Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Thomas Sowell Blasts The Obama Administration's Use Of The Race Card

What is happening in black inner city schools is a tragedy.  Black school children are stuck in incredibly poor schools and are not getting an education that will allow them to become competitive.  Although Obama sends his two children to the best DC private schools, one of his first acts in office was to end a program that would have given DC's poor the same option for their children.  And now, in an election year effort to take the focus of blacks off the poor state of education - and the fact that Obama and the left are wholly complicit with it - the DOJ and the Dept. of Education are conducting a campaign to punish schools that punish black males statistically more frequently than whites. This from Prof. Sowell:

[T]he biggest hoax of the past two generations is still going strong -- namely, the hoax that statistical differences in outcomes for different groups are due to the way other people treat those groups.

The latest example of this hoax is the joint crusade of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice against schools that discipline black males more often than other students. According to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, this disparity in punishment violates the "promise" of "equity."

Just who made this promise remains unclear, and why equity should mean equal outcomes despite differences in behavior is even more unclear. This crusade by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is only the latest in a long line of fraudulent arguments based on statistics.

If black males get punished more often than Asian American females, does that mean that it is somebody else's fault? That it is impossible that black males are behaving differently from Asian American females? Nobody in his right mind believes that. But that is the unspoken premise, without which the punishment statistics prove nothing about "equity."

What is the purpose or effect of this whole exercise by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice? To help black students or to secure the black vote in an election year by seeming to be coming to the rescue of blacks from white oppression?

Among the many serious problems of ghetto schools is the legal difficulty of getting rid of disruptive hoodlums, a mere handful of whom can be enough to destroy the education of a far larger number of other black students -- and with it destroy their chances for a better life.

Judges have already imposed too many legalistic procedures on schools that are more appropriate for a courtroom. "Due process" rules that are essential for courts can readily become "undue process" in a school setting, when letting clowns and thugs run amok, while legalistic procedures to suspend or expel them drag on. It is a formula for educational and social disaster.

Now Secretary Duncan and Attorney General Holder want to play the race card in an election year, at the expense of the education of black students. Make no mistake about it, the black students who go to school to get an education are the main victims of the classroom disrupters whom Duncan and Holder are trying to protect.

What they are more fundamentally trying to protect are the black votes which are essential for Democrats. For that, blacks must be constantly depicted as under siege from whites, so that Democrats can be seen as their rescuers.

Promoting paranoia translates into votes. It is a very cynical political game, despite all the lofty rhetoric used to disguise it.

Whether the current generation of black students get a decent education is infinitely more important than whether the current generation of Democratic politicians hang on to their jobs.

Too many of the intelligentsia -- both black and white -- jump on the statistical bandwagon, and see statistical differences as proof of maltreatment, not only in schools but in jobs, in mortgage lending and in many other things.

Some act as if their role is to protect the image of blacks by blaming their problems on whites. But the truth is far more important than racial image.

Wherever we want to go, we can only get there from where we are. Not where we think we are, or wish we are, or where we want others to think we are, but where we are in fact right now.

But political spin and pious euphemisms don't tell us where we are. After a while, such rhetorical exercises don't even fool others.

If we don't have the truth, we don't have anything to start with and build on. A big start toward the truth would be getting rid of the kinds of statistical hoaxes being promoted by Secretary of Education Duncan and Attorney General Holder.

And on a final note, it was the social engineering justified on the grounds of statistical differences in loans received by blacks that destroyed credit standards, put Fannie and Freddie on steroids, and was the direct cause of our economic meltdown of the past five years. That same social engineering was strengthened and made a permanent part of our laws with the passage of Dodd Frank. This use of statistics alone to create the impression of racism where none exists is a systemic malignancy that must be ended.








Read More...

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Fraud, The Sun, IPCC & Their Modeling

This is an exact inversion of the scientific method, which says that evidence always trumps theory. The IPCC is throwing away the evidence for a solar-magnetic driver of climate because it isn’t satisfied with the theories that have been proposed to account for it. This is the definition of anti-science: putting theory (or ideology, or anything) over evidence. Evidence has to be the trump card, or its not science. The IPCC is engaged in pure, definitional, anti-science, precisely inverting the scientific method.

IPCC Reviewer Alec Rawls, Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5. Watts Up With That, 22 Feb. 2012

For a superb overview of the solar theory which is at the heart of Mr. Rawls condemnation of the IPCC, see this presentation from Jasper Kirby, head of CERN's CLOUD experiment.





The quote at the top of the page is Alec Rawls's summary of the fraud he has seen at the heart of the IPCC. He makes that observation as one of the reviewers of the latest IPCC update. What he has found is how the IPCC models the climate, dismissing out of hand solar forcing and counting CO2 as a forty times more potent driver of our climate. Here is his explanation:

“Expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th. Here is the first paragraph of my submitted critique:

My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud”). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.

Like everyone else who participated in this review, I agreed not to cite, quote or distribute the draft. The IPCC also made a further request, which reviewers were not required to agree to, that we “not discuss the contents of the FOD in public fora such as blogs.”

Given what I found—systematic fraud—it would not be moral to honor this un-agreed to request, and because my comments are about what is omitted, the fraud is easy enough to expose without quoting the draft. . . .

For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century. These two correlations with temperature change give rise to the two main competing theories of 20th century warming. Was it driven by rapidly increasing human release of CO2, or by the 80 year “grand maximum” of solar activity that began in the early 1920′s? (“Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints,” Usoskin et al. 2007.)

The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.

Such a high degree of correlation over such long time periods implies causality, which can only go one way. Global temperature cannot be driving solar activity, so there must be some mechanism by which solar activity is driving or modulating global temperature change. The high degree of correlation also suggests that solar activity is the primarydriver of global temperature on every time scale studied (which is pretty much every time scale but the Milankovitch cycle).

In contrast, records of CO2 and temperature reveal no discernable warming effect of CO2. There is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, but with CO2 changes following temperature changes by an average of about 800 years (Caillon 2003), indicating that it is temperature change that is driving atmospheric CO2 change (as it should, since warming oceans are able to hold less CO2). This does not rule out the possibility that CO2 also drives temperature, and in theory a doubling of CO2 should cause about a 1 degree increase in temperature before any feedback effects are accounted, but feedbacks could be negative (dampening rather than amplifying temperature forcings), so there no reason, just from what we know about the greenhouse mechanism, that CO2 has to be a significant player. The one thing we can say is that whatever the warming effect of CO2, it is not detectable in the raw CO2 vs. temperature data.

This is in glaring contrast to solar activity, which lights up like a neon sign in the raw data. Literally dozens of studies finding .5 to .8 degrees of correlation with temperature. So how is it that the IPCC’s current generation of general circulation models start with theassumption that CO2 has done 40 times as much to warm the planet as solar activity since 1750? This is the ratio of AR5′s radiative forcing estimates for variation in CO2 and variation in total solar effects between 1750 and 2010, as listed in [the table of RF estimates in the chapter on human and natural temperature forcing factors]. RF for CO2 is entered as ___ W/m^2 while RF for total solar effects is entered as ___ W/m^2. [I'm not going to quote the actual numbers, but yeah, the ratio is an astounding 40 to 1, up from 14 to 1 in AR4, which listed total solar forcing as 0.12 W/m^2, vs. 1.66 for CO2.]

So the 50% driver of global temperature according to mountains of temperature correlation data is assumed to have 1/40th the warming effect of something whose warming effect is not even discernable in the temperature record. This is on the input side of the GCM’s. The models aren’t using gigaflops of computing power to find that CO2 has that much larger a warming effect. The warming ratio is fixed at the outset. Garbage in, garbage out.

The “how” is very simple. The 40 times greater warming effect of CO2 is achieved by blatant omitted variable fraud. As I will fully document, all of the evidence for a strong solar magnetic driver of climate is simply left out of AR5. Of the many careful empirical studies that show a high correlation between solar activity and climate, only three papers are obliquely referenced in a single sentence of the entire First Order Draft. On [page___, line ____ of the chapter on aerosols and clouds] there is a bare reference to three papers that found unspecified correlations to some climate variables, with no mention of the dramatic magnitude of the correlations, or the scope and repetition of the findings. And that’s it. Not a single other mention in the entire report. A person reading AR5 from cover to cover would come away with not even a hint that for more than ten years a veritable flood of studies have been finding solar activity to explain something on the order of half of all past temperature variation. The omission is virtually complete. . . .

Do read the whole post. Rawls goes into great detail as to how the IPCC is managing to avoid the evidence of solar as the primary driver of climate change.








Read More...

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Policing In A Multicultural Socialist State

Modern Britain is a laboratory of sorts, that allows one to view what can happen to a country when it adopts multiculturalism and embraces socialism. One area in which the results are easy to catalouge is in policing.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialism impacts upon policing in Britain because the police are placed under centralized control by the state. Socialism and multiculturalism combine in the desire of the state above all to give the appearance of fighting crime - and appearances and statistics matter far more to the central government than the reality, though it is very important to the central government that, in keeping up appearances, they do not allow the police to upset any minority electoral category deemed necessary for their election. And then add to this witches brew a crime wave from uncontolled immigration.

All of this means that police in the UK, through no fault of their own, are far less responsive to the locality they serve, they're ability to actually police is restricted by a ton of regulation, and their efforts are quite often directed into ridiculous schemes by the central government that have nothing to do with getting crime off the streets.

One can see the real effect of this in two ways. One, it pops up in the public view in a big way every so often when things boil over. Two, it pops up at least every few days on the most intelligent and well written police blog in the UK, The Police Inspector's Blog. And here is what he has to say today:

We are very nearly finished in Ruralshire Constabulary. It is chaos and it can only be a matter of days. Someone has to turn off the life support machine.

Politically Correct to the point of insanity (Home Office ‘Equalities’ Circular Number 10 of November 2002 is now being enforced in Ruralshire - this bans the use of the terms ‘homosexual or homosexuality’ and demands the use of the term ‘gay’ instead ) and immersed in the enormous chaos of another complete reorganisation of the Divisions various units, we are literally imploding.

We have just had to take another twenty or so officers off the streets to provide the staff for three new units. These units will be fighting a desperate rear-guard action for the next few months to increase our performance in the Customer Satisfaction area. These officers are not actually going to do anything to help our ‘customers’, they are simply going to concentrate on making hundreds of calls to victims to check their satisfaction levels.

The victims don’t have to actually be satisfied, they just have to be spoken to about whether they are satisfied.

Others will be systematically trawling through old crime reports to try and squeeze the very last ‘detections’ out of the system before the end of the financial year. This has very real implications for the public.

It means hunting down every last child, old person or working parent and hounding them to accept a ticket or Caution for minor criminal offences like swearing in the street after dropping a bottle of milk, throwing cream cakes in the playground or sending a nasty text after a relationship break-up.

The Constables taken away from Response to do these jobs absolutely hate it. I have had a queue outside my door all day. Each one with a grievance about the attachment, each one trusting in me to stop this madness, and each one ultimately disappointed.

Even if I wanted to tow the party line and ’spin’ the whole thing I can’t because no one bothered to consult or even inform the Inspectors about it. I don’t even know what the party line is on this madness. As usual in public service, this is something that has been done to us, not with us.

And honest, hard working and committed police officers like me will be hit from three directions. Bullied by senior managers for target results, hounded by public complaints about the way we now operate and made to look stupid and cowardly by the media, life has become almost unbearable.

You will read about the ludicrous way we police these days and probably take it with a pinch of salt. Don’t. It’s all true, and in spades. If we are doing it in Ruraltown, they are doing it everywhere.

Do visit the inspector's blog. And see his related posts here, here, and here.


Read More...

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The UK Police's Reassurance Gap

I have no doubts that the British policeman on the beat is every bit as brave and capable as you would find anywhere in the world. That said, the British police force does not answer to the locality it serves, but rather it is centrally controlled by the Labour Government. Thus what you get is a police force that is less responsive than would otherwise be, a police force suffering under the weight of bureaucracy, and a leadership element far more concerned with appearances and statistics than reality. This today from the British Police Inspector who blogs under the pseudonym of Inspector Gadget:

. . . I had to listen to some fool Inspector today telling me all about how what actually happens with crime reduction is not as important as what the public perceive to be happening.

In the crazy world of British policing we call this the “reassurance gap”, and we are currently working on loads of ways to deal with this, none of which (I fear) will actually have anything to do with catching criminals.

Note: UK readers will be unsurprised to read that one of the killers of Gary Newlove was on bail at the time. Mrs Newlove spoke today of the lack of consequences for youth criminals; the liberal elite won’t like that!

Read the entire post here.

Read More...

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Crime & (No) Punishment Across the Pond

The Labour government is having an ever growing problem with crime and punishment across the pond. The problem is the former is growing, the latter is ever decreasing - all with predictable results. One would not know that though listening to Labour. Indeed, statistically speaking, fighting crime has been a great success under Labour. I am not trying to suggest in any way that Labour would cynically manipulate the system to make the statistics say what they want. At any rate, with all that in mind, this today from the UK’s Daily Times:

Crown prosecutors are dropping tens of thousands of criminal cases each year despite having enough evidence to bring offenders to court.

Last year they halted proceedings against more than 25,000 offenders, including thugs, vandals and shoplifters, because it was not in the "public interest" to continue.

Officials admit the vast majority of cases are stopped because prosecutors are "snowed under".

A Crown Prosecution Service source said: "We are chronically underfunded and have an increasing backlog of cases.

. . . Stopping trials in the "public interest" still counts as an offence "brought to justice", helping courts hit Government targets.

Critics said the figures raised troubling questions and were another example of Labour's demolition of Britain's criminal justice system.

. . . Figures obtained by The Mail on Sunday under the Freedom of Information Act reveal the CPS dropped 25,821 cases last year on "public interest" grounds. In each case there was enough evidence to charge the criminal, but prosecutors later decided a trial would not be appropriate.

Robin Murray, of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, claimed CPS lawyers receive bonuses for cases won, creating a disincentive to prosecute marginal trials.
He said: "CPS lawyers suffer salary implications if their statistics are unsuccessful compared with other lawyers."

