Donna on Activists, the IPCC and Vampires (wtf ???)

Canadian advocate positioned as skeptic Donna Laframboise's schtick is to draw attention to the links between IPCC scientists and any group that can be painted as any shade of green which in Donna's weltanschauung makes them "activists".  I'll let Donna explain in her own words what this adds up to :

"Imagine you're an accident victim on the side of the road. You're told not to worry, that the person who is going to wait with you until the ambulance arrives is trained in first aid. What you aren't told is that he is also a vampire and that the blood seeping from your wound will be difficult for him to resist . You have not been warned about the presence of another agenda - one that changes the picture dramatically."

Scary stuff . That's from her new book which boasts glowing testimonials from Matt Ridley, Ross McKitrick, and Richard Tol.  All three have connections to think tanks such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation (all), The Fraser Institute (McKitrick) and  Economic and Social Research Institute (Tol). A point  Donna and her publisher neglect to mention.


Tweet

 

The Optimist Activist

`Time is running out’ wrote two activists in Scientific American in August, `to limit acidification before it irreparably harms the food chain on which the world’s oceans – and people – depend.’

That's a quote taken directly from Matt Ridley's website and Times article which is used to suggest ocean acidification has been exaggerated. I didn't know Scientific American was biased by activism, shocking. Googling the quote finds the piece and the authors Carl Safina and Marah J. Hardt.  They do not describe themselves as  'activists',  the relevant point is they are more eminently qualified to write about the oceans than Matt Ridley . Both are PhDs, Hardt's is from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and both have won awards too numerous to mention. Matt Ridley neatly skips past all that, to him they are just 'activists'.
Matt Ridley likes to describe himself as the rational optimist. That's the title of his book and his website. Optimist yes, but how rational ? Perhaps the answer can be found by reading his paragraph 3

"The trouble is, a shoal of new scientific papers points to the conclusion that this scare is based on faulty biochemical reasoning, unrealistic experiments and exaggeration."

Dr Ridley cites three papers and it is clear this statement is opinion rather than fact. There is nothing wrong with having opinions but if he can't be honest about the weight to attach to the opinions of other scientists why should we attach any weight to Ridley's opinions? I've left a comment on Dr. Ridley's website that all this makes him an activist. He hasnt got back to me.