Nate Silver has really screwed up this time...

[Archae]

I've heard of this "scientist" before, he's a global climate change denier, big time.

Nate Silver Picks One Of Most Notorious Scientists For Climate Science Section Of FiveThirtyEight

Yikes, here’s some bad news for who were hoping for useful climate science analysis from Nate Silver’s new website, FiveThirtyEight:

Nate Silver’s highly anticipated data-driven news site FiveThirtyEight launched on Monday, with a controversial figure covering science issues. Silver has brought on Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, as a contributing writer – a political scientist who comes with a long history of data distortion and confrontations with climate scientists.

“Given Nate’s professed obsession with rigorous statistical analysis, it is rather disappointing to see him hire for his new venture an individual who has displayed a pattern of sloppiness when it comes to the analysis of climate data,” said top climate scientist Michael Mann via email. Pointing to a chapter in Silver’s recent book that addresses climate change (for which Mann was interviewed) he adds, “Sadly, this isn’t the first time Nate has been led astray when it comes to dealing with the science of climate change.”

Pielke routinely seeks to minimize the impacts and severity of climate change and in the process, has been repeatedly criticized as inaccurate and misleading by some of the nation’s foremost climate scientists.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/nate-silver-picks-one-most-notorious

[gopiscrap]

1. Interesting I haven't heard any of that.

[adirondacker]

2. Wow. That's a bizzare choice especially when the trend of denial is diminishing. nt

[edgineered]

3. The extent of how rapidly we, globally, are contributing to climate change

is not obvious to those who do not look. The Guardian has a nice article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/23/indonesia-forest-fires-pollution-asia

[MADem]

4. Nate Silver is not a "GOD" and he's not on "OUR SIDE." He has a talent with numbers and he crunches

them well.

He doesn't give a particular shit about the outcome.


The fact that he picked OUR guy and he did so compellingly is why we like him.

He's a bit of an oddball.

As some say, "A squirrel can find a nut every now and again." And so, Nate can find a nut, but he might not be able to make a decent souffle.

He is what he is-- a numbers dude. Don't make more of him than what he is, and don't ascribe powers, feelings or genius beyond his limited scope to him.

He's a guy with a particular skill in a particular area.

And that's all.

[TroglodyteScholar]

6. With his skill, though...

...one would hope that he would choose his partners and collaborators with the same care with which he performs his analysis. Someone with a proven track record of distortion shouldn't even make it to his short list.

[MADem]

8. Like I said--he crunches numbers well. That doesn't make him a climatologist, or a chef. nt

[progree]

10. Nate says the Repugs have a slight edge in retaking the Senate -- so let's hope he's not infallible

crunching the numbers

Nate Silver's new Senate forecast could terrify Democrats into action, Christian Science Monitor, 3/23/14

Nate Silver, the political prognosticator pilloried by Republicans for correctly predicting President Obama's convincing victory in 2012, has perhaps just given the GOP another reason to curse him.

... And now Mr. Silver, the web's foremost political polling analyst and the very man who refused to give Mitt Romney much electoral love two years ago, has suggested on his FiveThirtyEight blog that "Republicans are now slight favorites to win at least six seats and capture the chamber."

... Fortunately for Senator Reid, no one opens Democratic pocketbooks like Nate Silver, it seems.

Democratic operatives have found that the most effective way to get a potential donor to open an e-mail is to put Silver's name in the subject line, according to a report by National Journal's Scott Bland. As in: "Nate Silver's terrifying math."

More: http://news.yahoo.com/nate-silvers-senate-forecast-could-terrify-democrats-action-191540546.html

[MADem]

11. An edge doesn't mean a clear path to victory.

We need to be shaken up and get serious--we fight best when we fight hard. And once we start fighting, we have the better arguments.

[SomethingFishy]

21. You and I don't always agree on things but

we are on the same page here. Silver is a numbers cruncher, that's it. Good at it too.. If people are assuming he is shilling for the GOP then why can't the same assumption be made that he is making a call to arms and warning us that we need to get moving here?

Frankly I don't think he's doing either, I think he's just reporting the numbers...

[Squinch]

26. I agree. And I believe his Senate numbers because his track record with that is very good.

We can choose to say, "he's just shilling for the GOP" just as the GOP said "he's just shilling for the Democrats" in the 2012 election (and see where that got them), or we can use that information to get out the vote.

That and this climate denier (which is disappointing) are two different issues.

[lancer78]

52. His senate track numbers suck compared to his presidential

He predicted as of August 2012 that the republicans had a 60% chance of taking the senate. He also stated that heitkamp and tester would have a 95% of losing right up to election day.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. But by employing Pielke, he is going against the professional number-crunchers

in an area that possibly does more than any other science. Pielke is exactly the kind of "I don't care what the numbers say, I have a gut feeling" fool that Silver has been fighting elsewhere. It really is a bizarre choice.

