Martyn Sadler Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Ahh Lord Ridley, he who was at the helm when Northern Rock sunk... He's a good writer, and throws in just the right amount of dog whistles and nods to get his opinion/bias across. However, unless you dig a little deeper you have no idea if what he is saying is true. "distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion" That's Jim Steele, no PhD, no scientific papers, no published science. He did teach 8th grade science though. Yes that's taking the man not the ball, but reading that article would give you no idea, but that's Ridley's method, throw out a few names, a few ideas. None of these true sceptics will actually check anything. If you lean his direction already its all great. Who else from my list "The GPWF (Lord Lawson), Lord Ridley. Viscount Monckton, Roger Helmer (UKIP), Christopher Booker (Telegraph), Delingpole (Briebart)..." are you going to hold aloft as a beacon of truth? It's certainly possible to criticise Ridley's article in the way you do. It would be useful, though, if we had someone giving an opposing view who was able to counter his arguments rather more convincingly that claiming guilt by association, which seems to be the standard argument from far too many people. We need to find a climate scientist who can write in a way that we can all understand. Ridley's stance seems to me not to question that climate change has significant human causes, but that the danger that flows from that is over-stated, and that there are other environmental issues that are potentially more dangerous. I suspect that he may be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Whereas you just doff your cap, tug your forelock and fawn to the self appointed experts in the aristocracy. Please grow up, if you want to be taken seriously. Actually the main "self appointed expert" in the aristocracy is Prince Charles, who is fully on board with the so-called consensus on climate change. So I will leave the forelock tugging to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 We obviously need to know what Jeremy Corbyn's stance is on climate science. Presumably, because he's on the left of the Labour Party, his views will be beyond criticism at least as far as you are concerned. Martyn, I have written that people on the left tend to have a bias towards believing climate change. People on the right have a bias against. You seem to assume that everyone on who disagrees with you has fallen for this bias, whereas you are immune. The science is not politics however. The people doing the science, regardless of their politics, have a consensus and that is that it is real. I have no interest in Jeremy Corbyn's stance on climate science anymoer that I am concerned with Ryan Gigg's opinion on cake baking. I would not declare Jeremy Corbyn a scientific visionary for agreeing with me. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 It's certainly possible to criticise Ridley's article in the way you do. It would be useful, though, if we had someone giving an opposing view who was able to counter his arguments rather more convincingly that claiming guilt by association, which seems to be the standard argument from far too many people. We need to find a climate scientist who can write in a way that we can all understand. Ridley's stance seems to me not to question that climate change has significant human causes, but that the danger that flows from that is over-stated, and that there are other environmental issues that are potentially more dangerous. I suspect that he may be right. Maybe they are too busy doing sciency things than write articles in right leaning magazines? (You mean Quadrant leans to the right? I'm shocked) You may be surprised to know many scientists are not that great at public speaking or TV interviews. However, you seem to be taken by a smooth talking peer, can I sell you a monorail? Shelbyville has one! With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 We obviously need to know what Jeremy Corbyn's stance is on climate science. Presumably, because he's on the left of the Labour Party, his views will be beyond criticism at least as far as you are concerned. He thinks its real and is happening. His lefty brother doesn't. With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 It's certainly possible to criticise Ridley's article in the way you do. It would be useful, though, if we had someone giving an opposing view who was able to counter his arguments rather more convincingly that claiming guilt by association, which seems to be the standard argument from far too many people. We need to find a climate scientist who can write in a way that we can all understand. Ridley's stance seems to me not to question that climate change has significant human causes, but that the danger that flows from that is over-stated, and that there are other environmental issues that are potentially more dangerous. I suspect that he may be right. I would suggest the Royal Society are fairly good at reviewing the situation. https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/ "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Martyn, I have written that people on the left tend to have a bias towards believing climate change. People on the right have a bias against. You seem to assume that everyone on who disagrees with you has fallen for this bias, whereas you are immune. The science is not politics however. The people doing the science, regardless of their politics, have a consensus and that is that it is real. I have no interest in Jeremy Corbyn's stance on climate science anymoer that I am concerned with Ryan Gigg's opinion on cake baking. I would not declare Jeremy Corbyn a scientific visionary for agreeing with me. No, but I don't dismiss someone's opinions based solely on whether I happen to believe whether they fall on the right or the left of the political spectrum. I'm no expert, but I can only make judgements on what I read, and as I said earlier I accept that humans play a significant role in climate change, but that the dangers that flow from that are uncertain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Maybe they are too busy doing sciency things than write articles in right leaning magazines? (You mean Quadrant leans to the right? I'm shocked) You may be surprised to know many scientists are not that great at public speaking or TV interviews. However, you seem to be taken by a smooth talking peer, can I sell you a monorail? Shelbyville has one! You fall into the same trap as Bob, dismissing an argument because of where it is published. Whether Matt Ridley is a smooth talking peer I have no idea, never having heard him speak. But we need people like him, as well as people from all shades of political thought, to keep an eye on what the scientists are doing. You seem to have a touching faith in the integrity of scientists that is close to quasi-religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I would suggest the Royal Society are fairly good at reviewing the situation. https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/ I believe that the article you cite, as well as the associated video, are written and presented by Sir Paul Nurse. Sir Paul is a brilliant fellow, and has a Nobel Prize for his work in the field of genetics. Brilliant though he is, last time I looked, genetics didn't have much to do with climate science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 You fall into the same trap as Bob, dismissing an argument because of where it is published. Whether Matt Ridley is a smooth talking peer I have no idea, never having heard him speak. But we need people like him, as well as people from all shades of political thought, to keep an eye on what the scientists are doing. You seem to have a touching faith in the integrity of scientists that is close to quasi-religious. You appear to be falling into the trap of judging a person's credibility by whether they agree with you. I judge a person's credibility on the issue as to whether they can demonstrate experience and understanding of an issue, you disagree and call this "fall[ing] in the same trap". Very well, we can all have out approach. You say we need people of all political thought to look at the issue. It is a fair statement. Fortunately, we do have people of all shade of political thought in science and in climate science. They have come to a consensus. I am "falling into the trap" of respecting their opinion over those whose opinions are (like yours) based on their politics. If either of the Corbyn brothers, Ridley or yourself do actual research and demonstrate some level of understanding, I will hold these opinions as highly credible too. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I believe that the article you cite, as well as the associated video, are written and presented by Sir Paul Nurse. Sir Paul is a brilliant fellow, and has a Nobel Prize for his work in the field of genetics. Brilliant though he is, last time I looked, genetics didn't have much to do with climate science. No. Clearly, we need a zoologist. The article is an agreed statement by people who actually do science. He did not write it in isolation. If you do not like this article, you can click through the Royal Society, where it is all well referenced. There is no assertion that you should take an individual's opinion. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 You seem to have a touching faith in the integrity of scientists that is close to quasi-religious. Its quaint how despite your free thought, that you are sticking to the deniers playbook.? With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 I believe that the article you cite, as well as the associated video, are written and presented by Sir Paul Nurse. Sir Paul is a brilliant fellow, and has a Nobel Prize for his work in the field of genetics. Brilliant though he is, last time I looked, genetics didn't have much to do with climate science. Anyone can write about science. Some people will link to pseudo experts and bloggers as the evidence to back up their opinion. Some people will link to published scientific papers and experts who actually work in the field. I know who I'd trust more. With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C H Calthrop Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Reproduction is a difficult issue in climate science, by the very nature of the subject that is being studied. Matt Ridley is a science writer who, I think, recognises this point, and who has some interesting comments to make on the current state of climate science. And I rather doubt whether he is a creationist. There really isn't any such thing as climate science. Climate study is an amalgam of many disciplines. They are presented under the umbrella of Climate change and it all seems very new and most unlike any science the layman has heard of. There has however been one scientific discipline that has studied climate change for hundreds of years and records the subject over millions of years worth of available data. Geology unlike climate science it is altogether a more difficult prospect to have its waters political muddied, unless you are a creationist, And does not rely on "Climate Science" for its data. https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Policy-and-Media/Consultations/2013-Responses/House-of-Commons-Science-and-Technology-Committee-Inquiry-on-Public-Understanding-of-Climate-Change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 Some lovely graphs from a leftie rag - http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted September 24, 2015 Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34342808 One of the most influential US energy politicians says she will reject the Pope's plea to tackle climate change. Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee, says the jury is out on global warming. --------------------------------------------------------------- Asked what scientific evidence would persuade her that climate change was a threat, she replied - "I don't think you will see me being persuaded." Asked whether she accepted the theory of evolution she said: "No I do not." With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff9of13 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34342808 One of the most influential US energy politicians says she will reject the Pope's plea to tackle climate change.Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee, says the jury is out on global warming. --------------------------------------------------------------- Asked what scientific evidence would persuade her that climate change was a threat, she replied - "I don't think you will see me being persuaded." Asked whether she accepted the theory of evolution she said: "No I do not." "it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.