The invitation plopped onto my editor’s desk yesterday morning. An invitation from Nigel Lawson, former chancellor of the UK, to a lecture by writer and politician Matt Ridley.
Lawson is chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which lobbies against climate change mitigation, so normally such invitations go straight into the bin where they belong. But what caught our eyes was the venue: the Royal Society of London. Yes, the world’s most famous scientific society is allowing its premises to be used by those who deny what science is telling us about climate change.
Let’s be clear: I’m not arguing that such people should be silenced. They have a right to express their views. Personally, I’d prefer they did it where they don’t disturb the reality-based community, but if they want to hold meetings in obscure venues to talk among themselves, I don’t really care.
Advertisement
What does disturb me is when these views are given a public platform. Ridley’s claims should not be cited as if he were an expert on, say, , as he was by the BBC earlier this week.
His views are not supported by evidence. He admits the world is warming, but not nearly as much as scientists claim. He says the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide is going to turn the planet into a garden of Eden. He says coral reefs may be suffering, but it’s nothing to do with warming or ocean acidification. None of these things are true.
Those who deny climate science should not be interviewed just because their views differ from those of the overwhelming majority of scientists. It’s the job of journalists to seek the truth, not simply to present opposing views. This kind of false balance leaves viewers and readers with an extremely misleading picture, which the BBC’s own governing body has .
To see how damaging this style of reporting can be, look at the US. There, the media’s abject has helped him get within spitting distance of the presidency.
They should certainly not be allowed to hold events at prestigious scientific venues, as it helps give their views a veneer of respectability. The UK’s Royal Society has been outspoken on global warming, but it risks undermining some of its good work by letting the likes of Lawson and Ridley use its premises.
The Royal Society says it is merely hiring out a venue, not hosting or endorsing this event, but that is a meaningless distinction to most people. If you heard Ridley described as someone who has given a lecture at the Royal Society, what would that make you think?
In a statement to 91av the Royal Society attempted to defend its stance by saying “there is scope for debate on the policy responses”. Of course this is true, but if, like Lawson and his so-called Global Warming Policy Foundation, you think climate change is not a serious problem, you cannot seriously discuss the policy response to its threats.
The Royal Society’s full response
The GWPF are one of many organisations who hire space to hold their own events at the Royal Society. There is no suggestion of endorsement by the Royal Society for the views expressed at these events. The Society has a strong track record of opposing those who cherry pick or misrepresent evidence when it comes to the science of climate change and indeed we have had robust disagreements with the GWPF in the past. The evidence shows us that the earth is warming and that recent warming is largely caused by human activities. Once that is accepted, there is scope for debate on the policy responses and that is the area that the GWPF claim to be interested in. If the GWPF use this opportunity to misrepresent the scientific evidence it would undermine the legitimacy of their views on policy responses to climate change.
Update, 26 September 2016
Matt Ridley writes: “Michael Le Page attributes three opinions to me, all wrongly. For example, I have not said the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide is ‘going to turn the planet into a Garden of Eden’, but I do accurately cite the senior author of the major recent peer-reviewed paper on the topic that global greening, 70 per cent caused by carbon dioxide increases, has already resulted in more green vegetation equivalent to a new continent twice the size of the mainland United States. My views are well within the range agreed by the IPCC.”
