In the ever-evolving landscape of climate discourse, few figures spark as much debate as Matt Ridley. A renowned British science writer and journalist, Ridley’s views often challenge prevailing narratives surrounding environmental policy and economic sustainability. His recent appearance on the YouTube channel Triggernometry, titled “Net Zero Must Go,” ignites a crucial conversation about the implications of net-zero policies. As we dive into the key points raised by Ridley, it’s essential to navigate through his arguments with a critical lens, fact-checking the claims made to ensure a balanced understanding of this contentious topic. In this blog post, we will explore the factual accuracy of Ridley’s assertions and the broader context of his arguments, contributing to a more informed dialogue on the future of our planet’s climate policy.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 06/16/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

The planet has warmed at about a quarter of a degree per decade on average over the last 30 or 40 years.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim: **"The planet has warmed at about a quarter of a degree per decade on average over the last 30 or 40 years,"** we must examine the most authoritative and recent climate data.

## Analysis of the Claim

**1. Rate of Global Warming Over Recent Decades**

According to NOAA, the combined land and ocean temperature has warmed at an average rate of 0.36°F (0.20°C) per decade since 1975[1]. This is more than three times the rate observed since 1850 (0.11°F or 0.06°C per decade)[1]. NASA reports that the Earth was about 1.47°C (2.65°F) warmer in 2024 than in the late 19th-century preindustrial average, with the last decade being the warmest on record[3].

**2. Conversion and Comparison**

The claim states "about a quarter of a degree per decade." This is ambiguous regarding the unit (Celsius or Fahrenheit), but in climate science, Celsius is standard. NOAA’s cited rate since 1975 is 0.20°C per decade[1]. This is close to, but slightly below, a quarter of a degree Celsius per decade.

**3. Time Frame Clarification**

The claim references "the last 30 or 40 years." NOAA’s data since 1975 (about 50 years) is the closest official figure, but the rate has remained consistent in recent decades. If we look at the last 30 years (1995–2025), the warming rate has generally matched or slightly exceeded the 0.20°C per decade figure, especially as warming has accelerated in recent years[1][3].

## Summary Table

## Conclusion

**The claim that the planet has warmed at about a quarter of a degree per decade on average over the last 30 or 40 years is close to, but slightly higher than, the most authoritative scientific estimates.** The actual rate, according to NOAA and NASA, is about 0.20°C per decade since 1975[1][3]. If the claim intended to refer to Fahrenheit, the rate would be about 0.36°F per decade, which is well above a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit per decade. However, in climate science, Celsius is the standard unit, and the claim is therefore a slight overestimate.

**In summary:**
The planet has warmed at about 0.20°C per decade over the last several decades, not quite a quarter of a degree Celsius per decade, but close enough that the claim is broadly accurate in spirit, if not precise in detail[1][3]. If the claim intended to use Fahrenheit, it is an underestimate.

## Additional Context

The broader discussion led by Lord Matt Ridley touches on issues of scientific consensus, public trust, and the politicization of climate science. While Ridley raises valid concerns about open scientific inquiry and the risks of oversimplification or exaggeration, the core data on global temperature trends are robust and widely corroborated by multiple independent scientific organizations[1][3][4]. The rate of warming is accelerating, and recent years have set new temperature records, underscoring the urgency of the issue[3][5].

Citations

Claim

We are not in a period of unprecedented warmth.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "We are not in a period of unprecedented warmth."

To assess the validity of this claim, we must consider scientific evidence regarding global temperature trends and historical climate conditions.

### Scientific Consensus on Current Warming

1. **Temperature Records**: Global temperature records show that the past few decades have been the warmest in the instrumental record, which spans over a century. This warming trend is consistent with the increase in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

2. **Paleoclimatic Data**: Paleoclimatic data, such as tree rings, ice cores, and sediment cores, provide evidence of past climate conditions. These records indicate that the current warming is unusual compared to natural climate variability over the past few thousand years.

3. **IPCC Reports**: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has consistently reported that human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, are significantly contributing to the observed warming. The IPCC also notes that the current rate of warming is unprecedented in the context of the past few millennia.

### Addressing the Claim

The claim that "we are not in a period of unprecedented warmth" contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus. While there have been periods of warming in Earth's history, such as during the Medieval Warm Period, current temperatures are higher than those experienced during these past events. Moreover, the rate of warming over the past century is faster than any previous warming period in the past 10,000 years.

### Lord Matt Ridley's Views

Lord Matt Ridley's skepticism about the urgency of climate change and his belief that mainstream discussions often exaggerate these concerns are not supported by the scientific consensus. While he acknowledges some warming due to carbon dioxide, his views on the potential dangers of climate change and the need for immediate action are at odds with the majority of climate scientists[3][4].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that "we are not in a period of unprecedented warmth" is not supported by scientific evidence. Current global temperatures are higher than those experienced in recent millennia, and the rate of warming is faster than any previous warming period in the past 10,000 years. The scientific consensus, as reflected in IPCC reports and paleoclimatic data, underscores the unprecedented nature of current warming trends.

—

References:
– National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Global Climate Report.
– Mann, M. E., et al. (2008). Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 105(36), 13252–13257.
– IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
– IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
– Marcott, S. A., et al. (2013). A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years. *Science*, 339(6124), 1198–1201.

Citations

Claim

There is approximately 16 or 17 percent more green vegetation on the planet now than there was in the 1980s.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "there is approximately 16 or 17 percent more green vegetation on the planet now than there was in the 1980s," we must examine the most authoritative and recent scientific evidence available from satellite observations and ecological studies.

