Comments on: Royal Society Puts Matt Ridley And His Friends On Notice

By: diggerjock

diggerjock — Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:20:52 +0000

In reply to Geoff Sherrington.

Well said Geoff, but it isn’t easy as the facts are plain and hard to dispute rationally.

Hence the proliferation of irrationality, appeals to authority and ad hominems.

Climate science it appears is now wholly a belief system.

By: diggerjock

diggerjock — Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:55:54 +0000

This thread is a cacaphony of name calling.

I can understand that Matt Ridley threatens some dearly held positions, but has no one the wit to put up a reasoned and scientific response.

I really do despair for the future of scientific debate

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:18:42 +0000

One of Matt King Coal’s arguments is about global greening, which is a laughable concept, and is addressed in part and indirectly here:

https://thinkprogress.org/new-study-shows-how-climate-change-is-already-reshaping-the-earth-ef9c83c97799#.xiuwzuy2c

Dana Nuccitelli has addressed some of Matt King Coal’s key points in a blog post at The Guardian, here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/oct/19/no-longer-taken-seriously-were-seeing-the-last-gasp-of-climate-denial-groups

I address, along with Peter Sinclair, a number of Matt King Coal’s other statements in the past here:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/11/30/matt-ridley-and-benny-peisers-misleading-guide-to-the-climate-debate/

By: Marco

Marco — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 05:53:42 +0000

Geoff, could you tell me what you thought of Ridley’s conspiracy theory that a paper was deliberately not submitted such as to keep it out of the IPCC AR5?

Which was a bit weird(*), since Ridley responded to criticism of Bob Ward that he was well aware that the numbers out of that study had changed between 2012 and 2013, and thus *knew* they were still working on the data.

(*) Well, weird for a rational person. For the Ridley’s of this world, holding at least two contradictory views at the same time is a necessity.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 01:29:11 +0000

Geoff, his talk, of which I’ve seen the transcript, was appalling, full of lies.

There are various debunkings out there. Ive not done one. I will eventually, when I get around to it, post on that, but for now I have more pressing matters than to deal with this crazy old man who loves his coal more than he loves his planet.

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 01:22:07 +0000

So, after the Ridley lecture which was mostly talking around an assemblage of IPCC and related graphs, is anyone offended?
Seems to me that if you are upset, your effort is needed to counter the points you disagree with in the Court of Public Opinion.

By: BBD

BBD — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:26:29 +0000

The usual contrarian bollocks.

I see you are peddling your lukewarm nonsense at AT’s now. It won’t fly there.

By: RickA

RickA — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:37:12 +0000

Here is a link to the talk (which was the subject of this post):

http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

By: The Royal Society and the GWPF | …and Then There's Physics

The Royal Society and the GWPF | …and Then There's Physics — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:50:17 +0000

[…] Laden, has responsed positively to this, suggesting that the Royal Society is putting the GPWF on notice. Possibly, but I think the Royal Society is making a mistake. I think they’re falling into […]

By: Julian Frost

Julian Frost — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:47:55 +0000

RickA, you do not understand what censorship is. This cartoon will explain.
http://xkcd.com/1357/