How Swedish beer turned Norwegian into Danish

August 31, 2015

Thirty years ago when I first learned Swedish we had a couple of Danish/Swedish projects ongoing. I observed that at meetings between Danes and Swedes each spoke their own language. I thought they were all being very considerate and polite when they switched to English whenever I joined a meeting. But then I realised that I was being invited to meetings where I had no part to play and had nothing to say. Just so that the Danes and Swedes could switch to English and have some little chance of understanding each other.

But I had not realised that Norwegian became Danish because of all that Swedish beer!!!!

( from a slightly biased Norsk perspective)

Norwegian + Swedish beer = Danish

Indian GDP growth figures at 7.5% flatter somewhat – but are not wrong

August 31, 2015

India since the start of this year has been using a new method of calculating GDP and GDP growth. Basically 3 changes have been made.

  1. the base year has been changed from 2004-05 to now be 2011-12
  2. a “cost of production” based method has been changed to be a “market value” based method, and
  3. a database of just 5,000 corporate entities has been expanded to include over 500,000 entities

It is the use of “market value” rather than cost based data which is the biggest change and actually brings India more into line with the methods used by most other countries. Cost based (bottom up) analyses are always historical in nature, somewhat out-of-date by the time the data are used, and under-estimate real value. “Market value” based data should be more current but have a subjective element and can overestimate “value” especially in times of high inflation. The subjective element can work in both directions but brings in an element of “expectation” into what should be a look backwards. For example a calculation of GDP growth for a quarter consists of “value now” minus “value 3 months ago”. A “value now” estimation in times of high growth will overestimate and in hard times will underestimate. On the other hand a cost-based, bottom-up estimation of value will always lag and underestimate real value.

There is no “correct” method. The real question is what the “value now” is to be compared with. To compare with the growth in China or some other country it is better that the methodologies used be the same. Of course, differences of value (growth) will be different using the different methodologies. The “new” method at least uses a large enough database to be more representative of the constituent parts of the Indian economy as it actually is now.

Hindustan TimesAll of this means the new method for computing GDP, which takes 2011-12 (when GDP grew 6.7%) as the base year, has bumped up India’s estimates of growth. In 2012-13, the new formula estimates growth at 5.1% (under the old one, it was 4.5%); in 2013-14, it is 6.9% (the old estimate was 4.7%); and, as we all know by the high-decibel crowing that came in its wake, in 2014-15, it was 7.3%.

There’s obviously no ‘old data’ for 2014-15 but estimates suggest that the old method may have pegged growth at 6.3-6.8%. All of this may mean something else too.

Last week, FM Arun Jaitley told US investors that India could attain double-digit growth soon. He wasn’t kidding. Because what’s 10% now could’ve been just 8% before!

For the April-June quarter Indian GDP growth is estimated to have been 7.4% compared to the 7.5% in the preceding quarter (calculated by the new method). With the old method the number would probably have been about 5.8 – 6.2 %. A growth of 7.5% is somewhat flattering of the real mood in Indian industry that I can discern.

I have a suspicion that at 7.5% the growth figures are a little too high and contain an overly optimistic “market value”. It could be that there is an in-built “optimism” of the politicians and bureaucrats, rather than of industry, which is skewing the “value now”. “Reality”, if such a thing exists, lies somewhere in-between the values calculated by the two methodologies.

 

A real correlation from a real causal relationship

August 31, 2015

A green fantasy rather than just a mirage. And I am afraid that the fantasy is intentionally malicious and not just the delusions of sanctimonious do-gooders. Just following the money reveals those who have gained the greatest benefit.

No doubt the Danes and the Germans have ensured a mild and benevolent climate for themselves?

Note that this is just the direct price paid by the consumer and does not include the cost of subsidies which are sourced from general taxation.

Chart by Euan Mearns.

The Y-axis shows residential electricity prices for the second half of 2014 from Eurostat. The X-axis is the installed wind + solar capacity for 2014 as reported in the 2015 BP statistical review normalised to W per capita using population data for 2014 as reported by the UN.

Renewable energy does have a niche where it makes very good sense – but it is not common sense which rules in Europe today.

 Eurostat

2015 BP statistical review 

UN population data.

S & W gun sales have boomed since Obama became President

August 28, 2015

From Business Insider:

S&W says business boomed after Obama became president

guns

Obama blames Congress of course. But the reality is that he has not shown much initiative on any gun control policy which he could even try to carry through Congress.

And just gun control would not address behaviour.

 

Over half of psychology papers are just “psychobabble”

August 28, 2015

A new research report has been published in Science and only confirms the perception that much of what passes for the science of psychology is still mainly the views and prejudices of the publishing psychologists. Their studies cannot be reproduced in over half of the 100 papers investigated. Even among those found to be reproducible, the significance of the results were exaggerated.

……. he researchers found that some of the attempted replications even produced the opposite effect to the one originally reported.

This discipline is surely a valid field of study but is still a long way from being a science.

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science, Science 28 August 2015, Vol. 349 no. 6251 , DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716

AbstractReproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

The Independent comments:

More than half of the findings from 100 different studies published in leading, peer-reviewed psychology journals cannot be reproduced by other researchers who followed the same methodological protocol.

A study by more than 270 researchers from around the world has found that just 39 per cent of the claims made in psychology papers published in three prominent journals could be reproduced unambiguously – and even then they were found to be less significant statistically than the original findings. ……. 

……… Professor Nosek said that there is often a contradiction between the incentives and motives of researchers – whether in psychology or other fields of science – and the need to ensure that their research findings can be reproduced by other scientists.

“Scientists aim to contribute reliable knowledge, but also need to produce results that help them keep their job as a researcher. To thrive in science, researchers need to earn publications, and some kind of results are easier to publish than others, particularly ones that are novel and show unexpected or exciting new directions,” he said.

However, the researchers found that some of the attempted replications even produced the opposite effect to the one originally reported. Many psychological associations and journals are not trying to improve reproducibility and openness, the researchers said.

“This very well done study shows that psychology has nothing to be proud of when it comes to replication,” Charles Gallistel, president of the Association for Psychological Science, told Science.

We have professional psychologists who get paid for their theories and we have professional, amateur psychologists (Agony Aunts in the newspapers, TV and Radio psychologists, talk show pundits and the like) who also get paid for providing entertainment. And then we have all the rest of us who each believe we have insights into the human mind and human behaviour, but don’t get paid for it.

We haven’t come so far from witch-doctors and Shamans.

 

Trump’s real appeal is that he is beholden to no one

August 26, 2015

The more people he upsets, the stronger becomes Donald Trump’s showing in the polls. He probably would not even deny that he is playing the role of “clown” in the political circus of the US Presidential election. Trying to analyse his appeal is confounding most of the pundits and the main-stream media are torn between wanting to ridicule him but knowing that his appeal feeds on being ridiculed by the “establishment”.

But I was struck by this analysis in Politico of liberals who see some good in Trump. The idea of Trump being influenced by campaign contributions is patently laughable. No one even thinks about criticising Trump for being beholden to anyone. Perhaps that is the real secret of his inexplicable appeal. He may be a clown but …… He says it like he sees it. He pays no attention to political correctness. He does not apologise. He cannot be bought. And, above all, he is beholden to no one.

Politico: Meet the Liberals who love Trump

It’s become fashionable on the left to sneer at the very sound of Donald Trump’s name; Bernie Sanders more or less captured the mood when he dismissed Trump as “an embarrassment” in a recent interview. But there is one contingent of liberals who take a very different view. They believe, cheerfully, that Trump is nothing less than the second coming—of campaign finance reform. …..

…. As pundits search for the source of Trump’s resilient appeal, reformers say they’ve long known the answer: the constant emphasis on how his staggering wealth immunizes him from insider influence. It has arguably now become the campaign’s most salient theme. “I don’t need anybody’s money. I’m using my own money,”  ………. Then came the debates, where Trump cleverly positioned satellite candidates around Planet Donald by recounting how he had purchased their fealty. “You know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given … a lot of money,” Trump said, adding, “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.”

……… “That explains why there’s so much amazing support for Trump,” added Lessig (Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig). “Americans are willing to put up with his outrageous views because they look at this guy and say, Holy crap. Here it is. A politician not beholden to these crony funders. That’s the gift.”

The Republican nomination battle is already providing much more entertainment than I would have expected. And it is entirely due to Trump. Part of the appeal is that Trump is not even beholden to the Republican establishment. It is not inconceivable that he could dump them. I also see the Democrats regretting that they are stuck with the old, staid and boring figures of Clinton, Sanders and possibly Biden and Gore. They have nobody who compares in terms of outrageous charisma. Almost as if they are looking backwards while Trump charges towards some unknown, possibly dangerous, but brand new, playing field.

The science of Poohsticks (and the language of Poohlish)

August 26, 2015

I have known all along that “Poohsticks” is no mere game of chance. The choice of stick, the manner of dropping it, the strength of the current, the strength and direction of the wind, the position of the sun, the amount of honey consumed at breakfast,  and even the phase of the moon on the night before are all critical factors that affect the outcome. Of course, all these factors cannot even be described without knowledge of “Poohlish” which still remains a mystery. Just as physics becomes almost indescribable without the language of mathematics, knowledge of Poohlish is necessary to completely discern the science of Poohsticks. For a practitioner just knowing Poohlish needs to be augmented with practical training in Poohmatics and the art of thinking things through:

“Think it over, think it under.” ― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

Nevertheless some aspects of the game are beginning to be be quantified and some of the more superficial matters – such as the selection of a winning Poohstick – are beginning to be unravelled.

Cambridge News:

The game, in which competitors drop sticks into a river upstream off a bridge and see which comes out downstream first, is first mentioned in The House At Pooh Corner by AA Milne published in 1928.

The research, commissioned to celebrate the release of The Poohsticks Handbook: A Poohstickopedia – a new book featuring Winnie the Pooh and friends, written by comedy writer Mark Evans and illustrated by Mark Burgess – reveals the secrets to finding the perfect Poohstick according to a top scientist, and names the best places in the country to play. ……

….. The formula disproves the views of more than half of Britons (57%) who believe Poohsticks is a game of sheer luck.

Egmont Publishing joined Dr Rhys Morgan, director of engineering and education at the Royal Academy of Engineering, to equip the 39% of people who already take time sourcing the perfect Poohstick with the formula to ensure they pick the speediest stick to sail to victory. …….

…… It turns out that just 11% of Britons naturally pick the right sort of stick, with a third of people (30%) heading straight for a long and thin stick, which according to Dr Morgan is only half right.

The scientist, a father of two and avid Poohsticks player himself, said the main variables that need to be considered when designing the optimum Poohstick include cross sectional area, density/buoyancy, and the drag coefficient.

The perfect Poohstick = tubby and long, fairly heavy (but not so heavy it will sink to the bottom of the river), with quite a lot of bark to catch the flow of the river like paddles – or

PP (Perfect Poohstick) = A x Ï? x Cd.

Cross Sectional Area (= A) is important and the greater the area of an object, the more drag it creates. Normally, a large cross-sectional area decreases speed, but when it comes to Poohsticks, drag is key. If more water is able to influence the trajectory of the stick, it will accelerate more quickly. So when it comes to Poohsticks the tubbier, the better.

The density (= Ï?) of the stick affects its position in the water. The fastest part of the stream is below the surface, so theoretically, a waterlogged stick which sinks into the water a little will go faster than a stick which is floating right on the surface (where it could be slowed down by wind or other external variables).

The drag coefficient (= Cd) describes the shape of stick and roughness of its surface. Generally, a rough stick will create more drag than a smooth stick, so in general, bark is good. However, according to Dr Morgan, a certain roughness can make the stick apparently smoother, similar to the effect created by dimples in golf balls.

Meanwhile, VisitEngland has compiled a list of the best Poohsticks bridges alongside the original Poohsticks Bridge in Ashdown Forest in East Sussex.

The list includes bridges from Cumbria to Cornwall, including Sheepwash Bridge, Ashford in the Water in Derbyshire, Morden Hall Park in London, Heale Gardens in Salisbury, Wiltshire, Packhorse Bridge in Watendlath, Cumbria, and Mottisfont in Romsey, Hampshire.

Merely picking a potentially winning Poohstick is not enough of course. To truly understand the nuances of the game and become a Poohstick Master requires a sound grounding in Poohlish and some practical training in Poohmatics.

India to more than double coal production in next 5 years

August 26, 2015

Coal production in India is not keeping up with consumption. One of the bottlenecks has been the private production of coal which was expected to grow much faster but has been hampered by scams and bureaucratic regulation. Now the Coal Mines Special Provision Bill was passed in March and is meant to encourage the private sector and allows foreign investment through an Indian subsidiary.

The government is very ambitious and targets a domestic annual production of 1.5 billion metric tons by 2020 which is 2.5 times larger than the current 600 million metric tons.

India coal production target

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports:

Coal consumption in India, particularly in the electric power sector, is outpacing India’s domestic production. From 2005 to 2012, India’s coal production grew by only 4.7% per year to about 600 million metric tons while the country’s coal-fired electric power capacity grew by a much faster rate (about 9.4% per year), reaching 150 gigawatts. To help resolve the shortfall in coal supply and to support expanded coal-fired generation, India has set a coal production target of 1.5 billion metric tons by 2020. Recent shifts in government policies and practices may play a key role in India’s ability to meet this coal production goal.

Increasing coal production from its national coal producer. Coal India Limited (CIL), the national coal producer responsible for more than 80% of India’s current production, initially planned to produce 1 billion metric tons of coal by FY2020, almost double its FY2015 production. Although CIL revised its current expectations downward to about 900 million metric tons, its annual production must still rise faster than the current rate of increase to achieve its new goal. Since 2012, CIL has increased coal production by outsourcing production operations to private and foreign companies in an effort to improve mechanization and mining expertise and by working to adhere to detailed mine plans for achieving its 2020 production target.

Encouraging greater private and foreign participation. In August 2014, allegations of impropriety, hoarding of coal resources, lost government revenue, and a lack of transparency led India’s Supreme Court to cancel 214 coal licenses allocated to the private and public sector, representing 9% of FY2013’s production. The Ministry of Coal quickly reauctioned many of these properties to help minimize the disruption from the cancellation, but the impact of this redistribution of coal properties on production is uncertain.

Private mining may be expanded further as a result of the Coal Mines Special Provision Bill passed in March. This law opens the door to commercial coal mining by both private companies and foreign companies having an Indian subsidiary. The government is now evaluating the effect of a coal block auction to allocate properties for commercial development—a significant change for a coal industry that has been nationalized for 40 years.

The simple reality is that coal is essential – and irreplaceable – for Indian development and growth.

Indian fertility rates – across all religions – are the lowest they have ever been

August 25, 2015

The Indian Census Commission today released its report on the Population by Religious Communities of Census 2011. (The Census 2011 dashboard is here). Across all religions, fertility rates have never been lower. By 2050 it is almost certain that all religious groups will have fertility rates lower than the replenishment rate. The demographics for the next 70-80 years are pretty well fixed and now can only be significantly altered by drastic measures (such as mass sterilisation or one-child policies)

While Chinese population has just peaked and is already in decline, the Indian population is expected to peak a little before 2050. Both China and India are then expected to have significant population decline  for the rest of this century.

The Hindu carries a comprehensive report:

India’s Muslim population is growing slower than it had in the previous decades, and its growth rate has slowed more sharply than that of the Hindu population, new Census data show.

The decadal Muslim rate of growth is the lowest it has ever been in India’s history, as it is for all religions.

Census 2011: Population growth is % per decade graphic – The Hindu

The Muslim population still grows at a faster rate than the Hindu population, but the gap between the two growth rates is narrowing fast. India now has 966.3 million Hindus, who make up 79.8 per cent of its population, and 172.2 million Muslims, who make up 14.23 per cent. Among the other minorities, Christians make up 2.3 per cent of the population and Sikhs 2.16 per cent. ….

……. As has been the case since Independence, the rate of increase of the Muslim population is higher than that of the Hindu population as a result of higher Muslim fertility, higher child mortality among Hindus and a greater life expectancy among Muslims, demographers say. However, Muslim fertility rates in India are falling faster than among Hindus, Pew Research’s Future of World Religions report showed recently, and the Muslim community is expected to reach replacement levels of fertility by 2050. …

…… The data on Population by Religious Communities of Census 2011 show that between 2001 and 2011, Hindu population grew by 16.76 per cent, while that of Muslims by 24.6 per cent. The population of both communities grew faster during the previous decade, at 19.92 per cent and 29.52 per cent, respectively. As a long-term trend, say demographers, the communities’ growth rates are converging.

Carbon credits used for “printing money”

August 25, 2015

I first realised that the “carbon credit” schemes were essentially money-making scams sheltering under the “environmental” umbrellas of the UN and the EU in the mid 1990s. The misguided and meaningless Kyoto protocol was established in 1992 and fuelled a whole raft of “environmental entrepreneurs” who soon became expert at milking the funds available. I was visiting some of the former Soviet countries to discuss their power generation needs (with a view to selling power plant equipment) and soon realised that all the discussions had nothing whatever to do with meeting energy needs, but were for bureaucrats and politicians to find ways to tap into the carbon credits available via UN and EU schemes for – ostensibly – reducing carbon emissions that didn’t exist. Sometimes the discussions were quite openly about how to show that carbon emissions were much higher than they actually were and then claiming credits for running quite normally. As an example, a district heating scheme actually using Russian gas had combustion equipment capable of burning heavy fuel oil or even coal. “Normal” emissions were then “certified” by the Ministry of Energy as being from the use of the worst possible fuel, and then carbon credits were claimed for “emissions reductions” by “switching” to gas.

The “cost of carbon” as reflected in carbon taxes and carbon credits have nothing really to do with reduction of emissions and even less to do with climate. They have all been schemes for milking very many taxpayers for the benefit of a few “environmental entrepreneurs”. Carbon credits have achieved little beyond promoting fraud.

Now, finally, 20 years after the event, the truth about carbon credits is beginning to surface:

BBC:Carbon Credits like “printing money”

The vast majority of carbon credits generated by Russia and Ukraine did not represent cuts in emissions, according to a new study. The authors say that offsets created under a UN scheme “significantly undermined” efforts to tackle climate change.

The credits may have increased emissions by 600 million tonnes. In some projects, chemicals known to warm the climate were created and then destroyed to claim cash.

As a result of political horse trading at UN negotiations on climate change, countries like Russia and the Ukraine were allowed to create carbon credits from activities like curbing coal waste fires, or restricting gas emissions from petroleum production.

Under the UN scheme, called Joint Implementation, they then were able to sell those credits to the European Union’s carbon market. Companies bought the offsets rather than making their own more expensive, emissions cuts.

But this study, from the Stockholm Environment Institute, says the vast majority of Russian and Ukrainian credits were in fact, “hot air” – no actual emissions were reduced.

They looked at a random sample of 60 projects and found that 73% of the offsets generated didn’t meet the key criteria of “additionality”. This means that these projects would have happened anyway without any carbon credit finance.

It is not just Russia and Ukraine of course.

And the fraud continues. No carbon tax or carbon credit scheme has ever been monitored for effect. No scheme has ever had any impact on climate. Every carbon credit or carbon tax scheme has only put general taxpayers’ money into the pockets of a few “environmental entrepreneurs”. And that applies to virtually every country in Europe and every former Soviet Republic.