## Scientific Evidence on Global Greening

**Satellite Observations and Studies**

– **NASA and NOAA Data:** Multiple studies using satellite data from NASA’s MODIS and NOAA’s AVHRR instruments have documented a significant increase in global vegetation since the early 1980s. These studies show that from a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands have experienced significant greening over the last 35 years, largely attributed to rising atmospheric CO₂ levels and, in some regions, intensive agriculture and tree planting[5][3][4].
– **Extent of Greening:** One prominent study published in *Nature Climate Change* found that Earth has become greener in an area covering 36 million km² since 1982, which is close to two times the size of the United States[3][5]. This increase in green biomass—primarily leaves—was observed over 40% of the planet’s vegetated surface, with only 4% showing significant decreases[3].
– **Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Percentage Increase:** While the studies quantify the area and extent of greening, they do not universally report a single, clear percentage increase in total green vegetation. However, some interpretations and summaries of the data suggest that the increase in leaf area index (LAI) or green biomass could be in the range of 10–20% over several decades, depending on the region and the specific metric used[3][5]. For example, a 2019 NASA report notes a 5% increase in global green leaf area compared to the early 2000s, but this is a much shorter timeframe and does not directly address the 1980s baseline[1].

## Evaluation of the Claim

– **Claim: 16 or 17 Percent More Green Vegetation:** There is no direct, widely cited scientific publication stating that global green vegetation has increased by exactly 16 or 17 percent since the 1980s. However, the available evidence does support a substantial increase in global vegetation, with some studies and summaries suggesting a range that could include this figure, especially if considering specific metrics or regions[3][5].
– **Supporting Evidence:** The 36 million km² increase in greening since 1982, covering an area twice the size of the United States, is a robust indicator of significant change[3][5]. The studies also note that this greening is largely due to CO₂ fertilization, with additional contributions from land management practices in countries like China and India[1][5].
– **Limitations:** The studies do not provide a single, universally accepted percentage for the increase in global vegetation. The 5% increase cited by NASA refers to a more recent period (early 2000s to late 2010s), not the 1980s baseline[1]. The 16–17% figure may be an extrapolation or synthesis of various regional and global trends, but it is not directly confirmed by the most authoritative sources.

## Conclusion

The claim that there is approximately 16 or 17 percent more green vegetation on the planet now than in the 1980s is not directly supported by a single, widely cited scientific study. However, it is consistent with the general trend and magnitude of global greening observed in multiple satellite-based studies, which report significant increases in green biomass and leaf area index over the past several decades[3][5][1]. The exact percentage may vary depending on the metric and region, but the overall direction and scale of the change are well-supported by scientific evidence.

**Summary Table**

**Final Assessment:**
The claim is plausible and aligns with the direction and scale of observed global greening, but the specific 16–17% figure is not directly confirmed by the most authoritative scientific sources. The evidence strongly supports a substantial increase in global vegetation since the 1980s, with the exact percentage depending on the metric and region considered.

Citations

Claim

Indoor air pollution kills four million people a year and produces more carbon dioxide than burning gas.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

Let’s evaluate the claim: **"Indoor air pollution kills four million people a year and produces more carbon dioxide than burning gas."**

## Evaluation of the Claim

### 1. Mortality from Indoor Air Pollution

**Claim:** Indoor air pollution kills four million people a year.

**Fact-check:**
The most recent and authoritative data from the World Health Organization (WHO) states that nearly 3.2 million people die prematurely each year from diseases caused by household (indoor) air pollution[2][1]. Another recent study published in PubMed estimates indoor air pollution contributes to approximately 2.9 million deaths annually[5]. These figures are consistently below four million.

**Conclusion:**
The claim that indoor air pollution kills four million people a year is an overestimate. The most reliable sources indicate the annual death toll is between 2.9 and 3.2 million[2][1][5].

### 2. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Indoor Air Pollution vs. Burning Gas

**Claim:** Indoor air pollution produces more carbon dioxide than burning gas.

**Fact-check:**
This part of the claim is ambiguous and requires clarification. "Indoor air pollution" is typically caused by burning solid fuels (such as wood, coal, dung, or crop waste) for cooking and heating, especially in low- and middle-income countries[2][1]. Burning these fuels releases carbon dioxide (CO₂), but also other pollutants like particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and methane.

**Comparison with Burning Gas:**
– **Burning gas (natural gas, LPG, etc.)** is generally considered a cleaner fuel for indoor use, producing less particulate matter and other harmful pollutants, but it still emits CO₂.
– **Solid fuel combustion** (the main source of indoor air pollution) emits CO₂, but the total global CO₂ emissions from household solid fuel use are much smaller than those from industrial, transport, or large-scale fossil fuel use.

**Quantitative Comparison:**
There is no credible scientific source indicating that indoor air pollution from solid fuel use produces more CO₂ globally than burning gas for energy. In fact, the International Energy Agency and other environmental reports consistently show that the largest sources of CO₂ emissions are from power generation, industry, and transport, not from household solid fuel use[3].

**Conclusion:**
The claim that indoor air pollution produces more carbon dioxide than burning gas is not supported by available data. Burning gas for energy (especially in large-scale applications) is a much larger source of CO₂ emissions globally than household solid fuel use.

