Why is Boris Johnson promoting climate change "sceptics"?
The Mayor of London's championing of Matt Ridley raises questions over his commitment to science.
By Bob Ward Published 01 August 2012 16:10
On Thursday, Boris Johnson will host the second of the Mayor of London 2012 Debates, which he claims are "London’s intellectual contribution to the [Olympic] Games", and "will help define London’s vision for the next 15-20 years".
The title of the second debate is The Environment Imperative, and the Mayor’s website introduces it with the question: "How can London develop approaches to climate mitigation [sic] either as an economic response or in shaping the climate for investment in technological responses?" This is an important question. But the Mayor has made a bizarre choice of individual to answer it. The keynote speaker is Dr Matt Ridley, whom the website describes as “a renowned science writer, journalist, biologist, and businessman”.
Dr Ridley is all of these, but the website neglects to mention a few other important attributes of the speaker. The first is that his primary experience as a businessman was acquired as Chairman of Northern Rock bank, until his resignation in October 2007 in the wake of its catastrophic failure.
In its report on the bank, the House of Commons Treasury committee concluded: "The high-risk, reckless business strategy of Northern Rock, with its reliance on short- and medium-term wholesale funding and an absence of sufficient insurance and a failure to arrange standby facility or cover that risk, meant that it was unable to cope with the liquidity pressures placed upon it by the freezing of international capital markets in August 2007....The non-executive members of the Board, and in particular the Chairman of the Board, the Chairman of the Risk Committee and the senior non-executive director, failed in the case of Northern Rock to ensure that it remained liquid as well as solvent, to provide against the risks that it was taking and to act as an effective restraining force on the strategy of the executive members."
So Dr Ridley’s track record of dealing with the risks facing a business hardly gives cause for confidence in his expert advice about managing the global threat of climate change. Even more disconcerting is Dr Ridley’s affiliation to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the pressure group set up by Nigel Lawson to campaign against the government’s climate and energy policies. Dr Ridley is a member of the Foundation’s Academic Advisory Committee, and wrote a report for it which hyped the potential of shale gas.
Dr Ridley has been a very enthusiastic promoter of shale gas, but has been prone to exaggerating its contribution to recent falls in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States. He also hates wind power with a passion. In a recent polemic for the Spectator, Boris Johnson’s former stomping ground, Dr Ridley falsely alleged that wind farms may increase greenhouse gas emissions. He then went on to announce that he was offering £8,500 a year from his personal wealth, not to compensate those who were left out of pocket by the Northern Rock fiasco, but instead to sponsor a new award, administered by the magazine, for "environmental heresy".
Not only is Dr Ridley profoundly opposed to some, if not all, of the renewable technologies that might help London reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, but he also plays down the risks that climate change poses. For instance, in a Times column (£) last month, he suggested that global warming has so far had relatively little impact on the UK. But he failed to acknowledge that seven of the warmest years on record have all occurred since 2001, or that by the time we can statistically detect the effect on extreme weather, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reduce the elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that are responsible. It seems Dr Ridley does not realise that a responsible and effective approach to managing risks requires action in advance to avoid the most damaging consequences.
At the very least, Johnson is missing a massive opportunity to stimulate public debate about how London might lead on climate change, which his strategy seeks to deliver. At the worst, it is a sign that the Mayor is in thrall to a very small band of climate change "sceptics", who could fill his head with inaccurate and misleading nonsense. Dr Ridley’s recruitment as a keynote speaker is not the only sign of this. Last month, the Mayor used his Telegraph column to promote the views of his friend Piers Corbyn, who has a small business offering weather forecasts. Corbyn is also a staunch climate change "sceptic", who denies that greenhouse gases are causing global warming.
London is home to many businesses and academic institutions that host genuinely world-class experts on climate change. Why is the Mayor not seeking their counsel instead of a fringe group of "sceptics"?
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















42 comments
I would like to point out two inaccuracies in this article.
First, the Scottish Government has admitted a rise in GGE due to the building of turbines, due to continue until 2025. Para 4.9 Routemap and GPS SEA Environmental Report on SG website.
Second point, Matt Ridley offers the prize money as he can not bare to be the recipient of monies from an over subsidised industry, that generates , expensive intermittant power. He happens to benefit from a trust that owns land that has turbine infrastucture running through it.
We should all be grateful that he sets such a fine example by resisting the millions of pounds of subsidy money he could benefit from if he too jumped onto this bandwagon, as many others have.
If Ridley is accused of exaggerating the contribution of shale gas to recent falls in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States, what should we make of claims that wind power contributed to those falls? In fact, the contribution of natural gas to electricity production in the U.S. has increased twice as much as that of wind.
Furthermore, although I might disagree with almost everything Ridley advocates, it is not farfetched to question wind power's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. After decades of experience around the world, with substantial installations in several countries, such an effect of wind power has yet to be documented. And it is well known that wind's high variability requires "conventional" power plants to work less efficiently in response, i.e., with more emissions per unit of electricity generated.
I should add that emissions by the U.S. have decreased mostly because its economy is in the tank and people are cutting back on electricity, petrol and heating oil.
"Why is Boris Johnson promoting climate change "sceptics"?"
Because there's money in it! Boris Johnson is very ambitious (though his capacities are limited). He is open to the highest bidder in an attempt to achieve those ambitions and the climate change "sceptics" have money.
Climate change happens when the Earth goes its way in natural ways and is explainable as to why scientists cannot stop it happening. and many aspects of the climate are changing beyond what they can control.
We had a good country within the British Isles, and when there were not many jobs for our teenagers,and not many for sacked workers, after the evils of the industrial revolution went abroad to make other countries polluted, and only when that was happening started mass immigration to take away what those since 1948 have paid in benefits and taxes for their futures.
I was born into a Victorian area of Manchester in 1946, then we had slum houses, dirty satanic factories; roads that were swept, and de-iced in Winter, even footpaths and bins emptied twice a week, my school was in a slum area and we had to walk two miles (both ways) to get our dinner at Sharpe Street Ragged school, there was no benefit then for those that did not work, and indeed in my whole life until sixteen had seen only two people of another skin colour, and three East Europeans, at my school, yes times were hard, but when our parents payments and money were released to those that did not work, if they felt like not doing so, then and only then did we start having mass immigration on a scale that no other nation has seen. Wonder why they came here for essential work,which they never will do, when they could have £2 million pound houses in London and all paid for? I wonder why my health service is full of people that know little our system and values,and are filling the wards with nurses from Europe that cannot speak English when writing induction forms on the wards, and are sacking our own on early redundancy at the Manchester Royal Infirmary, where they have just spent several billions on before privatisation comes soon.
Yes Posh but you miss the point a little bit.
The reason that these people (Humans) arrived on these shores was because they had no work or money where they lived. They were told stories of streets paved with gold and they believed it. They were told that if they fell ill, the state would pay for them to get better. They were told that life was easy and food was plentiful, and they believed it. What they wasn't told is that they would be put into the housing that you refer to as a slum of which you appear not to have liked. They weren't told that the wages that they received would barely feed their families. They weren't told that they would have to work long hours in jobs that no-one else wanted.
They wasn't told that once their families had settled here by right of the empire that they and their families would be blamed for just about all the ills of the rich and global warming/climate change aswell.
The grass always seems greener doesn't it Posh?But once lived the majority tend to find that this green and pleasant land was built on bulls***.
Have a nice day.
Over population poses the real treat not a few wet summers.
Over population of what and where Red?
I listened too that Cuckoo loud and long.
He thought 11 words was a universal song!
Climate change and global pollution cannot be tackled without addressing the neglected issue of the world's booming population. Overpopulation is the main threat to this planet. It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.
Are we talking about Elephants Red?
I'm quite willing to discuss the assumed over-population of humans if you'd like.
When will this over population occur and over what time period are we discussing?
Have I strayed into Private Eye's Pseuds Corner?
You talk about effects of climate change then say a number of years have been warmer than others. So what! What evidence of catastrophic effects is there that those warmer years have had? None! In fact, the global temperature has risen by only ~0.7 degC over the past century, hardly noticeable. The CO2=warming hypothesis has no empirical evidence to support a causal link, and a new study had also demonstrated the US land temperature record (i) only has 20% of stations that are of an acceptable standard, & (ii) consequently, has falsly inflated temperature rises by at least 100%. Further, the New Zealand gov't are refusing a court order to release an audit of their temperature record, which covers 25% of the globe, a clear indication that this data too does not support the global warming hypothesis. In Canada, Michael Mann who created the famous hockey stick graph is also refusing a court order to release a key set of results that many believe will prove to undermine and not support his key claims. Why would he hide this if they supported his claims and case?
Boris is no fool, he understands that our politicians will eventually have to admit that the global warming fiasco was a huge scam, so is aligning himself to be on the good side of the inevitable fall-out and backlash when it finally collapses.
It will be those withing the green/red movement that will find themselves looking ridiculous when the Emperor is revealed to be wearing No Clothes...
Im wondering if the author of this drivel who packs it full of unproven assumptions complained when a certain Lord Oxburgh headed the "climategate" inquiry?,
Far from being impartial he was in fact into carbon trading & windfarming, Not to mention a paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank, So before slinging dirt at what you call "the sceptics" perhaps you should take a long hard look at the underhanded tactics that the warmist camp implement in an attempt to make them look whiter than white.
Also look at Tim Yeo's vested interests. Approx £155,000 worth from green/renewable companies when he's supposed to be the impartial & neutral chairman of the Commuttee for Climate Change!!
Man-made Global Warming is a lie... and not a very good one.
Firstly there is no hard "Science" to prove man made climate change , no science that hasn't been manipulated anyway, secondly i guess that Boris is clued up and understands how costly the scam is for London and the rest of the country !
Boris for P.M !
Johnson is sending out signals to the right of the Tory party for when he makes his leadership bid.
Nothing McCarthyite about this post. No, sir.
What on earth as Paul McCartney got to do with this? He's not even mentioned in the article, he's a known environmental campaigner, he's a vegetarian, and he wrote a lot of beautifuf songs including a couple that made me cry when I was breaking up with my 8th grade girlfriend. And all people like you can do is make snide remarks about a great musician and an incredible human being.
Huss, I say to you sir. Huss and double huss.
No it's not Paul McCartney he's referring to, it's McCarthy, the indie band from Barking.
Who could forget their albums The Enraged Will Inherit the Earth and Banking, Violence and the Inner Life Today?
"he wrote a lot of beautiful songs including a couple that made me cry " - Classic, you just made me cry with laughter !
Nothing McCarthyite about this post. No, sir.
Bob, you could also note Ridley's egregious cherry picking. In a recent letter to The Economist he compared estimates of polar bear numbers from the 1960s with polar bear numbers today, but failed to mention that polar bears were threatened by unsustainably over-hunting in the 1960s, and weren't fully protected until the 1970s. They might have recovered from the over-hunting, but that doesn't mean they aren't threatened by climate change and the decline in Arctic sea ice. A quite deliberate and shameless attempt to mislead.
A bit off-topic, but in case you're wondering how a science writer ended up as chairman of a bank, Matt Ridley is the fifth viscount Ridley, and joined the board shortly after his father, the fourth viscount Ridley, stepped down as chairman. Ah, meritocracy.
A bit off-topic, but in case you're wondering how a science writer ended up as chairman of a bank, Matt Ridley is the fifth viscount Ridley, and joined the board shortly after his father, the fourth viscount Ridley, stepped down as chairman. Ah, meritocracy.
Come on, since when the global warming theory (climate change now) is science?
The climate changes all the time and if you go to the museum of London you will see that just tens of thousands years ago UK had a tropcal climate, ice ages etc.
Boris is a tw8t though.
VIO, why the change from 'global warming' to 'climate change'? The problem now is flooding, how does this fit in with the tropical climate?
Your historical account neither takes account of 'acid rain' or a great big hole in the Ozone layer which are both here now but were not at the time of which you write. I wonder why these issues are never taken account of?
VIO, why the change from 'global warming' to 'climate change'? The problem now is flooding, how does this fit in with the tropical climate?
Your historical account neither takes account of 'acid rain' or a great big hole in the Ozone layer which are both here now but were not at the time of which you write. I wonder why these issues are never taken account of?
"climate changes all the time"
Are you familiar with the term 'non sequitur'? Climate has changed before, therefore humans cannot change climate is an example.
Polution does not improve the environment and I am against polution, that is for sure. But the global warming theory is just a theory and it can not be proved in any way. Unfortunately it is a weapon in the hands of some politicians and some corporations to make money. Some others will be against it to make money, too.
So stop poluting - I totally agree. The global warming is science - I do not agree; it is more of a dogma.
VIO, what do you mean by 'polution'?
"global warming theory is just a theory and it can not be proved"
Proof belongs to the realm of maths. Science deals in evidence.
Paula, the science is there if you wish to find it and the scientific body that looks into such issues appears to disagree with you.
And every single scientific academy of national and international standing disagrees with you, AndyG.
And why would that be J? What does every scientific academy of national and international standing say? Do tell for you have my attention.
Polution does not improve the environment and I am against polution, that is for sure. But the global warming theory is just a theory and it can not be proved in any way. Unfortunately it is a weapon in the hands of some politicians and some corporations to make money. Some others will be against it to make money, too.
So stop poluting - I totally agree. The global warming is science - I do not agree.
VIO, what do you not agree with?
In what way are theories about climate change not science? Yes the climate does change. But it doesn't follow that the present climate change is not being caused by man. It's also worth bearing in mind that past climate change has had catastrophic consequences for various species - notably the dinosaurs. It would therefore seem sensible for mankind to refrain from causing rapid climate change which might well render the world very much less habitable for man.
However, I do entirely agree with your opinion of the entirely odious Boris Johnson.
Perhaps Johnson really is as stupid as he pretends to be, after all.
Oh joy another legacy of gross financial stupidity from the previous Labour government is about to hit British business. just as the double dip recession is starting to look less like a bad dream and more like another helping of harsh reality, a load of Green stealth taxes are about to become law. Nothing new about New Taxes and New Labour, they go together like a hedgehog and fleas, but what is different about these taxes is you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
What you see is what you get. Unfortunatley Londonners will have to suffer 4 more years of Johnson. What you deserve is what you get.