There was some question as to whether the Global Warming Policy Foundation would be allowed to stage its annual lecture at the Royal Society, but the FRSs finally agreed, on condition that two of their minders were on hand to keep an eye on the science, and Matt Ridley duly spoke on GLOBAL WARMING VERSUS GLOBAL GREENING there last Monday. You can read it here.
Apart from his carefully differentiating lukewarmers like himself from us sceptics, I see nothing that anyone here would disagree with, and some very interesting observations on the way science, scientific publishing, and the IPCC interacted in the case of the scientist who discovered the link between increased atmospheric CO2 and the current greening of the planet, and who has since gone out of the way to say how absolutely horrid the gas is.
Dana Nuccitelli has replied on behalf of the 97% here. With gay grammatical abandon, his headline: “No longer taken seriously, we’re seeing the last gasp of climate denial groups” suggests that he and his SkS friends (SkS is the source of most of his science links) are no longer taken seriously. Maybe, but he’s still got space in the media and we haven’t.
There’s no opportunity for comments on Ridley’s article at the GWPF, and many of us are banned from the Guardian. Do read Ridley’s article. It ranges far outside the usual climate remit, and should create quite a stir, if anyone is still interested in scientific debate.
PS. The scientist mentioned by Ridley as responsible for confirming the greening effect of CO2 over the past thirty years has replied to Ridley at
After correcting Ridley on the reasons for delay in publishing his findings he adds, rather surprisingly:
In short, there is no evidence to count on CO2 fertilization benefit. Personally, I would not buy the fertilization benefit for the price of global warming (and all the impacts that this warming implies).
He goes on to accuse Ridley of “discount[ing] global warming and impacts”, “ignor[ing] 30+ years of IPCC assessments!” accusing the scientists of having “malevolent motives” and believing that “thousands and thousands of scientists are somehow in cahoots to push the global warming hoax on innocent people of the world.”
The whole Lewandowsky package, in fact.