Re: Important results from Garden BirdWatch

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:06:02 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <nkd776pbc59ftbi7h0bsivf58mmjhm9lt5@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:08:56 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <kcr676possosvekkom5dc0ho1v6qqibt6b@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:57:41 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <90l5765904euiaelptpiqbp4je5gdleu0d@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:11:13 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <fja576ljemg0bn3hld1jkb21pc80n34436@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:33:52 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <7oq4765q31p7quf3bgnpotg9ga1erfljq5@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:56:23 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <7r6476h2mev1kansjl305ub3h3hj6v4q69@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:35:47 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <m643769ht92351iabnknf455ahk2u8fe1l@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:03:16 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <rng27651oqjlbjedgoqo5q78tir6lrohqv@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:51:28 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <00a2769fihnq4hego7b55rrin4jl2dcql5@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 07:33:31 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <86rt665c95tj5hgb35hvr2qpmiagm1c31o@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:54:03 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjou

e.001221
5

From the BTO website
Greenfinch populations in central England dropped by a third

year of the emergence of a new disease, reports a newly
published study
using BTO Garden BirdWatch data.

From the Independent website
"This citizen science project highlights the valuable

volunteers can play in helping us learn more about wildlife

even by just watching birds in their gardens for a couple of
hours each
week," said Becki Lawson, a wildlife vet from the Zoological
Society of
London and another lead author of the study.


Which is a load of tosh.

A claim for which you haven't the slightest evidence. Are
both the BTO
and the London Zoo vet lying?

I think you only need to look at who funded the study to
realise there
could have been no other outcome.

So you're accusing them of lying. Please produce your

won't, of course, because you don't have any. All you have

ignorance and prejudice.

I think you only need to look at who funded the study to
realise there
could have been no other outcome.

Angus Macmillan accuses the following funding organisations of
supporting research whose outcome they already knew:

The British Trust for Ornithology, the Council for Nature
Conservation
and the Countryside, the Countryside Council for Wales,
Natural England,
Scottish Natural Heritage, the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds, the Birdcare Standards Association, the British Veterinary
Association Animal Welfare Foundation, CJ Wildbird Foods,
Cranswick Pet
Products, Gardman Ltd, the Royal College of Veterinary

John and Pamela Salter Trust, and the Universities Federation
for Animal
Welfare.

So what Angus is actually saying is that the following
statement, which
appears in the report, is a collective lie by the above 14
organisations: "The funders had no role in study design, data
collection
and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript."

Like to produce your proof for your claim that "you only need
to look at
who funded the study to realise there could have been no other

or do you think you should issue a hasty retraction? Knowing
your court
record against the WT, one or more might think it worth
asking you for
one, if you don't!


Perhapos any one of them could answer the question better that you.

Is it important or not that gardners count birds accurately when
participating in the GBW scheme?

I note you haven't retracted your claim that ""you only need
to look at
who funded the study to realise there could have been no other


So why would all these organisations fund what appears to be

study based on GBW data from gardeners who feed birds to attract them
to their gardens?

Because this survey, together with another important bird survey,
produces information that can be analysed in relation to Greenfinch
mortality. If that wasn't obvious to you, as it seems it
wasn't, then it
most certainly should have been.

So you keep saying. But this survey was based on the GBW scheme.

Partly.

Which other survey was involved at the same time?

Why don't you read the report? It is clear from your question that you
haven't done. You really do prefer to write from a position of ignorance
instead of knowledge, don't you?

I have.

Good. I hope that you noticed the mention of 95% confidence limits and
were able to relate this to the similar reference in the report on
climate change that you found so baffling, and to the recent quotes from
papers that I posted referring to p < 0.5.

Ah yes the "p" silver bullet. But the problem is that it's based on
assumptions

Utter and complete balderdash. It is based on data.

Which is based on assumptions that they are correct

No, for the second time it is based on data. And data that has been
subject to statistical testing - though I guess you didn't understand
that bit.

Silly wee man. The data came from the assumptions. Read what I
wrote.


and if the assumptions are crap the end result is crap
too. That's why you're reluctant to answer the question:

The question is answered on the GBW website.

No it's not.

Yes, Angus, it is. If you read the website you will see why your
question is a total nonsense, which is what I have been telling you for
ages. The website tells you exactly how the survey is carried out and,
if you were able to understand it, which clearly you aren't, you
wouldn't be asking that question.



It doesn't say whether it's important if the gardners' counts are
accurate or not.

So is it important?

Simple question: yes or no?



Is it important or not that the GBW gardeners' counts are accurate or
not?

Read the website.

The answer's not on the website.

Yes, Angus, it is. If you read the website you will see why your
question is a total nonsense, which is what I have been telling you for
ages. The website tells you exactly how the survey is carried out and,
if you were able to understand it, which clearly you aren't, you
wouldn't be asking that question.


It doesn't say whether it's important if the gardners' counts are
accurate or not. That's exactly why I'm asking the question

So is it important?

Simple question: yes or no?




So how about answering the question now that you've revealed the GBW
website doesn't answer the question.

I have revealed no such thing. Read the website.

You've revealed that the answer to my question isn't there.

No, Angus, I haven't. If you read the website you will see why your
question is a total nonsense, which is what I have been telling you for
ages. The website tells you exactly how the survey is carried out and,
if you were able to understand it, which clearly you aren't, you
wouldn't be asking that question.


It doesn't say whether it's important if the gardners' counts are
accurate or not. That's exactly why I'm asking the question

So is it important?

Simple question: yes or no?





I've said this word many times before and I'm going to say it
again - it
is all about "sampling".

So you say, but you can't sample the "rich" and and apply it to the
whole population. That's plain stupid.

Another stupid remark from you. No-one is sampling "the rich", they are
sampling birds in gardens and, specifically for this report, sampling
both live and dead greenfinches.

You missed the point. The rich birds are the ones fed. And why are
they feeding them between April and September?

The fact that you ask such a question just further reveals your
ignorance.

Why should birds be fed in summer?

Duh!

You are so ignorant.


That doesn't answer the question; so I'll answer it.

The reason birds shouldn't be fed in summer is to make them look for
their own food naturally. It's better for them not to rely on
hand-outs all the year round.

Wrong.

Why is it wrong? Is this another question you can't answer?

If you were more knowledgeable about birds and feeding them, you would
know the answer. As it is, to turn one of your own phrases back to you,
do your own research.

Is it to do with the RSPB wanting to sell bird seed all the year
round?

Birds survivedd long before the fashion of feeding them in gardens
existed.










Whilst the funders may have had no input into the study, what should
be questioned is their support of a study which concentrates

fed birds and appears to extend the results to the whole midland
population. It could be argued that the birds that fend for
themselves, except in the harshest of conditions, might be more
resiliant to disease.

Duh! I suppose it's not good telling you read the report because you
clearly haven't, and even if you had you won't understand it.

So you say but you never manage to explain why you think that. It's
you standard avoidance tactic.

You appear to be avoiding reading the report. Why is that?.

Because it is based on the GBW scheme which is a farce.

No, Angus, it is not a farce. Your opinion on the matter is completely
worthless because you *still* don't understand the basis of the survey.


Of course it is. It's more about making people fell useful and likely
to donate than about counting birds. And IIRC the gullible fools pay
for the privilige :-))


More completely worthless opinion as you desperately try to wriggle out
of the fact that you have libelled the 14 organisations that funded the
study.

The funders should well know that's behind it. It's a standard ploy
for charities to conduct surveys to make the public feel connected to
them. It brings in donations and memberships.

More worthless opinion as you desperately try to wriggle out of the fact
that you have libelled the 14 organisations that funded the study. You
might also tell us in what way the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
or SNH, for example, can benefit from "donations and memberships".

I'm not wiggling out of anything. They should know better. Mind you,
SNH spent money on your advice about hedgehogs so they're not the best
judge of how taxpayers' money should be spent.

You are wriggling like mad having libelled 14 different organisations
which you then tried to claim were funding the study because it would
bring in "donations and memberships". I have named just two of the
several funding organisations for which that claim is a total nonsense.
You are just piling lie on top of lie.

If they spend - not their own - money on you who claimed hedgehogs
were "nazis" they'll spend it on most anything.








And on top of all this perhaps you can answer the question that you
have been studiously avoiding or ask those involved in the study.

Is it important or not that gardners' bird counts are accurate?

A total nonsense question. Read the GBW website and read the report on
Greenfinch mortality.


See above.

No, you see the website and read it.

Wouldn't waste my time reading their promotional material.

No, you'd prefer to stay ignorant. Yes, that sums you up very well
indeed.


Not at all. I'd rather not be fed charity propaganda.

Or in other words, you'd rather remain ignorant than learn something
which will make you realise that you've been repeatedly asking a totally
stupid question about the GBW based on a complete lack of knowledge of
bird surveys and sampling methodology.

Well you've just blown the gaff in the previous post :-))

No "gaffe" has been blown, only that you have revealed that you can't
read or understand what you read.

Quite the reverse. You've obviously no idea about statistics.

That is not just patently wrong, it's downright pathetic coming from
someone who still doesn't understand the significance of the reference
to 95% in the report on AGW.

Which is dependent on assumptions being correct. Try learning a bit
about it.







That could be an important omission on your part, having been

opportunity.


See above.

You have made a very serious accusation against 14 different
organisations. Your failure to retract that accusation will have been
noted.


You're interpretation will have been noted.

If they're going to fund a desktop survey based on counts only from
people who feed birds in their gardens they must have known it was
unlikely to be accurate.

Read the report.

I have, and it strikes me as being impressively worded theoretical
crap.

Thank you for this admission that you don't understand science. But then
this was already well known from a string of posts from you exposing
your ignorance and prejudice.

GIGO.

You do indeed spew out an inordinate amount of garbage.

You do indeed spew out an inordinate amount of word twisting. It's
the only way you can try to justify your garbage.

Have you read the GBW website and found the answer to your question? It
is definitely there.

No it's not.

Oh yes it is.

Definitely not.

It doesn't say whether it's important if the gardners' counts are
accurate or not. That's exactly why I'm asking the question

So is it important?

Simple question: yes or no?









You wouldn't do a survey of shopper spending in Harrods to gauge
spending throught the whole country - well, perhaps YOU would :-))

A totally meaningless analogy - like all of your analogies.

It's a survey of birds in GBW participating gardens and cannot be
extended to other areas because they've no idea who feeds or doesn't
feed birds elsewhere. There could also be a muchg higher death rate in
participating gardens because of close association.

Thank you for this amazing confession that you have no idea whatsoever
of the basis of the survey, what the participants actually do or how
their records are used.

GIGO.

You do indeed spew out an inordinate amount of garbage.

You do indeed spew out an inordinate amount of word twisting. It's
the only way you can try to justify your garbage.

Have you read the GBW website and found the answer to your question? It
is definitely there.

No it's not.

Oh yes it is.

Definitely not.

It doesn't say whether it's important if the gardners' counts are
accurate or not. That's exactly why I'm asking the question

So is it important?

Simple question: yes or no?










So Malcolm, plaease answer the question;

Is it important that the GBW gardeners get the counts
accurate or not?

You seem strangely reluctant to answer this question.

If you actually understood what information the GBW

actually recorded you wouldn't keep asking that question.

how many times you have criticised the survey - calling

"garbage" - you are still astoundingly ignorant about how it
is carried
out. Although I know you've been to the GBW website, it is

haven't understood a word of what you've read there.

So if you think that, Malcolm, surely it's in the best

the GBW scheme for you to clarify this?

Why, do you want to take part?

Is it important that the GBW gardeners get the counts
accurate or not?

Your question reveals your total ignorance of the GBW survey
and how it
is carried out. If you want an answer to your question,

website - and, importantly,do make at least some effort to

what it says.

So you still can't answer it :-))

I have just done so, by telling you to read the GBW website
and make at
least some attempt to understand it.

That's not answering the question.

How about trying to answer it?

Read the website. The answer is there.

Well it is for anyone who can both read and understand the
written word.
Are you saying that this excludes you?

Why are YOU so reluctant to answer? Is it you disagree with the GBW
website?

What a stupid question. The GBW explains exactly how the survey is
carried out and I have been telling you over and over again to

oh yes, and to understand what you are reading.

So where does it say if it is important that the GBW gardeners get the
counts accurate or not? That's the question I've been asking you all
along and you say the answer is on the GBW website. Yiou wouldn't be
lying again by any chance?

You haven't read the website, have you? Or if you have, you very
obviously haven't understood it.

So where does it say that?

Read the website. Obviously you can't. Or else you can't understand
what you read. One or the other. Or, I suppose in your case, both :-(


I think you've got a dose of the "can'ts" :-)) I don't think you
understand what you write. Calm down, Malcolm, you always make
mistakes when you get excited :-))

I'm not excited, I'm just telling you to read the website where you will
find the answer to your remarkably silly question about counting.

See above.

Have you read the GBW website and found the answer to your question? It
is definitely there.


No it's not.

You really are revealing your poor reading and comprehension skills by
continuing to claim this.


Definitely not.

It doesn't say whether it's important if the gardners' counts are
accurate or not. That's exactly why I'm asking the question

So is it important?

Simple question: yes or no?

Why can't you answer it?





There's a challenge for you.

No, Angus, I don't lie, I leave that to you. I am also leaving to you
the not particularly onerous task of reading the GBW website. Perhaps if
you do it enough, you will eventually realise how the GBW survey is
carried out and why it is possible to use the results in meaningful
ways, including helping to discover the scale of the greenfinch
mortality.

So you can't answer the question.

Thought not.

The answer to your nonsense question is on the website.

No it's not; and I don't have to read it. You're lying again.

Read it. And then having read it do at least try and make some attempt
to understand it. Perhaps your wife or son can help you.

See above.

There's nothing above except your deliberate decision not to read the
website because you're scared stiff that on it you will find the answer
to your question about counting and that it will make you look
remarkably silly for ever having asked it.

I have and you've blown it in the other post :-))

So why not answer the question and forget about "p"ing.

Does it matter if the GBW gardeners' counts are accurate or not?

Or can you still not answer it?

Have you read the GBW website and found the answer to your question? It
is definitely there.

No it's not. and I know perfectly why you're not keen to answer the
question :-))

It most definitely is there.

The whole thing's a farce.


Yes, so you've said, but your opinion on the matter, based as it is on
blatant ignorance because you can't read and/or comprehend the written
word, plus your prejudice, is meaningless, pointless and worthless.

Definitely not.

Thge GBW website doesn't say whether it's important if the gardners'
counts are accurate or not. That's exactly why I'm asking the
question

So is it important?

Simple question: yes or no?

Why can't you answer it?

Not doing so and calling me ignorant just makes you look stupid.

But I'm used to that; you looking stupid :-))

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Important results from Garden BirdWatch
    ... From the Independent website ... Birds, the Birdcare Standards Association, the British ... study based on GBW data from gardeners who feed birds to ... Because this survey, together with another important bird survey, ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Important results from Garden BirdWatch
    ... From the Independent website ... even by just watching birds in their gardens for a couple of hours each ... Birds, the Birdcare Standards Association, the British Veterinary ... participating in the GBW scheme? ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Important results from Garden BirdWatch
    ... From the Independent website ... Birds, the Birdcare Standards Association, the British ... to their gardens? ... Because this survey, together with another important bird survey, ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Important results from Garden BirdWatch
    ... From the Independent website ... Birds, the Birdcare Standards Association, the British Veterinary ... participating in the GBW scheme? ... Because this survey, together with another important bird survey, ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Important results from Garden BirdWatch
    ... From the Independent website ... Birds, the Birdcare Standards Association, the British Veterinary ... participating in the GBW scheme? ... Because this survey, together with another important bird survey, ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)