Matt Ridley

Mon, 2015-01-26 09:55Brendan Montague
Brendan Montague's picture

Matt 'King Coal' Ridley Loses Power Station Buyer Due to European Regulations

The latest exclusive from our #MattKingCoal investigation shows how climate denier Matt Ridley has been impacted by European carbon emissions regulations…

Lord Ridley, the aristocratic farmer and science writer, has weighted all the evidence and after due consideration decided that the world's leading researchers have become overly alarmed by the threat posed by climate change.

His views have nothing to do with the fact he has an opencast mines on his family estate. And his opinion is entirely unrelated to the fact his local power station will no longer buy his coal because European regulations have forced it to abandon fossil fuels.  

Ridley is currently expanding the two opencast mines on the family’s Blagdon Estate so that a total of 8.4 million tonnes (Mt) of coal can be excavated ahead of 2020, increasing his profits to an estimated £4.1m each year.

Tue, 2015-01-20 04:42Brendan Montague
Brendan Montague's picture

Why Does Ridley Still Mine Coal If He Could Make More Money From Renewables?

BY BRENDAN MONTAGUE, KYLA MANDEL AND RICHARD HEASMAN

Lord Ridley, a landed aristocrat and prominent climate denier, will earn an estimated £4.1 million each year from opencast coal mines on his Blagdon Estate with income guaranteed until 2020, a DeSmog UK investigation has found.

The British peer and author of the Rational Optimist has a total 8.4 million tonnes (Mt) of coal currently being mined near his Grade I listed stately home in Northumberland, with an additional 550,000 tonnes of coal to be mined from new sites beginning this year.

The self professed “climate change lukewarmer” adamantly denies any suggestion his coal interests influences his “skepticism” about climate science. And he continues to mine the vast expanses of coal even though he “could probably earn even more from renewable energy”.

Mon, 2015-01-12 00:00Brendan Montague
Brendan Montague's picture

Does Climate Denier Lord Ridley Boast Britain’s Biggest Carbon Footprint?

Lord Ridley, Owen Paterson and miner Harry Banks

Lord Matt Ridley, a card carrying member of Britain’s one percent, is responsible for one per cent of the entire country’s CO2.

Lord Ridley is a powerhouse of climate denial in Britain – and a leading contender for the title of Britain's biggest individual carbon polluter.

The self-styled Rational Optimist is an advisor to Lord Lawson’s secretly funded charity, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and acts as a one-man think tank to his brother-in-law, the sacked environment secretary Owen Paterson.

At the same time, the landed aristocrat will mine more than 10 million tonnes of coal from open cast mines scattered around his expansive Blagdon Estate in Northumberland during the next five years.

Mon, 2015-01-05 00:01Brendan Montague
Brendan Montague's picture

Lord Ridley: Make Mine A Large One!

Lord Ridley, the landed aristocrat and prominent climate denier, will start work this year on two new profitable opencast coal mines close to his Grade I listed stately home and acres of beautiful national park that make up his 8,500-acre estate.

The White-Ridley family has owned the stunning Blagdon Estate in Northumbria since 1700, where they have mined coal and fireclay to amass a considerable fortune while fuelling the Industrial Revolution and British Empire.

READ RIDLEY'S FULL REPLY

The peer’s property, held by a family trust, today covers a significant part of the open mines at Shotton and Brenkley Lane, north of Newcastle, which together contain 8.3m tonnes of coal, worth an estimated £607m on the spot market.

Tue, 2013-09-17 11:22Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Zoologist Matt Ridley Should Stick to Animals Instead of Butchering Climate Science

Since when is zoologist Matt Ridley an expert on climate change science?

Yes, I get it. The state of science versus opinion is at an all-time low in human history, with perhaps the Dark Ages the only exception.

There is currently a “debate” being led by Matt Ridley (you can read all about Ridley's complete lack of credentials in the field of climate science here) brewing in the right wing press about a possible “subtle drop” in the low end prediction of how fast global warming is occurring. Ridley's quibbling comes, not coincidentally, less than two weeks before the release of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a favorite whipping post of the climate denier echo chamber. 

Ridley and his pals at the Global Warming Policy Foundation have taken to the airwaves and the right-wing tabloids ahead of the official IPCC release date to try and pre-emptively discredit the IPCC's conclusions. It is a classic political move to get out first and fast before your opponents have a chance to tell their side of the story.

What they want to do (again) is create the appearance of controversy and debate to generate headlines and the perception that climate change science is not as solid as scientists say it is. Doubt is their product.

Hopefully the mainstream media will look past the thin veneer of credibility of Matt Ridley and the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and instead speak to actual climate scientists instead of an expert on animals. The issue of climate change and the state of the science is too important to leave to rookies.   

Mon, 2013-09-16 22:22Guest
Guest's picture

John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal

This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley.

How many climate errors in one article?

A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal was so egregious that readers deserve a correction.  The article, “Dialing back the alarm on climate change”, was written by someone who has never researched anything in the field of climate change (literature search on September 14, 2013).  So what did Mr. Ridley have to say that makes a real scientist cringe? 

First, Mr. Ridley states that a forthcoming major climate change report (for which I was an expert reviewer) will lower the expected temperature rise we will experience in the future.  He also claims that the temperature rises will be beneficial. Since the report hasn’t been released yet, and reviewers promise confidentiality, my answer is based on available literature.  I can inform the readers that this isn’t necessarily the case.  What Mr. Ridley is focusing on is the lower bound of warming (the best case scenario for human society). What he doesn’t tell the readers is that regardless of which estimate of warming is correct, human society will be severely stressed.  Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil.  Either way, the consequences are enormous.

Second, Mr. Ridley makes the unsubstantiated claim that warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will result in “no net or ecological damage”. 

This claim could only be made by someone who is unfamiliar with climate science.  With a fraction of that warming, we are already seeing economic and ecological damage.  Among them are increased precipitation in some regions with consequent flooding, more severe drought in other regions, increased storms, heat waves, rising sea levels. 

Subscribe to Matt Ridley