Comment by crazygringo

Comment by crazygringo 3 days ago

> There is no evidence that the UN estimate actually used better methods.

The article certainly argues that the UN used better methods. Do you have evidence to the contrary? See:

> So the 2022 population estimate was an extrapolation from the 2000 census, and the number that the PNG government arrived at was 9.4 million. But this, even the PNG government would admit, was a hazy guess... It’s not a country where you can send people to survey the countryside with much ease. And so the PNG government really had no idea how many people lived in the country.

> Late in 2022, word leaked of a report that the UN had commissioned. The report found that PNG’s population was not 9.4 million people, as the government maintained, but closer to 17 million people—roughly double the official number. Researchers had used satellite imagery and household surveys to find that the population in rural areas had been dramatically undercounted.

jjk166 3 days ago

The article argues, but does not provide evidence. It specifically says the UN used surveys immediately after saying surveys don't work here. There's no validation that estimates from satellite imagery are better than the methods PNG used.

The fact the UN didn't adopt this report would certainly be an argument against it.

Reply View 5 replies

crazygringo 3 days ago

It's an article, not a 20 page research analysis. It provides detail aappropriate to its scope.
If you disagree, it's up to you to provide additional evidence to the contrary. The article devotes a paragraph on why the UN didn't release the report. If you want to argue that the UN shelved it for reasons of accuracy rather than for political reasons, please provide the explanation for why the article is wrong and why you're right.
I mean, maybe you're right. I certainly don't know. But the article is going into a degree of depth to defend its reporting, and you're not.

Reply View | 4 replies
- jjk166 3 days ago
  
  > It's an article, not a 20 page research analysis. It provides detail aappropriate to its scope.
  And if it merely cited the 20 page research analysis someone else did, that would be fine, but it doesn't.
  The article also is rather disingenuous, leaving out a lot of context. Looking closer, this was not some isolated UN estimate. Instead the UN was generating estimates every year, and the 2022 study was conducted differently because of covid. Subsequent UN estimates also went back to the original numbers. Also it wasn't a report that was buried, the numbers were released in 2022, they were revised down in 2023 after the UN conducted its next study. Seems like quite the omission.
  > If you disagree, it's up to you to provide additional evidence to the contrary, not just arguments.
  While arguments presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, sure here's the CIA estimate for the population which is in close agreement with both PNG's internal estimate and the actually adopted UN estimate. While the CIA is hardly the ultimate source of truth, the arguments that PNG pressured the UN to change its estimates for its own internal political reasons can't possibly explain the CIA coming to the same conclusion.
  https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2023/c...
  > The article devotes a paragraph on why the UN didn't release the report.
  The article spends a paragraph insinuating an ulterior motive while giving no evidence it is anything other than pure speculation.
  > But the article is going into depth to defend its reporting, and you're not.
  The article throws claims against the wall. It is obliged to defend them and it fails. That I can find contradictory evidence with a 30 second google search is convenient but irrelevant. Even if would take a year of extensive research to refute the claim, it does not change the fact the claim was never supported to begin with.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  crazygringo 3 days ago
  
  I mean, I'm not an expert on any of this, but I'm looking it up and you seem to be quite wrong:
  > Looking closer, this was not some isolated UN estimate. Instead the UN was generating estimates every year, and the 2022 study was conducted differently because of covid.
  It seems it was indeed an isolated UN estimate, done in conjunction with the University of Southampton, conducted because the country's census was cancelled, supposedly due to COVID. Yes the UN provides yearly estimates, but it looks like this was a separate, one-off research project.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Papua_New_Guin...
  You can see the sources Wikipedia links to.
  > Subsequent UN estimates also went back to the original numbers. Also it wasn't a report that was buried, the numbers were released in 2022, they were revised down in 2023 after the UN conducted its next study. Seems like quite the omission.
  No, it looks like the report's numbers were never officially adopted at all. You can see the yearly figures here, there's no bump at all:
  https://population.un.org/dataportal/data/indicators/49/loca...
  As far as I can tell, all reporting states that the report remains publicly unavailable. The numbers weren't "released", they were leaked. That certainly seems "buried" to me.
  > While arguments presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, sure here's the CIA estimate for the population which is in close agreement with both PNG's internal estimate and the actually adopted UN estimate.
  The CIA World Factbook isn't trying to independently maximize accuracy using new techniques. They're mainly relying on official data provided by the countries themselves:
  > Estimates and projections start with the same basic data from censuses, surveys, and registration systems, but final estimates and projections can differ as a result of factors such as data availability, assessment, and methods and protocols.
  https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/faqs/
  Again, I'm not an expert in any of this. But nothing in the article appears to be contradicted by public reporting I can find. It provides additional information, you're right that I don't know how the author got it. You say you "can find contradictory evidence with a 30 second google search." But you haven't, you've actually given a bunch of wrong or irrelevant information.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies

Braxton1980 2 days ago

I think the issue in this thread is that you replied to a person asking a question by quoting the article.

It's implied that it's your position because you argued using the article. Otherwise you're just helping the other by showing them the relevant part the article.

Imagine there was a discussion about a 911 conspiracy article and a person comments "Yeah but wouldn't the fuel burning collapse the building"

If I replied with a quote from the article

"..jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel"

Wouldn't you think that's my view as well since the point of the comments are to express opinions about the article and situation?

Reply View 0 replies