I pass

Yes, the delicate climate punks can only smear and sneer, not actually defend their failed doomsday tripe.

Sorry Phil

I should have made clear that it's a prestigious, 'by invitation only' event.

Not a flashmob gig for crazed green blobbists.

Because of his involvement in the failure of Northern Rock, I'm not Matt Ridley's biggest fan, though what he did in the world of finance and his views on climate change belong in two separate silos. I'm disappointed to see Phil C playing the man rather than the ball yet again. It's also a bit funny in the light of this short extract from Monbiot's piece:
"Northern Rock grew rapidly by externalising its costs, pursuing money-making schemes that would eventually be paid for by other people."

"...pursuing money-making schemes that would eventually be paid for by other people..." sounds a lot like what much of the green blob gets up to.

Its not playing the man to point out that his economic ideas have been discredited, with disastrous consequences for taxpayers and that his 'rational optimism' is based on misrepresenting the science. As Bill Gates points out when Ridley strays into areas where his expertise is not very deep he gets into trouble.

No, playing the man would involve mentioning his 6-figure income from coal. There you go, have a truly unedifying evening.

See also.

Phil

It IS playing the man when you attack him and what he has done, rather than what he says. Attack his arguments in a clear and coherent way, and it's fair enough. Attack his income stream (which he has always fully declared) or his behaviour in other areas of his life, rather than attack his arguments, and you lose credibility.

I repeat that I am no fan of Matt Ridley and his role in the Northern Rock debacle, which was truly a disgrace, in my opinion. But it has nothing to do with his arguments and ideas about climate change.

If you can't understand the difference between playing the man and the ball, then you will be going down in my estimation. I'm sorry to say I've noticed a bit of a trend in your comments lately, linking to articles denigrating an individual and his/her behaviour, while ignoring the underlying arguments, which should be fair game. Is it because you're losing the argument?

PhilClarke thank you for the Bill Gates link, very interesting.

But what he did was informed by the same fundamentalist free-market ideaology as informs his playing down and minimising the risk of AGW. His contempt for state subsidies was ironically and thoroughly discredited when his fiduciary policies led to him begging for, um a massive state bailout. It would be amusing if the consequences had not been so damaing for all of us.This is not playing the man, it is pointing out the flaws in his arguments and where he has mis-stated the facts. Do you dispute the errors in his book that Monbiot highlights? There are many more.

Ridleyed with errors

Phil,

I dispute nothing. I would just prefer it if you argued yourself (rather than linking to others' critiques) against Ridley's arguments and views. As it happens, for once I'm in almost complete agreement with Monbiot on this topic.

I hail from the north east of England, and I know many people who lost jobs and/or lots of money due to the Northern Rock debacle. Some people I know saw their lives blighted for years by the fallout. I have some harsh words reserved for Matt Ridley if I ever meet him.

I still just think it's weak to criticise someone's behaviour and to link to other critiques. It would be stronger to make your own critique of the arguments rather than just attack the man and/or his ideology.

That's all.

Phil's masque slips a little. Can it only be a 'fundamentalist free-market ideology' that informs an argument against catastrophism, which is already causing massive damage through the use of unnecessary fear and misplaced guilt to propagandize the masses?
===============

kim, Green Blob lies and fearmongering are far more effective at generating taxpayer funding without any demonstrable benefit. The amount of taxpayer funding squandered on Green Blob failures and bankruptcies is horrendous.

But this is the type of smear attack that liars like Phil Clarke have to rely on, in the absence of any science.

Matt Ridley wrote this at the GWPF in 2013.

That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept.

He is warmer than most of those posting at Bishop Hill.

Its a free country.Let him talk.

Nobody is advocating censorship, far as I know, Ridley should certainly be encouraged to espouse his arguments so they can be scrutinised. That quote for example, comes from a list of reasons why he needs persuading that current climate policy does not make sense.

It's error-strewn and he gets all his 'facts' from blogs, precisely zero from peer-reviewed sources. As a science journalist he should be ashamed. Joanna Haigh of the Royal Society says that 'some scientist experts will attend the meeting and keep check on the accuracy of the statements'.

