2 of 2
Wild Gyrations in Winter Temperatures.  Why?  A primer by Paul Beckwith
Posted: 12 February 2018 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  2121
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 12 February 2018 02:43 AM

All you can do is trash the scientist after a decade has passed and there has been no warming increase that amounts to anything of value. //ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/freedomwatch/peter-ridd-raised-99k-defend-freedom-speech-just-48-hours Peter Ridd has some of the problems caused by actions of your type.

Okay so it’s Mikie’s McExperts Time

Peter Ride fighting valiantly against the politicized scientific community.  Let’s take a closer look

Courtesy of Graham Readfearn Posted on June 24, 2016

More sophistry from The Australian on coral reef science in wake of Great Barrier Reef bleaching

If you’ve been reading The Australian recently, you might think that coral reef science is in some kind of crisis.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper has been attempting to spin the worst coral bleaching event in the reef’s recorded history as a beat-up by environmentalists and high-profile scientists.

It isn’t.

The latest instalment came earlier today from the newspaper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd, under the print headline “The bleaching of parts of the reef is dividing the scientific world” and online under the headline “Great barrier battleground over coral bleaching.”

Lloyd seems to be trying to construct a narrative that the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and the subsequent death of about a quarter of all the corals has opened some sort of schism among scientists.

The bleaching, writes Lloyd, has “unleashed long-simmering tensions over the quality of reef research.”

This is, in my view, bollocks [sorry kids].

Lloyd includes three individuals to back up his claims. They have two things in common.

One is that none of them are anywhere close to being actual experts in coral biology.

The second thing Lloyd’s “experts” all have in common is a broad rejection of the science linking dangerous human-caused climate change to fossil fuel burning,
something Lloyd does not mention.

Let’s look for a minute at who Lloyd quotes to back up his narrative.

First there is Prof Judith Curry, of Georgia Tech University, who has no peer-reviewed publications at all in relation to coral reefs.

Having a solid body of peer-reviewed research behind you in the relevant scientific field should be the pre-requisite for assigning “expertise”.

Curry is a favourite among climate science deniers for her view that human-caused climate change is a beat up.

Then there is the curious inclusion of Jim Steele, of San Francisco State University. According to that university’s website, Steele is “emeritus” – which means he is retired.
( And when he was with them he was a camp director, trail guide and bird watcher, and back stabber*. - Yes I do have the details angry  )

I cannot find a publication listing for Steele, but this biography suggests expertise in biology and, in particular, birds.
In 2013, Steele released a book claiming that climate change was natural and not being caused by humans.

(Oh my old pal Steele the Sierra Fraud https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/in-nutshell-jim-steele-proposes-that.html)

Then there is James Cook University’s Prof Peter Ridd, who is not a coral biologist.
He has published work on how sediments and waters move around coral reefs, but I am told he has no expertise on the biology of corals.

Lloyd again neglects to mention Ridd’s work on projects to support the construction of fossil fuel export facilities along the Queensland coastline close to the reef.

Nether does he mention Ridd’s tendency towards climate science denialism. ...


* Okay so the back-stabbing is mainly in his emeritus days and not at the Sierra Camp.

Hoegh-Guldberg is currently at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Hawaii with a couple of thousand other reef and coral experts.
He has read the story in The Australian, and told me:

What is curious for me is that Graham Lloyd chose to speak with Ridd, Curry and Steele, and not the scores of coral experts that are available in Australia and elsewhere.

When you look into the background of each individual, you find that Peter Ridd is a sedimentologist, Judith Curry a climatologist, and Jim Steele –
a bird enthusiast who works in the Sierra Nevada – which at last count appears to be a long way from a coral reef.

I don’t think there is a single scientist at this meeting who will support the position taken by sedimentologist Peter Ridd or, for that matter, Curry and Steele. 
That is pretty telling.

Not exactly your most qualified experts. None of them has published in the peer-reviewed literature on coral bleaching – they are simply not experts.

But in my view, not only did Lloyd choose people who were “simply not experts” but he also missed some key facts and nuance in his scrambled narrative.
...  Then it gets interesting check it out

Posted: 12 February 2018 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  2121
Joined  2016-12-24

Why doesn’t that sort of malicious contrived politicization of science ever bother Mike Yohe?

Here’s some interesting related thoughts,

Science on the verge?
Posted on June 13, 2016   by ...and Then There’s Physics

Michael Tobis has posted a recent article about who decides what is true? He addresses an interesting issue; when you work within a discipline,
you typically know what is regarded as credible and what isn’t. Explaining this to those on the outside, though, can be very difficult.
Given that alternative ideas are rarely simply dismissed, it can be quite easy for some to promote views that seem plausible to those on the outside,
but that are regarded as probably flawed to those on who work in the field. How to address this in a world where it is important to know what is true and what isn’t,
is a complex and difficult issue.

I’ll let you read Michael’s post to find out more, but this gives me a segue into discussing another related topic.
There’s a new book called the rightful place of science: science on the verge, which Judith Curry discusses here.
My immediate reaction was rather negative, but I went through this presentation and it makes a lot of good points. ...

2 of 2