In message
,
harry writes

There's no doubt that all the big charities have jumped to gap from
just charity to career and well paid at that.
At one time the tin rattler in the street would be working for
nothing. Now they're all on a percentage. There are beaurocrats and
fancy offices.
I have given up donating money, I think they are all too dodgy and
most of the money is used in adminisration. If you every get to talk
to some of the hierarchy, most of them know nothing about their
charity, it's just another business to them. I have spent money in
creating my own reserve. ******** to these money grubbers.
A case in point is the "Fair Trade" ripoff. They give some farmer
in Costa Rica an extra ten pence/kilo for coffee beans. The they
charge me an extra fifty pence. No thanks.
All these charities for third world countries are the same. Clowns,
idiot and crooks.

The decision whether or not to donate to charities is between the donor
and his conscience (if he has one). ;-)

I expect charity demands to increase under this government, I have two
already this season, from the British Legion and from the Red Cross.
I support the former because of the work they do for returning
servicemen from Iraq and Afghanistan.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

But a very large sample (around 10,000) [ The survey collects the relevant information. Counting is on the basis of the maximum number of birds seen at one time (which is a lower bound on the actual number of birds). But many analyses are simply looking at presence or absence of a species, and actual numbers are irrelevant to this.

On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:
[color=blue][i]

;904444 Wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:24:44 +0000, BTO GBW
wrote:

But only in participating gardens.


But a very large sample (around 10,000) [


Sure, but only in participating gardens.

-
in relation to
surrounding habitat, within garden practices and geographic location.-
Please tell us how you work that out?

The survey collects the relevant information.

What do you regard as "!relevant"?



-

Although there is variation in the ability of individual participants,
and in the amount of time they spend carrying out the recording, our
statistical models typically include a site-effect, which enables us to
control for this variation. From a statistical perspective, the sheer
size of the project increases its robustness, since it is the
underlying
patterns that are important.
-

Have you ever tried to count sparrows coming and going in a garden?

We have loads of them and I defy anyone to count them and know whether
the same ones are counted over and over again?


Counting is on the basis of the maximum number of birds seen at one time
(which is a lower bound on the actual number of birds).

Which gives no indication of the actual number of birds.

But many
analyses are simply looking at presence or absence of a species, and
actual numbers are irrelevant to this.


But only in participating gardens. That cannot be extended to whole
populations throughout the country, for the reasons I have given.

If you were doing a survey of car ownership you couldn't restrict
yourself to the most prosperous or most socially deprived areas to get
an accurate result.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:39:10 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:


But many
analyses are simply looking at presence or absence of a species, and
actual numbers are irrelevant to this.


But only in participating gardens. That cannot be extended to whole
populations throughout the country, for the reasons I have given.

Your "reasons" are flawed because you don't (?won't, ?can't) understand
the concept of sampling.

Don't try to make it sound difficult, Malcolm :-)

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 11:59:33 +0000, Rusty Hinge
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:

/snip/

Counting is on the basis of the maximum number of birds seen at one time
(which is a lower bound on the actual number of birds).

Which gives no indication of the actual number of birds.

But when correlated with the same locations or rsults of nearby
mini-surveys over time, will give an indication of a trend.

Easy to say. What and where are these "nearby mini-surveys"? And who
is carrying them out and correlating them?


The overall survey may also predict the future growth/deline of
populations, their movements, etc.

What "overall" survey? See above.

Alarming fluctuations can lead to
Something Being Done[TM].

And grants? Now why doesn't that surprise me?

wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:

/snip/

Counting is on the basis of the maximum number of birds seen at one time
(which is a lower bound on the actual number of birds).

Which gives no indication of the actual number of birds.

But when correlated with the same locations or rsults of nearby
mini-surveys over time, will give an indication of a trend.

The overall survey may also predict the future growth/deline of
populations, their movements, etc. Alarming fluctuations can lead to
Something Being Done[TM].

--
Rusty

wrote:

What "overall" survey? See above.

Haven't you even been reading *YOUR OWN* posts?

Though I will grant that they're pretty dense, so I don't blame you.

--
Rusty

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:39:10 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:


But many
analyses are simply looking at presence or absence of a species, and
actual numbers are irrelevant to this.


But only in participating gardens. That cannot be extended to whole
populations throughout the country, for the reasons I have given.

Your "reasons" are flawed because you don't (?won't, ?can't) understand
the concept of sampling.

Don't try to make it sound difficult, Malcolm :-)

I think you've hit the nail on the head Malcolm. He doesn't want to see
any answer which doesn't reinforce his preconceptions and he would
appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis, of
which I freely admit my own knowledge is rather scant.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:17:09 +0000, Rusty Hinge
wrote:

wrote:

What "overall" survey? See above.

Haven't you even been reading *YOUR OWN* posts?

Though I will grant that they're pretty dense, so I don't blame you.

But there's is no "overall survey". The GBW is only for participating
gardens.

So what do you mean?

On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:08:40 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:39:10 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:


But many
analyses are simply looking at presence or absence of a species, and
actual numbers are irrelevant to this.


But only in participating gardens. That cannot be extended to whole
populations throughout the country, for the reasons I have given.

Your "reasons" are flawed because you don't (?won't, ?can't) understand
the concept of sampling.

Don't try to make it sound difficult, Malcolm :-)

I think you've hit the nail on the head Malcolm. He doesn't want to see
any answer which doesn't reinforce his preconceptions and he would
appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis, of
which I freely admit my own knowledge is rather scant.


So why don't you ask Malcolm how sampling in participating gardens
extends to the country as a whole?

And at the same time ask him if it matters if the counts are accurate
or not

No one has yet answered this question and Malcolm studiously avoids
it.

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:08:40 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:39:10 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:


But many
analyses are simply looking at presence or absence of a species, and
actual numbers are irrelevant to this.


But only in participating gardens. That cannot be extended to whole
populations throughout the country, for the reasons I have given.

Your "reasons" are flawed because you don't (?won't, ?can't) understand
the concept of sampling.

Don't try to make it sound difficult, Malcolm :-)

I think you've hit the nail on the head Malcolm. He doesn't want to see
any answer which doesn't reinforce his preconceptions and he would
appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis, of
which I freely admit my own knowledge is rather scant.


So why don't you ask Malcolm how sampling in participating gardens
extends to the country as a whole?

That's already been explained.
And at the same time ask him if it matters if the counts are accurate
or not

No it doesn't AIUI.
No one has yet answered this question and Malcolm studiously avoids
it.



I think they have but see my comment in my preceding post.

You seem to persist in asking the same question over and over again
regardless of answers which in my book is the action of a troll so I
won't bother to reply to you again

--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:27:13 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:08:40 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:39:10 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:


But many
analyses are simply looking at presence or absence of a species, and
actual numbers are irrelevant to this.


But only in participating gardens. That cannot be extended to whole
populations throughout the country, for the reasons I have given.

Your "reasons" are flawed because you don't (?won't, ?can't) understand
the concept of sampling.

Don't try to make it sound difficult, Malcolm :-)

I think you've hit the nail on the head Malcolm. He doesn't want to see
any answer which doesn't reinforce his preconceptions and he would
appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis, of
which I freely admit my own knowledge is rather scant.


So why don't you ask Malcolm how sampling in participating gardens
extends to the country as a whole?

That's already been explained.

No it wasn't. If you thnik it was, where was it explained?


And at the same time ask him if it matters if the counts are accurate
or not

No it doesn't AIUI.

Why not?


No one has yet answered this question and Malcolm studiously avoids
it.



I think they have but see my comment in my preceding post.

I have.

You said;

"I think you've hit the nail on the head Malcolm. He doesn't want to
see any answer which doesn't reinforce his preconceptions and he would
appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis, of
which I freely admit my own knowledge is rather scant".

So if you've scant knowledge of the subject how do you know that I
"appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis"?


You seem to persist in asking the same question over and over again
regardless of answers which in my book is the action of a troll so I
won't bother to reply to you again

Another quitter? They're falling like flies.

But before you go how would you like to be the first to answer the
question?

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:35:32 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , hugh
] writes

You seem to persist in asking the same question over and over again
regardless of answers which in my book is the action of a troll so I
won't bother to reply to you again

A perfect description of Angus.

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:35:32 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , hugh
] writes

You seem to persist in asking the same question over and over again
regardless of answers which in my book is the action of a troll so I
won't bother to reply to you again

A perfect description of Angus.


Here's a perfect description of you, Malcolm.

Malcolm is obviously upset about being exposed as a liar when he said
"today's" 2009 population of Hen Harriers was "over 3000 birds" and
then had to admit that his information was five years old, and that
no-one knew today's population number. He was flushed out when I
asked if I could quote him!

Here is a summary of the post; the original is all on record:



Angus Macmillan: "And you don't have any up-to-date evidence of the
HH's population. Your evidence is 5 years old."

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie: "So what? J"

AM: "This says it all!"

MO: "Yes, it says that the HH population is not censused every year".

AM: "Not even every five years. So you have no idea what the
population is at present."

MO: "Completely wrong".

AM: "So what is the population today?"

MO: "Over 3000 birds."

AM: "So can I quote you that the population has risen far above
expectations and stands at 3000 and those who say there is a terminal
decline in the population are wrong?"

MO: "No, because my calculation is based on the 2004 census total of
806 pairs. I thought you could have worked that out for yourself.".




I don't know what he's trying to prove by endlessly contradicting
himself other than that he's a fool.

If he weren't a fool, he would just have admitted at the start that he
stupidly said "over 3000 birds" for "today's" population to make him
look knowledgeable but he hadn't the guts to say that and got caught
lying when I asked if I could quote him.

His most recent gaff is to say he thinks I'm "afraid of him"; if he
thinks that he's gone round the twist. When I ask him "why would I be
"afraid of you", he goes strangely silent, which is his norm when he's
asked awkward questions.

Among others, he still won't answer the following questions:


1. Is man part of nature or not?
2. Is it important that the gardeners' counts of birds is
accurate or not, for the British Trust for Ornothology's "Garden Bird
Watch" scheme?
3. When did the archaeological find of a red squirrel fossil take
place in Madawg Rock Shelter and what DNA evidence exists to show that
it is the same species or sub species that exists in Britain today?
4. Why is it that you claim that a report, substantially
criticised by the Natural History Museum on a number of crucial
points, is accurate in dating and species recognition when it uses the
word "apparently" to describe this?
5. Where and when did you read this report? The book is currently
unavailable
6. Why is it, as a scientist, you support the concept that
political boundaries determine where a species is regarded as
"native", rather than the natural range of that species?
7. Why did you lie about your knowledge of "today's" population
of hen harriers in 2009 when nobody else knew what it was? You were
easily flushed out when I asked if I could quote you.
8. Why did you lie when you said my "sole" qualification was an O
Grade Maths when you now admit you don't know what qualifications I
have - if any?
9. Why are you so coy in answering questions about your earlier
educational qualifications when you are conceited enough to post your
cv online at over seventy years of age? Are you looking for a job J).
http://www.indaal.demon.co.uk/#A
10. Why do you claim the FAS study is evidence of AGW when the
IPCC's deputy head says, "Clearly sceptics will find some things to
make their case. It says that not all is clear about the sun's role.
The debate is never over," when he refers to France's Academy of
Science" report, and why did it need to be held partly behind closed
doors?
http://www.france24.com/en/20101028-...-humans-france
11. To whom are you referring when you say "superior people"?

So there's a start and perhaps to finish,

Who's the lady farmer on Islay you helped with her grants?

Did she pay you?


And when I ask him about his school and university qualifications he
is also reluctant to say what they are. I haven't said, like others
have, that his PhD is a fake from some sort of "mill" - whatever that
means - but I am intrigued about his earlier qualifications. I
believe it's possible to become a member of the Society of Biology and
Chartered Biologist through the "back door" having worked as a
non-graduate with a supposedly conservation organisation. Malcolm
worked for the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust seemingly as a lowly
"research officer" for 26 years with no apparent advancement. - akin
to a life sentence. So is that what he did and hasn't told anyone? It
seems he might be the one that's "afraid" of people knowing that. And
was he allowed to do his PhD on the strength of that too? If so, why
should he be ashamed of it? He's stuffed the system; and should be
proud of it. And some of the best tradesmen have been apprentices.

The reason I have asked him about having a Higher or A Level Maths is
that without that he probably wouldn't have the mental agility to
understand even the most basic of statistics - about which he
pontificates endlessly.

If he's conceited enough to put his personal details and interests
online, http://www.indaal.demon.co.uk/#A he leaves himself open to
questions about what he might have left out.

So is he a back door Society of Biology member and does he have a
Higher or A Level Maths? Why is he so afraid to answer these
questions?

I'm sure there are others on this ng that might like to know also and
rather than me being afraid of him, perhaps he's afraid of everyone.

It's not what's in his CV that matters; it's what he seems to have
left out. He obviouisl can't bring himself to tell us what it is.

And why does a man of over 70 need a CV anyway, other than for conceit
or perhaps to counter a massive inferiority complex.

Could his arrogance and prejudice against school leavers with one O
Grade be a throwback from his past. Perhaps he was bullied at school
and thought to be a dullard and this is why he is such a self
righteous and pompous little man who seems to be going round the
twist.

Only someone with some form of personality disorder and deep prejudice
could write this nasty generic rant against school leavers.


Internet posting by Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie
to Malcolm Kane of Penrith

"Malcolm, it must be what a teacher feels like after trying to drum
something into the head of the dullard who is going to leave school
with a single 'O' grade. There's only so much that someone so
intellectually challenged can understand. The problem will come in
later life, when an inability to grasp concepts, not to mention be
able to understand the meanings of words, will seriously let them
down, to the point when, how ever often they are told something, they
merely repeat, as a rote, statements and claims which they think are
very telling but, in fact, were meaningless or just plain wrong the
first time, and continue to be so regardless of how many times they
are repeated. The situation will be even worse if, during their lives,
they have gained absolutely no personal knowledge of the subjects
about which they spout and thus are completely unable to comprehend
anyone who points out that their ignorance is letting them down."

Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie
Scientific Adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage
On Internet Newsgroup uk.environment.conservation
Date: Mon,18 Sept 2006 07:32;30 +0100



Is this rant a reflection of himself?

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:15:45 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:35:32 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , hugh
] writes

You seem to persist in asking the same question over and over again
regardless of answers which in my book is the action of a troll so I
won't bother to reply to you again

A perfect description of Angus.


Here's a perfect description of you, Malcolm.

Angus indulges in his inevitable lies and libels about me.

He is indeed a troll of the worst kind.

No Malcolm, if you go for me I go for you.

And I'm not "trolling" what I do is expose the fakes in the
conservation industry.