Matt Ridley

I was reading on my phone in bed, but your comment so missed the point that I was compelled to get up in the middle of the night and write a full response.

1) Yes, the author confused Penn State with the UPenn. The Financial Post should probably correct it, but I find it excusable that a Canadian author writing in a Canadian paper might not properly distinguish them. This did not cause me to discount the rest of the article.

2) Yes, it's one sided. It's an opinion piece in the comment section, and labelled as such. This is indicated by the breadcrumbs at the top reading "Home / Opinion / FP Comment".

3) No mention of email hacking? What about the "link to a zip file posted online at a Russian Web address" that "contained 5,000 emails written by some of the most prominent names in climate science." Sure, it didn't use the word hacking, but for all we know it might have been an inside job. Unless you have personal knowledge to the contrary? (cue the police coming to seize your computers)

4) Wait, they didn't seize his computers because of one particular comment left on his blog by someone unknown? You do realize that Tallbloke is not a suspect in the case, and that his computers were seized _explicitly_ in an effort to track down the source of that comment containing that link? Is this the first time you've come across this story?

5) "Seems like this is written by a conspiracy nut". Well, that's a matter of opinion, but "seems" is an odd word choice. As the…

Some that caught my eye:

"Improve our modelling of impact winter scenarios, especially for 1–10 km asteroids. Work with experts in climate modelling and nuclear winter modelling to see what modern models say. "

I think impact scenarios is a definite, but nuclear winter is actually an extremely questionable "theory". Many people are not aware, but the the Russian KGB boasted that they literally made this up in order to divert public opinion in the west against nuclear weapons as NATO rolled out medium range missiles in Europe back in 1982: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/nuclear-winter/
The mushrooms clouds from nuclear detonations do indeed dissipate over a few days. I believe subsequent modeling has come up empty even in the worst case scenarios.

"Develop more reliable and tamper-proof measures for so-called ‘dark tetrad’ traits — psychopathy, Machiavellianism, sadism, and narcissism."

I actually like this question and have been thinking the same thing recently. These traits are very dangerous especially when exhibited by those at the top of the food chain in both politics and business and need to be identified early and treated, and not allowed to flourish among those in power (Some good reads on this is The Sociapath Next Door and the Sociopath Test). Bad actors have incredibly out-sized influence globally.

"Why have certain aspects of Chinese civilization been so long-lasting? Are there any lessons we can draw from this about what makes for highly…

I am a beekeeper. So, I care about bees. So before people start to throw that idea that we are all going to die from lack of pollinators, let's look at the facts. Here's a good start:

"What decline? The number of honeybee hives in the world is at a record high. The number in Europe is higher than it was in the early 1990s when neonics were introduced. Hive mortality in Britain was unusually low in the year before the neonic ban. It’s a myth that honeybees are in dire straits." (Ref: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article4227789.ece, full article here: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/bees-and-pesticides.aspx)

I am not saying we don't have problems. Varroa mites is a serious problem (originally from Russia, where the spread of mites was controlled by long winter/cold temps, it is now a world wide problem). We have other infections, we have CCD, etc. But all in all, bees are just doing fine. Except that they are being trucked all over the country to pollinate almonds, apples, etc etc.

Consider this. If bees were dying in such record numbers, wouldn't you see significant rise in honey prices?

The number of fires has been going down over time, although the number of firefighters haven't. They do have to be close enough to fires, so can't decline as much. The overall declines are however good from a quality of human life perspective.

US Fire administration stats showing ~20% declines in the last decade: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/

Firefighters don't fight fires "Over the past 35 years, the number of fires in the United States has fallen by more than 40% while the number of career firefighters has increased by more than 40%". Shows false alarms, medical calls etc. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/firefighters-dont-fight-fires.html

British analysis - Explaining the steep decline in the frequency of fires http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/explaining-the-steep-decline-in-the-frequency-of-fires.aspx

Evolution encourages diversity.

That's quite a general statement for the discussion here, which you then use to make a specific conclusion about the human behavioral issue under discussion in this thread. Could you kindly fill out the reasoning steps you are implicitly following with more citations to research on each factual assertion you are relying on?

even though their standard of living is rising continually

This is generally correct. A popular book on the issue (I don't endorse ALL its conclusions, but I like its citation of many different reliable references) is The Rational Optimist.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/

I've found Travis Bradford's book Solar Revolution to give a good overview of the solar industry, with the same numerate feel as this article: http://www.prometheus.org/research/solarrev

The best rebuttal I've heard (to renewables generally, not PV specifically) is the second to last chapter of Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/books/rational-optimist-how-prosperity-evolves

(Sorry I can't link directly to the content, but so far as I know, it's not available online in either case.)