Analysis of Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser’s “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate”

12 scientists contributed to analyzing the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be 'Low' to 'Very Low'.

The opinion piece in the WSJ by Matt Ridley & Benny Peiser contains numerous false statements, cherry-picked evidence, and misleading assertions about climate science.  It attempts to surround the hard facts about climate change with clouds of uncertainty, even though these facts are agreed to by the scientific academies of every major country in the world and the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.

Facts and/or studies are cherry picked or placed out of context to support the main claim that global warming is not as bad as we feared.  For example the assertion that 1.5C of warming would be “beneficial” is one that very few scientists or economists agree with, and is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of evidence in the IPCC’s reports showing that the adverse impacts from climate change will far outweigh the benefits from carbon-dioxide induced greening and other heat-related effects.

See below for a list of scientists’ comments on the article’s statements.

Read more at Analysis of Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser’s “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate”