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. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth. –Matt Ridley,
The Spectator, 19 October 2013
The chief scientific adviser to the UK government, Sir Mark Walport, has told MPs not to expect any benefits from a warmer climate, adding that the effects in the long-term will be harmful. Walport was commenting on science journalist and climate denier (sic) Matt Ridley’s book, The Rational Optimist, which argues that climate change will more beneficial to the UK than it will harmful. A similar claim that global warming will bring benefits to the UK was made by the environment secretary Owen Paterson in September last year. He said that warmer temperatures could prevent more cold deaths in the winter and boost food production. --Ilaria Bertini,
Blue & Green Together, 12 March 2014
I understand the point [Matt Ridley] is trying to make but I think he’s completely wrong unfortunately. While there might be trivial benefits in some parts of the world for some of the time the long term direction for all of us is a negative direction. And frankly I think he is…he described himself as a “rational optimist”. I’m not sure about the rational bit. –- Chief scientific adviser Sir Mark Walport,
House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, 11 March 2014
Another entertaining episode in the hearings [of the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee] was when Mark Walport was asked about Matt Ridley’s suggestion that global warming would bring net benefits over 40-50 years. I wonder if Walport has any actual evidence to support his position that Ridley is wrong. The words read like our chief scientist substituting name-calling for a lack of evidence. --Andrew Montford,
Bishop Hill, 11 March 2014
It is possible that you had not read my article on the benefits of climate change directly, but had relied on second-hand accounts of it, in which case I can understand how you came to be misled. Are you saying that the academic, peer-reviewed work by these 14 teams, and the meta-analysis of them by Richard Tol, as well as all the other studies I cited in my article, are all “completely wrong”? Or are you arguing that my reporting of this work was “completely wrong”? Professor Tol thinks my reporting of his paper was accurate, and none of the other authors have objected, so the second charge is certainly unfair. --Matt Ridley,
email to Sir Mark Walport, 12 March 2014
A surge in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions could create a boost for parts of the British economy, a government report will suggest this week. The National Adaptation programme, to be published tomorrow by Defra, the environment ministry, will suggest that farming, forestry and tourism will all benefit from warmer summers, while shipping will profit from the shorter sea routes caused by the melting of the ice caps. A preliminary report, the Climate Change Risk Assessment, suggests there will also be benefits, with farming and forestry seeing surging crop yields, and warmer temperatures boosting growing rates. Warmer weather would also make the UK more appealing to tourists. --Jonanthan Leake, The Sunday Times, 30 June 2013
People want wealth and comfort, not only for themselves but for others, too. They are unmoved by the campaign against climate change not because of its "weirdo words" or complicated ideas, but because it is at root an elitist mission to convince us that our material desires are destroying the planet. Far from being irrational, the mass public apathy towards climate change that so freaks out eco-experts is entirely sensible and logical; in fact, it renews my faith in humankind. --Brendan O’Neill,
The Daily Telegraph, 10 March 2014
European Union leaders will set an end-of-year deadline for a decision on climate and energy strategy for 2030, according to a draft political statement to be adopted at a summit later this month. The planned framework has divided governments and industry. While 13 member states including the U.K. and Germany called earlier this month for a swift decision to adopt an ambitious strategy, a group of nations led by Poland urged further analysis of the proposed policies on the bloc’s economy. A postponement of a decision on 2030 rules may be a setback for global efforts to cut emissions and for United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who is convening world leaders on Sept. 23 to set out ways to curb fossil fuel emissions. --Ewa Krukowska,
Bloomberg, 11 March 2014
