Net Zero Must Go - Matt Ridley

The COVID-19 Lab Leak Controversy and Scientific Integrity

Ridley opens by addressing what he sees as a crisis in scientific truth, largely self-inflicted by the scientific establishment’s handling of the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. He argues that while many intelligence agencies and experts believe the virus likely originated from a laboratory accident in Wuhan, the scientific community and major journals have resisted this conclusion. Ridley recounts how he and colleagues have repeatedly submitted carefully argued papers supporting the lab leak theory, only to face swift rejection, initially dismissed as conspiracy theories and later as redundant because “everyone knows” the origin.

He attributes this resistance to a fear among senior scientists and journal editors that acknowledging a lab leak would severely damage the reputation of science and threaten funding across multiple fields. Ridley contends this fear is misplaced; he believes that early acknowledgment and investigation would have confined the damage to a small corner of virology rather than allowing misinformation and cover-ups to proliferate. He highlights the role of key figures such as Anthony Fauci, who initially entertained the lab leak hypothesis but then actively suppressed discussion, fearing the implications for funding and reputation.

Ridley draws a stark comparison between this cover-up and historical scandals like Watergate, emphasizing the unprecedented scale of harm—millions of deaths and global disruption—caused by the pandemic and the subsequent obfuscation. He points to leaked emails and private communications among scientists who publicly denied the lab leak theory while privately considering it plausible, labeling this behavior as scientific misconduct. The damage, he argues, extends beyond COVID-19, eroding public trust in science and fueling vaccine skepticism, which he believes is partly a consequence of overblown claims and lack of transparency during the pandemic.

Looking forward, Ridley warns that the loss of trust in scientific institutions could have dire consequences if another pandemic arises, as public willingness to heed scientific advice may be diminished. He also expresses concern that gain-of-function research, which involves enhancing the infectivity or lethality of viruses, continues with insufficient oversight, particularly in China and other countries with opaque regulatory environments. Despite calls for stricter controls, the scientific community largely resists such measures, perpetuating risks of future lab accidents.

Climate Change: Reality, Debate, and the Crisis Narrative

Transitioning to climate change, Ridley reflects on his decades-long engagement with the topic, tracing how a once open scientific debate has narrowed into a rigid orthodoxy. He acknowledges that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that the planet has warmed since the mid-1980s, but challenges the prevailing narrative of unprecedented, catastrophic warming driven by human activity. Ridley points out that current temperatures are not historically unprecedented, citing evidence from the medieval warm period and noting that warming has been gradual and moderate.

He disputes claims of increasing extreme weather events, arguing that data do not support a rise in frequency or severity of floods, droughts, or storms attributable to climate change. Ridley also highlights the beneficial effects of increased atmospheric CO2, such as global greening and improved crop yields, which he feels are often ignored in public discourse. He criticizes the use of emotive language like “climate crisis,” which he believes stifles nuanced discussion and labels dissenters unfairly as deniers.

Ridley is particularly critical of the UK’s net zero policy, which he describes as “unbelievably foolish.” He argues that the technology to achieve net zero emissions at scale and reasonable cost does not yet exist, and that the UK’s efforts will have negligible impact on global emissions, given its small share of the total. Instead, he advocates for increased investment in research and development of future energy technologies, such as fusion and small modular nuclear reactors, which could provide affordable, reliable, and low-carbon energy solutions.

He also raises concerns about the real-world consequences of aggressive fossil fuel reduction policies, especially in developing countries where access to affordable energy is critical. Ridley points to indoor air pollution from biomass burning as a major health hazard that is exacerbated by restrictions on fossil fuel use. He calls for a balanced cost-benefit analysis that weighs current harms against uncertain future risks, urging policymakers to avoid dogmatic deadlines and focus on innovation.

The Politicization of Science and the Crisis of Confidence

Throughout the conversation, Ridley laments the increasing politicization of science, which he sees as undermining public trust and scientific progress. He describes a monopolistic funding and publishing system that rewards conformity and discourages dissenting views, leading to groupthink and suppression of alternative hypotheses. This environment, he argues, incentivizes scientists to pursue fame and funding rather than truth, and marginalizes mavericks who challenge orthodoxies.

Ridley illustrates this with examples from other fields, such as Alzheimer’s research, where dominant hypotheses have excluded alternative ideas, and the history of stomach ulcer research, where Barry Marshall had to infect himself to prove the bacterial cause against entrenched medical opinion. These cases underscore the difficulty of overturning scientific consensus, even when it is flawed.

He also critiques the media and political embrace of alarmism, which he believes feeds a “doom cult” mentality that is counterproductive. Ridley suggests that this culture discourages honest debate and leads to policies that may do more harm than good.

Science, Innovation, and the Role of Mavericks

In a reflective segment, Ridley explores the nature of scientific progress, balancing the “great man” or maverick theory against the reality of incremental, collaborative work. He acknowledges that while much science advances through steady, collective effort, many transformative ideas begin as heresies championed by individuals who face skepticism and ostracism. He uses the example of Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, initially dismissed by his contemporaries, to illustrate how mavericks can eventually reshape understanding.

Ridley also draws parallels between animal behavior and human social evolution, discussing how sexual selection and mate choice may have driven the development of human intelligence and creativity. He highlights the importance of traits like humor and display in social and reproductive success, suggesting that these forces have shaped not only biology but also culture.

Final Thoughts and Broader Reflections

The conversation closes with a lighthearted discussion about other scientific curiosities, such as the possibility of interstellar objects passing through our solar system, and the perennial human fascination with doom and catastrophe. Ridley emphasizes the need for humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to learn from mistakes in both science and policy.

Overall, Matt Ridley presents a provocative critique of contemporary science and climate policy, urging a return to open debate, better incentives for innovation, and a more balanced approach to complex global challenges. His call to “tear up net zero” is grounded not in denial of climate change, but in skepticism of current strategies and a plea for pragmatic, evidence-based solutions that prioritize research and adaptation over alarmism and rigid targets.