Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- statistics [2026/05/11 20:35] – ultracomfy
+++ statistics [2026/06/09 08:54] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{page>Templates:Page Incomplete}}
 <WRAP column 18% right>
 {{page>Templates:Secularization}}
@@ Line 9: / Line 7: @@
 <fs xx-large>Statistics</fs></WRAP>
-====== Lying with Statistics ======
+Before I go talk about statistics and what to do with them, I'd like to talk a bit about how statistics are used incorrectly. I want to do it that way because the way statistics are abused gives us major hints for what to do to use statistics responsibly.
+====== Statistics: How to Not ======
 At least superficially, most humans claim that they can be persuaded by facts and numbers. Therefore, statistics are your weapon of choice when trying to convince other humans that you are right about something. Statistics compile the complexity of reality into easily digestible numbers that, ultimately, help assign a numerical value to things. For example, statistics can show us the change of GDP of a country over time, and we can try to interpret that based on the things we think influenced that change. This interpretation can be used to say things about the influences. For example, when rich countries with low birth rates allow immigrants in, this generally positively affects that country's GDP.
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 <WRAP group>
 <WRAP column half centeralign>
-{{ ::total_co2_emissions_per_country.png?nolink&0x500 |}}\\
+{{ ::total_co2_emissions_per_country.png?nolink&300 |}}\\
 Yes, China has high total emissions...
 </WRAP>
 <WRAP column half centeralign>
-{{ ::per_capita_consumption_based_co2_emissions.png?nolink&0x500 |}}\\
+{{ ::per_capita_consumption_based_co2_emissions.png?nolink&500 |}}\\
 ...but the reality is that China is no worse than most other countries.
 </WRAP>
 </WRAP>
-This is not to exculpate China from its increased responsibility in getting to net zero. If all our emissions are imported, it is still China from which these emissions are imported. However, it means there are things we can do about this. The simplest solution would be to stop importing. A more involved solution could be some kind of treaty with China wherein we pay more to China for our imports but China uses the extra money to go to net zero. There are all kinds of possible ideas here. But as far as these statistics are concerned and the way they are used to lie about our reality, it is wrong that we can't do anything about China's emissions, or that China isn't doing anything about its emissions. They're not just releasing uncontrolled amounts of CO2. The reality of China's emissions is that they are roughly on par with the rest of the developed world (except for Australia).
+Climate change denialism is one of the easiest offenders to spot. Just ask yourself, "what does this argument imply?". If "[...], [[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climate_change#The_denialist_staircase|therefore we don't need to change anything]]" sounds like a reasonable deduction from the argument given, you have found climate change denialism. Climate change denialism doesn't necessarily deny the existence of man-made climate change, but all its arguments are always, **always** aimed at trying to argue that, for one reason or another, nothing or nothing substantial needs to be done. The goal in every instance is to maintain the status quo with minimal concessions. Everything a climate denier can say will always amount to " - and therefore we don't need to change anything", even though the scientific consensus has been for over 200 years now that, no, we do actually need to change something, and rather rapidly. I really do encourage you to give [[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climate_change#The_denialist_staircase|this]] a read.
+One of these steps, by the way, does include something like "We can't do anything about this, therefore we don't need to change anything". Now, I don't want to exculpate China from its increased responsibility in getting to net zero. If all our emissions are imported, it is still China from which these emissions are imported. However, as with most things, things previously said to be impossible somehow always end up seeming quite possible indeed when you convince the right people that something does need to be done.
+In our case, the simplest solution would be to stop importing. Don't like it? Well, a more involved... gracious... solution could be some kind of treaty with China wherein we pay more to China for our imports but China uses the extra money to go to net zero((I know you may not like these ideas and I concur. I can only point you towards the [[https://www.ipcc.ch/|IPCC]], who are actually experts in the field and know what they're talking about. But unfortunately I have to agree, there is no way to get to Net 0 today without pain. That's the result of decades, nay, centuries of inaction.)). There are all kinds of possible ideas here. But as far as these statistics are concerned and the way they are used to lie about our reality, it is wrong that we can't do anything about China's emissions, or that China isn't doing anything about its emissions. They're not just releasing uncontrolled amounts of CO2. The reality of China's emissions is that they are roughly on par with the rest of the developed world (except for Australia).
+====== Statistics: How to Do It Right ======
+So what do we make of this? Well, there are primarily two things we will have to learn from this:
+  - Data is **weak**. As they captured so well in the 2026 video game "007 First Light", any data can be tortured so long and so easily that you can get any confession out of it. Visualized, cherrypicked or scaled correctly, any piece of data can be used to say anything about anything.
+  - It takes real understanding of a subject to understand data correctly. Only if you have the full picture of a situation are you able to fit in any kind of data.
+In other terms, if someone, anyone posts statistics online or in print or wherever, do not assume that it proves a point or supports anything. Even if the data is used to support causes you are allied with/think are correct, neither you nor I have the necessary expertise to actually meaningfully understand the data/statistic. In general with things like these, it is best to shut the fuck up.
+It is one of the many reasons for why I don't like the [[Kurzgesagt]] [[YouTube]] channel. It makes claims about things like climate change and the such and then backs them up with data, but data alone is useless. This inspires a false confidence in viewers who then go touting around their newfound statistics without actually having the knowledge to interpret those statistics correctly. This is made worse by the fact that Kurzgesagt is largely in line with scientific consensus on most things, so it is rather difficult to have a merit-based argument with their viewers. They are polluting the discourse around complex topics with under-complex interpretations of scientific concepts and no understanding of how to interpret the data... all while not even being totally wrong. As I said, the best thing to do is to shut the fuck up. And [[Probably Wrong|not just because of statistics.....]]