Consistency with Andrew Montford

How much weight should be placed on a particular type of evidence? For  Andrew Montford the answer depends on whether the evidence is good or bad for your case . 

"The latest bright idea" writes  Montford "from CAGW subscribers is to use opinion polls to measure climate change. I kid you not... " Well Montford may not be kidding but he is certainly being economical with the truth. He is referring to researchers taking evidence from remote villagers in the Darjeeling Hills and suggesting that amounts to 'opinion polls' .  It's Montford's way of ridiculing a scientific study that produces evidence he disagrees with.

Last month, in his write up of the Spectator debate there was no doubt about the most impressive argument "Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far."  Doctor Peiser's argument relied solely on opinion polls .  And on that occasion Montford found opinion polls very impressive.

1 comment:

  1. Nice spot of the contrast in the use of opinion polls.

    As it happens many argument from the sceptics rely on opinion pools, for example, claims that so may thousand 'scientists' disagree with AGW.

    I wonder of Monford has ever used such polls in his own arguments.