So I wrote this post : |
"You got me there !" what David Grimes said to me at Skeptics in the Pub in Birmingham at the British Festival of Science. After I challenged him for evidence of 97%.
- Yes this guy who I clearly debunked at a public meeting has won the Sense About Science prize for 'courage in promoting science and evidence on a matter of public interest' Holy Bishops !
- I accidentally found myself at his lecture called "Lies, damned lies and statistics - How we get science coverage wrong". Well that was the title of the event ..when I spoke to him before it was apparent he had never heard of "The fallacy of the argument from authority" and despite his qualifications was like a child in his reasoning skills. Then the lecture started, he made statements about how jornalists should gt their stats right, quote their references etc. but then the poor guy revealed that he was a completely brainwashed alarmist as he went off on a complete tangent. 70% of his lecture was an angry rant against skeptics "Apparently I'm an alarmist ..these skeptics they are damm persistant blah blah" it was like speaking to Nutelli, Cook or Lew himself.
He made it clear that by "Climate Change" he meant only the catastrophic kind. Then he made this statement "..People say that an opinion poll said 97% of Climate Scientists .. No it's not 97% it ONE HUNDRED PERCENT..." well that was an open goal
So at the end one of my questions was "You said journalists should quote their references, what is your reference for the 97%, do you know the sample size " Extraordinarily he wasn't expecting anyone to ask him this he mumbled shuffled his papers "em err I've got it somewhere" did another angry rant against skeptics in general" I persisted "I think the sample size was something like 84 wasn't it" ...em I'll have to loook later.
- At the very end another question said "30s on Google shows the sample size was 12,000 papers" .. I did try to tackle that guy afterwards but he just shouted me down. "It then became apparent that
Lew's (Cook I mean) dirty trick of fudging a result of another 97% had done it's job..and that this guy & Grimes had confused the 2 surveys ..and given time Graves would have given me Lew's Cook's discredited survey as his source.