## Summary Table

## Additional Context

The discussion led by Lord Matt Ridley raises important points about scientific debate and public trust. However, the specific claim about indoor air pollution mortality and CO₂ emissions is not accurate based on current scientific evidence. Rigorous fact-checking using WHO and peer-reviewed studies confirms that while indoor air pollution is a significant public health issue, the numbers and comparisons cited are incorrect.

## Final Assessment

– **Mortality:** Indoor air pollution causes about 2.9–3.2 million premature deaths annually, not four million[2][1][5].
– **CO₂ Emissions:** Indoor air pollution from solid fuel use does not produce more CO₂ than burning gas for energy on a global scale[3].

The claim is **partially incorrect** regarding mortality and **incorrect** regarding CO₂ emissions.

Citations

Claim

We are not in a period of unprecedentedly fast warming.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "We are not in a period of unprecedentedly fast warming."

The claim that the current rate of warming is not unprecedented compared to historical data is a topic of debate among scientists and climate skeptics. To assess the validity of this claim, we need to examine both historical climate data and the current rate of warming.

### Historical Context

Historically, Earth's climate has experienced significant fluctuations due to natural factors such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation, and variations in Earth's orbit. For example, during the last ice age, which ended about 11,700 years ago, temperatures rose rapidly as the planet transitioned into the current interglacial period. However, these natural fluctuations occurred over much longer timescales compared to the current warming trend.

### Current Warming Trend

The current warming trend is primarily driven by human activities, particularly the increase in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) due to fossil fuel burning and deforestation. This anthropogenic warming is occurring at a rate that is unprecedented in recent geological history. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the past century has seen the fastest rate of warming in the past 2,000 years, with the last decade being the warmest on record globally.

### Scientific Consensus

The overwhelming scientific consensus, supported by multiple lines of evidence, is that the current rate of warming is unusual and primarily caused by human activities. This consensus is based on extensive research and data from various fields, including paleoclimatology, atmospheric science, and oceanography.

### Critique of the Claim

Lord Matt Ridley and other climate skeptics often argue that the current warming is not unprecedented and that climate policies are overly restrictive. However, these views are not supported by the majority of scientific evidence. While Ridley acknowledges some warming due to CO2, his skepticism about the urgency and severity of climate change is not aligned with the scientific consensus[3][4].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that we are not in a period of unprecedentedly fast warming is not supported by the scientific consensus. The current rate of warming is indeed unusual compared to historical data, primarily due to anthropogenic factors. The scientific community emphasizes the need for immediate action to mitigate climate change, contrary to Ridley's views on the matter.

## References

[1] The Ecologist. (2025). Climate denial 'a path to disaster'.
[2] Carbon Brief. (2015). Scientists respond to Matt Ridley's climate change claims.
[3] Skeptical Science. (2015). Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth's future because he won't learn from the past.
[4] AEI. (n.d.). Matt Ridley: 'The Strong Possibility That Climate Change Will Be Slow and Harmless Must Be Taken Seriously'.
[5] Desmog. (2015). Matt 'King Coal' Ridley Admits Fossil Fuel Investments May Cloud Views on Climate Change.
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (n.d.). Global Climate Change.

Note: The references and are not directly listed in the search results but are commonly cited sources in discussions about climate change.

Citations

Claim

We are not in a period of increasing extreme weather.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "we are not in a period of increasing extreme weather" contradicts the consensus of climate science and the evidence presented by leading experts.

Multiple authoritative sources and climate scientists warn that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events are indeed increasing as a consequence of global warming driven by rising carbon dioxide levels. For example, a group of leading climate scientists recently stated that we are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster, implying worsening extreme weather conditions and other climate impacts[1].

Matt Ridley, a known skeptic of mainstream climate change urgency, acknowledges some warming due to CO2 but argues that the dangers are often exaggerated and that policy responses like the UK's net zero target are economically unwise[2][3]. However, scientific critiques of Ridley's views highlight that his arguments often rely on outdated or debunked claims and underestimate the risks of climate change, including the rise in extreme weather events[3].

The broader scientific consensus, supported by extensive meteorological data, shows that climate change is linked to increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall, droughts, and storms. This is consistent with the physical understanding of how a warming atmosphere holds more moisture and alters weather patterns. Ridley's position reflects a minority view that emphasizes uncertainty and economic concerns over the robust evidence of worsening extreme weather trends documented by climate science.

In summary, the claim that we are not experiencing increasing extreme weather is not supported by the prevailing scientific evidence. Instead, the data and expert warnings indicate that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe due to anthropogenic climate change[1][3]. Ridley's critiques focus more on policy and scientific discourse rather than disputing the fundamental meteorological trends documented by climate research.

Citations

Claim

More virology labs are opening than ever before despite concerns.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "More Virology Labs Are Opening Than Ever Before Despite Concerns"

To assess the validity of the claim that more virology labs are opening than ever before, despite concerns, we need to examine trends in laboratory establishment and the current state of virology research.

### Trends in Virology Laboratory Establishment

1. **Global Expansion of BSL4 Labs**: There are currently 59 maximum containment labs (BSL4) around the world, which are designed to handle the deadliest pathogens. These labs are spread across 23 countries, with the largest concentration in Europe[5]. While this indicates a significant presence of high-level virology research facilities, it does not directly quantify the rate of new lab openings.

2. **Guidelines for Establishing Virology Labs**: The World Health Organization (WHO) provides guidelines for establishing virology labs in developing countries, which suggests an interest in expanding virology capabilities globally[4]. However, these guidelines do not provide specific data on the number of new labs being established.

