4 ms·

I draw no conclusions about his legal win. But I do note that he is a scientist who worked on the reef and he completely disagrees. I additionally note that h

I draw no conclusions about his legal win. But I do note that he is a scientist who worked on the reef and he completely disagrees. I additionally note that he was pretty aggressively silenced and his livelihood taken away, "unfairly" according to the courts. I worry that this is how you get to 99% - crushing dissent through intimidation, and not debating? He says he only spoke up because he was so close to retirement age, and he was only able to achieve a legal win because of crowdfunding. Most other scientists are not in that position - the consequences of speaking up would appear terrifying. Dunno, maybe he is a complete crank, but you can see how it might give a dispassionate observer pause for thought and a bit of discomfort.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
Maybe I'm just lazy but I'm pretty sure I'll never be an expert in climate science. So when a near consensus of actual experts in climate science say that something is happening I'm happy to believe them and move on to pondering other mysteries that aren't so clear-cut. That this guy opposes that consensus and takes funding from interest groups like the IPA, mining companies and cane growers leads me to another, quite possibly equally lazy conclusion. That he was not treated fairly, I'll take the judge's word on that, too. The university's position was, ironically, partially about the quality of the debate: “The University has not objected to Professor Ridd's right to comment on quality assurance. However, the University has objected to the manner in which he has done this. He has sensationalised his comments to attract attention, has criticised and denigrated published work, and has demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions in doing so. Academic rebuttal of his scientific views on the reef has been separately published.”
- MikeOfAu 7y ago
  "near consensus" .. yeah I've come to realise that this is not as straightforward as it is often presented. For a start, a scientist would not find the term "consensus" at all compelling. Things are either proven or disproven when it comes to science. "Percentage of Consensus" is more about social engineering, and it is more something a journalist might seize upon. But if you DO want to use the figure ... it has been pointed out that the 97% figure generally quoted came from a survey. Another survey at precisely the same time showed 51%. Which survey should be used? As I understand it, the 51% one apparently had a bigger sample size. One certainly sounds a lot less certain than the other. And finally, as was my point from the last post, even if you accept the 97% figure, don't you have to worry if there is the chance it is achieved through fear of reprisals for disagreement? Let them speak. Let's hear their crazy ideas. Crush their ideas, not their dissent. My favourite left-wing commentator used to always say "the solution to bad-speak is more-speak". He was saying that silencing is bad. Anyway, that's enough of this debate for me. Frankyl, it is all very unclear to me. I envy those who are completely certain.
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    > For a start, a scientist would not find the term "consensus" at all compelling. Things are either proven or disproven when it comes to science. This is only true for hard sciences, i.e. physics, chemistry, maths, etc. (EDIT: And even then, I'm just gonna throw in Pilot-Wave-Theory, as an example that some things have yet to be proven or disproven... and maybe even never will be?) Soft sciences have to rely on consensus, essentially by design.
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    I don't want to debate facts either. It seems silly. The thing is that we've let the climate deniers speak. But science isn't something you get to have an opinion on. Particularly not if it's been proven that you have a financial interest in muddying the waters. Don't you think it's strange that the only people who are interested in prolonging the "gee, is it actually happening?" speculation are the same people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
    - zo1 7y ago
      "Particularly not if it's been proven that you have a financial interest in muddying the waters." The other side has, arguably, beneficial (if not financial) interest in promoting their climate views. Just because on the surface it seems noble, doesn't mean it isn't being abused by those that wish to take advantage of it. And this is particularly pertinent if the "pro-climate" side has a very distinct pro-government-expansion component nested within it, if not downright socialism.

cookie_monsta 7y ago

Maybe I'm just lazy but I'm pretty sure I'll never be an expert in climate science. So when a near consensus of actual experts in climate science say that something is happening I'm happy to believe them and move on to pondering other mysteries that aren't so clear-cut. That this guy opposes that consensus and takes funding from interest groups like the IPA, mining companies and cane growers leads me to another, quite possibly equally lazy conclusion. That he was not treated fairly, I'll take the judge's word on that, too. The university's position was, ironically, partially about the quality of the debate: “The University has not objected to Professor Ridd's right to comment on quality assurance. However, the University has objected to the manner in which he has done this. He has sensationalised his comments to attract attention, has criticised and denigrated published work, and has demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions in doing so. Academic rebuttal of his scientific views on the reef has been separately published.”

MikeOfAu 7y ago
"near consensus" .. yeah I've come to realise that this is not as straightforward as it is often presented. For a start, a scientist would not find the term "consensus" at all compelling. Things are either proven or disproven when it comes to science. "Percentage of Consensus" is more about social engineering, and it is more something a journalist might seize upon. But if you DO want to use the figure ... it has been pointed out that the 97% figure generally quoted came from a survey. Another survey at precisely the same time showed 51%. Which survey should be used? As I understand it, the 51% one apparently had a bigger sample size. One certainly sounds a lot less certain than the other. And finally, as was my point from the last post, even if you accept the 97% figure, don't you have to worry if there is the chance it is achieved through fear of reprisals for disagreement? Let them speak. Let's hear their crazy ideas. Crush their ideas, not their dissent. My favourite left-wing commentator used to always say "the solution to bad-speak is more-speak". He was saying that silencing is bad. Anyway, that's enough of this debate for me. Frankyl, it is all very unclear to me. I envy those who are completely certain.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  > For a start, a scientist would not find the term "consensus" at all compelling. Things are either proven or disproven when it comes to science. This is only true for hard sciences, i.e. physics, chemistry, maths, etc. (EDIT: And even then, I'm just gonna throw in Pilot-Wave-Theory, as an example that some things have yet to be proven or disproven... and maybe even never will be?) Soft sciences have to rely on consensus, essentially by design.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  I don't want to debate facts either. It seems silly. The thing is that we've let the climate deniers speak. But science isn't something you get to have an opinion on. Particularly not if it's been proven that you have a financial interest in muddying the waters. Don't you think it's strange that the only people who are interested in prolonging the "gee, is it actually happening?" speculation are the same people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
  - zo1 7y ago
    "Particularly not if it's been proven that you have a financial interest in muddying the waters." The other side has, arguably, beneficial (if not financial) interest in promoting their climate views. Just because on the surface it seems noble, doesn't mean it isn't being abused by those that wish to take advantage of it. And this is particularly pertinent if the "pro-climate" side has a very distinct pro-government-expansion component nested within it, if not downright socialism.