Bishop Hill A question for David Spiegelhalter
Mar 26, 2015 Climate: Statistics Climate: other I have a lot of time for David Spiegelhalter, the Cambridge University statistician who has become something of a go-to guy for the media on matters statistical. You certainly warm towards him when he sticks his head above the parapet to throttle a media health scare at source, as he did yesterday, responding to an article in the Telegraph that claimed that three alcoholic drinks a day could cause liver cancer.
There's no doubt that excessive drinking is bad for you and those around you. But does this justify exaggerated and misleading claims? They got their publicity, but perhaps the WCRF should value its scientific credibility a bit more.
Excellent stuff, but as a reader notes on unthreaded, Spiegelhalter has been much less vocal on the subject of climate change scares. He is certainly interested in the subject, having been on the Royal Society panel that produced that august body's latest position statement. And of course he was a co-presenter of the BBC's recent Climate Change by Numbers programme. But to the best of my knowledge he has never called out an environmental journalist for the wild scaremongering that characterises that profession's output on climate change (and, it has to be said, on most other subjects too). Nor has he ever called out a climatologist for misuse of statistics.
So my question for Prof Spiegelhalter is this. Why not?
Bishop Hill
A reply!
What about this? http://understandinguncertainty.org/more-deaths-due-climate-change-or-maybe-not … But my background is medical stats, so that's what I focus on.
Which seems reasonable. But my concern - that statisticians are keeping their heads down on the climate issue - remains undiminished.
Reader Comments (32)
Scientific credibility? Why, that's what's trending.
===========
Because, regardless of what the good professor thinks, or how well he is thought of in all the right circles, his career would be over if he came out and criticised today's religion.
I think I know the answer to this one.
Is it because he's not an anti-science conspiracy theorist?
Having heard Prof Spiegelhalter talk a lot of sense on programmes like 'More or Less', I was very surprised at his poor showing on 'Climate Change by Numbers'. He's obviously been got at by the GreenBlob, the RS and the BBC to stay onside with regard to climate alarmism and not to rock the boat before Paris. He's certainly gone down in my opinion.
Note, Gub, the difference between a fifth of a gallon a day and a fifth of that. Perhaps Spiegelhalter will notice it too.
=====================================
I'll drink to that!
On his blog there is this:
More deaths due to climate change? Or maybe not.
which does seem to fit the bill of calling out environmental journalism for scaremongering.
So my question for Prof Spiegelhalter is this. Why not?
ideology or aware that doing so could have a real affect on his professional career
Although it easy to mock the alarmist and their help mates such has the IPCC , in reality they have been effective in action in many ways . For example they managed to get 'climate change ' in its general sense to mean the same has CAGW in the mind of the public . Hence the claims that people are climate change deniers when in fact they challenge the claims of CAGW and in no way deny that climate changes .
Spiegelhalter , none-views on issue may be part of this , the cost of taken the same approach he does to others on this one may be higher than any possible benefit.
I agree entirely. He was disappointingly poor on 'Climate Change by Numbers', tiptoeing carefully around the many misuses of statistics and numbers generally that he could easily have shredded. He lost much credibility.
Calling out the fibs, misrepresentations, tricks, bad science, money scams, hired journalism, and taxes wasted by the climate hypesters can be a career limiting move.
Yes, I agree completely with the comments above. To go against the orthodoxy is so toxic that most working professors and others in key jobs will not go there. We need more very brave people to lead the way. We are lucky to have Christopher Booker and David Rose, plus those on the GWPF, though many of those are retired. There must be a few brave academics out there. Come out and do a service to your country!
Perhaps he knows which side his bread is buttered.
hunter - I agree. Sticking your head above the parapet can finish your career. Ask David Bellamy...
Bish - can't get your link to work. I don't think it's me...
I read this -
"I think I know the answer to this one.
Is it because he's not an anti-science conspiracy theorist?
Gubulgaria"
If he was NOT an anti-science conspiracy theorist, Gubulgaria, he most assuredly WOULD speak out about shabby so called environmental studies done in support of AGW. After all, the "science" of climate study does not truly appear to support the nonsense of AGW, So you see, I am fairly sure you do NOT know the answer, if that IS your answer.
There may be some truth in the career-threatening argument but I'm not all that sure. We have considerable anecdotal evidence that a pretty large number of scientists are not enamoured of their colleagues in the climatology departments; we have scientists who are prepared to put their names to things like the Oregon Petition (though ZDB may sneer at it the signatures are from reputable scientists even of not from within the community) and we have the occasional —perhaps more than occasional — scientist on this blog and others, prepared at least to stick their noses above the parapet,
Perhaps if someone was prepared to undertake a world-wide survey of that sort it might give us a truer picture of just how many in the broader community are convinced of the reality of AGW.As JoNova said on WUWT, commenting on Tol's debunking of Cook 2013,
We might also learn how many are saying — in effect — "I wouldn't want a [biologist] telling me [a chemist] how to conduct my research or that my conclusions are wrong, so I'm not about to second-guess climatologists".
It's an understandable position to take and not necessarily a dishonourable one. It falls down when climatologists step outside the parameters of research and into the sphere of politics and when the scientist-activists (like Nurse and Hansen among many others) are happy to tell the broader scientific community to "butt out; this is none of your business", and use the power of the Societies and Colleges to reinforce that.
As we all know, 95% (or is 97% maybe? ☺) of people are happy to get on with their lives and leave it to the other 5% to engage in the political machinations. Scientists are no different.
PS Not just "to your country", Derek. The entire human race needs this scam destroyed. We can probably muddle through one way or another. The real sufferers — not from climate change; from the decisions that the environmentalists are using the lies and exaggerations of climate change to force on people — will be the poor of the world who need the cheap, reliable energy that is the very thing that the climate activists are trying to ensure they don't get.
