Guardian today
Discussion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,221...
The anti-speed-camera campaign is built on twisted truth and junk science
Petrolheads are full of swagger in attacking road safety measures, but can't cope when called to account for skewing data
George Monbiot
Tuesday November 13, 2007
The Guardian
Loth as I am to threaten my reputation as a bilious old git, I feel compelled to shock you. I am going to praise the government. New Labour has done something brave. Last week Jim Fitzpatrick, the transport minister, said he intended to double the penalty for drivers who break the speed limit by a wide margin. This means that people could lose their licence after committing just two offences. The newspapers are furious. The petrolheads have called for a petition that "will get as big a response as the road-pricing one".
Well, yes it's brave, but not quite as brave as you might think. Despite endless attempts by the media to trivialise it, an RAC survey reveals that 62% of drivers still regard speeding as a serious offence. Even more surprisingly, as many as 82% of British people surveyed approve of speed cameras, and that percentage has risen slightly since the mid-1990s. There is a genuine silent majority here, which is rarely represented in the media.
Nowhere is more nonsense spoken about this issue than on the BBC. Its Top Gear series has become a sort of looking-glass Crimewatch in which the presenters enlist the public to help criminals foil the police. There are tips on how to avoid prosecution and endless suggestions that speed cameras are useless or counter-productive. The tone was set in 2002 when the team demonstrated that you could beat the cameras by driving past them at 170mph. Since Richard Hammond's crash last year it has had to temper the message a little - but only a little. How, while BBC editors are sacked for misnaming the Blue Peter cat, does Top Gear remain on air?
In the Sun, Top Gear's lead presenter, Jeremy Clarkson, abandons the wink and the nudge for blatant incitement. "As I drove down the M20 into Kent last Monday, I noticed that most of the speed cameras had been burnt out by vandals. This is disgusting. It is ridiculous, criminal and stupid that the person who savaged these life-saving devices should target the M20 ... and then stop. Why did you not keep right on going? I can think of six cameras on my way home that would be immeasurably improved with a spot of petrol and a match."
The tabloids throw up their hands in horror at every other species of crime. They praise the police and demand that the forces of law be given greater powers and that lawbreakers serve longer sentences. But on this issue alone, the tabloids take the opposite position. Richard Brunstrom, the North Wales police chief who is waging war on speeders, is denounced by the Daily Mail as the "mad mullah of the traffic Taliban". The Sun calls him "barmy" and "a politically correct prat". So much for their demands for zero tolerance.
In Saturday's Telegraph, Christopher Booker and Richard North published a long article appropriately titled "Speed cameras: the twisted truth". A sharp decline in the death rate on the roads suddenly slowed down in the mid-1990s. They attribute this to the government's new focus on enforcing the speed limits, especially by erecting speed cameras. What they fail to mention is that deaths started falling sharply again in 2003, after the number of speed cameras had doubled in three years.
They used similarly selective data to argue that there is no evidence that cameras have reduced deaths even at the spots where they are deployed. They hang their case on an oversight in a government report published in 2003. The report claimed that the accident rate had fallen by 35% where cameras had been installed. Booker and North rightly observe that it had failed to account for a statistical effect called "regression to the mean". There might have been an abnormal blip in the accident figures, which would have returned to background levels of their own accord. The truth, they maintain, is that "speed cameras actually increased" the rate of accidents.
But what Booker and North fail to tell their readers was that, in 2005, the government conducted a new analysis that took account of regression to the mean. The fresh figures showed an average reduction of 19% for collisions that caused deaths or injuries after speed cameras had been installed. Why do Booker and North fail to tell their readers that the statistics had been corrected and still showed a major decline in the number of accidents?
