Personally I ignore any arguments I see from Matt Ridley because my own experience tells me that he's a serial liar and distorter of facts. I don't have the time in my life to sort though the bullshit in every Ridley article by reading all the "sources" he quotes to see how he has misrepresented them. Just glancing at the abstracts suggests several of those articles at least have been misrepresented by Ridley, but I'd have to pay to read them to find out.

It's no coincidence that a bunch of HN's resident climate change deniers are suddenly popping up in the comments to this submission to defend Ridley.