Sumary or Fallacy Bingo of Bad science reporting
| | - (I put full detail in Discussion Thread .. and below )
How the hell did science reporting get to the stage ?
where flimsy UNPROVEN science :
1. Cannot be challenged at all
2. But can be pushed by anyone with greenskin as if it's 100% proven.
- It seems it got pushed into a number of SHORTCUTS via LOGICAL FALLACIES
- 0. Patronise Fallacy or Su Moore's Law
"Yeh skeptics they're stupid oil funded right-wingers", (when she doesn't even know/care what CAGW means.)
- 1. The Fallacy of Rush to Oversimplify
- Science is often complex and to explain it properly takes time, but lazy media are drawn to jump to conclusions in an attempt to fit all into 3 minute slot.
- 2. The "White Coat Fallacy" or "The 'Scientists say' equals science fallacy"
Old Washing powder ads used a man in a white coat to quickly give science authority.
Modern jouralists fall for this same trick .. a good excuse not to have any counter arguments
- 3. "Peer Review equals proven Fallacy"
In climate science most of the theories have NOT been real world validated, that is why predictions of models are not very good.
- 4. "The Any White coat Will do fallacy"
- So your BBC eco-warrior presenter invites his fellow eco-warrior on, who is a biologist to comment on a speciality of climate change.
- Actually
- "Scientists say" doesn't become science until it has been properly VALIDATED and that is a process of strong CHALLENGING... by ANYONE
- 5. "You are not wearing a white coat fallacy".
(only the professor of trouser technology is allowed to say "your fly is undone") .. used to suppress skeptics out of the media
5b. New Institutional Racism at the BBC/media.
Yep Greens can come on anytime, but non-greens are banned.
Smear tricks instead of proper refutation. Classic Ad Hominem
- 6. Shouting "DENIER !" fallacy - An example of the "Poisoning of the wells Fallacy". marks user as an Eco-nazi
- 7. Shouting "Big Oil" Fallacy The "Powerful skeptic movement funded by Big Oil"... just a paranoid conspiracy theory.
- 8. "You are Flat Earther Fallacy" .. false analogy .. asserting CAGW theory is as certain as something beyond doubt.
- 9. PROJECTION (the hallmark of a warmist) whatever negatives they accuse us of is what they are actually doing themselves
I would like the rational world to take back Science Reporting from the grip the green business and activists.
| Intro
|
- After hearing on BBCr4aFeedback once again uncontested Green voices calling for banning of skeptics like Lawson, I came to wonder : The BBC/media used to have a high integrity in Science reporting then along comes Green Science and they've come to truely sickening level of routine deception, and it's worse than that cos they are damaging science itself in the process as they have kicked the scientific method in the dustbin.
-
How the hell did they get to the stage ?
where flimsy UNPROVEN science :
1. Cannot be challenged at all
2. But can be pushed by anyone with greenskin as if it's 100% proven.
I know no greater let down in modern life including PPI & Savillegate that the atrocious drop in the level of the BBC's coverage of green science issues. It has completely failed to keep it's integrity and stand up to the influence of the Green Industry and the Eco-activists. Instead it has let them push it into a number of SHORTCUTS via LOGICAL FALLACIES, which means that when it comes to Green Science the BBC is letting the public down.
As part of redressing that the BBC should not be falling into tricks that con them into banning challenging UNVALIDATED science, but rather have 10 times more skeptics on.
| |
|
Full Fallacy Detail
|
0. Patronise Fallacy or Su-Moore's Law
"Yeh skeptics they're stupid oil funded right-wingers",
The truth is skeptics have come thru the tunnel that true believers are still stuck in. Having started as TBs, but then read more.
- The Guardian's top climate correspndent Suzanne Moore showed in a recent video that she didn't even know/care what CAGW means.
1. The Fallacy of Rush to Oversimplify
- Science is often complex and to explain it properly takes time. However it is the nature of media items that without careful control, presenters are drawn to oversimplify and jump to conclusions in an attempt to push an hours worth of complicated science explanation into a 3 minute slot. The BBC should have measures against this.
2.The "White Coat Fallacy" or "The 'Scientists say' equals science fallacy"
- Old Washing powder ads didn't have time to explain their science so they used the trick of a featuring a chap in a white coat to convey this is science. However thay didn't create a truth is is merely the FALLACY of appeal from authority.
- Is "Scientists say" the same as "science says" ? No it is merely the same fallacy. As the BBC staff don't have the time to explain science properly they latch onto that as an easy short cut.
- Now true there has been a decline in the scientific movement so that many are not properly observing the scientific method, but that does not excuse BBC management accepting the same shortcut from presenters in a rush to conclusions. "Oh a scientist said that so that makes it science, so we don't have to waste time with outsiders who challenge it."
3. "Peer Review equals proven" Fallacy
Peer review is not the same as Validation, 50% doesn't stand the test of time.
(in fact there is evidence that is often a flawed and corrupt process JPA Ioannidis)
|
NB science vs opinion
- "Scientists say" doesn't become science until it has been properly VALIDATED and that is a process of strong CHALLENGING.
- The proper scientific method is that the scientists take their theory and themselves challenge it from every angle, then ONLY when it predicts accurately the future and this has multiple independent replications by others, can this be considered properly validated and therefore unchallengeable.
- Up until that point ANYONE can step forward and challenge it. If some outsider is able to supply an ingenious quick debunk then we are all the better for it.
- Although certain parts of climate science have been validated in a laboratory conditions, most of the theories have not been validated in the the real world, that is why predictions of models are not very good. They are for the most part still scientists opinions so it's outrageous for BBC staff to fall for the line that "scientists say" cannot be challenged by anyone.
Screaming that Lawson is not a scientist hides the fact that there are plenty of non-green scientists and experts like Lindzen, Pielke, Tol, J Curry, but they are effectively banned for not having green-skin. |
4. "The Any White coat Will do" fallacy
- An adjunct to #2 is that "Science is one special thing, so that any scientist is an expert on everything". So your BBC eco-warrior presenter having banned all skeptic scientists ("I can't find a single one, cos I didn't look"), then invites his "award winning scientist" fellow eco-warrior on, who is a biologist to comment on a speciality of climate change.
5. "You are not wearing a white coat" fallacy - a 2nd adjunct to #2 This when alarmists shout "Lawson is no scientist". Not being a scientist does not proclude you from expertise or the ability to challenge a topic. (Lawson has written a book on the general climate topic, so yes he does have some expertise ..which is just more than "man on the street" opinion)
- 5b Note how applying #5 becomes : New Institutional Racism at the BBC.
Yep Greens can come on anytime, but non-greens are banned. That is what a rule banning Lawson and skeptics amounts to.
Smear tricks instead of proper refutation. Classic Ad Hominem.
- 6. Shouting "DENIER !" fallacy
- An example of the "Poisoning of the wells Fallacy". Listen to my side, we have authority, but don't listen to them they have NO authority, whatever they say".Ironically it marks its user as an Eco-nazi
- I should say once again that I find the term offensive, unscientific and unacceptable. The term is clearly defamatory and does affect the income of us skeptics, if the BBC smears us with the term. Ironically it seems to be used by "Eco-nazis", a term with similar weight, that I would not use on air".
- 7. Shouting "There's Powerful skeptic movement funded by Big Oil" smear trick. Always unevidenced, cos there is no evidence. Anyone ever seen anything substantial ? It's just a paranoid conspiracy theory. All I can think of is just one film made by the gas industry to counter Gasland (No I am not talking about the crowdfunded Fracknation)
.. just a paranoid conspiracy theory.
- 8. "You are Flat Earther Fallacy" .. false analogy .. asserting CAGW theory is as certain as something beyond doubt.
- 9.
Monty made me realise I'd left one fallacy off my list.. PROJECTION (the hallmark of a warmist), whatever negatives they accuse us of is what they are actually doing themselves
- 10. Certainty beyond the evidence.
- 11. Overextrapolating beyond the evidence you've got.
| Conclusion
|
- I used to be a normal BBC listener enjoying the BBC's (& other leftwing) science coverage, but in the last 12 years being quite well educated on science I became appalled by the daily deceptions that I kept hearing mostly on green science so that now I find myself everyday checking websites which counter the green religion propaganda that the BBC outputs.
- For me and many others the BBC that used to have so much integrity for science has now lost its integrity due to the pattern of green science reporting it has fallen into. I would like the rational world to take back the BBC/media from the grip of the green business and activists.
| Quickest Summary
|
P Homewood asked why Guardian lost readers. I explain people outside the bubble aren'ttaken in by the same fallacies Guardian is, although Simon Singh etc, are
- Cos their arguments are based on logical fallacies with the Fallacy of appeal from authority as their centrepiece.
- Yesterday when BishopHill wrote about the new RGS magazine propaganda supplement, it lead me to check their record, which showed they summoned Simon Singh to head the Spectator CC debate. He was disappointed he didn't do well. But his understanding of CC skeptism was based on the Guardian fallacies and his entire argument was the authority fallacy "the scientists I am looking at say catastrophe is likely". Both he and Guardian types have kicked the scientific method in the dustbin as they chant "scientists say" instead of quoting proper validated science.
How media get pushed into SHORTCUTS via LOGICAL FALLACIES
- 0. Patronise Fallacy or Su Moore's Law
"Yeh skeptics they're stupid oil funded right-wingers"
- 1. The Fallacy of Rush to Oversimplify
- 2. The "White Coat Fallacy" or "The 'Scientists say' equals science fallacy"
- 3. "Peer Review equals proven Fallacy"
- 4. "The Any White coat Will do fallacy". Hence quoting TV biologists, as climate experts.
( "Scientists say" doesn't become science until it has been properly VALIDATED and that is a process of strong CHALLENGING... by ANYONE )
- 5. "You are not wearing a white coat fallacy" or "ban the skeptics" excuse.
-- Smear tricks instead of proper refutation. All Classic Ad Hominem variations
- 6. Shouting "DENIER !" fallacy - An example of the "Poisoning of the wells Fallacy". marks user as an Eco-nazi
- 7. Shouting "Big Oil" Fallacy... just a paranoid conspiracy theory.
- 8. "You are Flat Earther Fallacy" .. false analogy .. asserting CAGW theory is as certain as something beyond doubt.
- 9. PROJECTION (the hallmark of a warmist), whatever negatives they accuse us of is what they are actually doing themselves
| BBC Scotland bans Skeptics
How BBC's 'selection bias' affects the public
Public - "I don't see any skeptical arguments, so they can't be very good"
|
Science progs keep failing to challenge, so fail the public
| | having another expert is important.. it is noticeable that shows with a panel/audience , bring up more challenges.
Well done @Pharos ..a classic.
- A journos job is to seek the truth on behalf on the public, but when it comes to the theory of Climate Catastrophe is Coming
.. the BBC's crack team of Eco-warrior staff ensure it's NO-Question Time
also applies to any green issue like whether Green Energy are magic solutions ? there is no questioning
Does the BBC have a policy in any other topics of banning non-inclique people from commenting about how
- pubic money is spent
and how policies limiting freedoms are introdced ?
All hail Big Green
|
Woud BBC protect Fracking Scietists In A Similar Way ?
|
BBc Scotand MacLeod has just announced that from now on only when Fracking is discussed only registered fracking engineers should be allowed on air.
- Is that OK with the raving Greens ?
| When a topic comes up how does the producer decide who should comment
|
- The topic must be probed to get to the truth, and unless a presenter us well experienced they would not be able to challenge assertions properly, so often there is a case for bringing on people who think they can counter the assertions, but who ? Producers tend to be lazy and uneducated so they do tend to look for authority figures for experts. Secondly if activist organisations are calling 4 times/day or eating at the same dinner parties as the producers then they get a head start.
- Anyone have any idea of how a producer should select ?
Yes you should listen to the government and the political parties.
- What if the issue was sould we go to war and all the parties were in support, who would you look to then? If a blogger/writer appeared to have a lot of public support and pro-comments would you consider them ?
"only experts can comment" - tosh , says the small boy who had the guts to shout "the king has no clothes"
... The BBC would have course banned him.
The Skeptics are Big Oil Funded conspiracy theory
| |
Did we already know about this Climate Action charity that is running on the bbc's website ?
Climate Asia Media-Action Their last blogpost was Nov 2013 .. I guess licence payers have been funding it.
Ah I get it Media Action is about training people to be media activists.. but the Asia one is entirely focused on Climate
| The Skeptics are Big Oil Funded conspiracy theory
| |
It's about UNEVIDENCED conspiracy theories
People like conspiracy theories cos it ties up everything very simply and they don't have to do complicated thinking and check facts. But the real world is not black & white simple , it's full colour complex. Occasionally real conspiracies happen whether planned or accidental, but the shout is not valid without evidence.
- Now the shout "Oh there is a conspiracy of BigOil to flood the media with anti catastrophic climate change propaganda" is a common example of conspiracy without evidence. I would be interested to see any evidence that shows oil industry spends even 10% of what the multi-national eco-charities spend on lobbying & promoting CAGW annually.
- Note also in science there must be both evidence & a mechanism and I don't see there is a mechanism for oil companies to be against climate alarm as it pushes up oil prices and so pushes up value of profits on the same margin.
| | | | |
|