Skip to content

Matt Ridley: Working class sacrifice at altar of green

November 24, 2020

By Paul Homewood

Well worth half an hour of your time, and sharing with friends.

  1. November 24, 2020 10:52 am

    Good video. Thanks. The down home reality of it all.

  2. edwardrodolph1891 permalink
    November 24, 2020 11:20 am

    Millions of us are on the same page, -even dopey cameron called it ‘green CRAP’ and was spot-on. Vast amounts of money have already been WASTED, trying to affect a ‘problem’ that dies NOT exist.

  3. November 24, 2020 11:25 am

    The Emperors Clothes. Is it cowardice or willful stupidity? I cannot believe there are so many stupid people but I am shocked to understand just how many cowards there are!

    • November 24, 2020 11:34 am

      Don’t forget what Einstein said “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” The country is full of people exhibiting stupidity.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        November 24, 2020 1:18 pm

        AFAIK, Einstein also had his doubts about the function of CO2 as a GHG – such that even if it was a GHG it was quite neutral.

  4. Mack permalink
    November 24, 2020 11:41 am

    Oh, for the halcyon days of less than a decade ago when Boris, as an ’empiricist’, believed that climate change was not caused by the actions of humanity or rising co2 emissions but by the movements of that great ‘celestial orb’ in the sky. And, astutely, that wind farms couldn’t blow the ‘skin off a rice pudding’ never mind power an industrial economy. I don’t suppose, when he bails out of the premiership, that there’s going to be any money in it for him to continue to spout, what David Cameron once called, ‘green crap’, before he too jumped on board with the climate Pharisees, is there?

  5. JL Atkins permalink
    November 24, 2020 11:48 am



  6. A Man of No Rank permalink
    November 24, 2020 12:06 pm

    I emailed the ReformUK party last week suggesting that Climate, like Brexit, would be a big vote winner. This short video makes a much more compelling case than I could.
    Their reply was detailed, pleasant and in no way dismissive. So, watch this space.

  7. richardw permalink
    November 24, 2020 12:30 pm

    Matt Ridley says that ‘Of course climate change is a problem’ albeit not one that affects us negatively today. I would like to understand more about what this problem he talks about looks like. Is he talking about CO2 emissions, or something else given that the world anyway is continuing to warm gently at the rate we have seen since the end of the little ice age?

    I would genuinely like to be enlightened on this point!

    • David Parker permalink
      November 24, 2020 1:17 pm

      So would I

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 24, 2020 1:22 pm

      Like Charles Moore, Matt Ridley doesn’t want to be seen as a ‘denier’. By saying that, “of course, there is a problem”, he is merely covering his (lower) back.

      • November 24, 2020 1:59 pm

        Exactly, Harry!

      • alexei permalink
        November 24, 2020 6:19 pm

        But by referring to “”carbon” as a part of that problem, he’s playing into the hands of the climate fanatics. The message would be far more effective if the role of C02 was disparaged as a viable factor in climate change since that is the whole pivot of the green argument.

      • yonason permalink
        November 25, 2020 8:54 pm

        Very annoying to hear someone who seems to be talking sense about what’s wrong with solutions to a non-problems, only to discover that they still give the impression that they believe there are problems when there aren’t.

    • yonason permalink
      November 26, 2020 8:50 pm

      “While climate change is a real issue and must be tackled,…”Matt Ridley

      Poor Matt. Climate change is NOT caused by humans, and is NOT a “real issue that must be tackled,” because even if it were an issue, there’s no way we could “tackle” it, other than to prepare for it.

      While Matt is correct about Boris’ foolish attempts to “tackle” climate change, he’s wrong about the need for any tackling at all.

      There is no way to come to terms with reality, when one is in denial about what that reality isn’t.

      Otherwise he says so many sensible things that I was taken aback on realizing that he believes in something so senseless.

  8. ThinkingScientist permalink
    November 24, 2020 12:50 pm

    Matt Ridley is doing his bit, but even he has to assert that “anthropogenic climate change is real” in order not to be shouted down and excluded from the discussion.

    The rest of this is o/t but I thought I would say it anyway:

    Even a superficial examination of climate models with the eye of a geophysicist shows they are like covid models – useless. Without the prior model (“forcings”) being fed in, climate models do nothing (well, they might show latitudinal temp variation etc on a macro scale but I can do that in an Excel spreadsheet with a cosine function). If you subtract the mean model from the climate model outputs you get – uncorrelated random noise for all of them.

    You can reconstruct the mean output from the climate models by simple linear regression of the input forcings. You can predict HadcruT4 temps from the input forcings using linear regression as closely as the climate models can. So the climate models are a tautology, they prove nothing and depend entirely on the inputs. What happens inside them is irrelevant – they don’t add any information other than what is already in the input forcings.

    If we examine the CMIP input forcings themselves we discover that apparently:
    (a) the net warming forcings 1985 – 2010 are 3x larger than the period 1910 – 1945
    (b) warming couldn’t have started until the C20th as the forcings in the C19th were negative (cooling)

    The problem with (a) is that the warming in HadCrut over the two 35 year time periods is the same. This is physically impossible if the forcings are correct. It also puts an absolute upper limit on anthropogenic contributions post 1950s of about 45%.

    The problem with (b) is that in the normal world the following cause and effects with temperature would be expected:

    Warming -> Melting Glaciers -> Sea Level Rise
    Warming -> Thermal Expansion -> Sea Level Rise

    The problem with the forcings is then that:

    Warming apparently only starts around 1900-1910 in HadCrut4 – which agrees with the forcings
    Glaciers started melting around 1850 (worldwide, LeClercq et al 2011) – problem
    Sea level starting rising around 1850-1860 (Jevrejeva et al, 2014) – problem

    So if the forcings and HadCrut4 agree that warming didn’t start until around 1900-1910, how did the glaciers start melting and sea level start rising 50 – 70 years earlier? And there is little doubt about dating things like glacial advances in the French Alps (and elsewhere if it comes to that).

    And the rate of glacier retreat and the rise of sea level both exhibit a pretty steady linear trend since about 1850 (with a periodic cycle of about 60 – 70 years or so.

    I have graphs and references.

  9. saparonia permalink
    November 24, 2020 1:11 pm

    If green is so important why is it that during the lockdown there has been no end of construction and new and repaired roads? How come Russia are either planning or executing the building of a road to stretch into Siberia?

    The whole thing might just be a way to fool us into accepting nuclear stations and we all know what damage they can wreak. Chernobyl is still having to be recapped at regular intervals and there is a vast wasteland around it that’s uninhabitable.

    I am sure we are heading for drastic cooling and these people know this, maybe they are hoarding the coal for themselves?

    The danger is out of our hands, before every Ice Age there has been an increaase of volcanism and sea emmisions. This I learned while studying for my honours in Archaeology and Prehistory. Count the curent number of volcanoes. There is nobody able to do anything to prevent them, so they panic.

    • November 24, 2020 9:00 pm

      Far from it! The greens hate nuclear more than anything else. If in fact they really cared that much about CO2 they would advocate an electricity source (nuclear) that a) does not emit much CO2 in operational phase and b) is actually reliable.

      Instead they prefer an electricity source that is wholly inappropriate for modern civilisation.

      I have no doubt at all that nuclear is safe, has low environmental impact if managed correctly, & has a fuel that will never run out.

      That said I would love to see the country powered by fusion reactors. Well, they can’t stop me dreaming.

  10. saparonia permalink
    November 24, 2020 1:19 pm

    It’s interesting that during the prelude to the cold spell of the 1600’s there was the tyrrany of the Catholic Church. In Europe whole families and even whole villages were burnt at the stake for witchcraft.
    The survivors, including the poor, brought animals into their ground floors which provided warmth and a food supply and they planted fast growing crops during the very short summers.

  11. GeoffB permalink
    November 24, 2020 1:21 pm

    Today I received my weekly update from the Grantham Institute, it is a really professional looking article, expounding all the green crap and how urgent it is that Boris’s plans are implemented. That is what we are up against, our relatively amateurish presentations are no match for these glossy PR produced weekly newsletters. Of course Jeremy Grantham is financing all this to make himself loads of money from wood chips and selling green certificates. I am just pointing out the grim reality of what we are up against, a concerted professional campaign, lets hope power cuts start this winter. heres the link

  12. jwhscarffe permalink
    November 24, 2020 1:34 pm

    The push for renewables – wind, solar electric vehicles is predicated on the view that CO2 is bad for the planetand is raising the global temeperatures. However the case against CO2 has not really been made …. Eg approx half of the rise in global temperature since 1870 occured before 1945 ie before any significant rise in CO2. What was the cause of the rise in temperature before 1945? Could it be that the planet was warming as a result of the same natural cycles that had occured throughout the centuries and millenia before? There is good evidence that temperatures were higher than present during the Medieval Warm period, the Roman Warm period and the Minoan warm periods and then colder during the Little Ice Age which lasted from approx 1300 till around 1870. With this in mind, it is clearly false to regard the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age as the baseline from which to measure current temperatures. And we should not regard an increase of a few degrees in glogal average temperatures as something to be feared. History tells us that humanity thrived during these earlier warm periods.It should also be remembered that winter cold kills far more people than summer heat.

  13. Thomas Carr permalink
    November 24, 2020 2:46 pm

    See also Matt Ridley in The Sunday Telegraph 22nd Nov Page 22 “Ten reasons why the P’s green agenda is just plain wrong” .

    • Thomas Carr permalink
      November 24, 2020 2:59 pm

      My mistake in previous. It should read PM’s agenda.

  14. Teddy lee permalink
    November 24, 2020 3:05 pm

    Luckily Mother Nature doesn’t have any thoughts on the matter.She does however make JG look a total prat.
    Imagine spending part of your fortune to prove your own stupidity.

  15. November 24, 2020 4:42 pm

    From those tinfoil hat people … in fact tinfoil from top to toe people NASA ……
    Major Greenland Glacier Is Growing

    The open sea around abouts is now closed by walls of ice.
    Inland for three years the ice is getting thicker taller to the tune of a hundred feet a year.
    Your average two storey house is twenty five foot from doorstep to roofline so that’s four houses high each year meaning over the last three years the ice has piled on twelve houses high and not a peep from Greta as far as I know.

  16. richardw permalink
    November 24, 2020 6:44 pm

    I believe that the debate has now moved into largely political territory which labels those of us that challenge what is happening ‘conspiracy theorists’ rather than deniers.

    I looked at the most recent issue of the Chartered Institute of Teachers house magazine. One of the articles was by a head teacher who was explaining how she was incorporating the UN 2030 agenda into her work. Reading between the lines it seems this is already fully embedded in the teaching profession and, I would hazard a confident guess, into all professional associations and government agencies as they tend to be run by woke administrations.

    Following this we have the impending WEF ‘Great Reset’ which sets out to revise free enterprise to a more or less central planning model.

    In neither UN Agenda 2030 nor the Great Reset is the word democracy mentioned.

    To attempt to point out these worrying anti-free enterprise and anti-democratic movements immediately labels one as a conspiracy theorist.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: