RUSSIAN HEATWAVE JUST A HEATWAVEHomeGlobal Warming Lunacy by ATWadmin August 29, 2010 45 1 min 12 yrs Who says so? Via Timmy we find that the NOAA says so. Best not listen to those who are paid to lie on behalf of the British government then. Click to rate this post![Total: 0 Average: 0] Global Warming Lunacy Post navigation Previous postNext post 45 thoughts on “RUSSIAN HEATWAVE JUST A HEATWAVE” So NOAA's a trusted source now? Good, check this out: http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2010/videos/soc2009 So Pete can you prove that the reporters on the BBC story are 'paid to lie' But the BBC aint saying much about the death of penguins in South Africa due to freezing conditions are they? Or the fact that the southern hemisphere in general is having a very cold snap. Yes I know it is winter in the southern hemisphere. How much did the BBC report about exceptional snows across the northern hemisphere last winter? Including Russia. How about Amazongate? Glaciergate? All reported by the BBC and others as fact. Since though it has been acknowledged by even the IPCC that the reporting is incorrect. I think the point is is that the BBC are leaders in pushing the climate change agenda. Oh and did you know BBC employee pensions are linked to the green agenda? I believe also that BBC journalists get paid, so yes I would say they are paid to lie. Great link Frank. But you know they will just ignore it. See the paranoid comment above for evidence. Yes of course. But as I also recall, Pete has told us that a warmer world is associated with greater economic prosperity, lush crops and general wellbeing. Best not to look at this link either so. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-10/russia-may-lose-15-000-lives-15-billion-of-economic-output-in-heat-wave.html Great link Frank. But you know they will just ignore it (again). I'd imagine that if the planet is warming up, then the effects will mostly be seen in small, gradual steps, and that one-off heatwaves can largely be discounted as just that. What was it the Russian press said…something like "it's the worst h/w for 120 years" – so a worse one did happen 120 years ago. Great link Frank. Also you remember well; a warmer world is indeed associated with greater economic prosperity, lush crops and general wellbeing. Despite the increase in deaths associated with the Russian heatwave, you'll find that cold is gar more dangerous: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6997427/Britains-cold-weather-deaths-soar-as-winter-takes-its-toll.html Pete Moore Do you accept that the climate has warmed in the past 15o years? Irrespective of causes, and just for the record. Peter – I accept that in some places the climate may have warmed in any time period you'd like to choose. It wouldn't be a surprise given we're moving out of an ice age. Whoops, I just realised that the statement "it's the worst [event] for 120 years" doesn't necessarily imply that a worse [event] ocurred 120 years ago. (Personally I think that the publication of all those sizzling hot pics of Anna Chapman probably contributed a degree or two to raising temperatures in Moscow). It's the tired old chestnut – not to mix vegetqble matters – red wine produced at/around Hadrian's Wall before Irish monks taught the Saxons how to spell. Talk to the Spanish. It's becoming increasingly difficult to make a wine less thqan 14% ABV I accept that in some places the climate may have warmed in any time period you'd like to choose. No, the climate means the world climate, not "some places". What a cop-out answer Pete. Pete, Despite the increase in deaths associated with the Russian heatwave, you'll find that cold is gar more dangerous: Sure, but we are not faced with global cooling so that's irrelevant. The bigger point is however probably more valid than you realise – it is probably true that lives saved by avoidance of cold related deaths vs lives lost due to warming make the whole thing a wash at worst. But more to the point, adaptation means that heat related mortality is actually declining (and that link is to somebody who is actually active in climate research so has some clue). Of course you'd have to click on some links and read the comments to understand what he's really saying. Still, as the link shows this event is costing Russia 1% of GDP, affecting grain harvests and the place is on fricking fire. This and the likes of the pakistan floods may be a preview of what may become the new normal. When you find yourself arguing *that* is a good thing it is