[MADem]

13. Well, he got your attention, didn't he? Maybe that's what he wanted to do...?

Maybe he owes the guy money...or lost a bet?

I think Nate Silver is what he is--a guy who plays with numbers who has been right more often than not. It doesn't make him a genius, or even half way smart, in other areas.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. He got my disdain

I was going to look at the 'new Five Thirty Eight', but hiring Pielke has convinced me Silver is being contrarian, for money, rather than to analyse data. A shame, since he was worth reading at the NYT.

[MADem]

17. But see, you're paying attention.

He's hiring someone from the wingnut side of things to get their chunk of the market. He doesn't want to be painted as the "Dem" numbers guy, I guess. He's monetizing his technique in a bigger way, I guess. I suppose he's crunched his own numbers and has figured out that the biggest paydays he's gonna get are between now and 2016!

[lumpy]

54. A Numbers Seer ?

[MADem]

57. A "Numbers Whisperer," perhaps. He spots TRENDS and he makes guesses based on them.

That doesn't mean the trend HAS to continue. It can be reversed.

This announcement, even though it pisses people off, will probably raise more money for Democratic candidates than three dozen commercials might have done.

[Dawgs]

14. Sorry, but I'm not even sure he's great at crunching numbers.

He probably is, but are we really sure.

I mean he actually did worse than just taking the average of the polls in the last two elections.

I was dumbfounded on how many people fell for his act.

Thanks for pointing out that he is somebody who got lucky.

I also think he got greedy with his new site. He should stuck with one topic, politics. I mean, who really gives a shit about the topics he's covering?

[Logical]

48. LOL, jealous much? nt

[Dawgs]

51. Actually, the feeling I have is pity.

Pity for people that hero worship someone that didn't do anything special.

I have nothing against Nate Silver, and I'm definitely not jealous.

[former9thward]

58. Well Obama was one of those "people who fell for his act."

Once again, Nate Silver completely nailed it.


http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/11/obama-takes-time-away-turkey-pardoning-praise-nate-silver/59240/

[Dawgs]

59. So. And, he didn't nail it. He said Florida could have gone either way.

Many other, less popular, stats experts did nail it. They picked Florida.

BTW, averaging the polls together was just as good a predictor as anyone. Not that difficult.

[Phlem]

19. Everyone's got a price.

-p

[JHB]

22. I think Krugman pinned down where Silver is running aground

Unfortunately, Silver seems to have taken the wrong lesson from his election-forecasting success. In that case, he pitted his statistical approach against campaign-narrative pundits, who turned out to know approximately nothing. What he seems to have concluded is that there are no experts anywhere, that a smart data analyst can and should ignore all that.

But not all fields are like that — in fact, even political analysis isn’t like that, if you talk to political scientists instead of political reporters. So, for example, before glancing at some correlation and asserting causation, you really should talk to the researchers.

Similarly, climate science has been developed by many careful researchers who are every bit as good at data analysis as Silver, and know the physics too, so ignoring them and hiring a known irresponsible skeptic to cover the field is a very good way to discredit your enterprise. Economists work hard on the data; on the whole you’re going to do better by tracking their research than by trying to roll your own, and you should be very wary if your analysis runs counter to what a lot of professionals say.

Basically, it looks as if Silver is working from the premise that the supposed experts in every field are just like the political analysts at Politico, and that there is no real expertise he needs to take on board. If he doesn’t change that premise, his enterprise is going to run aground very fast.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/tarnished-silver

[MADem]

23. +1,000 nt

[MADem]

33. Good link! Thanks for that. nt

[Cha]

42. Excellent from Krugman.. thanks JHB

"Basically, it looks as if Silver is working from the premise that the supposed experts in every field are just like the political analysts at Politico, and that there is no real expertise he needs to take on board. If he doesn’t change that premise, his enterprise is going to run aground very fast."

[adirondacker]

43. +1000. Krugman is absolutely correct. nt

[uponit7771]

46. +1

[lumpy]

55. Oh Yes !

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. agreed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. I remember being on DU when chuck Todd was one of the first to...

..... say Clinton had no path to victory over Obama. Oh was he a hero, the professor, the king.

Now he is a right wing stooge tool who needs to be fired.

[erronis]

60. You get the most information from a dissenting viewpoint

If all we listened to was other "same believers" (and we don't do that here on DU, do we?) you'll find yourself in an echo chamber of like-minded ideas.

The best way to triangulate a problem is to bring in viewpoints that are reasonable but maybe radically different from your own. Ideally several intelligent people with a spectrum of ideas. Realize that the spectrum is not necessarily linear but may be across multiple dimensions (lw/rw vs. liberal/conservative/progressive/etc. vs. wealthy/middle/lower vs. Western/non-W, etchetera.)

[MADem]

61. I never really thought that guy was "with us" or "against us." He's in his own little world.

His little world got bigger during the last national election, he's getting attention, people want to talk to him, and he's monetizing. He knows this "New Car Smell" popularity doesn't last, I think. It never does, does it?

