Letters To The Editor: Cherry-Picking Data Gives Desired Results
Cherry-Picking Data Gives Desired Results
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In an exchange of letters, Rod Elser correctly noted that global temperature data haven't shown a recent cooling trend, while James Miller countered with a fallacy-ridden claim that they have. Both referenced data sets widely available on the Internet collected by respected climatologists. Why the differing inferences?
While the Internet can be an excellent source of data, 99 percent of Internet commentary is utter rubbish. Miller, confusing concepts of weather and climate, declared that a temperature difference of .6 degrees over 12 months ending in January 2008 shows that the 10,000-year warming trend has officially ended. Further, he makes the blunder that 1998 (an outlier) was the most recent warming year. In choosing 1998, a year which saw the most intense El Nino in a century, he committed the fallacy of cherry-picking the data.
Miller should take 2008 whole, leading to the analysis that 2008 was the seventh warmest year since records were kept -- despite the cooling of the reccord-setting 2008 La Nina. The year was also warmer than 2000. One must understand that trending data from this decade before approximately 2018 is spurious analysis. Scientists are only now able to accurately trend data from the 1990s.
So why did both writers, using identical data sets, infer differently? Elser took his analysis from expert climatologists, who have reached a consensus regarding the data. The urban myth that 31,000 disagree is just that, a myth. Miller's opinion is from Internet sources that are ignorant of science.
Word-count restrictions don't permit me to address the red herrings Miller raises regarding irrelevancies like the Maunder Minimum, the hockey stick curve, and his fundamental misunderstanding that CO2 is a minor contributor when discussing the behavior of incredibly complex non-linear systems.
William Swiger.
Richmond.
Time to Say No To Liberal Programs
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In the recent ABC-sponsored infomercial on President Barack Obama's health care plans, a doctor in the audience pointed out that many elites propose public health care plans, knowing that if they or their family members get sick, they would be able to afford expensive treatments not covered in the public plan. He asked the president if he participated in a national health care plan and if his wife became gravely ill, would he seek out specialists and treatments regardless of whether they were covered under his public plan? The president answered that he would do whatever he could to provide the best care for his family. Unfortunately, millions of Americans forced into public health care would not be able to make those same choices. They would be at the mercy of a federal bureaucrat in Washington, who would decide who gets what care.
What we need in this country is not another government takeover, but a smart free-market-oriented health care proposal like the one Rep. Eric Cantor is seeking. It would cut down on costs and expand availability through tort reform and tax credits to businesses, without forcing a public option on the American people.
On another topic -- it was gratifying to note that all Virginia Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the energy bill that was just passed. This legislation is a jobs-killer and will result in a significant tax burden through higher energy costs for all Americans.
As a popular talk show host recently suggested, Congress should step up to the plate and say, "no, we won't," instead of "yes, we can," on these insidious socialistic programs put forth by the current administration and its liberal cohort in the House and Senate.
John B. LeRoy.
Henrico.
Americans Should Ask More Questions on Health
Editor, Times-Dispatch: If you have faith in a government-run national health care program and actually believe that the government knows best how to provide your health care . . .
If you really believe that the government has your best interest in mind when it attempts to create massive legislation and that you will always have the option of keeping your current coverage and doctors . . .
If you have confidence that your elected officials are actually reading the legislation . . .
Call your congressman and senators and ask them why the bill contains an exemption from coverage for themselves!
If their plan is so great, why wouldn't they want to enjoy the benefits it will provide? Didn't the president state during his campaign that he would like all citizens to have the same type of coverage that our gifted representatives enjoy?
As Americans, we better start asking more questions or eventually we won't have the right to!
Rick Mandarino.
Powhatan.
Reader Reactions
Ah yes. It is the insurers who decide who they will cover (or not), how much they will pay (they, being the insured), what they will cover, and how much they will pay (in this case, they being the insurer). Not to fear, all is well with the insurers, who as a group pull most of their data about who, what, how much, etc from Ingenix, owned by an insurer, UnitedHealth Group, who has to pay $400 million in settlement $ cause of two suits filed regarding “flawed” data base info flowing from UnitedHealth’s Ingenix, same entity supplying data to all major insurers, hospitals, and others among the pirate crews.
Ingenix also bought in Y2007 The Lewin Group, which in turn, verified (?) savings of $1.5 trillion over ten years, IF we adopt a 100% private insurer only reform for covering 99% of all Americans; the Healthy Americans Act proposed via Senate bill #S.391.
Other insurer settlements listed on web site of American Medical Association?
BCBS and $131 million
Aetna and $470 million
Cigna and $540 million
Health Net and $140 million
Humana and $133 million
WellPoint and $448 million
Excellus and mere $63 million
Counting the UnitedHealth $400 million, that’s over $2 billion in settlements. Not all, but a wake-up # that ought to test our degree of trust for these thieves…..and, that’s only what a big concern (AMA) has been able to catch um at. Wonder how much YOU got screwed over the years? In past 3 yrs since my retiree coverage expired, my wife’s coverage has gone from Cigna to Aetna to BCBS. I declare. All three have been caught cheating, stealing, robbing. Profit is good, but outright greedy thievery?
