Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Keir Leslie,
If you’re angry that Labour is doing this process in a rushed way without time for a proper review and good data, get angry at David Cunliffe. This is what he wanted, from election night onward.
Don't worry I am.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Mr Mark,
you, Keir and James are suggesting that, on the one hand, countless numbers of life-long Labour voters in Ilam have told you that
This is called observational bias. The observer unconsciously focusses on and remembers those events that fit their preconceived ideas. That is not meant as a criticism of those people, everyone does it, even the best trained observers do it.
It is the reason scientists insist on as unbiased a data collection system as possible. It is why I think any decisions made at this point, without proper data analysis by Labour, is unbelievably moronic.
But that seems to be a theme with Labour's behaviour after this election.
And to cap it all off Karen Price decides it would be cool to give all the right wing an example of left wing back channel dirty politics Un. F'ing. Believable.
I seriously doubt I will vote Labour again after this debacle.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Russell Brown,
The economy’s not going that well. Easily the biggest influence on GDP growth is the Christchurch rebuild and most of the regions are stalled at best. Our export performance still relies overwhelmingly on world commodity prices (which are now in downturn). We have another property bubble and the dollar is overvalued. (It’s significant that Key addressed that last one as a problem as soon as the election was won, and not before.)
Facts that Labour failed to communicate utterly in its campaign to appear "positive" sigh. Also perhaps useful might have been to ask NZ the question what else do they want National to sell off (ACC?, DHBs?, Pharmac?).
-
The saddest part of this is that it is all being done in ignorance. Nobody has taken the time to genuinely collect data (not anecdotes) to figure out why voters chose to vote the way they did.
Anything done in this environment of ignorance is a pure crap shoot and has little chance of being any benefit to the party or to the people of New Zealand that the party wishes to represent.
For me that is Mr Cunliffe's fault.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Katharine Moody,
As a scientist in a CRI, do you see this as a concern?
As a random scientist in a CRI whose expertise is not in environmental science or monitoring or reporting ... my opinion is of little more value than most :).
What I can say from experience with any kind of high level reporting is that it's mostly bollocks anyway.
When you report on any science, including the environment, the important stuff is in the detailed data. It matters that this river has no oxygen, or that grazing land has lost its topsoil, or that this particular reserve has been invaded by rats.
But the reports that make it up to management level have no fine grained detail. All they want is some random number to quote to the minister or one (good) example of work being done.
State of the environment reports are I guess a little different but my personal guess is that if you want to really know the state of the environment you need to spend an hour each with about 20 scientists from different fields to get the real picture. While the commissioner could and probably would do that her summary could never include the detail.
So for me it really doesn't matter who assembles the final report. If the government really wants to know they need a minister for the environment willing to spend the time listening to (not arguing with) the real experts and then a cabinet that is willing to defer to the minister's judgement.
But as I said I don't know for sure.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Sacha,
SETs
?
Senior executive team
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Katharine Moody,
Are you saying such instruction (whether explicit or inferred) is not your experience?
Exactly. I've never had any instruction from management that I could not air my opinions. As long as I don't speak for PFR and I don't.
And yes I'm from PFR and the water quality questions were (I think) NIWA.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to JC Carter,
Nothing prevents any scientist from referencing any commentary or accessing other scientists which makes the section in the ethics document pointless. Cannot have it both ways.
Huh? I don't understand the problem. If I read the relevant literature in order to become knowledgable about a subject and then pass on that knowledge with relevant citations then there is no breach of that ethical document.
If however, I comment on surgical techniques as if I have some expertise, without having done any research and giving no citations then I have breached ethics.
The point is I am using my exalted position as a scientist (snort) to sway opinion in an area where I have no expertise - that is just plain wrong.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Katharine Moody,
And that is exactly what he is doing to scientists within our CRIs. He is buying both their scientific integrity and their silence.
No he isn't. He buys the CRI boards of directors and the SETs. Since they are like him, businessmen and accountants and they understand being bought and sold.
Stupid scientists like me don't get it. We speak out, even if what we say opposes the government's preferred position. And unless we breach intellectual property (which exists just the same in the Universities) we can pretty much say what we think. BTW I take IP pretty seriously.
Providing we are clear that it is our personal opinion (educated or not) and not the position of the company for which we work.
In my experience there has not been a case in our institute where any scientist has been forced to say something they did not believe to be true nor any case (excepting intellectual property issues) where they have been told to stay silent.
One caveat there is that sometimes we don't talk about preliminary results. That can look like being silent on data but mostly it's about trying not to be wrong.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Russell Brown,
These clowns
See that's the kind of thing I'd say to their faces too :).