Their article is a long catalogue of intellectual dishonesty. In support of their claims that speed cameras are worse than useless, they also use a report by the House of Commons transport committee. It said, they maintain, that "an obsession with cameras was responsible for a 'deplorable' drop in the number of officers patrolling Britain's roads". It says nothing of the kind, and the word "deplorable" does not feature anywhere. But here's what it does contain: "Well-placed cameras bring tremendous safety benefits at excellent cost-benefit ratios. A more cost-effective measure for reducing speeds and casualties has yet to be introduced." Booker and North also lay into one of my columns. That's fair enough: it's a national sport. But to make their narrative more convincing they alter the date of the column by a year. Their claims about speed cameras, like much of the material in their new book, are pure junk science, cherrypicking the helpful results and ignoring the inconvenient ones.
All these people turn, as a final resort, to a man by the name of Paul Smith, who runs a campaign called Safe Speed. He's quoted whenever there is a speeding story in the news. He claims to have found, through statistical analysis, that "speed cameras make our roads more dangerous".
In 2005, he challenged me to a radio debate. I accepted, and floored him with a simple question. Has he published his analysis in a peer-reviewed journal? A peer-reviewed journal subjects new scientific claims to expert scrutiny. Without it, those of us who aren't experts can't tell whether claims are a work of genius or total hogwash. No, he hadn't. In fact he had been asked by the leading journal in the field (Accident Analysis & Prevention) to submit his work for review, but he hadn't taken up the offer as he didn't "have time". (He went on to boast that he had spent 10,000 hours compiling his website.) But he said he would seek to publish a peer-reviewed paper within six months.
I rang him on Friday to ask how he was getting on. "I never did see peer review as a particular need," he answered. "I mean for heaven's sake, there's so much peer-reviewed crap out there that it's just not a modus operandi for us." So just what is the status of his evidence? Beside the statements on his website, Smith lists "source, justification and links". His central claim is as follows: "We simply don't believe that a significant proportion of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit." If he cannot demonstrate that this is true, his entire case collapses. Its source, justification and links? He cites this and only this: "Pure opinion, based on considerable driving experience."
PR567: George Monbiot shoots himself in the foot
news: draft only
In a disingenuous and inaccurate attack in today's Guardian, George Monbiot
makes blundering misjudgments. It's hardly surprising, because he obviously
hasn't taken the trouble to understand the subject matter.
In his closing paragraph he states the following:
"So just what is the status of his evidence? Beside the statements on his
web site, Smith lists "source, justification and links". His central claim is
as
follows: "We simply don't believe that a significant proportion of accidents
are caused by exceeding the speed limit." If he cannot demonstrate that this is
true, his entire case collapses. Its source, justification and links? He cites
this and only this: "Pure opinion, based on considerable driving experience."
Poor George found a Safe Speed page from 2001 when it was true that evidence
did not yet exist. That was long before Department for Transport launched a new
system of national contributory factor recording on the 1st January 2005.
The new system has reported annually - twice now - and on each occasion found
that the 'exceeding speed limit' contributory factor was only present in 5% of
injury crashes nationally. When the figures were first published in September
2006 my views expressed in 2001 were proved to be correct.
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "What George found was proved to
be an entirely accurate prediction of later statistical data. According to
Department for Transport only 1 in 20 injury crashes involves any vehicle
exceeding a speed limit, and for drivers over 25 this drops to an amazing 1 in
50."
Even within the 5%, of course, that does not make 'speeding' the cause of the
crash. In a large but unknown number of cases extraordinary reckless behaviours
cause both the speeding and the crash. The joy riders in stolen cars are
included. The thrill seekers are included. The police emergency response
drivers are included. The drunks are included. The 'boy racers' are included.
The young drivers are included. There are very few crashes involving otherwise
responsible drivers exceeding a speed limit. This is amazing when you consider
that, according to Department for Transport figures 50% of us are exceeding the
speed limit at sample sites. The huge under-representation of speeding in the
crash statistics is simple and positive proof that routine speeding isn't
dangerous."
"It's always been Safe Speed policy to maintain all earlier content as a record
of the amazing journey from concern about a road safety policy through
discovery of fundamental flaws finally to outrage at the ineptitude,
ineffectiveness, spun justifications and huge loss of life. Let's be 100%
clear.