probably time to go out for a walk and clear your head. It's dangerous for somebody as innumerate as Frank O'Dwyer to become involved in 'global warming' or whatever the obscurantists who run this scam should be called – but certainly not 'scientists'. On a previous thread where Frank cited a study which had numbers attached, I challenged the weighting and the result, and I pointedly wrote "shades of global warming" relating to the incorrect output and the insults which follow any challenge. All Frank could do was produce his usual volley of insults. Colm wrote that we shouldn't be focussing on the numbers: oh yes we should, especially when the left gets it wrong. The reason why the leftists get it wrong is that as they are leftists, they gravitate towards the arts and are simply not equipped to deal with issues requiring numeracy. Here is the previous issue and the parallels with the leftists' butchery of mmgw are evident. Frank linked to a sudy which claimed that the IQs of voters in 2001 are as hereafter, so I'm adding MY estimated %vote from the electorate as a whole in brackets and I ask Frank to amend accordingly. Green – 108.3 (1)Liberal Democrat – 108.2 (10)Conservative – 103.7 (25)Labour – 103 (25)Plaid Cymru – 102.5 (3)Scottish National – 102.2 (5)UK Independence – 101.1 (1)British National – 98.4 (0.5)Did not vote/None of the above – 99.7 (29.5) And the weighted IQ from the above is ((108.3 x 1 + 108.2 x 10 + 103.7 x 25 + 103 x 25 + 102.5 x 3 + 102.2 x 5 + 101.1 x 1 + 98.4 x 0.5 + 99.7 x 28.5))/100 —-> 108.3 + 1082 + 2592.5 + 2575 + 307.5 + 512.5 + 101.1 + 49.2 + 2941.2 / 100 The answer is 102.7 BUT the UK average is 100. The 'error' of 2.7 is greater than the deviation from the norm attributed to BNP voters. The method used is flawed and the results are total BS. Look at how all party which have a 'nationalist' tinge, even faux-nationalists such as the SNP, all are at the lower end. And Labour's voters above 100??? I see Labour's voters up here every day and they make Mrs Duffy (woman publicly maligned by Gordon Brown who still voted Labour) look intelligent. Frank, unless you can challenge the above, you are a complete innumerate and should stay away from any 'global warming' discussions. Ah Allan, I see you have now attempted to amend your calculation as I suggested. Good man. Shame you couldn't admit to it, keep it to the original thread, or get it right – but you're making as much progress as anyone could reasonably expect from you. I notice you are still quoting your figure to 4 significant figures when only 1 is justified, the reason being you have pulled vote percentages out of your fundament. Didn't they teach you about significance during the education you claim to have had? Normally this would be taught in an engineering degree. To one significant figure the answer is indeed 100. And what do you claim is wrong with a result of 102.7 even if that were correct? Didn't they teach you statistics either? Normally that would be taught in an engineering degree too. Oops – two errors in my previous post. 1st sentence to read "…. whatever the obscurantists – but certainly not 'scientists' – who run this scam call it" and 2nd para, 1st line 'sudy' should read 'study'. Reason for correction is that it would give dodgy Frank the excuse to claim that the entire post is wrong, and thus avoid having to attempt a response. Oops – two errors in my previous post. 1st sentence to read "…. whatever the obscurantists – but certainly not 'scientists' – who run this scam call it" and 2nd para, 1st line 'sudy' should read 'study'. Reason for correction is that it would give dodgy Frank the excuse to claim that the entire post is wrong, and thus avoid having to attempt a response. Err Frank, the first pass result was 102.7 as below: <<Frank, the points I made are disputable to an extent but point 3 is not. Let's check the numbers again:(0.1 x 108.3 + .25 x 103.7 + 0.25 X 103 + 0.1 x 102 + 0.3 x 99.7) = 102.7 which is 2.7 points clear of the average of 100 whilst the BNP's purported variance is 1.6 points.>> As you required owing to your Brownian level of innumeracy, I went into more detail to produce a result of…. 102.7, and I invited you to amend accordingly. The fact that you refuse to do so means that you cannot do so which in turn reinforces your innumeracy. You really should not involve yourself on 'global warming' threads. [I apologise for this being on the wrong thread but Allan doesn't seem to be capable of keeping it on the right one – if anyone with moderation powers cares to move all this to the right thread, I'd be much obliged. Allan has a habit of chasing people onto unrelated threads in order to give a rather, uh, creative account of the history of that thread] Allan, As you required owing to [mathematical accuracy], I [tried again to get it right] to produce a result of…. 102.7, and I invited you to amend accordingly. The fact that you refuse to do so I corrected some other typos you made. If you take a break from spamming unrelated threads for a second and read my post you'll see I already did correct your calculation. Your figures are accurate to one sig fig, therefore so is your result: 100. Normally this type of thing would be covered in the first semester of an engineering degree, for those who missed it at school. Furthermore the gap between the lib dems/greens and BNP voters is about 10 points, not 1.6. You didn't really think anybody fell for your strawman about the BNP being below the mean, did you? The comparison is between your lot and the voters for other parties, not the average person in the population. Do the calculation with more accurate figures and see what you get. Then feel free to explain why that accounts for the 10 point gap between your lot and the smart voters. Until you do that I don't see why anyone should do your sums for you, even if you cannot do them yourself. The reason why the example of Frank O'Dwyer's complete innumeracy is brought to this thread is that he is one of the loudest proponents of MMGW. Anyone who wishes to check the accuracy of the thread can simply check it. However, another reason why Frank's credibility should be challenged is simply that he is a condescending, arrogant jerk – and I don't think anybody will disagree with that. From Frank's links on voters' IQs:Greens 0.4% x 108.3 = 0.43LibDems 10.8% x 108.2 = 11.68Cons 18.7% x 103.7 = 19.39Labour 24.0% x 103 = 24.72Plaid 0.4% x 102.5 = 0.41SNP 1% x 102.2 = 1.02UKIP 1% x 101.1 = 1.01BNP 0.1% x 98.4 = 0.09Others/dnv 44% x 99.7 = 43.87 Total weighted IQ = 102.5. But as Frank wrote in a statement which utterly destroyed his case and any pretentions to numeracy: "And what do you claim is wrong with a result of 102.7 even if that were correct?" Well Frank, the same goes for the BNP's apparent 98.4 – d'oh!! "The comparison is between your lot and the voters for other parties, not the average person in the population." Frank, the average person in the population IS the f*cking voter!! That's what elections are for. Frank O'Dwyer – innumerate proponent of MMGW, this as good as it gets. The reason why the example of Frank O'Dwyer's complete innumeracy Snicker. Allan claims I am the innumerate one yet every time I point out a flaw in his calculation he changes it. The reason he does so is that when I say he's bodged the calculation, I'm right. Now on the third (or is it the fourth?) time of asking, he still gets a wrong answer: Total weighted IQ = 102.5. Notice also that it's a different answer than before (used to be 102.7). But his input figures are only given to 3 sig figs – so his answer should be too: 103. And that is neither correct nor given to the same precision as the original numbers quoted in the study. He can hardly criticise the study with less accurate numbers. I could have stopped that sentence after 'study', but let's be kind. "And what do you claim is wrong with a result of 102.7 even if that were correct?" Try answering this question – meaningless babble isn't an answer. Frank, the average person in the population IS the f*cking voter!! Irrelevant and also untrue (not everyone CAN vote, and of those, not everyone DID vote). Again, the main result of the study is that the average IQ of the BNP voter was found to be about 10 points behind that of the lib dems/greens, NOT that BNP voters are significantly below the mean IQ of the general population. Really Allan, if you want to convince people that BNP voters aren't a bit dim it would look a bit better if you at least pretended to understand simple sentences. In the unlikely event that anyone is following along, Allan has tried the calculation four (4) times now, and come up with the following answers: 1) 1042) 102.73) 102.74) 102.5 All of those answers are wrong. So Allan, which would you like to stick with? Frank I don't mean to be rude, but I think you and Allan are chasing each other around in your Algorythmic, Decimalistic Trigonometrical, multiple fractionery cul-de-sac, and no-one else is twitiching their curtains to watch you 🙂 Colm, of course you're right, that's what I reckon too but at this point I'm fascinated to see if Allan will ever cop on. Besides I think it's funny that every time I point out a problem in his calculation he does it again, sorta kinda fixing the problem – coming back again and again with a different answer, and each time claiming I'm the one who's innumerate. I hope he does the calculations for the pipelines he claims to be involved in with a bit more care. I've been away for a bit – he wasn't posting as Allan@GulfOfMexico recently was he? Err no again, Frank. I ran that to get more precision because you are too innumerate to get it – and you are innumerate beyond recovery. You have no claims to understanding anything with numbers above your digits. The figures provided ON YOUR LINK for the supposed IQ numbers showed to any numerate person that the weighting was well above the 100 UK average which meant that the methodology was open to question. Then I used the EXACT numbers from your other link to get 102.5 (not far from my rougher estimate of 102.7 – numbers which you just couldn't grasp) which is clearly above the 100 average. The linked report goes to 1 dp so, as a direct comparison, I did the same. Frank, you can't hide your ignorance and innumeracy behind 'google' any more than you can pretend to have some understanding of MMGW. Why not stick to what you know, like ranges of bikes. Allan, Then I used the EXACT numbers from your other link to get 102.5 (not far from my rougher estimate of 102.7 Er, Allan, that answer is still wrong and your first answer was 104…you were out by a factor of almost 100% until I set you straight! Is there a reason you don't mention that one any more? Did you hope nobody would notice that you'd almost doubled the difference from the mean? I did notice. The difference between your first answer and your current answer is about as big as the difference you are now whining about! Surely if that means their methodology is open to question it means your methodology is open to question? Indeed every time you provide an answer the difference is inflated. Do you have any excuse for that? As I recall, your first instinct was to accuse the authors of the study of fraud, an accusation you throw around like it costs nothing, so I suppose by your argument you must conclude that you are guilty of fraud. Then I used the EXACT numbers from your other link to get 102.5 (not far from my rougher estimate of 102.7 – numbers which you just couldn't grasp) which is clearly above the 100 average. Oh Allan, it's also clearly wrong! And again let's not forget your 'rougher' estimate was actually 104 so if that's 'not far' from 102.5 then I guess 102.5 is 'not far' from 100, eh Allan? It's all rough, ballpark, 'ah, close enough' stuff from you, so who can take you seriously. Go away again and do it right, then I'll explain why it doesn't matter. So Allan what about the 10 point IQ gap between BNP voters and lib dems/greens? Frank – In 2001, there could well have been a 10-point gap between the Lib Dem and the BNP voters. As the invasion of the 3rd-world spreads into the more affluent areas, that difference reduces and reverses. By way of example, I vote BNP and you seem to link yourself to the LibDems. On your demonstrable innumeracy, at no time have you presented any calculation of the average IQ which is within the figures that you presented in your links. Even from a quick glance at those figures, it was evident that 100 was not possible as I stated. From the first post where you linked to the IQ figures, I proposed 104 without calcs. On the second, I ran a calc from estimates of current voting patterns and got 102.7 and finally, using the exact figures proposed by you, I got 102.5 whereas you got nothing because you are innumerate. No amount of googling will cover your profund ignorance and innumeracy. If my figures are incorrect, why don't you produce alternatives using the same input values that you presented? Go on – take up the challenge and repudiate your innumeracy. Allan, Frank – In 2001, there could well have been a 10-point gap between the Lib Dem and the BNP voters And as the study shows, there was. As the invasion of the 3rd-world spreads into the more affluent areas, that difference reduces and reverses. Made up nonsense, no evidence provided. From the first post where you linked to the IQ figures, I proposed 104 without calcs. Oh you gave 'calcs'. They were just wrong: When the IQ value is weighted (10% x LibDem/Green, 25% x Labour, 25% x Cons, 10% x others, 30% x 'did not vote') the results is 104 – wrong methodology somewhere. According to you even an innumerate could spot that was likely to be significantly wrong – and so it proves to be. Yet you didn't spot it. I did spot it – if that makes me innumerate, what does it make you? On the second, I ran a calc from estimates of current voting patterns and got 102.7 and finally, using the exact figures proposed by you, I got 102.5 But you didn't use exact figures as I suggested. Not using exact figures was why you got it wrong the first time, the second time, the third time, and the fourth time. Try using exact figures, see what you get. Well, that's what I would do if it wasn't already blatantly obvious that the difference from the mean is well within expectation and not significant. Update. I have proof how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…shall I share? LOL David – please do! But you may need to provide pictures for Allan – he's a BNP voter so, you know, a bit up on the slowtake. they'll have to wear swimsuits…..it's so warm….. Frank – I used the exact figures which you provided: the first set for IQs from your link to The Guardian and the second for %-votes from your link to the 2001 election results. The input figures are yours and the output is shown along with the calcs. I invite you once more to show what the 'correct' average IQ as determined from the weighted product of IQ x %-vote is if it is not the 102.5 as calculated from your own figures. I reckon that you are simply innumerate and, as befits a typical leftie, revert to abuse whenever challenged and found lacking. Go on, Frank. Produce the numbers. Hey Allan From Frank's links on voters' IQs:Greens 0.4% x 108.3 = 0.43LibDems 10.8% x 108.2 = 11.68Cons 18.7% x 103.7 = 19.39Labour 24.0% x 103 = 24.72Plaid 0.4% x 102.5 = 0.41SNP 1% x 102.2 = 1.02UKIP 1% x 101.1 = 1.01BNP 0.1% x 98.4 = 0.09Others/dnv 44% x 99.7 = 43.87 Total weighted IQ = 102.5. Your percentages add up to more than 100%! LOL! Wrong methodology somewhere???? Try again. ↑ LOL! The total as above is 100.4, error of 0.4 so a correction to other/dnv at 43.6% x 99.7 gives 43.47 giving 102.1 which is two clear points above the average of 100 – and this is a team of researchers with all the time in the world to get things right. Their method is wrong and so the reference is wrong. Why do they get above 100, Frank, and by an error greater than the supposed 'offset' for BNP voters? By simple inspection, there is no way that the weighted average can be 100 so why don't you show how to do it? And Frank and I can now agree that:the linked report has a weighted IQ average of 102.1, (you did check the numbers, Frank)the actual national average is 100. Therefore:the methodology of the researchers is in error otherwise they would have corrected at source,the reported IQ-deviation of BNP voters is less than the error i.e. 1.6 < 2.1 Allan, The total as above is 100.4, error of 0.4 Yeah I know, after all I pointed it out to you. You're welcome. You know, you'd look a lot less silly foaming at mouth and calling people 'innumerate' if you could add a column of numbers correctly the first time without help. Why do they get above 100 Because Allan, if you average the scores of a smaller subset taken randomly from a population with mean 100 you're going to get above 100 pretty much 50% of the time. In this case, they tested 6000 people so a deviation of in excess of about 2 points from the population mean would happen by chance alone more than 1 time in 4. Nothing surprising or untoward about it in the least. Your argument is the equivalent of screeching the die is loaded because you rolled a 4. After all, that only happens 1 time in 6! The mind can only boggle at the accusations of fraud those in the Allan@Aberdeen household must have to suffer when playing board games with you. And Frank and I can now agree that:the linked report has a weighted IQ average of 102.1, Nah. You can't simply bodge one of the numbers to make the total 100 and hope that makes the rounding errors go away, you know. But you've had 5 guesses now so I don't think you'll ever figure it out: if you want to use fancypants decimal places then you need to use the actual vote counts and an accurate turnout percentage. Could someone please post the links again, to the raw data in question, and state what exactly it is that you're trying to demonstrate. I'd like to have a go at it. I do number-crunching stuff for a living, and while I'm by no means an expert, I think I'm pretty good at using MS Excel and some of its lesser known functions, so just for the heck of it, I'd like to give it a go, and perhaps give some reasons why the results look skewed. Thanks all. Tom, Allan is trying to work out a weighted average based on vote percentage, e.g.: Greens 0.4% x 108.3 = 0.43LibDems 10.8% x 108.2 = 11.68Cons 18.7% x 103.7 = 19.39Labour 24.0% x 103 = 24.72Plaid 0.4% x 102.5 = 0.41SNP 1% x 102.2 = 1.02UKIP 1% x 101.1 = 1.01BNP 0.1% x 98.4 = 0.09Others/dnv 44% x 99.7 = 43.87 Total weighted IQ = 102.5. So it's just a matter of plugging in the right figures for the vote percentages for each party. 