Open Thread 2

xxxx, where are you?

While I'm waiting, here's a question: Why do you Aussies love Dick Cheney so much?

Here's a question I've been wanting to ask T.L. and my fellow Deltoid readers for sometime. Is there a book, preferably one that's readable and available in the U.S., that you'd recommend for someone who's never studied statistics to learn the basics of statistics and how they are (correctly) used?

Scott | February 28, 2007 06:13 AM

Depends on how much you want to read. Schaum's Outline Series books are oftentimes quite good and very succinct. They have one on Probability and Statistics.

Just when you think you know how low the corporate world can sink in its anti-science/business-first shenanigans an even more reprehensible and dishonest practice is exposed.

This is the tale of two research projects, which in their protocols and results are extremely similar (almost identical in fact). However, the similarities end there. One researcher was so shocked by his results that he wanted to get the word out immediately. After submitting his results to lancet he was interviewed by the BBC. He checked with his Institute's head honcho and was given the all clear, in fact the same head honcho congratulated the researcher the next morning on a fine piece of work. That was the end of the nice words, less that 24 hours later the researcher was fired and various people started a viscous campaign of vilification against him.

The second research project found almost the same results but here the stories diverge significantly. Instead of reporting these results, as any reputable researcher should do, they were hidden for 8 years and are only now coming to light.

Who were these researchers and what was the research project?

Well, the first researcher was Dr. Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen Scotland. The research project was to examine whether genetically modified potatoes were toxic or non-toxic. In fact, Dr. Putzai and his laboratory had been chosen by the British Government to set up a testing facility to examine the effects of GMO's.

Dr. Pusztai's experiments showed significant deleterious effects in his test animals which is why he wanted to get his preliminary results in the public domain so they could be questioned and hopefully, further studied. Unfortunately, that was not the outcome. As I said above there was an immediate movement to vilify Dr. Pusztai in both the public and scientific arenas. It should be noted that one of the primary groups leading this vilification process was the Royal Society (take note those who think of them as an unbiased supporter of good science). It also appears that immediately prior to his firing the Institute received two high level phone calls, one from an office in Number 10 and one from across the pond.

Now for the second project that was performed at roughly the same time (1998). This project was performed by Monsanto on one of the strains of GM potatoes they were trying to have registered. The project appears to have been performed in Russia. It now turns out that the results essentially duplicated the results by Dr. Pusztai. However, instead of publishing, the results were hidden for nearly 8 years. Only now have the results of the project been made available to the public.

This is a dastardly abuse of science and public trust. It is not the first time that a Monsanto report has surfaced to show that their GM products have deleterious effects on test animals.

A full commentary on this withheld report can be found at:

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice16Feb2007.htm

Full coverage of both Dr. Pusztai's work and subsequent vilification and the Monsanto reports can be found at:

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp (use the search function).

I recently posted an article on my blog about a climatologist, who is an outspoken skeptic, and who was interviewed on Rush Limbaugh's radio show today. I just wanted to see if maybe any of you could provide any insights on his arguments. Thanks.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/greenhouse-sceptics-to-congregat…

Quote of the article:

"The science from the anthropology point of view has collapsed. The carbon-dioxide link is increasingly recognised as irrelevant," Mr Evans said.

What tha?

Another quote from the article Steve links to:

"The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."

That sounds downright actionable to me.

Thanks for the advice, Raj. I may look for a copy of the Stats Outline. Looking at those books online, they remind me of the old Calculus Problem Solver book I had in high school. Or did I just date myself? :-0

Re Steves link to the age-
Are anthropoligists the new climatologists?

This all reminds me of the Creationism wars, where lawyers, surgeons, software barons and cartoonists are the new Biologists.

The major problem with "An Inconvenient Truth" (apparently quite a convenient truth for Gore) is that the messenger is a highly polarized political figure. That was, in my opinion, a grave mistake.

If I was wanting to convince everyone that something was particularly important, and I wanted to cross partisan lines and appeal to reason for everyone, I certainly wouldn't pick Dick Cheney or President Bush to transmit my message. The message would be lost on the simple hatred the people across the aisle feel for the messenger.

With Gore and Global Warming, it's the same thing. That was dumb.

Unless the highly politicized politician has been weighing in on the issue since before it was an issue. Guess you never saw the documentary.

Mike

Doesn't matter. He's still the wrong messenger. My simple disdain for the individual precludes my ever watching that thing. It was an ineffective tactic... he ends up simply preaching to the converted, does that really do any good?

"The major problem with "An Inconvenient Truth" ... is that the messenger is a highly polarized political figure."

You mean polarizing.

The fact is, Gore is liked and respected by roughly half the American populace -- and most of the rest get their science from Fox News, so they are basically a lost cause at any rate.

There's nothing inherently wrong with polarizing figures. The very reason that they are polarizing is often the fact that they are outspoken and get things done. On the other hand, the wishy-washy ones who make everyone happy are usually the do-nothing type.

You better get used to Gore. He just might get elected in 08 if he runs.

JB, Gore has no chance. Second, an apolitical scientific figure would have been more effective for rest of us who get our science from fox news.

Maybe in an alternate universe where the media would pay attention to an apolitical scientific figure, but not in this one.

And Fox news has Steve Milloy has its science reporter, so there is no chance that folks who get their science from fox news will ever be well informed.

I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.

-- Al Gore

Um, sure Al. You must be freeking Jesus Climate.

And Tim, I was referring to folks like myself. I get exactly zero information of any kind from Fox News, yet I think Al Gore is a dick and I won't ever listen to anything he has to say.

And why, Ben, do you think he's a dick?

ben, Gore is correct in the statement you quoted. The media have misled the public by making it appear that is some scientific controversy about the existence of AGW. There isn't.

Ben you don't think Al's a dick, you feel it. Thinking would get you further, faster, than you're going at the moment.

frankis, "think" doesn't necessarily imply reason or rationality. It can also refer to any mental conception.

This is a pretty good website about Gore's politics.

Turns out he's not quite as big a dick (provided he's telling the truth and not just pandering) as I thought he was. I mostly agree with him on same-sex unions, abortion (except for public funding of, although I'm starting to be swayed. It's a worse condition to be born to no father and a mother who neither wants nor loves you, than die never knowing in the womb).

I'm about 50/50 on economic issues. I disagree with him entirely on drugs, as I'm for full decriminalization/demilitarization. I seriously part ways with Gore on gun control and "equal pay for equal work" for women (it's not what it says it is), and health care.

Now here's the deal. I'll compromise. I'll give Gore and the left all their global warming stuff, and they give me all my gun rights stuff. Sounds like a fair trade, since global warming is "the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced". If Gore and the left don't think it's a fair trade, then they don't believe that GW is in fact that important, correct?

Besides think of all the carbon credits the millions of dollars spent in vain to push gun control could have bought!

So who can tell me about methane clathrates?
I understand they're found underwater at high pressure, are sometimes released, and methane is a high-potency greenhouse gas. I also understand the fear that rising deep ocean temperatures will make these deposits unstable, and we will have a pulse of new greenhouse gases. How do they form?

At least Tim gets a better class of wingnuts than some - check out these rants on HIV and AIDS.
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/02/while_all_the_hiv_dissidents_…

Welcome to the wide world of wikipedia, Stewart!

Thanks, Sleepy,the thought had occured to me. So they're stable to higher temperatures than I originally thought Under oceanic pressure, at least), the amount is high (not good if they do start to release more frequently) and the concentration is low enough to make commercial exploitation (converting methane into CO2, longer-lived but less potent) largely unviable. Point 1 sort of balances 2 & 3, pending further data. Now to use Google Scholar.
Oh, and the Aruban health system rocks! (as do those fabulously wealthy Portuguese, who can buy anything they want with their health dollars)
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

But Stewart, the US still comes out ahead of Guam and Lithuania!

(Actually I've heard, although I haven't checked the claim in detail, that the comparatively high US infant mortality rate is partially attributable to heroic measures to deliver extremely premature fetuses. Stillbirths aren't included in the infant mortality rate.)

I wouldn't believe "An Inconvenient Truth", because I don't believe anything Gore says.
I don't believe anything Gore says, because he's always harping about how bad anthropogenic climate change is.
I will only believe what people who aren't always nagging me that anthropogenic climate change is bad say about it.

"Why do you Aussies love Dick Cheney so much?"

Well, check out the picture:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-joins-us-in-iran-warning/200…

"the tale of two research projects"

When I was back there in grad school, one of the profs wrote a grant proposal on some basic biochemistry of chlorinated hydrocarbons; wanted to study how/why they persisted in people's fat and cell membranes, and thus the carcinogenic activity of pollutants, food additives, etc. was potentiated over a much greater span of time. No luck.

Turned the proposal around, so that it was about how/why they persisted in people's fat and cell membranes, and thus the pharmaceutical activity of drugs, etc. was potentiated over a much greater span of time. Bingo! Funding!

"comparatively high US infant mortality rate is partially attributable to heroic measures to deliver extremely premature fetuses. Stillbirths aren't included in the infant mortality rate"

Good point. Shows why you can't take research results as answers, without knowing precisely what questions were asked.

So, to delve slightly further into this complicated question, I note that 1) the rate of very low birth weight babies itself is something which depends pretty strongly on prenatal care, which the US should be able to, but does not, deliver to almost every pregnant woman, and 2) the differences between black and white America in infant mortality, controlled for birth weight: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5127a1.htm

Ian Gould wrote:

(Actually I've heard, although I haven't checked the claim in detail, that the comparatively high US infant mortality rate is partially attributable to heroic measures to deliver extremely premature fetuses. Stillbirths aren't included in the infant mortality rate.)

Partially, yes, but only very partially. Standardizing for gestational age and/or birthweight does explain some of the difference, but a deeper question is why Americans have so many (relative to other developed countries) low birthweight and early gestational age babies. Many researchers think it's related to the high (once again, relative to other developed countries) proportions of women who don't get a full course of prenatal care.