3. **Workforce and Funding Challenges**: In some regions, such as the UK, there are concerns about workforce vacancies and funding for virology labs. Despite these challenges, there is an ongoing effort to train new virologists and scientists[3].

### Concerns and Criticisms

– **Safety and Biosecurity Concerns**: Only about one-quarter of countries with BSL4 labs receive high scores for biosafety and biosecurity, raising concerns about the risks associated with these facilities[5].
– **Scientific Debate and Public Trust**: The debate over the origins of COVID-19 and other scientific issues has led to concerns about the politicization of science and public trust in scientific institutions.

### Conclusion

While there is evidence of a significant number of high-level virology labs (BSL4) globally and ongoing efforts to establish new facilities, particularly in developing countries, there is no clear data to support the claim that more virology labs are opening than ever before. The expansion of virology research is influenced by factors such as funding, workforce availability, and safety concerns. Therefore, the claim lacks concrete evidence to fully validate it.

## Recommendations for Further Research

1. **Quantitative Data on Lab Openings**: To support the claim, it would be necessary to gather specific data on the number of virology labs opened over recent years compared to previous periods.
2. **Analysis of Funding Trends**: Examining trends in funding for virology research and lab establishment could provide insights into whether there is an increase in lab openings.
3. **Assessment of Workforce and Safety Standards**: Evaluating the workforce capacity and safety standards in new labs could help understand the challenges and concerns associated with their establishment.

In summary, while there is a notable presence of virology labs globally and efforts to expand them, the claim about the rate of new openings lacks concrete evidence. Further research is needed to fully assess this trend.

Citations

Claim

The scientific community is resisting calls for stiffer regulation of virology experiments that cause increases in lethality or infectivity.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Resistance to Regulation of Virology Experiments

The claim that the scientific community is resisting calls for stiffer regulation of virology experiments, particularly those that increase lethality or infectivity, can be evaluated through recent policy discussions and scientific debates.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Opposition to Enhanced Regulations**: There is significant opposition within the scientific community to additional regulations on gain-of-function (GoF) research. For instance, virologists have expressed concerns that more stringent regulations could hinder pandemic preparation and response, arguing that current regulations are sufficient[3]. An article in the Journal of Virology, signed by 156 virologists, highlighted the value of GoF research in developing vaccines and antivirals while cautioning against redundant or overly cumbersome regulations[3].

2. **Professional Societies' Stance**: Organizations like the American Society for Microbiology have expressed skepticism about proposed legislation aimed at tightening oversight of GoF research. They question the necessity of such measures when federal agencies are already implementing new guidelines[1].

### Evidence Against the Claim

1. **Calls for Regulation**: Despite resistance from some quarters, there are also voices within the scientific community advocating for stricter oversight. The Cambridge Working Group, for example, has called for a halt to studies involving potential pandemic pathogens until risks and benefits can be fully assessed[4]. This indicates that not all scientists oppose regulation.

2. **Government Actions**: The U.S. government has taken steps to regulate GoF research, including halting funding for new studies and implementing a voluntary moratorium in the past[4]. These actions suggest that there is some level of support for regulation within the broader scientific and political landscape.

### Conclusion

The claim that the scientific community is resisting calls for stiffer regulation of virology experiments is partially supported. While there is significant opposition from many virologists and professional societies, there are also voices within the community advocating for more stringent oversight. The debate reflects a broader tension between the need for scientific progress and concerns about safety and ethics in research practices.

### Recommendations for Future Discussions

– **Balanced Dialogue**: Encourage open and balanced discussions within the scientific community to address concerns about safety and ethics without stifling innovation.
– **Independent Oversight**: Consider implementing independent review processes to ensure that research is conducted safely and ethically, addressing concerns about political influence and self-regulation[3].
– **Public Engagement**: Foster public trust by engaging in transparent communication about the risks and benefits of virology research, addressing misconceptions and promoting a nuanced understanding of scientific debates.

Citations

Claim

Scientists and venues often fail to publish research that contradicts dominant scientific hypotheses and perspectives.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "scientists and venues often fail to publish research that contradicts dominant scientific hypotheses and perspectives" is supported by a well-documented phenomenon in scientific research known as **publication bias**. This bias occurs when the outcome of a study influences its likelihood of being published, with statistically significant or positive results being favored over null or negative findings[1][3][4].

## Evidence of Publication Bias

**Definition and Mechanisms**

– **Publication bias** refers to the selective publication of research studies based on their results, where studies with positive or statistically significant findings are more likely to be published than those with null or negative results[1][3].
– **Reasons for bias:** Researchers may not submit negative findings due to perceptions of failure, lack of interest, or fear of reputational or funding consequences. Journals, in turn, are more inclined to publish research that supports established hypotheses or yields newsworthy results[1][3].
– **Impact:** This leads to an overrepresentation of positive results in the literature, distorting the overall evidence base and potentially misleading subsequent research and policy decisions[1][3][4].

**Empirical Evidence**

– **Prevalence:** Studies have shown that papers with statistically significant results are three times more likely to be published than those with null results, even when study quality is similar[3].
– **Detection methods:** Statistical tests such as Egger’s regression, rank-correlation, and p-uniform’s test are used to detect publication bias in meta-analyses. While the prevalence of detected bias varies by method and field, evidence of bias is consistently found, though sometimes at relatively low rates (e.g., 5–17% in some psychology meta-analyses)[5].
– **Consequences:** Publication bias deprives the scientific community of valuable information, potentially leading to redundant or misguided research and undermining public trust in science[4].

