I love Matt Ridley! What a genius. For the naysayers, read his book (Rational Optimist) and feel free to present your refutation. Vague bashes aren't convincing.
I agree he is a genius. His book the Red Queen is one of the best on the topic of evolution. He has lost focus though on climate change. His logic is not very sound on the benefits of increased green plant growth.
Wasn't expecting that bit at the end about ecigs...good vid! Though I'm not sure how much stock we can put into any climate models, it does seem more believable the more wealth we have the more efficient will be our energy usage.
+TheHealthPhysicist Scientific publications themselves do need to stand the test of scientific rigour, but there is a perverse incentive for researchers (particularly Deans and those that control the budgets) to push research into a certain direction because the funding available needs to be used on whatever important topic those offering the funding say it needs to be used on. The amount of research that comes out of university's studying one thing and then loosely connecting it to climate change in the discussion or conclusion is hilarious (my field is aquaculture). Getting the rest of the world rich is the best thing the world can do to reduce carbon emissions in the long term and increase the happiness and well being of all involved. As nations get richer the birth rate decreases. With less people to feed and healthier people to work for each other we can continue to push technological change including the intensification of crops which free's up more land for reserves and parks. Coal and gas can produce the energy we need to continue to innovate and create the next wave of technological advances, including into energy generation, that may be beyond our wildest dreams. The research going into new tech is truly incredible. If we switched to wind or solar tomorrow we would need to decimate forests to do it. The tech is just not good enough yet. I just found out about an old college who passed away from lung cancer at 27 years old. He was a heavy smoker who tried quitting numerous times. His two kids and wife might have benefited greatly if this technology had been prioritised through the approval gates a decade ago when he was first taking up the habit. Instead we wait for bureaucracy to catch up to reality. I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I want you on my team to make the world a better place. Forget the naysayers. Be optimistic.
I agree the propaganda surrounding cigarettes did a lot of damage. But people make all kinds of stupid things trendy. My mate grew up around it and had friends that did it... the propaganda was his peers not some institute. I'm in one of the last generations of smokers. The smokers I know are trying anything to quit. I don't know why e-cigs, the lesser of two evils, is being stonewalled. As for fossil fuels being more expensive than renewables... that's just not true. Renewables make up less than 2% of global base load and take an incredible amount of energy to manufacture and install (solar and wind) making them expensive. Fossil fuels are easy to mine, easy to pull high amounts of energy from which makes energy storage and consumption in the market place more competitive. The demand for that is what makes them a lucrative industry. I'm all for renewables but we need to get real about the technology just not being good enough to make such a drastic transition.
Matt in this book freely ranges over economics, finance, geopolitics, ecology, and intimations of the apocalypse on the cusp of the "anthropocene" age. He very cogently dispels the portents of upheaval forecast by the doomsayers. The planet is capable of moulting and renewing itself organically.
With the thawing of the permafrost and consequent release of methane, I wonder if Scott would update his optimism about climate change if doing the interview today.
I like how he just throws out some of these statements between 1:00 until 1:50. Earth is getting greener, eh? That's a controversial statement, I'm really curious what his source is.
There's been a lot of research done based on satellite imagery of Earth over the last decade. It's true the Earth is getting greener. You don't have to listen to Ridley or anyone else. Do your own research.
Arashau Most biomass carbon is stored in the organic material in the soil. The extra green plant material (assuming it exists) could make almost no difference to CO2 in the atmosphere anyway.
rishav kothari Exactly. The tree absorbs carbon atoms during growth, converting CO2 into cellulose (wood). Then after it dies, it becomes organic material in the soil, and decomposes back into CO2, eventually every single carbon atom is back in the atmosphere again. At best, the "green" material is a temporary storage of CO2, but the (hoped for) increase in global volume is totally insignificant compared to the huge volume of CO2 being added to atmosphere from fossil fuel. Thats why the measurable CO2 levels continue to rise every year.
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - อ้ายกินดอง น้องลาบงัว ft. สแน็ก อัจฉรีย์ [Teaser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n863TMuA1Ck/mqdefault.jpg)
I love Matt Ridley! What a genius. For the naysayers, read his book (Rational Optimist) and feel free to present your refutation. Vague bashes aren't convincing.
I agree he is a genius. His book the Red Queen is one of the best on the topic of evolution.
He has lost focus though on climate change. His logic is not very sound on the benefits of increased green plant growth.
Just finished the guy's book (The Rational Optimist). Great read. Seems to have a good grasp of reality from my perspective.
Wasn't expecting that bit at the end about ecigs...good vid! Though I'm not sure how much stock we can put into any climate models, it does seem more believable the more wealth we have the more efficient will be our energy usage.
+TheHealthPhysicist Scientific publications themselves do need to stand the test of scientific rigour, but there is a perverse incentive for researchers (particularly Deans and those that control the budgets) to push research into a certain direction because the funding available needs to be used on whatever important topic those offering the funding say it needs to be used on. The amount of research that comes out of university's studying one thing and then loosely connecting it to climate change in the discussion or conclusion is hilarious (my field is aquaculture).
Getting the rest of the world rich is the best thing the world can do to reduce carbon emissions in the long term and increase the happiness and well being of all involved. As nations get richer the birth rate decreases. With less people to feed and healthier people to work for each other we can continue to push technological change including the intensification of crops which free's up more land for reserves and parks. Coal and gas can produce the energy we need to continue to innovate and create the next wave of technological advances, including into energy generation, that may be beyond our wildest dreams. The research going into new tech is truly incredible. If we switched to wind or solar tomorrow we would need to decimate forests to do it. The tech is just not good enough yet.
I just found out about an old college who passed away from lung cancer at 27 years old. He was a heavy smoker who tried quitting numerous times. His two kids and wife might have benefited greatly if this technology had been prioritised through the approval gates a decade ago when he was first taking up the habit. Instead we wait for bureaucracy to catch up to reality.
I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I want you on my team to make the world a better place. Forget the naysayers. Be optimistic.
I agree the propaganda surrounding cigarettes did a lot of damage. But people make all kinds of stupid things trendy. My mate grew up around it and had friends that did it... the propaganda was his peers not some institute. I'm in one of the last generations of smokers. The smokers I know are trying anything to quit. I don't know why e-cigs, the lesser of two evils, is being stonewalled.
As for fossil fuels being more expensive than renewables... that's just not true. Renewables make up less than 2% of global base load and take an incredible amount of energy to manufacture and install (solar and wind) making them expensive. Fossil fuels are easy to mine, easy to pull high amounts of energy from which makes energy storage and consumption in the market place more competitive. The demand for that is what makes them a lucrative industry.
I'm all for renewables but we need to get real about the technology just not being good enough to make such a drastic transition.
Matt in this book freely ranges over economics, finance, geopolitics, ecology, and intimations of the apocalypse on the cusp of the "anthropocene" age. He very cogently dispels the portents of upheaval forecast by the doomsayers. The planet is capable of moulting and renewing itself organically.
With the thawing of the permafrost and consequent release of methane, I wonder if Scott would update his optimism about climate change if doing the interview today.
Scott?
I like how he just throws out some of these statements between 1:00 until 1:50. Earth is getting greener, eh? That's a controversial statement, I'm really curious what his source is.
Ridley's a fraud.
There's been a lot of research done based on satellite imagery of Earth over the last decade. It's true the Earth is getting greener. You don't have to listen to Ridley or anyone else. Do your own research.
Arashau
Most biomass carbon is stored in the organic material in the soil. The extra green plant material (assuming it exists) could make almost no difference to CO2 in the atmosphere anyway.
Mike Blain you want to imply that planting trees causes no change in CO2?
rishav kothari
Exactly. The tree absorbs carbon atoms during growth, converting CO2 into cellulose (wood). Then after it dies, it becomes organic material in the soil, and decomposes back into CO2, eventually every single carbon atom is back in the atmosphere again.
At best, the "green" material is a temporary storage of CO2, but the (hoped for) increase in global volume is totally insignificant compared to the huge volume of CO2 being added to atmosphere from fossil fuel. Thats why the measurable CO2 levels continue to rise every year.
Or possible complacency.
Three words: sea-level rise. Ridley's optimism is delusional.
8 inches in a century...
at 1 meter per 700 years, I don't think that sea level rise is a big deal