Discussion with Pete Ridley #4 The SkepticalScience Factor

In order to make Pete Ridley's 2150 word long response to my "Discussion with Ridley #3" manageable I went and copied the response from his website and pasted it into a word program, then I eliminated blank lines and the resultant line numbers and word  (including links) counts are what I'm using - the #s may not translate with absolute precision - please consider them rough orientation coordinates.  

Since about a thousand of Ridley's words have to do with a diversion into dissing John Cook and the SkepticalScience.com team.  I've decided to separate this John Cook business into it's own post, though I only quote a few words of Pete's attack.  I will get back to Ridley's confusing MODTRAN song and dance in a later post.

I imagine Ridley took umbrage at my calling some of his sources "Wingnuts" because that's when he comes back at me claiming that John Cook was a scoundrel on a par of O'Sullivan.  

OK sure, I should learn to use more sterile wording, but you know with all the needling Ridley dishes out, he ought to be man enough to take a little in return.  

But then among contrarian types the double-standard is standard.   {Incidentally, at the end of this post I offer a look at these characters Ridley puts out there as trustworthy sources - which they most certainly are not.} 

In any event, Ridley took my infraction to mean it was open season on John Cook and his SkepticalScience.com team.  Oddly I made no mention of John Cook nor did I quote him.  What I did was share a portion of an article that was posted at SkepticalScience.com.  The article was written by Riccardo who happens to have a PhD, though in materials science - and this from his SkS bio: 

"Being a long time sailor, I needed to know at least the basics of meteorology. More recently I developed the interest in climate science and thought that I could take advantage of my background in physics to study and communicate it."

~ ~ ~ 

I'd like to ask Pete Ridley: what's wrong with having someone like that report on the state of knowledge regarding GHGs and their respective convective equilibrium, radiative equilibrium and such?

Discussion with Pete Ridley #3

At first I had intended to go through our longish email exchange and pick out highlights I wanted to discuss, but I'm over it.  Ridley's given me plenty of fodder in real time plus he's taken up enough of my time already.  Here we go with the third installment.  

This time I am not posting Ridley's complete 1400 words since, quite frankly, too much of it is confusing gobbledegook, to borrow his own term.  If you're into the slough check out his link below, see if you don't agree that Ridley seems conflicted and unsure if he wants to talk political shenanigans or science, although I'm getting the feeling it's all the same to him.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html?showComment=1404767773627#c6142771578776265384

Pete Ridley - July 7, 2014 14:16 PART 1 

What on earth gave you the idea that I wanted to Talk science here? My blog name gives the game away about my topic of interest – Global Political Shenanigans. Anyone deciding to read articles on this blog should recognise from its name that they are likely to encounter comments from politicians and political pundits like Christopher Booker, Matt Ridley, Nigel Lawson and his GWPF. {...} 

I did try to help you to find reliable sources of information about greenhouse gases to help you better understand the impact of atmospheric CO2. It seems to me that you need all the help that you can get. 

{...} “ .. It seems that the difference between thee and me is that I am searching for the truth about CACC while you are simply promoting your environmentalist agenda .. ”.

~ ~ ~

Yea, my agenda... like honestly learning about our Earth's geophysical processes.  What do you have against learning about our planet or being concerned about our biosphere's wellbeing?  

You do realize it's our life support system, don't you?

Incidentally, why shouldn't Earth have an advocate?

complexity and confusion, and the public's Need To Know

As part of my 'process' I find good YouTube lectures to listen to and make short notes, listed by time signature, both for learning and as a nice relief from trying to communicate with contrarians -  also hopefully as a study aid for the curious.  Usually I post them over at citizenschallenge.blogspot.

In any event, I've been going through Professor Alden Griffith recent talk at Wessesley College and he said something that tied right into this dialogue with Ridley and his basic implication that the scientific community of experts should not be trusted and that somehow there needs to be some civilian scrutinizing of scientific claims and details. {yea, Ridley you never said it in those exact words, but buddy, that's what I'm hearing you say.} 

29:50 - complexity and confusion. . . "public should not have to know everything about climate science, just as we shouldn't have to know everything about medicine. We have doctors, we have people that we trust to do this, …"

Prof. Alden Griffith on Climate Change as a Perfect Storm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj0kWcurtOI

WellesleyCollege

Published on Jan 14, 2013

Alden Griffith, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Wellesley College

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

We have a global scientific community of people who got into science because they wanted to understand how things really worked in the world around them.  They have dedicated their lives to learning about our planet and it's biosphere and the geophysical processes that operate our biosphere and drive our climate system. 

Throughout the scientific community we have smart, skeptical, ambitious people who's work get's looked at by a whole community of other smart, skeptical, ambitious people… experts in their respective fields.

Precision and accuracy and clarity of description is prized and failures get discovered and outed.

Discussion with Pete Ridley #2

Deep down my hope is that some intelligent students read some of these posts, because I've learned that taking the time to answer and hope for a rational discussion with a denialist character like Pete Ridley is a hopeless endeavor.

But, it's not a hopeless exercise if it helps some better understand the types of diversions denialist have honed to a fine art.  Perhaps it'll help some better prepare for the various "debate tricks" and tactics you'll run into if you vocally defend serious professional rational scientists and their findings against the Republican/Libertarian ideologues who see nothing but a political contest to win at all cost with license to fabricate their facts at will.  

Not much else to add.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pete Ridley said...

Discussion with Pete Ridley #1

{edited Saturday evening}

Recently I've exchanged a couple emails with Pete Ridley, our unlikely connection is on account of mutual blogging regarding that fraud John O'Sullivan, though I haven't taken the time to become acquainted with the particulars of their feud.
[Ridley has reminded me that we had actually met earlier, in the comments section - http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bbc-earth-climate-wars-dr-iain-stewart.html ]

In any event, though Ridley and I agree on our contempt for O'Sullivan, Ridley doesn't accept the scientific consensus among climate experts regarding global warming and what's driving it. 

Not sure why, but lately he's taken to counseling me on the errors of my supposedly gullible scientific establishment loving ways.  In the process I've been pulled into a discussion at globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com, that has in turn motivated me to use a couple quotes as a vehicle to highlight some of the dishonest tactics used by such folks.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Ridley writes: In November 2013 you (CC) opined that " .. Colorado experienced its most extreme weather event in recent memory between Sept. 9 and 15.  .. resulting in massive flooding .. Predictably, folks are asking: Is this related to man-made global warming?  That a question that is both easy and tough to answer.  Our climate system is a global heat-distribution engine .. our land, atmosphere, and the oceans have indisputably warmed .. our atmosphere’s moisture content has been measurably increasing.  Given such geophysical realities, it is self-evident that all extreme weather events contain elements of this newly energized climate system.  And that much more of the same must be expected. So in that sense, the answer is easy: Yes .. " (see: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/10/colo-floods-statistics-vs-physics.html). 

That's a lot of conviction from someone with no more than lay understanding of the subject. Despite your efforts in that article to give the impression of a sound understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates you demonstrated that your understanding is very limited. {Pete "tells" me I'm wrong, but doesn't show us by confronting my specific claims with contra-evidence.  What's up with that?  

A)   Our climate system is a global heat-distribution engine .. our land, atmosphere, and the oceans … B)   have indisputably warmed … C)   our atmosphere’s moisture content has been measurably increasing.  }

Let me give you an example.

Who is Patrick Moore the contrarian?

Greg Laden recently wrote about another representative of the "No Worries - Do Nothing" gang who claims to be what he ain't.

It seems that in the tradition of climate science deniers everywhere, Patrick Moore is another character who pads his resume' with false claims to pump up his projected credibility - in the process revealing himself to be a tad morally bankrupt and opportunistic - indicating a lack of that commitment to the truth which is the hallmark of the practicing scientists he tries so hard to defame.  

Conjuring projections while disregarding factual substance.

Here are some excerpts from Greg Laden's article:

Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore.

Posted by Greg Laden on June 27, 2014

Isaac Asimov considers The Relativity of Wrong

A few months ago I stumbled on this old article by Isaac Asimov published at Skeptical Inquirer in 1989.  I thought he did a very nice job of discussing the development of knowledge with an eye towards considering the significants of our decreasing uncertainty in the knowledge that we do possess.  I thought it would make a good addition to my collection over here since trying to grasp the reasoning of our right-wing climate science denier pals is what my little journey is all about.

Getting permission turned into a convoluted trail of dead ends, but I finally did get through to the Asimov estate -