“Unfortunately, millions of Americans forced into public health care would not be able to make those same choices. They would be at the mercy of a federal bureaucrat in Washington, who would decide who gets what care.“
Not sure I follow this argument?
I don’t see much difference between I government bureaucrat and a profit driven insurance company?
I hear this reason every day, and I just don’t follow it. Who do people think are deciding your health care future now? It’s not YOU…it’s your insurance company? These new ideas would not inhibit or change any of your choices…because let’s face it ...YOU ARE NOT DECIDING anything…it’s your INSURANCE deciding what they cover. Sure you can opt for a more expensive plan that covers more, but won’t there always be someone else deciding what your coverage is? And does Obama’s plan inhibit you from getting a private plan?
Now that is a whopper-
“Anthropogenic emissions have overcome the natural forcings on temperature.“
“My own personal viewpoint begins with the irrefutable fact that temperature rise ALWAYS precedes the rise of CO2. By about 800 years.“
That statement represents a fundamental ignorance of the role of CO2 as a positive forcing on global temperature trends since the 1970s. A simple reading of the peer-reviewed science would show the fallacy of that statement. Temperature lagged CO2 rise hundreds and thousands of years ago. Not now as anthropogenic emissions have overcome the natural forcings on temperature.
The scientif
Seems like lots of people are cherry picking their data. Heck, even the government tried to bury a government commissioned study that didn’t tow the global warming line. You can’t seem to trust anyone when it comes to global warming.
Should taxpayers be on the hook for the health care of smokers, drug abusers, alcoholics and those who partake in high risk, unprotected sex? Should taxpayers have to pay for HIV/AIDS tests? Should taxpayers have to pay for STD treatments? How about sex change operations and cosmetic surgeries? Should taxpayers have to pay for other people’s abortions if the taxpayer finds the practice repugnant?
Just what degree of health care is the left asking us to provide to those who can’t afford health care?
Mr. Swiger,
As soon as I read…“99 percent of Internet commentary is utter rubbish,” the rest of your comments were viewed with a jaundiced eye. I don’t believe you. You complain about advocates cherry picking, yet you make the absurd statement that 99% of Internet commentary is utter rubbish. And you know that, how? If you’re going to debunk, you should avoid what you intend to debunk.
“Rod Elser correctly noted that global temperature data haven’t shown a recent cooling trend, while James Miller countered with a fallacy-ridden claim that they have. both referenced data sets widelyavailable on the internet collected by respected climatologists. Why the differing inferences.“
Why indeed?
Well first we have to assume that both mr. Miller’s and mr. Elser’s information came from the internet.
Which is 99% rubbish.
Mr. Miller incorrectly cherry-picked his version of the “rubbish.“
Mr. Elser correctly picked his .
There is no doubt that there is a ton of information on the internet. And that is where most readers get their information. There are web sites that are biased in the direction of the warmists and those that are directed at the skeptics.
One can go to the NASDA site and NOAA and even the IPCC. They are warmist oriented. And then there are WUWT and Climate Depot that are skeptic oriented.
The most important thing is to visit BOTH types of sites.
The more serious researchers of course would refer to scientific journals.
There are many scientists of all diciplines who are involved in the question of climate change and no matter whether you go to the internet or the journals you are going to find a conflict.
The one thing to remember is that the debate is not over by a long shot.
And I believe that the Al Gore film “An Inconvenient Truth” is unfortunately where too many got their first exposure to the topic. It did more to spread alarmist disinformation than a million internet sites and newspaper and magazine accounts.
If you are truely concerned, and we should all be.
Read it ALL and make up your own mind.
And keep the debate going.
My own personal viewpoint begins with the irrefutable fact that temperature rise ALWAYS precedes the rise of CO2. By about 800 years.
“asked the president if he participated in a national health care plan and if his wife became gravely ill, would he seek out specialists and treatments regardless of whether they were covered under his public plan? The president answered that he would do whatever he could to provide the best care for his family“…“millions of Americans forced into public health care would not be able to make those same choices”?….
What proposal being discussed in Congress indicates “millions of Americans will be forced into a public health care plan and they (we) will not be able to make choices to seek specialists and treatments”? Today we have purely a for-profit freedom of choice system; degree of freedom dependent upon your wealth. A citizen is free to choice whatever coverage they can afford, even if not approved by UnitedHealth, BCBS, or other insurers.
No truly reform proposal being discussed states all Americans will be so widely covered as to have access to all specialists and all treatments. You want your heart operation performed at the Cleveland Clinic rather than a very good Richmond cardiac center; yes, you probably need, as now, supplemental coverage or enough personal wealth to afford such.
I’ve received my form letter response from Eric Cantor’s office. He appears fully supportive of for-profit insurers only. Any reform he supports will start with best interests of the for-profit industry. I do agree with one of his statements; “Gambling with one’s health or one’s future is a risk that no American family should have to take.” The odds in today’s game are staked against us, the citizens, and grow more & more in favor of the industry. Having always voted for Cantor, my family of only two votes will never again, as we can not afford to continue gambling.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement