Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] climate change continues apace



Complaining about the source and darkly alluding to some conspiratorial connections is a wonderful pastime (if all Texan connections automatically lead to George W. where does it place John Clement?) but most importantly, it allows one to believe that s/he can avoid addressing the specific details of data cooking.

Incidentally, did anyone attack the semi-communist Guardian when JD brought its opinion piece attacking Willie Soon, or did the responses -- so far, at least -- were directed at the essence of the issue?

Nah, attacking the center-right is always fun, by any means necessary, right? And then scientists are surprised people don't trust them anymore.

Ze'ev

On 6/11/2015 12:42 PM, brian whatcott wrote:
Speaking of forcing data to fit ideological models...

Interesting reportage: first the conclusion - then the supporting commentary.
(That is the usual method of the executive summary, certainly.)

I notice that it was ' the Obama administration [that] produced an FBI report '

Then we read "But late last week, J. Pete Blair and M. Hunter Martaindale,
two academics at Texas State University who co-authored the FBI report,
acknowledged that "our data is imperfect." "
That would be Obama's Texas State University's academics, I expect.

We next hear that "The White House could not possibly have been more
pleased with the media reaction to these findings"
Oh really? You mean the President who promised and delivered no gun
confiscation as opposed to President Reagan's initiative to remove
assault weapons from public purchase, towards the end of his presidency?

I expect that it is the "Control" word that is the problem - though the
Supreme Court has confirmed that the constitutional right to bear arms is
open to regulation by state legislatures. (Notice? Control = Regulation!)

Still, I expect the WSJ (now owned by Rupert Murdoch) would have given
us a fair and balanced account surely? Ha!
[What I have been seeing as sponsored submissions on Facebook are
uniformly Republican opinion pieces under the WSJ banner, so please
pardon my cynicism]

As to why academics should be adjured to inform the popular media who
misrepresented their study rather than follow up with a correction
in the academic press, I am at a loss.

John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center- seems to take the
position that the current rate of mass shootings is acceptable.
I do not. But then again, John Lott is a Fox News columnist who owns
CPRC and he is at pains to convey that CPSC is unbiassed.

We finally hear what "Liberals like to do..."
Republicans are evidently splendidly in touch what their opposing party
likes and enjoys ?

Nobody seems enthusiastic about my attitude to gun deaths, which is this.
Most gun deaths (20,000 p.a) are suicides - a crime which (IMO) would be
greatly reduced if it were not so easy to take a loaded pistol in hand.
If suicide attempts are calls for help, then sadly, there is no opportunity
to help those who choose a gun in a momentary pit of depression.

Brian Whatcott


On 6/11/2015 12:52 PM, Ze'ev Wurman wrote:
Speaking of forcing data to match ideological models ...
--------

Wall Street Journal


Obama's Gun-Control Misfire
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-gun-control-misfire-1433892493>


Before the 2014 election, the FBI claimed that mass shootings were
up. False.

By*JASON L. RILEY*

June 9, 2015 7:28 p.m. ET

Last September the Obama administration produced an FBIreport that <http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf> said mass shooting attacks and deaths were up sharply---by an average annual rate of about 16% between 2000 and 2013. Moreover, the problem was worsening. "The findings establish an increasing frequency of incidents," said the authors. "During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually."

The White House could not possibly have been more pleased with the media reaction to these findings, which were prominently featured by the New York Times <http://quotes.wsj.com/NYT>, USA Today, CNN, the Washington Post and other major outlets. The FBI report landed six weeks before the midterm elections, and the administration was hoping that the gun-control issue would help drive Democratic turnout.

But late last week, J. Pete Blair and M. Hunter Martaindale, two academics at Texas State University who co-authored the FBI report, acknowledged that "our data is imperfect." They said that the news media "got it wrong" last year when they "mistakenly reported mass shootings were on the rise."

Mind you, the authors did not issue this mea culpa in the major news outlets that supposedly misreported the original findings. Instead, the authors published it in ACJS Today <http://www.acjs.org/uploads/file/ACJS_Today_May_2015.pdf>, an academic journal published by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. "Because official data did not contain the information we needed, we had to develop our own," wrote Messrs. Blair and Martaindale. "This required choices between various options with various strengths and weaknesses." You don't say.

John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center---who has studied FBI crime data for three decades---told me in an interview that the FBI report is better understood as a political document than as a work of serious social science. For example, the authors chose the year 2000 as their starting point "even though anyone who has studied these trends knows that 2000 and 2001 were unusually quiet and had few mass shootings." Data going back to the mid-1970s is readily available but was ignored. How come? Over the past 40 years, there has been no statistically significant increase in mass shootings in the U.S.

Another problem with the study: The data used seemed selectively chosen to achieve certain results. The researchers somehow "missed 20 mass-shooting cases," Mr. Lott said. "There's one case where nine people were murdered. You just don't miss that." Also, the omissions helped create an "upward trend, because they were primarily missed at the beginning of the period." This, he said, "is disturbing."

Mr. Lott told me that he had reached out repeatedly to the FBI and to the authors for an explanation after the original report came out, but none was forthcoming until last week. The Journal recently described Mr. Obama's tenure as the "least transparent administration in history," and the White House seems to have no interest in proving its critics wrong.

Following the high-profile mass shootings in 2012 at a cinema in Aurora, Colo., and an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., the White House pushed hard for more gun-control legislation. Congress, which at the time included a Democratic-controlled Senate, refused to act. This surprised no one, including an administration well aware that additional gun controls wouldn't pass muster with enough members of the president's own party, let alone Republicans.

But the administration also knew that the issue could potentially excite Democratic base voters in a year when the party was worried about turnout. Hence President Obama's vow in his 2014 State of the Union address "to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook."

Ironically, this scare-mongering likely inspired more gun purchases. The Washington Times reported last year that record checks for gun sales hit a new high in 2013: "More than 21 million applications were run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System last year, marking nearly an 8% increase and the 11th straight year that the number has risen."

Since liberals like to link violent crime to the proliferation of guns, it is worth noting that, according to the Justice Department, the violent-crime rate in 2013 fell by 4.4% from 2012 and was 14.5% below the 2004 level.

/Mr. Riley is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor./


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l