Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:19 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next
Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science" 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
I don't know much about climate science, but this might be of interest.

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/0 ... e-science/

A few excerpts:

Quote:
I repeat that I am not a full sceptic of climate change, let alone a “denier”. I think carbon-dioxide-induced warming during this century is likely, though I think it is unlikely to prove rapid and dangerous. So I don’t agree with those who say the warming is all natural, or all driven by the sun, or only an artefact of bad measurement, but nor do I think anything excuses bad scientific practice in support of the carbon dioxide theory, and every time one of these scandals erupts and the scientific establishment asks us to ignore it, I wonder if the extreme sceptics are not on to something. I feel genuinely betrayed by the profession that I have spent so much of my career championing.


Quote:
Judith Curry of Georgia Tech moved from alarm to mild scepticism and has endured vitriolic criticism for it. She recently wrote:

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists and advocates. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. The closing of minds on the climate change issue is a tragedy for both science and society.



The following user would like to thank Dexter for this post:
ant, Interbane
Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:35 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7074
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1078
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Sounds like a good book for all of us to read.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:09 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Quote:
Sure, we occasionally take a swipe at pseudoscience—homeopathy, astrology, claims that genetically modified food causes cancer, and so on. But the great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses put to the test. So a really bad idea cannot survive long in science.

Or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.


This is very true and something I read some place else. I forget where.

Bad ideas, or bad hypotheses, are weeded out because of the strongest aspects of the scientific method - testability and replicability. If it can't be tested it's an unworkable hypothesis. If it can't be replicated, it's unverifiable - period.
And what can we say about predictability in all this?

Climate science essentially has only its mathematical models to work with for confirmation of hypotheses. None of this can be tested out in the real world. The predictive power of climate models has been poor and inadequate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I for one support lowering dirty, toxic emissions. i don't doubt they are harmful to our environment.

What I don't buy into is the dogma that's ossified around this entire issue and is now turning into accusations of immorality aimed at people who are skeptical of the science of climatology. Dogma can turn relatively smart people into complete idiots who really just want to ride a moral high horse but don't really know jack-shit about the science.

On a side note, rising nations like India and China have accused countries that demand action be taken now of attempting to stultify their economic growth so as to prevent them from becoming economic super powers.
There's a conspiracy in play.
I mythers can play the conspiracy card so can I.
But wait a second - the great All-knowing Oracle of science has said man is the primary cause of global warming.
The gods have spoken and they are on the side of morality!

Hail to the mighty gods of consensus science! :adore:


EDITED:

Here's another gem from the article:


Quote:
That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked.


Right on the money.

Case in point; climate models that predict the current 17 year pause is just that - a pause, but that the globe will continue to warm at an alarming rate in the future.
How can a "it will happen in the future" conclusion ever be falsified?
Is that science?



Last edited by ant on Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:34 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Interbane wrote:
Sounds like a good book for all of us to read.


Why don't you lead the discussion?
Can you put down Richard Carrier and Daniel Dennett for a few days?

:bananen_smilies035:



Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:36 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7074
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1078
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
I went to buy the book and found a few articles instead. Here's one with quite a few links.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/0 ... t-journal/


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:46 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Interbane wrote:
I went to buy the book and found a few articles instead. Here's one with quite a few links.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/0 ... t-journal/


An article from 2014 that'll debunk an article in 2015!
And from an unbiased "progressive" source "Think Progress" - subcategory "climate progress"


brilliant



Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:46 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Interbane wrote:
I went to buy the book and found a few articles instead. Here's one with quite a few links.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/0 ... t-journal/


I am wondering, were climate scientists surprised by the ocean apparently absorbing all of this heat? Why wasn't this anticipated?

I don't know the history of all the players in this "debate," and I certainly don't know the technical points, but it seems to me Ridley is being viciously attacked for making what seems to be reasonable points about misrepresentation and perverse incentives in the climate science community.



Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:57 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Here is something I came across before reading the climate wars article.
The demonization of Jim Steele

Quote:
Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report.

Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”


There are huge monetary profits to be made within the walls of this politicized science:

Quote:
Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defense Fund’s senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty-two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous?

Why is it acceptable, asks the blogger Donna Laframboise, for the IPCC to “put a man who has spent his career cashing cheques from both the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace in charge of its latest chapter on the world’s oceans?” She’s referring to the University of Queensland’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.


Can we trust spokesmen for climate change that make millions of dollars off it?
I truly believe politics infects everything, especially when billions of dollars can be made.
It's the layman that's duped by all the rhetoric I feel sorry form, in certain cases.
Follow the money trail and you will find personal motive.



Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:13 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7074
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1078
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Dexter wrote:
I don't know the history of all the players in this "debate," and I certainly don't know the technical points, but it seems to me Ridley is being viciously attacked for making what seems to be reasonable points about misrepresentation and perverse incentives in the climate science community.


This is a problem. I don't think either side believes they are wrong or duplicitous, which means their intent is noble. To be skewered for offering dissent is bad for science.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:36 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Quote:
The ocean covers 71 percent of the Earth's surface and contains 97 percent of the planet's water, yet more than 95 percent of the underwater world remains unexplored. The ocean and lakes play an integral role in many of the Earth's systems including climate and weather.


http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html

The absorption of heat by the oceans and the varying temperatures, particularly at unknown depths and its effect on climate is little known.

Quote:
To understand global warming, scientists must first understand the oceans.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-changes/


What does the consensus say about the oceans impact on climate, Interbane?



Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:46 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7074
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1078
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
What does the consensus say about the oceans impact on climate, Interbane?


Is the consensus a person now? :P

The impact of oceans on climate is huge.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:44 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Ant wrote:

Quote:
Case in point; climate models that predict the current 17 year pause is just that - a pause, but that the globe will continue to warm at an alarming rate in the future.
How can a "it will happen in the future" conclusion ever be falsified?
Is that science?


now read this:

Quote:
Excusing failed predictions is a staple of astrology; it’s the way pseudoscientists argue. In science, as Karl Popper long ago insisted, if you make predictions and they fail, you don’t just make excuses and insist you’re even more right than before. The Royal Society once used to promise “never to give their opinion, as a body, upon any subject”. Its very motto is “nullius in verba”: take nobody’s word for it. Now it puts out catechisms of what you must believe in. Surely, the handing down of dogmas is for churches, not science academies. Expertise, authority and leadership should count for nothing in science. The great Thomas Henry Huxley put it this way: “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” Richard Feynman was even pithier: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”


https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/0 ... e-science/




We have a whole lot of opinions being blown around by experts but little predictive evidence from climate models to date.
I reject pseudo science and dogma. Both are intuitively easy for me to spot.



Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:34 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Climate Change: The Facts (http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Dr ... B00S5L5Y0W) has started out very interesting.

I recommend it.
(Kindle: $9:95)



Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:59 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092955.htm

I wonder how this fits in with traditional climate warming predictions.



Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:03 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6364
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1850
Thanked: 2037 times in 1542 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
The uncertainties of chaotic systems like the weather make me want to retreat to the relative certainty of species extinction, now going at a galloping rate due to our ballooning numbers and voracious appetites. I've always thought that the global warming debate just about completely taking over environmentalism has been unhealthy. You have politicians like Al Gore building their multi-million-dollar homes and buying carbon credits to make everything fair and square with the earth. That's a joke.



Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:41 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank