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.
(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, 2015Part 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.
