wtf is wrong with these people?

I was out and about looking for a denier comment of the day and stumbled onto something even better. Anthony Cox. That’s right, Anthony (I like to pretend I’m a climatologist) Cox. Now, I realise not many of you would know or even care who Anthony Cox is but he’s one of my favourite deniers because he is a poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect. He is also the secretary of possibly the most batshit crazy political party in Australia, the Climate Sceptics Party. These people are the poster children of denial because they believe every denier meme there is, provide links to videos of “Lord” Christopher Monckton on their website, think blogs are scientific references and the list goes on. They are classic. Just check their official blog. Thankfully they attract about 0.2% of the vote at election time. Anyway, I was over at WTFIWWAW and came across Anthony’s comment

Fairly innocuous stuff I know but he then provides a link to something he refers to as a “paper”. I’ll put the link to the “paper” a bit further down,  but here is the header.

Oh. It’s a conference manuscript. Anthony Cox, when are you going to realise that this sort of thing is not a real “paper”? it certainly hasn’t been published in a real journal and it certainly hasn’t been through peer review……what’s that? It has been reviewed? By whom?

Ohhhhh by you (a lawyer), Geoff Sherrington (a historian) and Ken Stewart (an Excel Expert). You know what I find really amazing is that the author, who by all accounts actually seems to have some stats credentials albeit in Ecological Niche Modelling, has run this “paper” by two clowns and an historian. Very strange indeed.

Anyway, as you can see by the title of the “paper”, and Anthony’s brief description it’s all about data adjustments by Australia’s BOM and how it’s apparently dodgy. Excellent, let’s go and check out the abstract .That’s the place I always like to start when I read a paper.

“High rates of type I error…..” False positives, and lots of them hey? Sounds serious. Better go and check the methodology to see how many type I errors you’ve potentially discovered.

Right. Well, there you go. Seems legit. All this reading and writing is making me hungry. I wish my cherry tree would hurry up and produce some fruit.

Here’s that link. Wear headgear.

1 Comment

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

One response to “wtf is wrong with these people?

  1. john byatt

    “High type I error is indicative of circular reasoning and ‘data peeking’.
    Peeking at the regional standard to achieve a more powerful test may seem
    harmless, but is highly inappropriate”

    hows that for circular reasoning?