Friday
Sep162011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Ask for evidence
Sep 16, 2011 Economics Royal Society Sense About Science have launched a new campaign encourage people to demand scientific evidence to support scientific claims made by companies and government.
Shall we start with the Stern Review then? That's a non-peer-reviewed work of art. Where's the scientific evidence?
Interestingly, Sir Paul Nurse is one of the campaign's supporters. This is odd because Sir Paul seems happy with model output alone in some areas of life.
Reader Comments (14)
That's easy then, only redefine the meaning of "evidence" and all of Sir Paul's problems are gone.
Looking through the list of supporters we find quite a few of the brethren of the warmist faith.
What a shame that they seem to be incapable of doing what they encourage others to do.
You may ask but you will not get a reply if it does not fit the agenda or produces the wrong answer.
For example I have now asked my MP, several times, what studies the government has made into the effectiveness of renewable energy schemes in Denmark, Germany and Spain, and specifically about wind farms and solar energy schemes. Each time he passes my letter to Mr Huhne. Each time that Mr Huhne replies (usually after an interval of two or three months and a reminder from me to my MP) he ignores the question. The latest merely refers to the legal obligations we have signed up to.
It is clear that there is a deliberate government cover up about what can now reasonably be described the Great Wind Farm Swindle.
Ah! So maybe that's what the Gorathon was really all about! Gore redefines evidence - while Nurse tells US politicians how they should respond to it!
Simon Singh is on the board of trustees.
I'd be very nervous about asking for evidence in case I was thought a "numpty".
These so called scientists are becoming like politicians, they want you to obey rules that they ignore and they lie when they open their mouths. It time for real scientists to stand up and be vociferous in defending the integrity of their profession.
I have started a discussion with some personal idea's that I feel gather in many worries:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/1598019
Saves me reposting across multiple threads.
Interestingly, on a slight tangent, even the Guardian says that statistics must be used truthfully - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/voluntary-sector-network/2011/sep/05/charity-prs-using-statistics?INTCMP=SRCH
Going down the list of supporters - including many celebrity non-scientists, there is one goupr 'Brighton Skeptics in the pub'. On 14 September, they had a debate on 'Climate Change "Scepticism" (For some reason sceptic with a 'c' is put in quotation marks??). Their flyer says: "From natural cycles to global conspiracies, the climate change"sceptic" uses many arguments to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change. But how well do these arguments stand up and do these people merit the label of skeptics? In this talk we'll examine some of the most common arguments and assess the level of "scepticism" at work."
S0, a group of "skeptics" with apparently pre-conceived conclusions. It would have been interesting to have been there.
Er excuse me Simon Singh
I was at the Spectator debate. Singh presented no evidence in favour of man made global warming. he just relied on the reputations of those who said it, lambasting those who didn't agree with him as unqualified to do so.
So much for 'ask for the evidence.'
Double standards from an unimpressive gadfly minor celebrity idiot.
Sir Paul believes that the fact that he supports a position is evidence for that position. Maybe in this day and age the word 'evidence' must come with qualifiers. How about 'independent evidence'? I wonder if Sir Paul would support a campaign to teach the common man that evidence should be free from control by the person presenting it?
heo,
I feel that you set the barrier too high.
The best thing that we can hope for is that people are free to present evidence supporting the version of reality that each presenter has come to accept as being real.
Each person so presenting should be placed on an even footing.
People listening and learning should be then free to decide which version, or which segments of various versions, that they except, or even be free to keep on searching, if none of the versions seem to fit the evidence to an acceptable level.
Why doesn't the Royal Society just stick to the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science.