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.