And the even deeper question is, even if the US health system is every bit as good as that of every other developed country, why does it cost around 50% more?

Ian Gould asked:

even if the US health system is every bit as good as that of every other developed country, why does it cost around 50% more?

Actually, it's a little bit worse than that. We generally split discussions of health care systems into three parts: quality of care, access to care, and cost of care. Relative to other developed countries, our quality of care is pretty much smack dab in the middle: better on some things, worse on others. OTOH, our access to care is very, very uneven -- particularly to preventative care. So, although our overall cost is about 50% more in per capita terms than most other developed countries, we're covering a (slightly) smaller proportion of the total population.

Robert, the cost of medical care in the USofA is not only 50% higher per capita to much of the rest of the industrialized world, it is also about 50% higher as a fraction of GDP. That last should be disturbing.

But, I'll give you an example. I've had ultrasound examinations done in the US (Lahey Clinic) and in Germany (a private medical office (!)). In the US, the ultrasound examination was performed by a technician, was routed through who-knows-where and interpreted by who-knows-who, before it finally landed on the doctor's desk, where he opined.

In Germany, the ultrasound examination was done by the doctor himeself (he obviously loved showing off his new machine). Not only did he interpret it on the spot but he showed me the images so that I could see what my internal organs were doing at the time. (Fascinating. I could even make out the shapes of my liver and kidneys. Grey's Anatomy was spot on!)

The point should be clear. The American medical establishment is geared for inefficiency and, hence, increased cost. If the doctor in Germany could do the ultrasound himself, eliminating the middle-man, why could not the physician at Lahey Clinic?

It's because all of these issues are profit centers in US clinics. A lab test that is charged US$2 in Germany goes for ten times that amount (at least) in the US. It's highway robbery.

raj wrote:

Robert, the cost of medical care in the USofA is not only 50% higher per capita to much of the rest of the industrialized world, it is also about 50% higher as a fraction of GDP. That last should be disturbing.

[Per capita expenditures on health care](http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/exp-percap.png)

[Health care expenditures as % of GDP](http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/pct-gdp.png)

Has anyone else noticed that climate change denailists (inclduying the so-called scientists amongst them)have a remarkable ability to believe mutually contradictory hypotheses provided they support their prejudice.

So, for example, they can believe that global warming is occurring on Mars and they can beleive Svensmark's theory linking solar activity ot lgobal warming via cloud formation.

Now if Mars and the Earth are both warming, then given the absence of clouds on Mars, that would tend to disprove Svensmark.

Additionally if Svensmark's hypothesis is correct OR if solar activity is causing warming on both Mars and Earth by soem other mechanism that would invalide the claism thatr measured global warming on Earth is due to the urban heat island effect.

Yet somehow, some denialists manage to believe all three positions at once.

Ian, it is all explained in Crichton's book.

So critics of the IPCC have been insisting that the recent "summary for Policymakers" report was deliberately distorted and misrepresnts the underlying science.

Now a draft of the original text prepared by client scientists on which the final Policy report was based has been released.

Drastic changes were made to the text during the revision process which was managed not by scientists but by representatives of governments and which worked on a consensus basis, meaning any one of the 100 governments could block progress by objecting to particular wording.

David Wasdell who was an independent reviewer of the text and who has made a systematic study of the changes goes so far as to say "the evidence of... suppression of...scientific material is overwhelming".

In fact he goes so far as to entitle his report "Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?"

Read on for all the details:

http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19325943.900-climate-repo…

How drunk and stupid would you have to be to sign up from a rehab centre that spams blogs for business?

And if anybody is that drunk and that stupid what are the odds of them actually having the money to pay for treatment?

I'm waiting for this argument.
Global warming is real, but humans (and CO2) aren't the cause. Rather, the sun is shining for longer hours, hence more warming.
My source?
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03/09/nu-sun.html

JoshD; Tim Curtin and others like to contrast the fatality figures from media reports (and IBC) with the Lancet 2 survey to try and discredit the latter.

There's a fairly obvious flaw in that argument which escaped me until now and also seems to have escaped others.

Media coverage is pretty much contemporaneous, so we read "57 Iraqis were killed and 105 were wounded today".

This clearly misses any Iraqi wounded who die later.

So either Iraq has the best medical system in the world or there's a whole other level of under-reporting in the media figures over and above the limited coverage.

This is in response to some Cambodia comments that were in danger of overwhelming the thread on Les Roberts' briefing in Berlin.

Donald,

In the past, Cambodia scholars I've contacted have been very generous in responding to email. I'm hesitant to email Kiernan on this topic because I sent him many questions when I was working on the Khmer Rouge death toll article, and I'm wary of wearing out my welcome. If you'd like to email him, however, I think there is an excellent chance that he'll reply.

Also, if you'd like to email me (cambodia@aol.com) I'd be happy to elaborate.

Regards,
Bruce