David Robert Grimes is not a complete loony

My original notes

- How we get science coverage wrong Hosted by Birmingham Skeptics in the... Wednesday, September 10 at 19:30
- Despite the toxic atmosphere he had created already, by telling us there was a big conspiracy of DENIERS .and they are all free market nutcases, who watch Fox News instead of getting the truth that is available on the Guardian and BBC.

I tactfully asked if had any evidence forthe 'ALL' claim. - But I suggested that people could check on the net the 97% comes from a sample size of 84 ....(out of 87 published climate scientists, who were a subsample of the 1,200 members of the AGU geographers union who had replied)
- his presentation was like that of an angry 5th former.

Now I could be wrong on climate & He could be ultimately right, but I think I am years further along the logic chain than he is ..how we have to pity these deluded individuals trapped in their fantasy universe. (ironically his Projection led to him claiming many skeptics are smart but they live in a fantasy universe)

Then 6 weeks later BishopHill site has news that Grimes won an award

- 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.

Wow I made a small error both of the Skeptical Science papers have been descredited , but the Cook 97% still remains published , it was the Lewandowsky Smear paper that was formally withdrawn

(The intention of Cook's paper was to confuse and sow mischief and it confuse and that's what it did) 1. Cook's 97% was published last year but subsequently rebutted for massive flaws by this peer reviewed paper

2. Was the withdrawn Lewandowsky paper I mentioned..basically from same office as Cook. also very similar as it was based on "independent" researchers surveying papers 3. was the tiny sample size opinion poll 76 out of 79 climate scientists ..(agree with something everyone agrees with that temperatures have warmed , and on Q2 whether man was a significant contributing factor 75/77 said yes)

- So the problem is now that warmists can cite that Cook 97% paper "there is a paper which say 97% of climate scientists believe Climate Change is real", without mentioning that it is flawed
.. skeptics say the statement is rubbih anyway cos the warmists didn't define the term "Climate change" .. the reality is 100% of people agree climate changes ..it is not always the same year to year century to century.

The reason why I forgot was that everytime I ask activiss for evidence of that 97% claim they can nevr telll me ..it's just "everyone knows"

19 Nov 2014 in a Which Magazine article : challenge claims and stand up for science