• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 831 0

have already given for not believing in global warming. In a November 2010 op-ed for the Times newspaper,56 Ridley draws an analogy with acid rain, which he asserts was also the “scare” of its day. Utilizing all the classic tactics of climate-change deniers, he uses this false analogy (it is false because acid rain was real) to back a charge of grant-funding “vested interests” by marine scientists, before cherry-picking (and misinterpreting) a small number of scientific studies that appear to contradict the consensus position on the biological impacts of ocean acidification and generalizing on this basis that the whole thing is exaggerated. He ties this to a number of mistakes, writing, for example: “Environmentalists like to call this [end of the century projection] a 30 percent increase in acidity, because it sounds more scary than a 0.3 point decrease (out of 14) in alkalinity…” Actually, if we recall that the pH scale is logarithmic, a projected 0.3 point decrease in pH represents a doubling (100 percent) in ocean acidity, as a response statement by a group of marine scientists points out.57 The error is particularly ironic because Ridley is lambasting “environmentalists” for apparently using numbers that underestimate the true scale of the acidification problem.

Note in particular the recurring conflation of “scientists” with “environmentalists”: Ridley’s narrative depends upon convincing the reader that there is no serious difference between the two, and that therefore peer-reviewed science published by eminent researchers is no more valid than a Greenpeace press release—and perhaps just as self-interested. He begins the article indeed by deliberately aligning the acidification issue with environmentalism: “As opinion polls reveal that global warming is losing traction on the public imagination, environmental pressure groups have been cranking the engine on this ‘other carbon dioxide problem.’” Ridley rounds off the piece by adopting the voice of the unbiased ordinary person and lambasting “the media” (always a convenient straw man) for allegedly not reporting the truth. “Before I started looking into this, I assumed the evidence for damage from ocean acidification must be strong because that is what the media kept saying. I am amazed by what I have found,” he concludes.

This is strong stuff. But what interests me most is not the scientific content of Ridley’s accusations so much as the political motivations that clearly underlie them. Ridley is undeniably passionate in his belief. I make no accusation that he is in the pay of commercial vested interests—his opinions are obviously genuinely and deeply held. One could argue that Ridley’s stance is actually a reputational risk for him, because in denying what scientists call the “irrefutable chemistry” of ocean acidification (and adopting a similar position on climate change) he undermines his credibility as a popular science writer on other issues. This is curious, because The Rational Optimist is in many other subject areas a well-researched, illuminating, and intelligent book, ranking with the best I have read for many years on the subjects of human physical and cultural evolution. So why take this risk with his reputation as a reliable communicator of scientific knowledge?

The answer, of course, lies in the political polarization that has overtaken the societal debate about carbon emissions in particular and the environment in general over the last few years. While ocean acidification does not yet register high enough in public awareness terms to be seriously at issue, opinion polls show very clearly that for climate change there is now a sharp left–right split among voters. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in the United States, where for the November 2010 midterm elections the Republican Party fielded a slate overwhelmingly dominated by candidates questioning the science on climate change.58 On the more extreme right represented by the Tea Party movement, climate denialism is an article of faith (and I mean that literally). In the U.K., climate-change