tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5295690057436680747..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Matt Ridley couldn't support his ridiculous claimsSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52636960751610069602013-11-02T20:45:29.466+11:002013-11-02T20:45:29.466+11:00So you will correct your paper? It contains a mist...So you will correct your paper? It contains a mistake, as you have now been made aware of.<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34715001069049454322013-11-02T18:52:29.644+11:002013-11-02T18:52:29.644+11:00Oh my! This from the person who spent weeks tweeti...Oh my! This from the person who spent weeks tweeting and posting stuff all over the internet, trying in vain to dispute Cook13, and still hasn't admitted he was utterly and completely wrong!<br /><br />I still have to read your paper, Richard. It's not been my top priority and I've been quite busy this week. <br /><br />If Ridley wasn't wrong about your paper, then it's probably fair to say that you were wrong in your paper. I'll add a comment once I've determined which it was.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38498299418518310862013-11-02T17:51:51.316+11:002013-11-02T17:51:51.316+11:00It is one thing to make a mistake. It is quite ano...It is one thing to make a mistake. It is quite another to let a known mistake stand.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34379693123235250872013-10-31T12:29:27.357+11:002013-10-31T12:29:27.357+11:00Seems to me Richard's comment here was as much...Seems to me Richard's comment here was as much about correcting your factual error as it was about defending Ridley. Try being a little gratious and admit you wrongly accused Ridley of misrepresentation. Won't happen though, will it ? More likely that you will somehow try to blame Anthony Watts for your cock-up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79640605338719990202013-10-29T13:23:49.147+11:002013-10-29T13:23:49.147+11:00Richard - so you're saying that your work show...Richard - so you're saying that your work shows that:<br /><br /><i>"2 degrees Celsius will probably, in aggregate, do net economic and humanitarian good to mankind"?</i> <br /><br />Really? If that's the case I'd like to see your work subjected to scrutiny.<br /><br />And no comment on all the "wrongs" in Matt's article, Richard? Although Matt suggests it, I find it hard to believe that your paper states that a rise of two degrees will happen: <i>"without raising sea levels sufficiently to do serious harm."</i><br /><br />If it does, you are likely very, very wrong.<br /><br />The GWPF should be very proud of you appearing to defend Matt Ridley's nonsense while not really doing so. It must be getting very difficult to straddle the disinformation from the GWPF and people like Matt Ridley on the one hand, while attempting to maintain academic integrity on the other.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29552406887206908002013-10-29T05:52:37.815+11:002013-10-29T05:52:37.815+11:00Matt Ridley correctly cites my work.Matt Ridley correctly cites my work.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80933548062555799432013-09-27T05:10:24.528+10:002013-09-27T05:10:24.528+10:00This seems to refute Ridley's arguments and em...This seems to refute Ridley's arguments and emphasize that something needs to be done now:<br /><br />http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034033/pdf/1748-9326_8_3_034033.pdfBwana_mkubwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61914791878409761612013-09-26T10:40:33.511+10:002013-09-26T10:40:33.511+10:00Since we've already experienced some 'mild...Since we've already experienced some 'mild warming' no doubt Ridley can point to the consequent increase in biodiversity...LOL.<br /><br />All we can say over the last century is that we have become better equipped to begin to measure biodiversity, whatever the direction it is headed...and that we have unequivocally diminished and fragmented natural habitat, have unequivocally reduced many population numbers, while creating a few new impoverished niches and unwittingly favoring some species in the process. So whatever effect warming [or cooling] has is well submerged in losses associated with human modification of the environment.<br /><br />Ridley is not even beginning to engage with reality if he is claiming net ecological benefits.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28217159153211905032013-09-26T05:27:59.286+10:002013-09-26T05:27:59.286+10:00Just had quick look at the 2004 study (Hitz, S. a...Just had quick look at the 2004 study (Hitz, S. and Smith, J. Estimating global impacts from climate change. Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 201–218) Mr Ridley cites. It’s a rather long paper so I will quote the basic conclusion from the Conclusions and discussion.<br /><br />“That said, one consistent pattern is that by an approximate 3–4oC increase in global mean temperature, all of the studies we examined, with the possible exception of those on forestry, suggest adverse impacts. It appears likely that as temperatures exceed this range, impacts in the vast majority of sectors will become increasingly adverse. Although many studies point to substantive impacts below this temperature level, there is no consistency; in some cases they are negative and in others positive.”<br /><br />At one point in his WUWT post Mr Ridley writes “Please note that the papers cited in the 2004 paper I mention also discuss how such mild warming will raise biodiversity, ecosystem productivity and net primary production, so the net benefits are ecological as well as economic.” <br /><br />However, unless I’m missing something from the primary literature, I don’t see any mention of effects at the 1-2oC change Mr Ridley is talking about in terms of biodiversity. In fact the section on Terrestrial biodiversity in Hitz and Smith ends with “We are highly confident that biodiversity will decrease with increasing temperatures; what is uncertain is whether the relationship between higher GMT and loss of biodiversity is linear or exponential.” (GMT, global mean temperature)<br /><br />As you note, not exactly stellar support for Mr Ridley. You have to wonder if he knows the meaning of the word adverse.<br />Mike Pollardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73260512686309417552013-09-25T19:54:52.812+10:002013-09-25T19:54:52.812+10:00Another problem for agriculture is that much of ou...Another problem for agriculture is that much of our food is grown on land within 5 feet of sea level, particularly on the great river deltas which are home to hundreds of millions of people - Nile, Ganges, Bramaputra, Mekong etc - and rising sea levels will make the soil more saline and then drown it. Cereal doesn't grow very well in sea water!Alan Cnoreply@blogger.com