## Additional Context: Dissenting Views and Scientific Consensus

– **Dissenting theories:** The claim also touches on the difficulty of publishing research that challenges dominant scientific hypotheses or consensus views. This is particularly relevant in high-stakes, politicized fields such as climate science and public health, where dissenting views may face additional barriers to publication due to reputational or funding concerns[1][4].
– **Case examples:** The discussion led by Lord Matt Ridley highlights concerns about the suppression of dissenting views on climate change and the origins of COVID-19. While Ridley’s specific claims about the lab leak hypothesis and climate policy are debated, the broader issue of how scientific consensus and funding pressures can influence publication practices is well-supported by the literature on publication bias[1][3][4].

## Fact-Checking Conclusion

**The claim is substantiated by robust evidence of publication bias in scientific research.** Both researchers and journals are more likely to publish studies that support dominant hypotheses or yield positive results, while studies with null or negative findings—or those that challenge established views—are less likely to be published. This phenomenon is well-documented across scientific disciplines and has significant implications for the integrity of scientific knowledge and public trust[1][3][4].

**However, it is important to note that while publication bias is a real and persistent issue, the extent to which it affects specific fields or topics (such as climate change or COVID-19 origins) can vary. Statistical analyses suggest that while bias is present, its magnitude may sometimes be modest, and efforts to mitigate it (such as preregistration and open science initiatives) are ongoing[5].**

Citations

Claim

82% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels today, and this has not significantly changed in recent decades.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "82% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels today, and this has not significantly changed in recent decades."

To assess the validity of this claim, we need to examine recent global energy statistics and trends.

### Current Energy Mix

– **Global Energy Review 2025** by the International Energy Agency (IEA) provides insights into the global energy landscape. While the exact percentage of fossil fuels in the current energy mix is not specified in the available search results, the IEA's reports typically detail the ongoing shift towards cleaner energy sources[1][3].

– **Global Electricity Review 2025** by Ember highlights that in 2024, low-carbon sources accounted for 40.9% of global electricity generation, indicating a significant increase in renewable energy contributions[2].

### Trends in Energy Sources

– **Historical Context**: Historically, fossil fuels have dominated the global energy mix. However, there has been a noticeable shift towards renewable energy sources over the past few decades, driven by technological advancements and policy changes.

– **Recent Shifts**: The growth of solar and wind energy has been particularly rapid. Solar energy investment is projected to reach $450 billion by 2025, making it a leading category in energy investments[5]. This suggests that while fossil fuels remain a major component of the energy mix, there is a significant and increasing contribution from renewable sources.

### Conclusion

While the claim that fossil fuels constitute a large portion of the global energy mix is accurate, the assertion that this has not significantly changed in recent decades may be misleading. There has been a notable increase in renewable energy production and investment, indicating a shift towards cleaner energy sources. However, without precise figures from recent years, it's challenging to definitively state the exact percentage of fossil fuels in the current energy mix.

### Evidence and Trends

– **Investment Trends**: The IEA reports that clean energy investments are surpassing those in fossil fuels, with $2.2 trillion projected for clean energy in 2025 compared to $1.1 trillion for fossil fuels[5]. This trend suggests a significant shift in investment priorities towards renewable energy.

– **Renewable Energy Growth**: The growth rate of solar generation reached a six-year high in 2024, with a 29% increase[2]. This rapid expansion indicates that renewable energy is becoming an increasingly important part of the global energy mix.

In summary, while fossil fuels remain a dominant source of energy, the claim that their share has not significantly changed in recent decades overlooks the substantial growth in renewable energy production and investment. The energy landscape is evolving, with renewables playing an increasingly important role.

Citations

Claim

As of now, we can't find a reliable and cheap replacement for fossil fuels.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "As of now, we can't find a reliable and cheap replacement for fossil fuels."

The claim that there is no reliable and cheap replacement for fossil fuels can be evaluated by examining the current state of energy transition technologies and their economic viability.

### Current Alternatives to Fossil Fuels

There are several alternatives to fossil fuels, including **renewable energy** (such as wind, solar, tidal, and hydroelectric power), **nuclear power**, **hydrogen**, **biomass**, and **geothermal energy**[5]. These alternatives are becoming increasingly viable as technology advances and costs decrease.

– **Renewable Energy**: Renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar, have seen significant cost reductions over the past decade, making them more competitive with fossil fuels in many regions. For instance, the cost of solar energy has fallen dramatically, and solar power is now often cheaper than fossil fuels for electricity generation in many parts of the world[4].

– **Nuclear Power**: While nuclear power offers zero greenhouse gas emissions during operation, its high upfront costs and concerns about safety and waste disposal limit its widespread adoption[5].

– **Hydrogen**: Hydrogen, especially when produced from renewable energy sources, is gaining attention as a clean energy carrier. However, its production and storage costs remain high, though they are decreasing[5].

### Economic Viability and Reliability

The economic viability of these alternatives is improving:

– **Investment in Clean Energy**: In 2024, there was a record $2 trillion investment in clean energy technologies, which is expected to continue growing[2]. This investment is driving down costs and improving efficiency.

– **Renewable Energy Growth**: By 2025, more than a third of the world's electricity is projected to come from renewables, indicating a significant shift towards these sources[4].

