Matt Ridley - Chairman of the NORTHER ROCK Bank which collapsed and had to be nationalised under his leadership. The susbequent enquiry criticised him for his lack of leadership and HIS FAILURE TO RECOGNISE RISKS.
And you quote this person as an authority?
This book and its arguments are demolished here
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/the-rational-optimist-matt-ridley%E2%80%99s-regurgitation-of-denialist-propaganda/

Shal
Angry ad hominem and links to absent authority with more angry ad hominem.

So persuasive.

I am not quoting Matt Ridley as an authority, merely a source of information. How much credibility do you think the political pronouncements of the IPCC carry in the light of Donna Laframboise's investigation of their procedures? Some of her results can be found here

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/12/10/donna-laframboise-audits-the-ipcc/

and here

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/12/10/ipcc-audit-part-2-the-importance-of-peer-review/

Irregular verb:

I have integrity
YOU have an agenda

Of course Laframboise would not be pushing her own agenda. She's only in it for the love of the search for knowledge *irony off*.

critique of Laframboise.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3CSVFIVPLNDF9/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3CSVFIVPLNDF9

A little more on Matt Ridley's science.

http://skepticalscience.com/Ridleyriddle2.html

And as for lots more fresh water - this is what's occurred in the wake of India's Green Revolution - a limit to soil productivity?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

More from the realms of productive agriculture and the Western ideology of "let's overdo everything for profit".

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102944731

You remind us once again, shal, that there is no science to justify the alarmist scam, so you are reduced to attacking anyone who tells the truth.

There is no basis for assertion that human emissions have any but a negligible effect on climate. The alarmist camp rely on the pathetic “very likely” to which the IPCC is reduced.

If you consider the science, it is extremely unlikely that the effect of human emissions has any significance in climate, and there is certainly no scientific proof.

This is a sample of the criticism of Ridley upon which shal relies. The author does not give a name, so presumably he is another High School Student, or perhaps shal himself:

“He (Ridley) repeats the crudest pieces of denialist propaganda, which anyone with a genuine interest or understanding of science knows are factually incorrect:
• Polar bear populations are rising
• That Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” is broken
• The hoary old “scientists in the 1970s used to believe an ice age was immanent” myth
• Average temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were higher globally than today”

If you read the Climategate emails you will find that even the Climtegate miscreants were disappointed in Mann’s “crap” as they called it. They also sought to hide the MWP.

James Hansen, Al Gore’s adviser gave the information on which the article in the 70s was based, regarding the coming Ice Age, which remains as much of a possibility today, as global warming.

Gore’s assertion about polar bears collapsed when the facts were examined, and it was found that the populations were rising.

This is more proof that alarmists have to resort to lies and baseless sliming of people who tell the truth, because they have no facts or science to back their position.