He spots a trend, he reports on it. If the trend continues, he continues to head in that direction. If not, he's capable of turning on a dime.

Like I said, with these comments, I think he'll raise more money for the Dem "super pacs" than any dozen commercials or hundred mail-outs could do. He may not realize it, he may not have intended it, but he's done us a solid.

[TroglodyteScholar]

5. This is disappointing

Silver has been reliably numbers-driven in the past (as far as I could tell). Shame to see he's bringing on someone who will work backwards from his predetermined conclusions.

[SunSeeker]

9. +1

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. sigh...Libertarians...

[gopiscrap]

18. Welcome to DU

[Aldo Leopold]

20. That little shit, Pielke Jr., is a notorious smearer of reputable climate scientists

From Joe Romm's March 3 piece at thinkprogress:

"Roger Pielke Jr. is a political scientist who has publicly questioned the scientific integrity of more climate scientists than just about anyone else on the planet. He has smeared literally hundreds of scientists. That is no doubt a key reason Pielke was included on Foreign Policy‘s “Guide to Climate Skeptics.” No doubt that’s why the websites that most prominently feature or reprint Pielke’s attacks are climate denial sites like WattsUpWithThat and ClimateDepot. It is also why he is probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change."

Lots of nuggets at the link:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3349411/john-holdren-roger-pielke-climate-drought/#

[fasttense]

24. Nate Silver can be an idiot at times even with numbers.

He steps all over himself to prove there is no cheating when the rigged machines count the vote but when you look at his analysis it is all based on data that was suspected. He can't admit that the voting machines are rigged because he would look like an idiot. So he sounds like a fool when it comes to determining if the voting machines are rigged.

Yet he can predict what the rigged numbers will be by using polls and previously rigged numbers.

Nate is a bit of a snake and you need to keep your eye on him.

[KamaAina]

25. This is the same Nate Silver who is pimping a repuke takeover of the Senate

Hmmmm......

[Archae]

27. This guy Silver is just the latest "predictor."

Jeane Dixon claimed she "predicted" Kennedy's death.
But if you look into her 1956 "prediction," you'll see just how vague it was.
And how wrong.
She said Nixon would win, that labor would be the key issue, and Nixon would be killed in his second term.

Dick Morris "predicted" Romney would beat Obama by a landslide.

[demwing]

29. You really don't have a clue about statistics

Do you?

[Archae]

30. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Statistically I should have grandchildren by now.

Statistically my Mom should be in a nursing home.

Statistically I should be a republican.

[demwing]

32. If you think Nate Silver is in the same biz as Jeane Dixon

Then you know nothing about statistics.

[Gravitycollapse]

36. Statistics offer a quantitative method of reducing inductive risk.

In other words, they seek to give reliable predictions for outcomes which cannot be known with total certainty. Therefore, statistical likelihood is a measure of how likely one outcome is to happen in comparison to another or others.

Statistics never say you "should" be one thing or another. "Should" implies the application of subjective worth to a given outcome from a science which is devoted to establishing trends in systems. Which is a totally ass backwards, uneducated way to view statistics.

[lumpy]

56. Good one, Archae.

[demwing]

28. He's not pimping shit and you know it

And how very convenient it is that this piece appears in the wake of Silver's poll analysis. The same analysis that has so many DU undies so very tightly bunched. hmmm...

[Hissyspit]

34. Amazing. Silver was On The Button about the 2012 election,

getting all the electoral states pretty much correct.

Republicans mocked him and called him a shill for liberals.

Now that he's aggregating the polls for midterms and it doesn't look good, people here sound like the Republicans.

Amazing. And a little ridiculous.

Hiring Pielke sucks, though.

[NuclearDem]

37. I seem to remember the "Keep Calm and Trust Nate Silver" pictures posted here in 2012.

[Gravitycollapse]

38. "I was for Nate Silver before I was against Nate Silver."

[frylock]

44. people here have been sounding like the Republicans since 1/20/2009

[lancer78]

53. He was only on the button for the presidential

He predicted a 60% chance of republicans taking the senate in august 2012.

[rosesaylavee]

35. Very disappointing.

[Blue_In_AK]

39. Nate Silver consistently blows it

when predicting Alaskan elections. I put no faith in his prognostications.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

40. There's plenty of time for Nate to get it right...

...then he can be own of ours again lol

[FairWinds]

45. Hmmmm, U. of Colorado . .

where I went to grad school. Please don't call him a "political scientist" - he's not in that department.
And hey, got to wonder if Pielke's work could withstand the same sort of scrutiny that they
gave to Ward Churchill where they checked every footnote.
Silly to even ask such a question.
The rules are different if you're a rightie.

[Maineman]

49. Perhaps Nate Silver's new endeavour is funded by the Koch brothers.

It would be worth looking into.

[Portland Blazer]

50. Do you have any evidence? Nt

[SunSeeker]

62. What the fuck was Nate thinking? nt