So it might be a bit short.

Phil Clarke, did an expert from the Royal Society find any fault with Gergis 2016, Mann's Hockey Stick or any of the other falsified fabrications that came between them?

Why should the Royal Society be trusted anymore than The Sun Newspaper when it comes to climate science? All climate science does is preach what a scorcher we are going to have, and "Phew! What a Scorcher!" is the headline The Sun wants to print. Climate Science keeps being wrong, and The Sun does not get their preferred headline.

Unfortunately, the Royal Society is not the only scientific institution that climate science has compromised.

"No, playing the man would involve mentioning his 6-figure income from coal. There you go, have a truly unedifying evening."

Oct 15, 2016 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I would be more than happy to accept just a 1-figure income from coal (or 2, or 3, or more... ).
You denominate it, I will take it. Right now, I'm having to take your 'edification' for nothing.

From my assessments, burning coal (carbon) to produce atmospheric carbon dioxide generally produces a very significant benefit to the entire biosphere, which also encompasses benefits to humans, not just photosynthetic life forms. Life thrives under conditions of higher concentrations of carbon dioxide. I like life in general, not just my life.

My attitude to Nick Ridley's benefiting from coal is one of envy. I wish I could, and I hope he keeps doing it.

michael hart, some people are earning large 6 figure sums every year producing falsified science to get coal banned.

No, Golf Charlie, that would be Mr McIntyre. I think his chances of becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society are slim.

Phil Clarke, you still can't be grateful towards Steve McIntyre for all the work he has done in pointing out the faults in climate science that taxpayer funded climate science experts couldn't see. It is time taxpayer funded climate scientists had to start refunding some of their ill gotten gains, and fraud investigators started looking into the corruption of peer review, to ascertain whether the same names keep cropping up.

If it hadn't been for people like McIntyre, people like you would still believe in people like Mann and Gergis. At least you have an opportunity to save the 3% of climate science that is worth saving.

Heh, I suspect StevieMac will be fondly remembered when most of these jokers have faded into an indistinct memory of a nightmare.
================

Sounds like a lively evening in prospect.

Look forward to seeing lots of you there.....

And if the defenders of academic 'Climate Science' are out in force on their home turf, I must really remember to bite my tongue and not mention ClimateGate, nor the good Bishop's seminal work on Hockey Sticks...

A tout a l'heure, mes braves.......

Entropic Man:

"Its a free country.Let him talk." +1 from me.

Phil C

Thank you for the link to Matt Ridley's GWPF list/paper. I'd be very impressed if, instead of linking to other people's critiques (whether of that paper or of Matt Ridley generally) you now analysed the paper and took it apart point by point in your own words. We could then have an interesting and meaningful discussion about it. I think that would represent progress.

A rare event that I agree with Entropic, but +1 from me, too

And surely the standard alarmist argument

'We must be right because person XYZ is a Very Bad Person' belongs in the snowflakes kindergarten.

Perhaps hearing Ridley speak would cause Clarke or Monbiot to be 'triggered' and they would have to retreat to their 'safe space' in the latter's Mid-Welsh Yurt. No doubt to the chagrin of any passing Mongolians who would themselves suffer from 'cultural appropriation' of their traditional dwellings.

And of the native Celts of Machynlleth who mayn't be too pleased to be invaded by sanctimonious public school educated English toffs.....

Mark Hodgson, I am sure Phil Clarke will be happy to respond, once he has found someone else's work, that fits his narrow mindset, to copy.

Suppression of dissenting views has always been Climate Science's modus operandii, having learnt from political and religious extremists, and failed in scientific standards of evidence.

CO2 was found guilty, behind closed doors, without trial, evidence, defence, cross examination of witnesses etc. Nobody will admit when this occurred, or who was present. Attempts to provide corroborating evidence since, have just involved doctoring evidence, and lies. Vast amounts of taxpayer's money have been spent enriching the true believers, without discernible benefit to anyone else.

Until such time as Climate Science admits the lies and deceit, it is safer to assume that 97% is made up, and this is why the 97% Consensus was fabricated.