Matt Ridley: a global warmer turns skeptical


Baby it’s warm outside…

New (to him) data shows that the world was warmer in medieval times than it is today. If it was, then the hypothesis that current temperatures are caused by human’s carbon dioxide emissions is exposed as the faulty reasoning it is. But where’s the surprise in that? Of course it was warmer 1,000 years ago: the Vikings didn’t bring glacier-melting blowtorches when they settled Greenland, crops weren’t under greenhouses when they grew at elevations far higher than is possible today and Raquel Welch wasn’t wearing a fur parka when she strolled up Mt. Everest. School children used to know these things before the nuts took over public education. Today, even adults like Matt Ridley don’t trust their common sense and insist on scientific data to reassure them. And now they have it.

But Ridley misses the point: while he may be surprised to learn that he’s been lied to, that Al Gore’s famous hockey stick temperature graph was a hoax (and exposed as such long, long ago), this whole shuck has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with controlling the populace and getting rich while doing so. Ice Age, Warm Age, the folks behind this hysteria don’t give a shit and have used both as it was convenient. In fact now that hybrids are so popular they’ve gone to that themselves, and coined “climate change” to cover their asses no matter what happens with the weather.

Would someone who truly believed that CO2 emissions were ruining the planet fly his private jet to Bali to attend a conference on global warming? How about if hundreds of celebrities and politicians did so, each in their own jet? Would Al Gore and Bobby Kennedy build themselves 15,000 square foot mansions? Or Babba Streisand?  Would all of Hollywood insist on individual limousines and house trailers on movie sets, would Mayor Mike keep his own SUV running and a window air conditioner sucking up power while he attends five-hour meetings? “They can’t be serious”, you’d say, and you’d be right – they aren’t serious and so they don’t act as if they were. These people aren’t (just) hypocrites, they’re all in on the game. It’s the sheeple who are still in the dark.


Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “Matt Ridley: a global warmer turns skeptical

  1. Real planning is to prepare for more than one possibility.
    Plan for earthquakes but not forest fires…….???
    Glaciers have been retreating for 10,000 years, there was a mile and a hlf of ice over Greenwich.
    Does it matter that the boardwalk at Island Beach, built below the flood line was taken out by global warming or cooling ?
    Does it matter that it was taken out because of poor planning ?
    Our choice.
    Sandy was the perfect date gone wrong that we need to learn from.
    No rain in factor, combination of highest tide, worst case wind direction for extended period. Prognostications proved to be dumbly wrong.
    Learn from our mistakes before and during storm.
    End the institutional incompetence after the storm so we will understand the next before it arrives at the door…..

  2. DollarBill

    Peter, you should know better than to interrupt CF, while he is in the midst of one of his delusional, anti-intellectual, know nothing tirades on global warming. As we all know, CF is a more knowledgeable source on global warming than 98% of climate scientists who, in seeing warming as a documented reality, are just pushing a socialist agenda of world domination.

  3. Hu Nhu?

    98% of “climate scientists”. BS.

  4. pulled up in OG

    Hockey stick – What Charles Koch got when he thought he was buying a broomstick from Muller.

  5. Libertarian Advocate

    Gotta love that pre-historic Raquel….

  6. db

    Given the vast majority of scientists agree warming is happening due to CO2 and the vast majority of paid oil lobbyists say it isn’t……I guess we all just need to decide on our own who is telling the truth.

    • Listen to yourself: “most scientists” believe in anthropologic global warming, “oil lobbyists say it isn’t”. So you’ve made up your mind based on a head count of scientists and because people you don’t approve of are on one side of an argument which therefore proves that argument is false. Your mind deserves better than that.
      Try to remember, while you’re counting to see how many people are in favor of one side of the argument, that for decades in the 1970’s “most scientists” said we were headed for an ice age. My point is not that, if those scientists were wrong then they can’t be right now – they could be – but rather, determining the veracity of any argument, scientific or otherwise, by tallying the number of votes on each side does not help determine the truth. Does the name Copernicus ring a bell?

  7. Balzac

    Every once in a while comes along a book which pops us out of many preconceived ideas, errors, and that-which-is-well-known-but-wrong. Matt Ridley’s great book The Rational Optimist is such a book. Ridley, an Englishman and PhD zoologist, is obviously very comfortable with scientific data.

    $ Bill: you might profitably invest a few hours in it…….

  8. AJ

    These women, who just love to dance in their fur bikinis, find their outfits just right for any climate change.

  9. db

    “Copernicus ring a bell?”

    Nope. Realistically I believe science has advanced a bit from when Copernicus was running around.

    Given exhaust is poisonous and I’ve been to China and seen first hand how nice they treat the air, leaving things be isn’t an option.

    • So what are you planning to do about China, which, if it stays on its current track, will soon surpass all of our current emissions – we can shut down our economy entirely and China will fill the void. And there we’ll be, with no capacity to build rubber rafts and no money to buy them from the Chinese!