The practice of dropping court cases has coincided with a dramatic increase in "soft justice" measures, including Asbos, cautions and on-the-spot fines.

Last month, a Court of Appeal judge claimed the huge growth in "soft justice" measures was bringing the law into disrepute.

Lord Justice Leveson said the use of fixed-penalty notices had become a "farce".
He cited one case where an offender had racked up £960 of fines in notices for theft, shoplifting and being drunk and disorderly.

He claimed there was no real prospect of the fines ever being paid.

Figures last month showed just 49 per cent of offences brought to justice resulted in a conviction in court, compared with 68 per cent in 2002-03.

Mr Murray said: "The Government is cutting costs at the expense of justice. "The police are acting as judge and jury. Courts up and down the country are empty."
Peter Goodger, 45, criticised the CPS for allowing the thugs who left him fighting for his life to walk free from court.

The father of four was set upon by three men who stamped on his head in a vicious assault.

The case was brought to court but the Crown prosecutor decided not to continue with the case when a witness who identified the men involved became "tied up in knots" by defence lawyers.

"I thought there was more forensic evidence, so I was surprised when they threw in the towel," said Mr Goodger.

. . . "If it was to do with improving their figures, then it's very wrong."

Read the article here. And as you ponder that, you can see some the effects in the trenches of ‘Ruralshire’ from a police inspector’s view:

Here in Ruralshire, we are recovering from the shock of the latest behaviour reinforcing sentences handed down by Ruraltown Magistrates.

A £70 fine for belting an officer round the head during a domestic incident, a six month suspended sentence for three residential burglary offences (ten previous convictions for burglary) and a discharge for an affray in the street which caused one young child who witnesses the fight to literally collapse with fear.

Once again, I am exhausted and deeply depressed about the continual, planned and almost smug way in which the Courts spit on the decency of the rest of us in these situations.

The criminal underclass are not clever. But even they can understand "cause & effect". They are waging violent random hate campaigns against the world. To encourage this by making it ‘consequence free’ is dangerous.

If criminals are officially ignored in this way, expecting the Police to reduce criminal activity is the final fantasy.

After all; out here on the perimeter - there are no stars.

Read the post here.

Read More...

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Britain’s Left Has a Statistical Problem With Policing

This today on the problems with policing and the rise of violent, unsolved crime in the UK:

Police are neglecting to tackle serious, violent crimes and focusing instead on more minor offences as they strive to meet government targets, the man charged with shaping the future of policing in England and Wales has admitted.

Peter Neyroud, chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency, said that over the past five years police had focused on increasing the number of “offences brought to justice”. But the former chief constable admitted that this meant that catching a murderer carried no more importance than apprehending someone who had stolen a bottle of milk.

“There has been, in the minds of many professionals, me included, a neglect of the serious,” Mr Neyroud said. “Because detecting a stolen milk bottle counts the same as detecting a murder . . . you get your points from, not necessarily milk bottles, but certainly in mid-range, volume crime, rather than serious crime.”

This is the first time that a senior officer has suggested that the target-driven culture is diverting police from properly investigating more serious crimes. His comments reinforce those of rank-and-file officers at the weekend who said that police were putting more effort into catching burglars than investigating a paedophile ring. . . .

Read the gory details here. In America, local police are precisely that – local. The state sets the qualifications, but it is the local populace who either directly elect their police leadership, or their immediate local government appoints the police leadership. Thus, accountability of the police is directly to the populace. That is not to suggest that local control is a panacea, but what you get is far less beauracracy and a proper ordering of priorities. What you do not get are crimes screened out or the situations described in some of the British police blogs such as here, here and here. If there is a rise in violent crime, the police chief is going to be addressing it and he is going to try and make the populace feel like the police are concerned, or he will find himself on the unemployment line.

And that is how it should be. No one knows better the needs of the local community than the locals. But the neo-liberals of today just don’t see it that way. A defining characteristic of the left is their belief either that the electorate cannot be trusted, or that they, the left, can do a better job of telling the electorate how to live than the electorate can possibly decide on their own. Either way, the left arrives at the same point - they seek to centralize power and limit the say of the electorate (much like with EU treaties). They dictate from on high rather than provide the general framework and the support necessary for the locals to govern themselves.

And when that happens, you get situations such as the UK finds itself in today. The Labour Government is ever quick to quote a mass of statistics to show how Britain is thriving under Labour’s sage stewardship. Indeed, several members of the Labour government have appeared in the news over the past year quoting statistics to show how much improved police performance has been on their watch. But if you lift the knickers on those statistics, it becomes quickly apparent that there are huge systemic problems.

So what was Labour’s response to this problem: “. . . [T]he Home Office [is] prepare[ing] to publish a “violence action plan” aimed at reducing the number of most serious violence, serious sexual offending and domestic violence offences.” Insanity.


Read More...