– **Challenges**: Despite these advancements, challenges remain, including intermittency issues with solar and wind power, and the need for more efficient energy storage solutions. However, innovations in technology, such as more efficient solar panels and advanced battery systems, are addressing these challenges.

### Conclusion

While fossil fuels remain dominant due to their established infrastructure and historical cost advantages, renewable energy sources are becoming increasingly reliable and economically viable. The claim that there is no reliable and cheap replacement for fossil fuels is not entirely accurate, as renewable energy, particularly solar and wind power, is now competitive in many regions. However, the transition to these alternatives requires continued investment in technology and infrastructure to overcome remaining challenges like intermittency and energy storage.

In summary, while there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels, the energy transition is ongoing, and further advancements are needed to fully replace fossil fuels across all sectors. Lord Matt Ridley's critique of climate policies highlights the need for a balanced approach that supports innovative energy solutions, which is crucial for achieving a sustainable energy future.

Citations

Claim

Climate change can be a convenient excuse for politicians to avoid taking responsibility for other environmental issues.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Climate Change as a Convenient Excuse for Politicians

The claim that climate change can be a convenient excuse for politicians to avoid taking responsibility for other environmental issues is a complex assertion that involves political behavior, public policy, and the role of science in decision-making. This evaluation will consider the perspectives of political science, the role of climate change in policy discussions, and the potential for politicization of scientific issues.

### Political Behavior and Climate Change

1. **Political Expediency**: Politicians often use environmental issues, including climate change, to justify policies or actions that may not be directly related to the issue at hand. This can be seen as a form of political expediency, where climate change becomes a convenient narrative to advance other agendas or avoid addressing more immediate or localized environmental concerns[4].

2. **Case Studies**: In some cases, governments have been accused of using climate change as a justification for policies that have broader economic or political implications. For example, policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions might be used to justify economic restructuring or infrastructure projects that have little direct impact on climate change mitigation[5].

### The Role of Climate Change in Policy Discussions

1. **Dominance of Climate Change in Environmental Policy**: Climate change has become a dominant theme in environmental policy discussions globally. This focus can overshadow other critical environmental issues, such as biodiversity loss, pollution, or resource management, potentially allowing politicians to sidestep these problems by emphasizing climate action[3][4].

2. **Politicization of Science**: The politicization of climate science can lead to a situation where scientific debates are framed in a way that supports political agendas rather than fostering open scientific inquiry. This politicization can result in the suppression of dissenting views, as argued by figures like Lord Matt Ridley, which may further erode public trust in scientific authority[4][5].

### Lord Matt Ridley's Perspectives

Lord Matt Ridley, known for his skeptical views on climate change policy, argues that mainstream discussions often exaggerate climate concerns and suppress dissenting voices. He advocates for a more balanced approach to climate policy, focusing on innovative solutions rather than rigid targets. Ridley's critique of the UK's net zero target as economically unwise reflects broader concerns about the economic and political implications of climate policies[1][4].

### Conclusion

The claim that climate change can be used as a convenient excuse for politicians to avoid addressing other environmental issues has some validity. Climate change has become a central theme in environmental policy, potentially overshadowing other critical issues. The politicization of climate science can further complicate this situation by creating a narrative that supports political agendas rather than fostering open scientific debate. However, it is essential to approach this claim with nuance, recognizing that climate change is a significant global challenge that requires concerted action, even as other environmental issues also demand attention.

### Evidence and References

– **Politicization of Climate Change**: The politicization of climate change can lead to the suppression of dissenting views and the use of climate narratives to advance broader political agendas[4][5].
– **Dominance of Climate Change in Policy**: The focus on climate change can overshadow other environmental issues, potentially allowing politicians to sidestep these problems[3][4].
– **Lord Matt Ridley's Views**: Ridley argues for a more balanced approach to climate policy and critiques the suppression of dissenting scientific views[1][4].

Citations

Claim

In the 70s, we were told the planet is about to freeze and there was a prediction of 6 degrees of cooling which did not happen.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "In the 70s, we were told the planet is about to freeze and there was a prediction of 6 degrees of cooling which did not happen."

The claim that in the 1970s, scientists predicted a global cooling of 6 degrees, which did not occur, is largely a myth. This myth has been perpetuated despite the lack of substantial scientific consensus supporting such a prediction.

### Scientific Consensus in the 1970s

1. **Lack of Consensus on Global Cooling**: The notion that the scientific community in the 1970s was predicting an imminent ice age or significant global cooling is not supported by the majority of scientific literature. While some researchers did explore the possibility of cooling due to aerosol effects, this was not a widespread consensus[1][2].

2. **Survey of Scientists**: A survey conducted in 1978 among leading climate scientists found that they tended to anticipate slight global warming rather than cooling[4]. This further indicates that the majority of scientists were not predicting a global cooling scenario.

3. **Peer-Reviewed Papers**: A review of peer-reviewed papers from 1965 to 1979 found that only a few papers predicted global cooling, with the majority focusing on warming[5].

### Specific Predictions and Outcomes

– **Newsweek Article**: One notable article from Newsweek in 1975 did predict a new ice age, but this was not representative of the broader scientific consensus[3]. The article highlighted regional cooling trends, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, which were influenced by factors like air pollution and aerosols.

– **Temperature Trends**: Global temperature averages did show some cooling trends in certain regions during the 1970s, but this was not a global phenomenon. In many parts of the world, temperatures continued to rise[3].

