Matt Ridley in denial about being in denial

Matt Ridley: 5th viscount Ridley no less, peer of the House of Lords, educated at Eton and obtaining a zoology degree at Magdalen [pronounced maudlin for you uneducated oiks] and currently a science journalist after his previous job as Chairman of Northern Rock [before the bank went tits up]. So he should be a clever man.

Matt Ridley claims he is not a AGW denier, rather that he is a true sceptic. He accepts AGW, he accepts the human driven release of CO2 has warmed the planet… a bit. He is definitely not a science denying weirdo like many on ‘t’internet’. Yet Matt’s last two journalistic outings on Climate Change would rather suggest he is a big fat fiber.

In September [28th 2013] Matt wrote an opinion piece for his regular slot in the Times ‘Global lukewarming need not be catastrophic’ – it is behind a paywall but he reprints it in his Rational Optimist blog. The title gives the clue, his opening paragraph-

In the climate debate, which side are you on? Do you think climate change is the most urgent crisis facing mankind requiring almost unlimited spending? Or that it’s all a hoax, dreamt up to justify socialism, and nothing is happening anyway?

Because those are the only two options, apparently. I know this from bitter experience. Every time I argue for a lukewarm “third way” — that climate change is real but slow, partly man-made but also susceptible to natural factors, and might be dangerous but more likely will not be.

Matt Ridley sets the scene: he is an outsider, hounded by both ‘sides’, but his middle way shows that rises above the debate. In the first instance Matt Ridley is firmly with the deniers as being on the ‘Academic Advisory Council’ of the GWPF [Global Warming Policy Foundation], a thinktank with the supposed agenda of offering balance but churns out the same old myths. Matt Ridley shares the Academic Advising with such denialists as Ian Pilmer, Dr Indur Goklany, Professor Robert Carter, and a host of other fake sceptics including the economist Professor Richard Tol. Do remember him.

Matt continues-

Yet read between the lines of yesterday’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and you see that even its authors are tiptoeing towards the moderate middle. They now admit there has been at least a 15-year standstill in temperatures, which they did not predict and cannot explain, something sceptics were denounced for claiming only two years ago. They concede, through gritted teeth, that over three decades, warming has been much slower than predicted. They have lowered their estimate of “transient” climate sensitivity, which tells you roughly how much the temperature will rise towards the end of this century, to 1-2.5C, up to a half of which has already happened.

there are two issues here, that the IPCC has changed its position on the threat of AGW and mention of ‘transient’ climate sensitivity. Even though Matt is a scientist he doesn’t get TCS [transient climate sensitivity].

IPCC authors concluded that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2 (a concentration of approximately 540 parts-per-million (ppm)), or equilibrium climate sensitivity, very likely is greater than 1.5 °C and likely to lie in the range 2 to 4.5 °C, with a most likely value of about 3 °C. For fundamental physical reasons, as well as data limitations, the IPCC states a climate sensitivity higher than 4.5 °C cannot be ruled out, but that agreement for these values with observations and “proxy” climate data is generally worse compared to values in the 2 to 4.5 °C range. [from wikipedia]

IPCC AR5 physical science report has reduced the lower end of the “likely” equilibrium sensitivity range from 2°C in AR4 to 1.5°C.The 0.5°C drop on the lower estimate ‘most likely’ temperature increase is transient: a short term- i.e. up to 2100, temperature rise with the doubling of CO2 from 280ppm. Currently it is 400ppm and if business as usual continued the doubling would occur in 2050. To pretend that a 0.5°C is good news is to miss the point- it may simply buy a little more time. See here for more details of this long running misinterpretation.

The ‘stand still’ of global surface temperatures is just another denier talking point. There has been no cooling, or standstill and scientists are neither baffled or unable to explain the slow rising in Global Surface Temperature. Tamino followed up Ridley’s fellow GWPF academic advisor Dr David Whitehouse who pushes the ‘no-warming’ ‘failure of IPCC models’ denialist line, on his blog.

After another paragraph of denier talking points- the sea levels aren’t rising much, the Antarctic is melting- he ends

-Talk of tipping points is gone.

Talk of tipping points was not in AR4 either, but the report on mitigation which follows the report for policy makers did briefly mention tipping points- the point we have no chance of returning the climate in the long term to something like the way it was. In fact, scientists are critical of the IPCC AR5 for giving the illusion that change will be gradual.

Ridley then bemoans the fact that only if the IPCC [the hundreds of scientists that contribute papers, perhaps?] had listened to Wattsupwiththat, Bishops Hill and other denier blogs in the past then they would not be in this embarrassing position of climbing down from being doom merchants. The IPCC is more certain of the A in AGW and warns of the C- the complete opposite to denier blogs.

After taking on the victim stance that climate sceptics [denialists] are called names and evil and compared to Nazis he winds up the piece with.

Of course, the IPCC’s conversion to lukewarming is not the way it will be spun, lest it derail the gravy train that keeps so many activists in well-paid jobs, scientists in amply funded labs and renewable investors in subsidised profits.

Hardly a veiled version of the usual ‘AGW is a hoax’ ‘Climate change is a scam’ or ‘the UN just wants to tax us’ and other tinfoil hattery.

Bob Ward of the Guardian wrote about the campaign by the likes of GWPF [and it’s academic advisor writing in the Times] to undermine the IPCC report even before it had been released.

Among many false assertions by Lord Ridley was that the IPCC had “lowered their estimate of ‘transient’ climate sensitivity, which tells you roughly how much the temperature will rise towards the end of this century, to 1-2.5C, up to a half of which has already happened”.

This was wrong because the transient climate response refers only to a doubling of carbon dioxide levels over 70 years, but as the IPCC report points out, concentrations could be much higher by 2100, leading to much greater levels of warming.

But Lord Ridley’s brother-in-law, Owen Paterson, the UK environment secretary, was clearly oblivious to the glaring error in the article and incorporated it into his speech at a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference, declaring: “I think the relief of this latest report is that it shows a really quite modest increase, half of which has already happened. They are talking one to two and a half degrees.”

Matt Ridley was not pleased and wrote a stern letter to the Guardian.

In his continuing attempt to polarise the climate debate into believers and deniers, Bob Ward has resorted to conspiracy theories and attacked me.

After reiterating that he was right in his interpretation of the TCS he changes the subject and mentions a paper by fellow ‘Academic Advisor’ to GWPF Richard Tol an economist. In a 2009 paper where he reviews 14 economics papers [one of which is his own and half being from the 1990s] Tol concludes that in the short term warming will be beneficial. The paper is free to download – and concludes that there a great many unknowns and fixing the right price for carbon is tricky to get right.

There is a strong case for near-term action on climate change, although prudence may dictate phasing in a higher cost of carbon over time, both to ease the transition and to give analysts the ongoing ability to evaluate costs, benefits, and policy mechanisms.

Which transforms into

[Tol] found that there is likely to be net global benefit to human or planetary welfare from warming till temperature has increased by 2.2 degrees from 2009 levels, which is about 3 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. This is before taking adaptation into account so it is conservative. That means probable net benefit from climate change until towards the end of the century.

So that’s ok? our children will be fine but the next generation will have to deal with the negative effects? The rest of the letter, like most climate change deniers then goes on to mention the poor people who suffer fuel poverty along with

hunger, malnutrition and respiratory ill health by today’s climate policies

A nod to those terrible wind turbines driving up home energy prices and the Third World who we stop from having a better life. But respiratory ill health? Pollution from coal power stations and diesel particulates is part of the fossil fuel world- what I expect Matt Ridley is saying is that poor people are being denied electric cookers and heaters and have to burn dung and wood in their huts. Ridley is a long standing care troll. The reason poor people burn wood and dung for cooking in unventilated huts or slums is that the electricity and gas companies don’t tend to offer that service, and besides electric hobs don’t come cheap on $1 a day.

Mr Ward appears to think they [poor people] should be ignored in favour of concern for the welfare of wealthier people in the next century.

Having failed to address Bob Ward’s article it does give Matt Ridley inspiration for his next article in the Spectator.

Carry on Warming

Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this.

‘Warming is good’ has been around since AGW became a serious issue in the late 80s with Sherwood Idso, the scientist for hire who was writing about how great CFCs were and how wrong it was to ban them back then was also churning out papers on CO2 on how it was ‘plant food’- ‘warming was good’- ‘warm is better than cold’. 20 years later Matt Ridley is spreading the same old myths.

The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths

The consensus opinion of these experts is rather limited to Richard Tol and his 2009 economics paper, and Bjorn Lomborg.

Matt Ridley’s attempts to be a genuine sceptic is the same fake scepticism that has been churned out by deniers for over two decades. Climate Change is happening- but ‘even the IPCC say they are only 95% certain that 50% is man-made, the rest is natural’, there has been no warming for 16 years, the models don’t work, they can’t explain the lack of warming, a warming world is good, CO2 is plant food, spending money on preventing carbon emissions is a waste, wind turbines are bad, combating climate change will make the poor poorer, and fuel bills more expensive, climate scientists are doing it for the money, sceptics cannot get their sceptical papers published,

and the list continues. Ridley is the same as Monckton who also believes CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there has been some warming. Admittedly Monckton also believes the UNs Agenda 21 on sustainability is about enslaving us in a UN Marxist totalitarian world government.

Why does Matt Ridley peddle the same old denier talking points.

the superabundance of shale gas and oil has postponed peak oil once again and is already driving down coal, gas and oil prices in the United States, with other parts of the world likely to follow suit.

Cheap energy or green energy -you cannot have both

The five myths about fracking -wind power does more environmental harm.

abiotic gas !

Abiotic gas and oil is the fantasy wet dream of oil never running out. Much loved by some climate deniers who also think shale gas is the answer to all our energy needs. Despite owning an estate of lordship proportions, and holding a wide variety of shares Matt Ridley has no business interests in oil or fossil fuel companies or power production.

More- George Monbiot on the errors in his book -the Rational OptimistHis Wall Street Journal article recycled in the Times debunked