'DNV+others' = did not vote, or voted for a party other than those named above. The vote data is linked off my 12.53 up there and the percentages can be calculated from the votes cast and the voter turnout (which is in one of the references off that link – I believe that figure is 59.4%). Use any other numbers and you'll probably have rounding errors. The calculation is of course pretty much irrelevant but Allan seems to enjoy doing it, he's done it 5 times now 🙂 Since everyone is doing maths to determine the accuracy of the IQ & voting result, I feel almost mean for pointing out that the figures being used are probably worthless because the study was of one age cohort, people born in 1970 at the 2001 election. So using the overall voting figures is a waste of time, I'd almost certainly say that 30-31 year olds probably have lower turnouts than the general population for instance. Ross, Since everyone is doing maths to determine the accuracy of the IQ Not everyone, just Allan. Well, if you can call what he's doing maths 😉 I've just been pointing out that he's not even calculating his own test correctly. So using the overall voting figures is a waste of time, I'd almost certainly say that 30-31 year olds probably have lower turnouts than the general population for instance. A waste of time, sure, but a different turnout in the cohort by itself would make no difference and would not invalidate the calculation. The mean IQ of those who didn't vote in the whole population is what it is, and other things being equal whether you average 300 or 3000 or 4000 it doesn't matter much. For it to matter, the (mean) IQ of those who didn't vote in the cohort would have to be expected to systematically and significantly vary in some way from the (mean) IQ of those who didn't vote in the electorate as a whole. It's not obvious why that should be so. What the study doesn't tell you, of course, is how the same people might *vote* when they are 20 or 40 or 50 or whatever. If voting preference varied systematically with both IQ and age, that could in principle invalidate the calculation – but that doesn't mean that it actually does. Still, as I mention above, even if you chose 6000 people perfectly at random from an electorate with a perfect normal distribution of IQ scores, the mean of that population can easily be over 2 points from the expected mean of 100, by chance alone. If it can happen even under ideal conditions it's obviously not evidence of anything. p.s. I'm assuming that the actual mean IQ scores of the cohort are what they are presenting in the Guardian – the full paper is behind a paywall so I don't know if this is the case. "A waste of time, sure, but a different turnout in the cohort by itself would make no difference and would not invalidate the calculation. " Sorry if I am missing something, but given that the "did not votes " were one of the groups who averaged below 100, surely if they made up a larger proportion in this age group than surely that would bring the overall average closer to 100? Ross, Sorry if I am missing something, but given that the "did not votes " were one of the groups who averaged below 100, surely if they made up a larger proportion in this age group than surely that would bring the overall average closer to 100? Well, the mean IQ of any group tested at age 10 should be normally distributed about 100 no matter what some of them do subsequently. But in any case Allan's calculation doesn't involve the mean of the whole group. The relevant figure here is the mean IQ of those who did not vote at age 30 – so the question is not how many of them there are or what the percentage in the cohort is, but only whether their average IQ should be expected to be different to the average IQ of those who didn't vote at other ages. Same for all the party categories – it's not how many individuals they contain, it's whether their average IQ is representative of that of the same categories in whole electorate or not. Comments are closed.