An Iain Dale post seeks to show "no evidence of any warming trend" using data from the Met office. The problem is that the methodology has no statistical basis.
With the failure of global leaders to get a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen, you would think that all those engaged in the debate would place a premium on good evidence. Not so Iain Dale.
The prominent Tory blogger posted last night a message from one of his readers, who sought to show “no evidence of any warming trend” using data from the Met office. The only problem is that the methodology has absolutely no statistical basis whatsoever although that didn’t stop Iain Dale in the comments saying:
“As far as I can see Victor has calculated the figures very well. I have now been on the site to check myself. Not sure how a “professional” coudl do it differently to him. But feel free to try!”
Giles Wilkes, a trained economist, has done exactly that on Freethinking Economist. He also puts Dale’s folly in context:
“I haven’t checked out Iain Dale’s CV, but I suspect it does not include a period studying statistics. Because he seems to believe in a recent post that taking one month every ten years from one location in the UK is a sufficient reason to justify statements about the effect of carbon dioxide throughout the entire globe over a 150 year period”
Meanwhile, in a detailed post, Unity on Liberal Conspiracy shows what the real trend in Oxford looks like using the data more accurately:
When Left Foot Forward has got things wrong in the past, we’ve been grown up enough to admit it. But will Iain Dale do the same?
And while pseudo statistics continue to be used to argue against the scientific consensus on climate change, a far better use of all our time would be spent taking action to abate our global emissions – for example, heeding Claire Spencer’s advice and signing a petition to reduce food waste and therefore 10 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
17 Responses to “Will Iain Dale acknowledge his climate error?”
John77
Been grown up enough to admit it? Not that I have noticed.
Iain Dale refers today on his blog to a post by Graeme Archer who has a PhD in statistics; you are presumably referring to a different post
“the methodology has absolutely no statistical basis whatsoever” You are talking complete bullshit: the sample was taken every tenth year of maximum and minimum temperatures in June and December. In my view that is a sound statistical basis – what are your statistical qualifications?
It is possible to select a subset of data that may appear to be randomly selected but will be misleading: however there is neither evidence nor suggestion that this set has been selected for this purpose
What we have here is a dataset that appears to contradict the global warming theory: instead of finding some evidence to support the theory [at this point I should add that I want us to cut down on activities that will add to global warming] you simply slag him off without any data or logic. Mr Wilkes attacks Ian Dale for something neither he nor his correspondent has said. Victor actually says in the post: “Of course, I am perfectly prepared to concede that Oxford is not necessarily typical of all world spots. Neither is any other place.”
If you really care about “climate change” aka the damage that humanity does to the future environment by heating up the planet, please can you do this honestly. It should be obvious that burning vast amounts of fossil fuel will increase the temperature and it should be equally obvious to any decent statistician that variations in solar radiation are more significant than variations in human consumption of fossil fuels: I should hope that you recognise that we can only influence one of these two so, even if it is much smaller than the other, it is the one that we should tackle
Malicious lies do not help, they merely reinforce prejudices on both sides and delay persuading the ignorant that we need to take action. Do you care or do you merely want to score party political points (invalid ones in this example)?
A reply to Iain Dale | Left Foot Forward
[…] much for “Game, set, match”, I wonder if Iain Dale will even acknowledge his error. Share | Permalink | Leave a comment Click here to cancel […]