@Paul Matthews: that Feb 2014 debunk is interesting
my error for missing that, it is one occassion he called out scaremongering on climate
- I think he has a daughter at Art School ..so uncool to have a "denier dad"
If his main focus is on medical stats, then why be a front to a climate change TV programme? He could have declined that.
We know the BBC has slyness coursing through its veins....
When recruiting "key talent" buttering them up must be part of the recipe... "you'll have your own productions of course, but from time to time we might want to bring you in as an expert contributor in other areas to add incisive commentary"
The tentacles of geographer Jonathan Renouf are spread deep across the BBC - was he always Patrick Moore's boss at "The Sky at Night"? - or did he get in there erm... later - aiui Patrick Moore wasn't a fan(?) of AGW....
A light touch producer? - Climategate emails provide a clue....
"we presently don't fully understand what's going on" isn't a phrase I suspect that slips easily onto the script page - and David Spiegelhalter is working to a script = high production values of The World's Best Broadcaster 'n all.
Bishop,
did you ask the question directly or has David Spiegelhalter been reading the blog?
Climate science is full of statistics but it is not really a statistical subject, it is a branch of physics, so medical stats people and snail biologists should think thrice before drawing any conclusions.
From the linked article;- 'But that is clearly not the message that the authors wanted to convey. It is unfortunate that this kind of presentation gives ammunition to those who say that the effects of climate change are being exaggerated.'
Why is it unfortunate? If the effects of climate change are being exaggerated, then David Speigelhalter should follow the evidence and say so.
Your Grace
Your imbedded link ("as he did yesterday") above should read:
http://understandinguncertainty.org/sensationalist-promotion-world-cancer-research-fund
(your own blog name has got entangled)
Feel free to delete this.
Bish I think the as he did yesterday link should be
http://understandinguncertainty.org/sensationalist-promotion-world-cancer-research-fund
Why not? - is a valid question...
I'm curious about exactly how "Climate Change by Numbers" and the rest of the BBC's emissions on CC etc. are put together. Theatrical values are in there.....
How are the scripts developed ? Do the presenters simply turn up and receive the script, get a bit of anti-reflection pink dusting and eyeliner - and start the inevitable looping re-takes until the director is happy that there's something for the editors to work with?
Most thesps don't take kindly at all to criticism - being highly strung creative types, Prof. Spiegelhalter is either being economical with the actualite - or more likely dancing carefully on the eggshell egos of the BBC goons.
Gubulgaria - are you a womble or are you a troll?
Mikky slight correction ,'Climate science is full of bad statistics', which why Spiegelhalter should be on the case.
But it effectively portrays itself as a science-of-everything. How? Easy. The snail biologist says climate change is going to kill his snails and he/she needs funds to research it. Then he publishes the results in Nature Climate Change and gets lauded as a 'climate change scientist', whether he claims the title or not.
He doesn't necessarily need to believe all the climate models and conjecture of others, he merely needs to believe it will get him funding. In fairness he may also continue researching what he wanted to research about snails before the global warming scare changed the funding landscape, but that is not what provided financial support. (Being able to do both is often a critical skill in academia. Funding for a project can often be contingent upon "preliminary results" that, necessarily, were obtained before the funding commenced.)
Not a few other areas work the same way. Before "nano technologists" ever existed there were often physicists, chemists, biologists, metallurgists, material scientists, polymer scientists, the list goes on. When the nano-word became fashionable many individuals and whole university departments and "centres" changed their often self-appointed titles to align themselves with a new funding paradigm. That Drexler had invented a crock was immaterial. All they needed to talk about was Richard Feynman's 'plenty of room at the bottom', which could also have been characterised as "Feynmann's Last Joke".
As Derek points out, Spiegelhalter appears to be rather selective about when he thinks it is OK to voice an opinion outside his regular demesne.
"But my background is medical stats, so that's what I focus on ." (Prof Spiegelhalter)
"And of course he was a co-presenter of the BBC's recent Climate Change by Numbers programme" (BH)
michael hart got it in one , as long as you can make your research sound like it has got a link to 'climate change' you can look forward to increasing your chances of getting funded . And to keep that funding flowing you make sure your 'results ' come to the right answer.
Its not the first time we seen the corruption of science has it goes form pursuing that is worthy to that is is wealthy, but it is perhaps the most extreme instance.
But my background is medical stats, so that's what I focus on., expect for TV programs about climate change !
.
Has a stats man he should know full well its the data not what the data is about that matters and not buy in to the mythology that only 'climate scientists , a label that actual has little meaning , that can comment on research in the area.
However this does reflect on academics unwillingness to comment on work in others areas, even when these areas display poor poor acedmic and professional pratice on a endemic basis .
Mikky, even done right, climate science wouldn't be a branch of physics. Done as it is today it has the same relationship to physics as astrology has to astronomy.
I could be wrong, but I am am going to thank Speigelhalter for his reply & call it BS
- I imagine a scenario where the Greenblob PR machine have people watching this blog,
and that reply looks like a PR reply "But my background is medical stats, so that's what I focus on."
it's simple, slick, but does not stand up to close analysis :
What is is his blog is called ? .."UU Understanding Uncertainty" it is not called "UMSU Understanding Medical Stats Uncertainty" and it and his twitter feed are not just about medical eg. prostitution, teaching probability, airplane, crashes, metrics, sat nav, science stories in the news, cherry-picked science being peddled to journalist etc.
- I do understand that often experts feel unable to be completely honest, but we do have to give extra respect to those who do stick their neck out in an attempt to break the cycle of abuse.