yes, your own Michael Mann— has
won a Nobel Peace Prize. He thus takes his place
among such American giants as Theodore Roosevelt,
Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King Jr., and
Barack Obama. We wish especially to extend
our congratulations to President Rodney Erickson
on the rare privilege of running an institution
with a Nobel Peace Prize winner on staff. What
Mikhail Gorbachev is to the former Soviet Union,
what Nelson Mandela is to South Africa, and what
the European Union is to the European Union,
Michael Mann is to Penn State. His prize might
well be the most meaningful one since
Rigoberta Menchú of Guatemala won
in 1992. Well done, Dr. Mann.
*Although Dr. Mann claims he won the prize
in a filing with the District of Columbia Superior Court,
the Nobel committee says he didn’t.
But isn’t it fun to pretend?
A message from the editors of National Review
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/10/31/pd...Dr.Michael Mann— yes, your own Michael Mann— has
won a Nobel Peace Prize. He thus takes his place
among such American giants as Theodore Roosevelt,
Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King Jr., and
Barack Obama. We wish especially to extend
our congratulations to President Rodney Erickson
on the rare privilege of running an institution
with a Nobel Peace Prize winner on staff. What
Mikhail Gorbachev is to the former Soviet Union,
what Nelson Mandela is to South Africa, and what
the European Union is to the European Union,
Michael Mann is to Penn State. His prize might
well be the most meaningful one since
Rigoberta Menchú of Guatemala won
in 1992. Well done, Dr. Mann.
*Although Dr. Mann claims he won the prize
in a filing with the District of Columbia Superior Court,
the Nobel committee says he didn’t.
But isn’t it fun to pretend?
A message from the editors of National Review
Don
--
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff