AGW vs Terrorism? Open Letter to Matt Ridley, Benny Peiser, WSJ

Dear Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser,

The ease with which you two misrepresent the facts in your Wall Street Journal op/ed “Complete Guide to the Climate Debate” is appalling.  Your opening shot reveals a determined self-imposed ignorance regarding the seriousness of today's AGW threat to our planet's life support system that demands a pointed rebuttal.  

You write:  "In February President Obama said, a little carelessly, that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism." What do you mean?  "A little carelessly"!??  Where do you two get off belittling the physical reality and future consequences of ongoing documented trends?  You willfully ignore decades worth of global news so as to remain "innocent" to the evolving situation.
(At the end this letter I share a response to the op/ed's lies from 7 leading climate scientists.) 

What terrorist threat to New York is greater than the threat of it's streets, subways and subterranean infrastructure being inundated by the ocean?  What terrorist threat is greater than killer heat waves, such as the one visited on France in 2003 and sure to revisit?  What terrorist threat is greater than the potential impacts of continued severe drought on California?

Any objective awareness of the evolving world news would make you understand that I could fill pages with examples of such monstrous real world threats from our warming and rapidly evolving global climate system - threats that far outweigh our self created and fueled, terrorist problems.

STOP HIDING !    TAKE A LOOK !

http://www.climatehotmap.org

_____________________________________________________________

The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters.  1995-2015

http://www.unisdr.org/2015/docs/climatechange/COP21_WeatherDisastersReport_2015_FINAL.pdf

The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)

CRED’s Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT)

The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

Foreword

Who we are

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1 . . .  Weather-related disasters 1995-2015

Chapter 2 . . .  Human costs of weather-related disasters

Chapter 3 . . .  Impacts of weather-related disasters by country

Chapter 4 . . .  Weather-related disasters & national income

Chapter 5 . . .  Counting the economic costs of disasters 

Acknowledgements 

_________________________________________________

A warming planet promises threats for our modern top heavy society, that only an appreciation for it's complexity will allow one to grasp.  Sadly your Republican/libertarian PR Machine has been very successful at confusing and dumbing down the public.  When honest education is what's required, you conjure fairytales, hostility, lies, bullying and slam your minds shut.

It is simply ludicrous pretending our weather doesn't have a deep impact on the wellbeing of our economy at every level, from agriculture, to transportation, construction, communication, the power-grid, even your beloved military-industrial complex and beyond.  Not to mention our own wellbeing as we go about our day to days. 

#2 - Matt Ridley let's debate your "cheerleaders for alarm"

Matt Ridley this is the second installment of my review of your blogpost What the climate wars did to science where I describe the various failures in your arguments.  Last week I contacted you about the first installment and to offer a formal invitation to debate.  But, you've remained silent.  
(Admittedly Matt, I can appreciate that hiding from my intellectual challenge, like Jim Steele does, makes more sense than joining the debate in a fair and square manner and revealing how bankrupt your arguments are - still the invitation remains.)

Now on to considering your "cheerleading for alarm" section.

______________________________

Policy-based evidence making is all too frequent in climate science

By Matt Ridley |  The "Rational Optimist.com" |  Published on Sunday, July 05, 2015
Part Two ±450-935 (out of 5950 words)

Matt Ridley:  Cheerleaders for alarm. This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. 

__________________________

What precisely?  You define nothing!

"Cheerleaders for alarm" ? - Who, What, Where, When?

"climate debate" -  It's tough to get any more inclusive than that.

Then you pull the dirty trick of jumping from the nebulous "climate debate" to the "whole reputation of science."  Matt, where do you get off pinning what pundits have said onto scientists?  That's pure dishonestly!

By playing this game you allow yourself to smear any scientist with whatever nonsense you like.  Even though that nonsense never came from any real scientist to begin with.  

That's called fraud and has nothing to do with learning about the why and how of the scientific understanding that underpins the current global warming "consensus."

_____________________________________________

Matt Ridley:  The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses. 

______________________________

Matt, I suggest your "bad idea" is to tailor your sentences toward belittling scientists and rejecting their evidence without ever even considering that evidence.

Here you deliberately ignore the severe impacts that past climate changes had on the biological systems that had developed under their previous climate regime. 

Matt Ridley let's debate your "What the climate wars did to science"

{edited for typos and some minor additions 19:30 MDT }
_____________________________________

Matt Ridley I've been reading your "What the climate wars did to science" and I'll give it to you, it's one piece of work.  From the bizarre comparison of "Lysenkoism" with two centuries worth of climate science; to your championing that artful misinformer JimSteele (a person who regularly attacks scientists based on misrepresenting the facts, while hiding from debating the merits of his storyline.); then you pile on the malicious Dr. Parmesan slander campaign (while lying about what her paper actually says); etc.; finishing with that lofty plea to 'keep the debate alive'.  It really is too much, still I'm thinking you want a debate, Okay, let's have a debate!  

I believe I can explain why your words are such deceptive theater while outlining the difference between your brand of 'playing games for short term political gain' and scientists commitment to learning in order to understand reality as it is, rather than how we wish it could be.

I challenge you, Matt Ridley, to participate in this public "debate" by rationally explaining why you might disagree with my assessment.  I will post your comments unaltered - I'll even consider a "guest post" from you, if it contains a substantive rational response.

We'll see how it goes.  Since your blog post was six thousand words long and I have very limited free time these days, and people have limited patience, I'll be doing this is smaller segments.  Here I review your first 450 words.

Sincerely,

Citizenschallenge

________________________________________________

What the climate wars did to science
Published on Sunday, July 05, 2015, updated Sunday, July 05, 2015 
by Matt Ridley - at the so-called RationalOptimist.com  -  5950 words

Policy-based evidence making is all too frequent in climate science