– **Predictions vs. Reality**: There is no evidence of a prediction of 6 degrees of cooling in the scientific literature. In contrast, projections of global warming from the 1970s, such as those by John Sawyer, were remarkably accurate, predicting a warming of about 0.6°C by the year 2000[4].

### Conclusion

The claim that scientists in the 1970s predicted a global cooling of 6 degrees is not supported by historical scientific records. The majority of scientists during that era were concerned about global warming, and their projections have proven to be reasonably accurate. The myth of widespread predictions of global cooling in the 1970s has been debunked by numerous studies and surveys of scientific literature from that time[1][2][4][5].

Citations

Claim

We know that in the medieval period it was warmer than today because you find whole forests that are emerging from melting glaciers.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

Here is a professional, evidence-based evaluation of the claim:
**"We know that in the medieval period it was warmer than today because you find whole forests that are emerging from melting glaciers."**

## Evaluation of the Claim

**1. Scientific Context of the Claim**

The claim suggests that the medieval period (roughly 950–1250 CE) was warmer than today, citing the emergence of forests from melting glaciers as evidence. This is a common argument in climate change skepticism, often used to imply that current warming is not unprecedented or that natural variability is the dominant factor.

**2. Paleoclimatological Evidence**

Paleoclimatology uses proxies such as tree rings, ice cores, and sediment layers to reconstruct past climates. The "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP) is a well-documented interval of relatively mild temperatures in some regions, particularly the North Atlantic. However, the MWP was not globally synchronous nor as uniformly warm as the current period.

– **Global vs. Regional Warming:** The MWP was primarily a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon and did not affect all regions equally. Some areas, such as parts of Europe and North America, experienced warmer conditions, but others did not[4].
– **Comparison to Modern Warming:** Current global temperatures are higher than during the MWP. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and multiple peer-reviewed studies confirm that the rate and extent of recent warming are unprecedented in the context of the last 2,000 years[4].
– **Forests Emerging from Glaciers:** The exposure of ancient forests from melting glaciers is evidence of past warming episodes, but it does not prove that the MWP was warmer than today. These forests are typically remnants from earlier warm periods, not necessarily the medieval era. Moreover, the current rate of glacier retreat is far greater than during the MWP, and the global climate signal today is much stronger and more consistent[4].

**3. Scientific Consensus and Misinformation**

Matt Ridley, referenced in the discussion, has a history of making claims that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change. His assertions that global warming is "mostly beneficial" or that the MWP was warmer than today have been widely debunked by climate scientists[1][2][4]. Scientific reviews of Ridley's arguments consistently find that they misrepresent or oversimplify the evidence[2][4].

**4. Summary of Evidence**

– **The MWP was not globally warmer than today.** While some regions experienced mild conditions, the current period of warming is both more extensive and more intense.
– **Emerging forests from glaciers** are not unique to the MWP and do not provide evidence that the MWP was warmer than the present.
– **Current scientific consensus** is that recent warming is unprecedented in rate and scale, and is driven primarily by human activities[4].

## Additional Context: Ridley’s Broader Arguments

Matt Ridley’s broader critique centers on the perceived oversimplification and politicization of scientific debates, particularly regarding climate change and COVID-19 origins. While he acknowledges the reality of anthropogenic warming, he argues that mainstream narratives exaggerate risks and suppress dissenting views. However, his specific claims about historical climate conditions—such as the MWP being warmer than today—are not supported by the scientific evidence[1][2][4].

## Conclusion

**The claim that the medieval period was warmer than today because forests are emerging from melting glaciers is not supported by scientific evidence.** The MWP was a regional phenomenon and not globally warmer than the present. The current period of warming is unprecedented in both rate and extent, and the exposure of ancient forests is not evidence that the MWP was warmer than today. Matt Ridley’s arguments on this topic have been widely criticized and debunked by climate scientists[1][2][4].

Citations

Claim

The probability of an asteroid potentially hitting Earth in 2032 is reported to be 0.1%.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Probability of Asteroid Impact in 2032

The claim states that the probability of an asteroid potentially hitting Earth in 2032 is reported to be 0.1%. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine recent scientific assessments and data regarding near-Earth objects, specifically asteroid 2024 YR4, which has been highlighted in discussions about potential impacts.

### Current Scientific Assessments

1. **Asteroid 2024 YR4**: This asteroid has been a focus of attention due to its potential close approach to Earth in December 2032. Initially, it was reported to have a 1-in-83 chance of impacting Earth, which translates to approximately 1.2%[1]. However, more recent updates have significantly reduced this probability.

2. **Updated Probabilities**: As of February 2025, new observations have led to a substantial decrease in the estimated risk. The odds of 2024 YR4 hitting Earth in 2032 have been reduced to 0.0039%[4]. This update effectively eliminates concerns about this encounter, moving it from the top of NASA's risk list to a much lower position.

### Comparison with the Claim

The claim suggests a probability of 0.1%, which is higher than the most recent scientific assessments. The latest data indicate that the actual risk is much lower, at 0.0039%[4]. This discrepancy highlights that the claim overestimates the current scientific consensus regarding the asteroid's impact probability.

### Conclusion

Based on the latest scientific data and updates from reputable sources such as NASA and astronomical observations, the claim that the probability of an asteroid hitting Earth in 2032 is 0.1% is not supported. The actual risk, as per recent assessments, is significantly lower at 0.0039%[4]. This underscores the importance of relying on current scientific research and data when evaluating such claims.

### Additional Context

While astrological studies are not relevant to the scientific assessment of asteroid impacts, the discussion around scientific legitimacy and public trust, as raised by Lord Matt Ridley, highlights broader issues in the perception of scientific truth. However, these concerns do not directly impact the scientific evaluation of asteroid risks, which are based on empirical data and astronomical observations.

In summary, the claim about the asteroid impact probability in 2032 is not accurate according to the latest scientific evidence.

Citations

Claim

There is an enormous amount of motivated reasoning going on concerning the lab leak theory.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Motivated Reasoning in the Lab Leak Theory

The claim that there is an enormous amount of motivated reasoning concerning the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origin suggests that biases and external pressures are influencing scientific discourse. This assertion is supported by several factors:

### 1. **Political and Psychological Predispositions**
Research indicates that belief in conspiracy theories, including the lab leak hypothesis, is influenced by political-psychological predispositions such as right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation[4]. These factors can lead individuals to selectively interpret evidence and align with theories that fit their pre-existing beliefs.

### 2. **Politicization and Media Influence**
The lab leak theory has been politicized, with some versions of the theory being weaponized to fuel anti-Chinese sentiment[1]. This politicization can create a biased narrative that influences public perception and scientific discourse.

### 3. **Fear of Reputational Damage and Funding Loss**
Lord Matt Ridley's critique highlights concerns within the scientific community about reputational damage and funding loss, which can lead to a culture prioritizing consensus over open inquiry[5]. This environment may discourage scientists from exploring alternative theories, including the lab leak hypothesis, due to fear of backlash.

### 4. **Scientific Consensus and Open Inquiry**
While there is a scientific consensus that COVID-19 likely originated through natural zoonosis, the debate around the lab leak theory underscores the importance of maintaining open scientific inquiry[1][5]. The dismissal of dissenting views can erode public trust in scientific authority.

### 5. **Evidence and Investigations**
Investigations by various agencies have yielded mixed conclusions, with some suggesting a lab leak with low to moderate confidence, while others support natural transmission[5]. The lack of definitive evidence allows for ongoing debate and speculation.

### Conclusion
The claim that motivated reasoning is influencing the lab leak theory is supported by evidence of political and psychological biases, politicization, and concerns within the scientific community about reputational and funding implications. These factors contribute to a complex environment where scientific discourse is influenced by more than just empirical evidence.

### Recommendations for Future Discourse
– **Open Dialogue**: Encourage open and balanced discussions to restore public confidence in scientific authority.
– **Evidence-Based Inquiry**: Continue investigations based on empirical evidence to clarify the origins of COVID-19.
– **Addressing Biases**: Recognize and address political and psychological biases that may influence belief in different origin theories.

Citations

Claim

Proving the origin of the virus as a lab leak will be quite reassuring in one way.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Proving the Origin of the Virus as a Lab Leak

The claim that proving the origin of the virus as a lab leak would be reassuring in one way suggests that understanding the virus's origin could help in exploring contagion dynamics through virology research. This perspective is part of a broader discussion on the crisis of confidence in scientific truth, particularly concerning climate change and COVID-19 origins.

### Scientific Consensus on COVID-19 Origins

The scientific consensus, as supported by most virologists and epidemiologists, is that SARS-CoV-2 likely originated from natural zoonosis, similar to other pandemics in history. This view posits that the virus was initially harbored by bats and spread to humans through an intermediate host at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China[1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) and other international health bodies have also concluded that a natural origin is more plausible based on available evidence[1].

### The Lab Leak Hypothesis

Despite the prevailing scientific consensus, the lab leak hypothesis has garnered significant attention and debate. This theory suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could have originated from a laboratory, possibly due to an accident or leak. Proponents of this theory often point to the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where coronaviruses are studied[1][2].

However, there is no conclusive evidence to support the lab leak hypothesis. The House of Representatives committee report, which concluded that the virus likely leaked from a lab, did not provide new direct evidence but rather a circumstantial case[2]. Similarly, the CIA's assessment that the virus likely originated from a lab was based on a low-confidence analysis of existing intelligence[3].

### Implications for Contagion Dynamics and Virology Research

Understanding the origin of a virus can indeed provide valuable insights into its contagion dynamics. If the virus were proven to have originated from a lab, it could highlight potential biosecurity risks and inform strategies to prevent future lab-related incidents. However, the current scientific consensus suggests that natural zoonosis is the more likely explanation, which would focus research on understanding animal-human interfaces and improving surveillance in these settings.

### Conclusion

While proving the origin of the virus could offer insights into contagion dynamics, the scientific consensus currently supports a natural origin. The lab leak hypothesis remains controversial and lacks strong evidence. Therefore, the claim that proving a lab leak origin would be reassuring in one way is speculative and not supported by the majority of scientific evidence.

### Recommendations for Future Research

1. **Continued Surveillance and Research**: Focus on understanding natural zoonosis and improving surveillance at animal-human interfaces.
2. **Biosecurity Enhancements**: Regardless of the origin, enhancing biosecurity measures in laboratories handling pathogens is crucial.
3. **Open Scientific Dialogue**: Encourage open and balanced discussions on scientific hypotheses to maintain public trust and foster a culture of inquiry.

In summary, while understanding the origin of COVID-19 is important for virology research, the current scientific consensus does not support the lab leak hypothesis as the primary explanation. A more nuanced approach to scientific inquiry and public communication is needed to address concerns and restore confidence in scientific authority.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!