Department for Transport road safety policies have failed. We just waiting -
and waiting - for them to admit their gross errors."
"Not one of the arguments presented by Monbiot is any better...
- He suggests that 'that deaths started falling sharply again in 2003'. No
George, they did not. Road deaths rose in 2003 which was actually the worst
year since 1997. There was a drop in 2004, but no significant fall in 2005 or
2006.
- On 'regression to the mean' he suggests that the Government made an
'oversight'. This 'oversight' was the responsibility of Professor Heydecker,
who in 1991 published a paper (with Wu) about how exactly the regression to the
mean bias could be accounted for. Amazing that 12 years later he had forgotten
his earlier work. But the problems don't stop there. The '19%' estimate is
limited, biased and erroneous, as a careful read of appendix H of the very same
report reveals. On the basis of appendix H of the 2005 report fully three
quarters of the benefit claimed for speed cameras are nothing but a statistical
blip. Department for Transport's headline claim is immediately reduced from 100
lives per year saved to 25 lives per year saved - or an average camera is
supposed to save a life once in 240 years (given 6,000 cameras).
- He suggests that 'the public support speed cameras', but of course he hasn't
examined the survey questions, nor considered the road safety consequences of
the public believing a pack of lies. The resources expended on trying to
convince the public that speed cameras are a good thing have been immense."
- He accuses us of not submitting our research for peer review publication. Why
would we? We're a road safety campaign and a think tank. Our research and
analysis is published for all to see. We operate an 'open review' policy and
always have. Anyone can criticise any of our work at any time. The Safe Speed
web site gets over 200,000 page views every month."
"George Monbiot's attack is weak, inaccurate and completely unfounded. He
couldn't be bothered to do his homework properly despite the fact that I took
the trouble to send him various links to various articles and web pages. 1/10,
George. See me after class."
<ends>
The following Safe Speed forum topic applies:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...
There are oodles of comments on the Guardian website, but almost no one seems to be asking the big important questions, such as:
- have speed cameras been proved effective systemwide as a road safety policy?
- how big a problem is 'speeding'?
- could our road safety dollars have been better spent? Have we missed the opportunity to save lives?
- what's the impact of speed camera policy on driver quality?
- what do good road safety policies look like?
- how did we earn the safest roads in the world in the first place? And what did we do wrong to lose our world lead?
The anti-speed-camera campaign is built on twisted truth and junk science
Petrolheads are full of swagger in attacking road safety measures, but can't cope when called to account for skewing data
George Monbiot
Tuesday November 13, 2007
The Guardian
Loth as I am to threaten my reputation as a bilious old git, I feel compelled to shock you. I am going to praise the government. New Labour has done something brave. Last week Jim Fitzpatrick, the transport minister, said he intended to double the penalty for drivers who break the speed limit by a wide margin. This means that people could lose their licence after committing just two offences. The newspapers are furious. The petrolheads have called for a petition that "will get as big a response as the road-pricing one".
Well, yes it's brave, but not quite as brave as you might think. Despite endless attempts by the media to trivialise it, an RAC survey reveals that 62% of drivers still regard speeding as a serious offence. Even more surprisingly, as many as 82% of British people surveyed approve of speed cameras, and that percentage has risen slightly since the mid-1990s. There is a genuine silent majority here, which is rarely represented in the media.
Nowhere is more nonsense spoken about this issue than on the BBC. Its Top Gear series has become a sort of looking-glass Crimewatch in which the presenters enlist the public to help criminals foil the police. There are tips on how to avoid prosecution and endless suggestions that speed cameras are useless or counter-productive. The tone was set in 2002 when the team demonstrated that you could beat the cameras by driving past them at 170mph. Since Richard Hammond's crash last year it has had to temper the message a little - but only a little. How, while BBC editors are sacked for misnaming the Blue Peter cat, does Top Gear remain on air?
In the Sun, Top Gear's lead presenter, Jeremy Clarkson, abandons the wink and the nudge for blatant incitement. "As I drove down the M20 into Kent last Monday, I noticed that most of the speed cameras had been burnt out by vandals. This is disgusting. It is ridiculous, criminal and stupid that the person who savaged these life-saving devices should target the M20 ... and then stop. Why did you not keep right on going? I can think of six cameras on my way home that would be immeasurably improved with a spot of petrol and a match."
The tabloids throw up their hands in horror at every other species of crime. They praise the police and demand that the forces of law be given greater powers and that lawbreakers serve longer sentences. But on this issue alone, the tabloids take the opposite position. Richard Brunstrom, the North Wales police chief who is waging war on speeders, is denounced by the Daily Mail as the "mad mullah of the traffic Taliban". The Sun calls him "barmy" and "a politically correct prat". So much for their demands for zero tolerance.
In Saturday's Telegraph, Christopher Booker and Richard North published a long article appropriately titled "Speed cameras: the twisted truth". A sharp decline in the death rate on the roads suddenly slowed down in the mid-1990s. They attribute this to the government's new focus on enforcing the speed limits, especially by erecting speed cameras. What they fail to mention is that deaths started falling sharply again in 2003, after the number of speed cameras had doubled in three years.
They used similarly selective data to argue that there is no evidence that cameras have reduced deaths even at the spots where they are deployed. They hang their case on an oversight in a government report published in 2003. The report claimed that the accident rate had fallen by 35% where cameras had been installed. Booker and North rightly observe that it had failed to account for a statistical effect called "regression to the mean". There might have been an abnormal blip in the accident figures, which would have returned to background levels of their own accord. The truth, they maintain, is that "speed cameras actually increased" the rate of accidents.
But what Booker and North fail to tell their readers was that, in 2005, the government conducted a new analysis that took account of regression to the mean. The fresh figures showed an average reduction of 19% for collisions that caused deaths or injuries after speed cameras had been installed. Why do Booker and North fail to tell their readers that the statistics had been corrected and still showed a major decline in the number of accidents?
Their article is a long catalogue of intellectual dishonesty. In support of their claims that speed cameras are worse than useless, they also use a report by the House of Commons transport committee. It said, they maintain, that "an obsession with cameras was responsible for a 'deplorable' drop in the number of officers patrolling Britain's roads". It says nothing of the kind, and the word "deplorable" does not feature anywhere. But here's what it does contain: "Well-placed cameras bring tremendous safety benefits at excellent cost-benefit ratios. A more cost-effective measure for reducing speeds and casualties has yet to be introduced." Booker and North also lay into one of my columns. That's fair enough: it's a national sport. But to make their narrative more convincing they alter the date of the column by a year. Their claims about speed cameras, like much of the material in their new book, are pure junk science, cherrypicking the helpful results and ignoring the inconvenient ones.
All these people turn, as a final resort, to a man by the name of Paul Smith, who runs a campaign called Safe Speed. He's quoted whenever there is a speeding story in the news. He claims to have found, through statistical analysis, that "speed cameras make our roads more dangerous".
In 2005, he challenged me to a radio debate. I accepted, and floored him with a simple question. Has he published his analysis in a peer-reviewed journal? A peer-reviewed journal subjects new scientific claims to expert scrutiny. Without it, those of us who aren't experts can't tell whether claims are a work of genius or total hogwash. No, he hadn't. In fact he had been asked by the leading journal in the field (Accident Analysis & Prevention) to submit his work for review, but he hadn't taken up the offer as he didn't "have time". (He went on to boast that he had spent 10,000 hours compiling his website.) But he said he would seek to publish a peer-reviewed paper within six months.
I rang him on Friday to ask how he was getting on. "I never did see peer review as a particular need," he answered. "I mean for heaven's sake, there's so much peer-reviewed crap out there that it's just not a modus operandi for us." So just what is the status of his evidence? Beside the statements on his website, Smith lists "source, justification and links". His central claim is as follows: "We simply don't believe that a significant proportion of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit." If he cannot demonstrate that this is true, his entire case collapses. Its source, justification and links? He cites this and only this: "Pure opinion, based on considerable driving experience."
- *
PR567: George Monbiot shoots himself in the foot
news: draft only
In a disingenuous and inaccurate attack in today's Guardian, George Monbiot
makes blundering misjudgments. It's hardly surprising, because he obviously
hasn't taken the trouble to understand the subject matter.
In his closing paragraph he states the following:
"So just what is the status of his evidence? Beside the statements on his
web site, Smith lists "source, justification and links". His central claim is
as
follows: "We simply don't believe that a significant proportion of accidents
are caused by exceeding the speed limit." If he cannot demonstrate that this is
true, his entire case collapses. Its source, justification and links? He cites
this and only this: "Pure opinion, based on considerable driving experience."
Poor George found a Safe Speed page from 2001 when it was true that evidence
did not yet exist. That was long before Department for Transport launched a new
system of national contributory factor recording on the 1st January 2005.
The new system has reported annually - twice now - and on each occasion found
that the 'exceeding speed limit' contributory factor was only present in 5% of
injury crashes nationally. When the figures were first published in September
2006 my views expressed in 2001 were proved to be correct.
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "What George found was proved to
be an entirely accurate prediction of later statistical data. According to
Department for Transport only 1 in 20 injury crashes involves any vehicle
exceeding a speed limit, and for drivers over 25 this drops to an amazing 1 in
50."
Even within the 5%, of course, that does not make 'speeding' the cause of the
crash. In a large but unknown number of cases extraordinary reckless behaviours
cause both the speeding and the crash. The joy riders in stolen cars are
included. The thrill seekers are included. The police emergency response
drivers are included. The drunks are included. The 'boy racers' are included.
The young drivers are included. There are very few crashes involving otherwise
responsible drivers exceeding a speed limit. This is amazing when you consider
that, according to Department for Transport figures 50% of us are exceeding the
speed limit at sample sites. The huge under-representation of speeding in the
crash statistics is simple and positive proof that routine speeding isn't
dangerous."
"It's always been Safe Speed policy to maintain all earlier content as a record
of the amazing journey from concern about a road safety policy through
discovery of fundamental flaws finally to outrage at the ineptitude,
ineffectiveness, spun justifications and huge loss of life. Let's be 100%
clear.
Department for Transport road safety policies have failed. We just waiting -
and waiting - for them to admit their gross errors."
"Not one of the arguments presented by Monbiot is any better...
- He suggests that 'that deaths started falling sharply again in 2003'. No
George, they did not. Road deaths rose in 2003 which was actually the worst
year since 1997. There was a drop in 2004, but no significant fall in 2005 or
2006.
- On 'regression to the mean' he suggests that the Government made an
'oversight'. This 'oversight' was the responsibility of Professor Heydecker,
who in 1991 published a paper (with Wu) about how exactly the regression to the
mean bias could be accounted for. Amazing that 12 years later he had forgotten
his earlier work. But the problems don't stop there. The '19%' estimate is
limited, biased and erroneous, as a careful read of appendix H of the very same
report reveals. On the basis of appendix H of the 2005 report fully three
quarters of the benefit claimed for speed cameras are nothing but a statistical
blip. Department for Transport's headline claim is immediately reduced from 100
lives per year saved to 25 lives per year saved - or an average camera is
supposed to save a life once in 240 years (given 6,000 cameras).
- He suggests that 'the public support speed cameras', but of course he hasn't
examined the survey questions, nor considered the road safety consequences of
the public believing a pack of lies. The resources expended on trying to
convince the public that speed cameras are a good thing have been immense."
- He accuses us of not submitting our research for peer review publication. Why
would we? We're a road safety campaign and a think tank. Our research and
analysis is published for all to see. We operate an 'open review' policy and
always have. Anyone can criticise any of our work at any time. The Safe Speed
web site gets over 200,000 page views every month."
"George Monbiot's attack is weak, inaccurate and completely unfounded. He
couldn't be bothered to do his homework properly despite the fact that I took
the trouble to send him various links to various articles and web pages. 1/10,
George. See me after class."
<ends>
The following Safe Speed forum topic applies:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...
There are oodles of comments on the Guardian website, but almost no one seems to be asking the big important questions, such as:
- have speed cameras been proved effective systemwide as a road safety policy?
- how big a problem is 'speeding'?
- could our road safety dollars have been better spent? Have we missed the opportunity to save lives?
- what's the impact of speed camera policy on driver quality?
- what do good road safety policies look like?
- how did we earn the safest roads in the world in the first place? And what did we do wrong to lose our world lead?
An excellent reponse Paul, and it's always good to hear your views. Maybe parts of your reply could be poted on the Guardian website. It would be good to counter some of the views from a number of joyless authoritarian car-hating cretins that have even more extreme and unbalanced views than GM.
Keep up the good work.
Keep up the good work.
I had previously respected Monbiot as a principled thinker. I am astonished to see that this is a partial attack based on prejudice without any real analysis and falsehoods are re-propagated.
Monbiot has often been the first to accuse hacks of uncritically recycling government press releases and propaganda.
Monbiot has massively dimished in my estimation.
Monbiot has often been the first to accuse hacks of uncritically recycling government press releases and propaganda.
Monbiot has massively dimished in my estimation.
Quality retort.
This is what's so good with SS - he doesn't pander to the left wing's arrogant presumption of holding the academic high ground in perpetuity and simply counters guff with systematic proofs and counter proofs.
Something lefties really cannot handle - a right minded individual who is literally cleverer and more intelligent than them.
Genuinely superb. Well done.
This is what's so good with SS - he doesn't pander to the left wing's arrogant presumption of holding the academic high ground in perpetuity and simply counters guff with systematic proofs and counter proofs.
Something lefties really cannot handle - a right minded individual who is literally cleverer and more intelligent than them.
Genuinely superb. Well done.
Parrot of Doom said:
Will this response be printed in the Guardian Paul?
I hope so, but I can't see the Guardian going with that.Moonbat's comparison of Top Gear with Blue Peter is just absurd. I don't recall Top Gear ever using a rigged phone vote to make money and as for his criticism of the tone of Sun and the Mail's editorials, his etchings are hardly any less hysterical. His sole aim appears to whip people up into a frenzy of indignation and claiming green-ness doesn't make that any more acceptable.
Richard C said:
I had previously respected Monbiot as a principled thinker.
Bear in mind Monbiot wrote a book about MMGW that blamed airtravel particularly and urged people to stop flying. He then flew to Canada on a book signing tour
Richard C said:
Monbiot has massively dimished in my estimation
Hopefully that's got rid of any remaining regard you have for him
Well either someone is having a crafty laugh or Monbiot is a Wikipedia user:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_M...
I'm tempted to add to the article on him, but can't find anything more about his flight to Canada than this:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/george_mon...
Which isn't really a reliable news source. Can anyone find anything else on the matter?
/edit: I added it anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_M...
I'm tempted to add to the article on him, but can't find anything more about his flight to Canada than this:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/george_mon...
Which isn't really a reliable news source. Can anyone find anything else on the matter?
/edit: I added it anyway.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Tuesday 13th November 18:11
Parrot of Doom said:
I'm tempted to add to the article on him, but can't find anything more about his flight to Canada than this:
From his own website: http://www.monbiot.com/canada-tour-2006/ I'll admit it doesn't say he flew, but there's nothing about him rowing there or traveling by porpoise either
There was a letter in (IIRC) the Guardian when some gullible lentilista had a pop at his hypocrisy because they'd not gone on holiday as they'd given up flying because of his book
Couple of points:
Firstly, Aside from the normal anti-car hysteria, Monbiot's only original argument this time was that Paul Smith's data hadn't been peer reviewed. My understanding of Paul's statistical work is that it's been based on publicly available and published data. The argument that it needs to be peer reviewed is therefore just bo
ocks, because anyone can access the same data and peer review it.
Secondly, since when was it necessary to have your work peer reviewed before publishing it? When has Monbiot ever submitted any of the crap he writes for factual peer review before publishing it? Well hasn't. So his argument is pointless and hypocritical.
And thirdly since when did Monbiot (who famously doesn't own a car) gain a right to preach about car safety to the 35-million odd of us who do drive?
All that considered, it was heartily reassuring to see the public response to Monbiot's column was pretty savage, even by Grauniad standards, especially the comment about Monbiot preaching about air travel immediately before flying to Canada to promote his book...
Firstly, Aside from the normal anti-car hysteria, Monbiot's only original argument this time was that Paul Smith's data hadn't been peer reviewed. My understanding of Paul's statistical work is that it's been based on publicly available and published data. The argument that it needs to be peer reviewed is therefore just bo
ocks, because anyone can access the same data and peer review it.Secondly, since when was it necessary to have your work peer reviewed before publishing it? When has Monbiot ever submitted any of the crap he writes for factual peer review before publishing it? Well hasn't. So his argument is pointless and hypocritical.
And thirdly since when did Monbiot (who famously doesn't own a car) gain a right to preach about car safety to the 35-million odd of us who do drive?
All that considered, it was heartily reassuring to see the public response to Monbiot's column was pretty savage, even by Grauniad standards, especially the comment about Monbiot preaching about air travel immediately before flying to Canada to promote his book...
Blimey... I had heard of this Monibot bloke but I hadn't realised how much of a total tit he was. Is he really stupid and ignorant enough to actually believe his own drivel or is he just looking for a reaction?
I must remember to discount all figures and data if not acompanied by the 'peer reviewed' endorsement. What an arse!
I must remember to discount all figures and data if not acompanied by the 'peer reviewed' endorsement. What an arse!
corozin said:
Couple of points:
Firstly, Aside from the normal anti-car hysteria, Monbiot's only original argument this time was that Paul Smith's data hadn't been peer reviewed. My understanding of Paul's statistical work is that it's been based on publicly available and published data. The argument that it needs to be peer reviewed is therefore just boocks, because anyone can access the same data and peer review it.
Secondly, since when was it necessary to have your work peer reviewed before publishing it? When has Monbiot ever submitted any of the crap he writes for factual peer review before publishing it? Well hasn't. So his argument is pointless and hypocritical.
And thirdly since when did Monbiot (who famously doesn't own a car) gain a right to preach about car safety to the 35-million odd of us who do drive?
All that considered, it was heartily reassuring to see the public response to Monbiot's column was pretty savage, even by Grauniad standards, especially the comment about Monbiot preaching about air travel immediately before flying to Canada to promote his book...
Note: he has recently purchased a Renault Clio.Firstly, Aside from the normal anti-car hysteria, Monbiot's only original argument this time was that Paul Smith's data hadn't been peer reviewed. My understanding of Paul's statistical work is that it's been based on publicly available and published data. The argument that it needs to be peer reviewed is therefore just bo
ocks, because anyone can access the same data and peer review it.Secondly, since when was it necessary to have your work peer reviewed before publishing it? When has Monbiot ever submitted any of the crap he writes for factual peer review before publishing it? Well hasn't. So his argument is pointless and hypocritical.
And thirdly since when did Monbiot (who famously doesn't own a car) gain a right to preach about car safety to the 35-million odd of us who do drive?
All that considered, it was heartily reassuring to see the public response to Monbiot's column was pretty savage, even by Grauniad standards, especially the comment about Monbiot preaching about air travel immediately before flying to Canada to promote his book...
He's one of us now...
I keeeeeeed, I keeeeeed.
This is Moonbigots knee jerk response to the Telegraph article, of which a great deal of non emotional reseach has been done. He really is in the Al Gore club "If you chuck enough shit, some must stick surely", but he is preaching to the converted, that of his own heads buried in the sand Gruniad readership.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff