The Broken Science Initiative with guest, William Briggs

The Broken Science Initiative

Academy for Science and Freedom presents: The Broken Science Initiative with guest, William Briggs.

William Briggs is a writer, statistician, scientist, and consultant. Previously, he worked as a professor at the Cornell Medical School, a statistician at DoubleClick in its infancy, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service, and an electronic cryptologist with the U.S. Air Force. Briggs is a collaborator on The Broken Science Initiative.

5 17 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Andrews
April 18, 2023 7:55 am

Clicking the watch button brings up a blocked page message

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Dave Andrews
April 18, 2023 9:16 am

Blame your ISP or local censor. I just watched right through. An entertaining presentation, worth spending some time on..

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  It doesnot add up
April 18, 2023 12:57 pm

maybe his ISP is a climate alarmist 🙂

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 19, 2023 8:03 am

First time this has happened. Normally no problems. Still says blocked.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dave Andrews
April 19, 2023 9:20 am

This is weird. Just watched the climate change bit over at Briggs site.
Came back here tried it again and it’s ok!

Perhaps my computer wanted some time off 🙂

April 18, 2023 8:10 am

You can skip to 35:05 for his CC observations. Great vid ! worth watching it all…

Gunga Din
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 18, 2023 12:30 pm

Thanks for that tip.
After watching from that point, I think I might go back and listen from the beginning!

UK-Weather Lass
April 18, 2023 8:28 am

Absolutely brilliant video from beginning to end of questions, and right up there with must see, hear and appreciate favourites. And he destroys the myths of AI and machine learning in the only way they can be destroyed – by stating the facts which destroy the hype.

Top guy.

John Oliver
April 18, 2023 8:28 am

I was fortunate to have teachers and professors that just constantly pounded us with the difficulty in science with measurement, bias, how difficult it is to get good reliable data. Methodology. Remember the horror stories from PHD (candidates ) having their thesis shredded. I don’t think that rigor has existed for a while now.

Reply to  John Oliver
April 18, 2023 1:41 pm

Me too and mentors at the company I worked for on the ASME committee on measurement accuracy. All these claims by so called scientists can not be verified with the equipment they use to measure. End of (false) story!

Jeff Alberts
April 18, 2023 9:02 am

We’ve got enough broken science, we don’t need an initiative for it.

/s for the sarcastically impaired.

April 18, 2023 9:25 am

Those funding this science on behalf of public policy and investment are effectively agents of ransom. “Do as we say or else you and your children will die. Science”.

Pat from Kerbob
April 18, 2023 9:45 am

This linked article is not about climate, it is about thought control and the use of language, language control leading to thought control.
Which of course ties in with climate “science” and the attempts to squash debate

Settled science

This is the best thing i have ever read on the subject.

Rud Istvan
April 18, 2023 9:49 am

A comment about the broke statistics. Back when I was learning probability theory and statistics (stuff like the BLUE theorem) almost everything was done by hand. Getting the hands ‘dirty’ meant you knew what you were doing before you did it. These days, most of the stats in papers are generated by stats packages. And that automatically leads to a lot of misuse. P values are but one example. The Bonferroni correction to autocorrelated N is another. So a lot of supposedly significant stuff gets reported that actually isn’t.

A former partner’s husband was a tenured professor of statistics at U Chicago. This stuff would drive him crazy; abuse by PhD candidates in their work.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 18, 2023 6:24 pm

In experimental design, I was was taught that it included predetermination of the statistical test BEFORE running the experiment. As soon as you start trying various tests using a statistical package, you have grossly biased or even invalidated your research.

At this stage, I am not inclined to believe any research finding until the work has been independently replicated several times and reached comparable conclusions.

Unfortunately, in “climate science,” the marketing and communications people are enamored with “new,” “novel,” groundbreaking,” “first ever,” …

Reply to  pflashgordon
April 18, 2023 7:34 pm

Not to mention “its worse than we thought”. This should be a big red flag to anyone. If it’s worse that we thought, then why were you thinking that? Last week, you were claiming exactly that. Yet nobody ever submits a retraction.

April 18, 2023 11:05 am

More experimental science, less simulation and statistics.

Kevin Kilty
April 18, 2023 11:41 am

I know Matt Briggs a little. We’ve corresponded. Just to be a bit onery I sent him some money a few years ago through Paypal and told him that I did so because I’d gotten a very small “windfall” royalty from an oil well in Wyoming and I wanted him to have to say, tongue in cheek, that he was now being backed by “big oil”.

This talk was simply excellent, and I want everyone to know that big oil got its money’s worth today.

Last edited 1 month ago by Kevin Kilty
Steve Case
April 18, 2023 11:51 am

Does X affect Y should be followed with, “If yes how much or in what way?

A favorite whipping boy is methane and how many times more powerful at trapping heat than CO2 it is. It’s implied that yes it will run up global temperature but we are NEVER told how much by when.

It’s probably less than 0.05° by 2100.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 18, 2023 12:03 pm

It’s probably less than 0.05° by 2100.

That’s welcome news.

Because 0.05C is the “tipping point”.

If it gets to 0.051C, civilizations will be devastated.

(Humor me, I’m trying out for a “climate correspondent” gig with The Guardian.)

Reply to  Steve Case
April 18, 2023 12:16 pm

Steve, an interesting one is Ozone. Only about 60 parts per Billion, it’s absorption band sits right in the middle of the atmospheric window and it makes a fairly big hump for its small concentration at 9.6 microns. CH4 is 1700 parts per Billion.

Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 18, 2023 1:14 pm

DMacKenzie the label is “Oxygen and Ozone” and oxygen makes up almost 21% of atmosphere. How do we know how much of that “big hump” is ozone alone?

Last edited 1 month ago by mkelly
Gunga Din
Reply to  Steve Case
April 18, 2023 12:38 pm

Man’s CO2 got their foot in the door. (The Ozone Hole never got much traction.) Now they are expanding even to the point of demanding no meat or fertilizer.
All based on a Crystal Ball PC Model propped up by a broken Hockey Stick.

Harry Passfield
April 18, 2023 12:09 pm

A brilliant presentation by a man in charge of his facts and able to speak articulately about them. In the whole hour or so of the presentation I never felt the need to fast-fwd or give up. Incredibly, during the whole talk I couldn’t help but think that Briggs was the long lost Colonial cousin to our own Chris Monckton: there is a definite resemblance, m’Lord. 🙂
The main take-away was that models are not data – and his exposition on PM2.5 ‘science’ was a revelation.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Harry Passfield
April 19, 2023 5:29 am

That PM2.5 “science” is being used by forestry haters who want all wood burning to end- claiming that PM2.5 causes many diseases, especially asthma- which is a big problem, supposedly, in some of the poorer cities in Woke-achusetts- forgetting that in those cities many people smoke cigarettes in their homes. I have a nephew who has asthma probably since his father smoked 3 packs/day.

April 18, 2023 12:48 pm

Very good.

Joseph Zorzin
April 18, 2023 1:03 pm

brilliant! I’ll now watch the others in the series

Kit P
April 18, 2023 2:44 pm

What I loved about this presentation is I now have a quick come back the next time my youngest son tells me that I do not care about his future.

I will tell him that my generation saved his generations from an ice age by burning lots of fossil fuels.

Of course that is BS but no more so that suggesting I do not care about the future.

When I was in high school there were predictions that we entering a new ice age. BS of course because the planet has been in the same ice age for more than 3 million years. The amount of water in the liquid form increases and decreases.

Since I might live 100 years and the current climate has lasted more than 3 million years, I would say that the climate is not changing.

If I have a vote I would vote to get rid of the ice. More water and more CO2 means more life.

April 18, 2023 8:49 pm

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! WUWT and the Wonderful William Biggs. An extremely interesting and entertaining video. Eyes and ears glued!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights