99 Quackery in bigging up Extreme Weather CO2 connection

If etc.

Mon, 17 Feb "Dr Chris Smith aka The Naked Scientist investigates climate change and whether weather is getting more extreme, designing a smarter power grid to integrate sustainable power, and the eight great science technologies Britain is good at according to the Universities and Science minister David Willetts."

Topic: Extreme Weather MMR in edition from the AAAS

  - Chris, ignored the 999 scientists who collect their PROPER evidence first & broadcasts the 1 scientist who will jump the gun & express certainty, but who can give NO proper evidence .. Well I didn't hear any broadcast.  

- So that's NakedScientists bigging up Extreme Weather/CC link just like people did with MMR/autism.
.. and spitting in the face of proper scientific method.   

- Should be Proper Evidence first then certainty,
- Science is VALIDATED your theories by predicting things before they happen, not goal poaching by right at the end. "yeh drought, just like I said", " yeh, floods/winds just like I said"

NS should know what is the difference between VALIDATED SCIENCE and people over-extrapolating certainty from their passionate opinions, which come from a basis in science. This phrase "is consistent with"certainty is so similar to the MMR/autism scare.
- If Wakefield had sound MMR science, he would be able to produce multiple proper trial data showing a link between autism and MMR. That would be validated by an ability to predict that groups with vaccinations got more Autism cases than similar groups.
- As we know he "jumped the gun" and went beyond-science in over extrapolating certainty from his opinion. Given the chance he would have behaved like this claiming events (flooding) as his own after they occurred (post hoc) and shouting for action. Validation of this theory doesn't come from goal poaching at the end, but rather from consistently being able to predict patterns of extreme weather well in advance.  

 Jumping the gun is not the way science is done, you collect your  proper evidence, and then claim victory. Not claim CERTAINTY and call for Action NOW ...& get your evidence later.

Proper Evidence first then certainty

. 50% of published science does not stand the test of time (JPA Ioannidis), VALIDATED science=TRUTH, Peer(pal)Reviewed=opinions you run past your mates

E

- If Wakefield had sound MMR science, he would be able to produce multiple proper trial data showing a link between autism and MMR. That would be validated by an ability to predict that groups with vaccinations got more Autism cases than similar groups.

- As we know he "jumped the gun" and went beyond-science in over extrapolating certainty from his opinion. Given the chance he would have behaved like Slingo claiming events (flooding) as his own after they occurred (post hoc) and shouting for action. That is quack & activist : quacktivism.

But just like him, validation of Slingo's theory SHOULDN'T come from goal poaching at the end, but rather from consistently being able to predict patterns of extreme weather well in advance.

- Jumping the gun is not the way science is done, you collect your proper evidence, and then claim victory. Not claim victory call for ACTION NOW and get your evidence later.

- Slingo, The BBC et al are bigging up Extreme weather link just like people did with MMR/autism.
.. and spitting in the face of proper scientific method.

If Julia "knew" why didn't you tell the EA and stop the floods ?
- No she is simply drunk and claiming the credit afterwards

Great for teaching Critical Thinking

but NS warmists haven't yet engaged (maybe applying a "never debate a skeptic ... cos you might give them publicity" rule)

Honestly you could take that podcast to the local high school and convert the whole class to skeptics by getting them to check it for errors even though.

I want to add this to their forum from my notes :
- Honestly you could take that podcast to the local high school as it would make a great critical thinking lesson
- get them to check it for other childish errors

Intro 1. Why did they open by mentioning that Nobel Prize claim ? (seeking argument of authority fallacy)
2. Is it true ?
(It's not true has Laframboise has pointed out repeatedly, the prize was awarded to the IPCC as a groupb only and only Al Gore can claim as an individual everyone else has been clearly told to remove any plaque they have made up. The truth is 100s of skeptic scientists were in that group so the Nobel prize should not be used to champion warmist cause.)
Go through the podcast line by line

E

E

Should scientists resort to propaganda? actual wording was super alarmist