Thursday, July 10, 2014

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 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 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  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?

Between lines 57/100 -  Ridley spends 272 words berating John Cook on account that he isn't an actual "climate scientist." 

John's bio is clear enough, besides Cook is a communicator and reporting what scientists have to say about the state of the science and Earth observations.  Seems that despite all the pot shots being hurled at them John and his team continue doing an excellent job collecting and reporting climate science studies, and they offer the links to encourage further independent investigation.  
Ridley writes #74/76 - "My understanding is that his blog simply does what you do, parroting what CACC-supporting scientists say about those processes and drivers. "
Think about what you are saying dude, John Cook's website is dedicated to collecting and reporting on new climate science studies, geared toward intelligent curious folks, they are an archive documenting how the science is developing - in that respect saying they "parrot" scientists is a real compliment.  

Why do you keep amping your rhetoric with all that insinuating wordsmithing?  To me it seems to have a down-right malicious streak, what's up with that?  Don't you realize it makes you sound like a politician, not any sort of rational seeker of knowledge.

Why do you ignore that SkS links to and reports on new scientific studies, with simple explanations, "further links" and a comments thread to answer questions and argue answers?  
Isn't that 'scientific discourse' among lay-people at it's best?

Furthermore, Ridley what's with your habit of labeling mainstream scientists "CACC-supporting" it's like a dog-whistle.  Do you understand the concept cumulating compounding interest as it relates to Earthly details such as our rising shorelines and their impacts on coast cities and infrastructure?  
How about explaining just what you mean* by "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change"?  how bad does it need to be

{*I'll show you mine, if you show me your's} 

~ ~ ~

Lines 175/306 consisting of about 675 words goes on about, with 360 words (lines 221/306) being devoted to reviewing SkepticalScience contributors.  Quite frankly it was pointless and there's  nothing there to discuss.

Ridley, why are you so desperate to trash the reputations of these people?  And why aways dragging the discussion away from the substance of the issues supposedly being discussed?

Ridley writes #180/184   Footnote 1 - John Cook’s Skeptical Science blog could be considered to be the CACC-supporters equivalent of John O’Sullivan’s Principia Scientific International blog. 

What's a person supposed to make of that?  

I gotta wonder about the mindscape you inhabit.  Look at the SkepticalScience website - pick an article and you will find a simple clear review of legitimate scientific papers/publications along with rational explanations that "parrot" recent scientific findings including links back to original sources.  

Isn't that how an adult learning process is supposed to work?

Aren't we supposed to be figuring this out? What would be your alternative to the service that provides?  Why do you sound like you find them reprehensible?

And what on Earth does your long winded missive regarding SkS have to do with edifying me/us regarding what MODTRAN is telling us?

As for O'Sullivan and his many misdeeds, some crossing the line to criminality, do a search you'll find plenty of reasons why many consider him a pariah.  Trying to cast Cook in that mold reveals a rabid dedication to ideology over rationality.

I do appreciate that one of the few things you and I seem to agree on is our loathing for this O'Sullivan character.  Since he's been brought up I should add some supporting information which explains why so many have such a low opinion of the man.

Sunday, February 23, 2014 
John O'Sullivan says! So what... 
~ ~ ~ 
Saturday, July 28, 2012 
John O'Sullivan, master manipulator - A Closer Look 
~ ~ ~  
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 
John O'Sullivan: My Hidden Muse 
~ ~ ~ 
Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan 
Thu, 2012-07-26 
by Brendan DeMelle and Richard Littlemore 
~ ~ ~ 
John O'Sullivan 
  • Credentials heavily contested. No reliable source available."
~ ~ ~ 
The other Wegman ironies 
December 9, 2010 by greenfyre 
It takes a while for this one to get to O'Sullivan, but it's a fascinating review of the infamous Wegman Report and the Republican/Libertarian shenanigans surrounding that much plagiarized and grossly misleading report. 
~ ~ ~
But, I digress.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I know "wingnuts" is not a nice thing to say, but then what should we call folks who refuse to accept credible Earth observation data.  Folks who are convinced that tens of thousands of scientists are in on some conspiracy  - worse folks who lie about what scientists are reporting and who deliberately manipulate words to mislead the uninformed innocents - totally focused on winning their political battles with hubristic disregarding for obvious geo-physical realities?

These are the names Ridley wants me to learn from, take a closer look at their records and lack of credibility.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Christopher Booker 
~ ~ ~ 
Nigel Lawson 
~ ~ ~ 
~ ~ ~ 
Roy Spencer 
~ ~ ~ 
Joe Postma
Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Posted on 17 August 2011 by Chris Colose 
~ ~ ~ 
Joanne Nova 
~ ~ ~ 
Almost everything we know about fake sceptics like "Joanne Nova" is spot on...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 


citizenschallenge said...

"Pete Ridley - comment at 5:16 AM" - REJECTED!
I'm done with your game of inane obfuscation.

Your rude avoidance will no longer be tolerated over here! If you can't answer my questions directly and in good-faith - your comment will be rejected.

citizenschallenge said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
citizenschallenge said...

I sent off this email to our pal Mr. Ridley:

Mr. Ridley,

Now you are turning into a jerk. If you can't get on topic and keep away from your worthless obsessing over trivial grips that add to nothing except avoiding the real discussion and wasting my precious time, I see no reason to do you the courtesy of continuing to post your drivel.

It is possible to have a rational discussion with someone you don't like, but it requires good faith in the discussion, unfortunately from our exchanges I see you don't possess any of that - it's all game playing with you.

You seem to be one of those who loves the endless dog-chasing-tail sophomoric debate. Makes me think of folks stand around watching their boat sink arguing over how fast it's sinking, rather than trying to bail and patch.