In an age where climate change and environmental sustainability dominate public discourse, the conversation often teeters between alarmist predictions and pragmatic solutions. One prominent voice amidst this charged dialogue is Matt Ridley, a British science writer, journalist, and businessman, renowned for his critiques of prevailing environmental narratives. In the latest episode of Triggernometry, Ridley articulates his position on the contentious concept of net zero emissions, asserting that it may be a path fraught with misunderstandings and unrealistic expectations.
As discussions about climate action intensify, Ridley challenges the efficacy and implications of net zero policies, inviting listeners to reconsider the underlying assumptions driving the current environmental agenda. This blog post will delve into some of the key claims made by Ridley during his talk, providing a fact-check analysis to clarify the facts behind his assertions and explore the broader implications for climate policy. Join us as we dissect the arguments presented by Ridley, aiming to foster an informed dialogue on one of the most pressing issues of our time.
Find a fact check of this transcript on CheckForFacts
Transcript:
[00:00:00,000]: I think we’ve got a crisis of confidence in scientific truth and I think it’s largely self inflicted [00:00:09,119]: I’ve never thought that carbon dioxide has no effect at all [00:00:13,119]: I’ve never thought that we’re not in a period of warming [00:00:15,920]: But I’ve been blacklisted by the BBC [00:00:18,760]: We’re not in a period of unprecedented warmth [00:00:21,040]: We’re not in a period of unprecedentedly fast warmth [00:00:24,260]: We’re not in a period of increasing extreme weather [00:00:26,959]: I think what the UK has done is unbelievably foolish and we should tear up net zero [00:00:33,959]: Lord Matt Ridley welcome back to the show [00:00:37,040]: Thanks very much for having me on [00:00:38,240]: It’s great to have you on [00:00:39,259]: We want to talk about science and particularly one of the big things you were at the forefront of of course was the COVID lab leak thing [00:00:48,279]: We also want to talk about the climate conversation [00:00:51,279]: Those are two I think major issues where there are a lot of concerns from very sensible and reasonable people like you not lunatics on the internet about the way that science is effectively being corrupted and we want to talk about that through the lens of those two issues in particular and we’ll talk about your book and other things as well [00:01:06,959]: So where are we with the COVID lab leak [00:01:09,199]: It is sort of anecdotally pretty clear that it came from a lab in China [00:01:13,639]: Is that basically true [00:01:15,419]: Yes for most of us [00:01:17,279]: So the CIA thinks that the FBI thinks that Robert Redfield the former head of the CDC in America thinks that most of the world thinks that ordinary people think that [00:01:27,900]: The evidence is overwhelmingly strong that it’s not a coincidence that it broke out in the only city with a huge research programme on COVID like viruses [00:01:36,440]: But the exception is the scientific establishment which has not budged an inch [00:01:41,440]: So the journal Science the journal Nature they keep publishing things saying it’s not a lab leak [00:01:47,059]: The Royal Society they refuse to have a debate on the topic [00:01:50,139]: The National Academy in America likewise [00:01:53,220]: I and a couple of colleagues who are both academics keep submitting a systematically argued review paper or versions of it with all the arguments for a lab leak spelled out with references in the most objective and careful terms that we can to journal after journal six journals so far [00:02:15,619]: They reject it within weeks and the reason they gave to start with was this is a conspiracy theory it’s nutty it’s wrong you can’t believe a word of it [00:02:24,639]: The reason they now give is everyone knows this stuff so we don’t need to publish it [00:02:29,000]: Now you can’t both of those can’t be true [00:02:32,360]: And the obvious question that a lot of people will ask is why is that happening [00:02:38,440]: Well within science there’s a huge number of scientists who recognise that the evidence points strongly to a lab leak and they say things to us like keep going you’re on the right track but I don’t put my head above the parapet because I’m worried about my funding I’m worried about my reputation my university that kind of thing [00:02:54,440]: But there’s a group of senior scientists and editors of journals and things who decided early on that if they gave an inch on this topic and conceded that it might have come from an accident in a laboratory the damage to the reputation of the whole of science would be so great that it would threaten their funding in lots of different fields [00:03:18,880]: I think there are 180 degrees wrong on that [00:03:21,179]: I think if they’d come out quite early and said this is a serious hypothesis we need to take it seriously and look at it and discuss it then the damage would be confined to one corner of very idiotic virology which was doing extraordinarily risky experiments that should never have been done let alone at that biosafety level in that lab [00:03:38,320]: And this was 1 of 1 of 1 of science [00:03:43,820]: The rest of science is fine in terms of safety it’s just you could have confined the damage to one corner of the discipline and then you’d have got full marks for investigating yourselves looking into it [00:03:57,839]: As it is they’re saying how dare you review biosafety and laboratories [00:04:05,460]: It’s up to us to decide whether something’s safe [00:04:08,399]: Well I’m a libertarian but even I don’t go that far if you know what I mean [00:04:13,399]: It’s remarkable what we’re hearing from these people [00:04:16,239]: So I think they made a mistake early on at a time when it was all going to blow over in a few weeks [00:04:20,880]: It was just going to be a little local outbreak in China and nobody needed to know about it [00:04:25,220]: They knew among themselves that it was very likely to be a lab leak but they kept that quiet [00:04:29,440]: They published a paper saying the opposite which became very influential [00:04:32,500]: And then they found themselves out on a limb and they couldn’t get back [00:04:35,660]: And so they’re now doubling down on a lie that they know they told effectively or a mistake they made let’s be charitable [00:04:42,899]: Yes but of course things are changing in America because this week Jay Bhattacharya my good friend has been confirmed as the head of the National Institutes of Health responsible for the whole funding apparatus for all biomedical research [00:04:59,399]: And the head of the CIA the new head of the CIA yes is John Ratcliffe who led an inquiry into this very topic for the Heritage Foundation and came to the conclusion it’s probably a lab leak [00:05:10,679]: So suddenly in Washington you’ve got senior people saying the opposite of what they were saying a year ago [00:05:16,220]: Now that means we’re going to get more information coming out [00:05:19,079]: We’re getting bits of it already from within the US [00:05:22,579]: We may get some decent intelligence from whistleblowers in China or something [00:05:27,040]: We may get close to being able to say case closed [00:05:29,540]: This is definitely what happened [00:05:32,579]: But five years have gone by and there’s been a lot of track covering [00:05:38,119]: And the hope of those who don’t want to admit it was a lab leak is that this gradually gets memory hold and never gets resolved [00:05:48,559]: And it just fades into the background [00:05:51,299]: And how much of the reason for these you know call it a cover up call it unwillingness to adjust course or whatever is to do with the fact that the lab in China was being funded by quite a lot of scientists and the sort of scientific organization in America [00:06:10,279]: And so the people who are in charge of funding that are the very same people who are then saying it didn’t come from that lab [00:06:18,760]: Exactly [00:06:18,779]: I mean Dr Fauci as I understand it was heavily involved in all of this [00:06:22,720]: Anthony Fauci was responsible both for promoting this kind of research for bringing to an end a moratorium on this kind of research in the US for allowing some of the funds to go through the EcoHealth Alliance a non profitable body in New York City to the Wuhan Institute of Virology [00:06:42,799]: So yes you know his fingerprints were all over it [00:06:46,359]: So when Jeremy Farrer of the Wellcome Trust and a number of other people came to him very early in the pandemic and said we need to have a conversation about whether this thing started in the lab his initial reaction was let’s have the debate and talk about it [00:06:59,239]: And we know that at that meeting they discussed whether to discuss it [00:07:03,760]: And within a day or two Fauci is basically giving instructions to shut it down to make sure this never gets mentioned [00:07:09,679]: And he’s at the podium in the White House talking about this [00:07:13,100]: And he never admits that he’s just had a meeting with a dozen other scientists at which they very seriously discussed the possibility that it did start in the lab [00:07:21,920]: He says it’s conspiracy theory it’s debunked all this kind of thing [00:07:26,040]: And they savage anyone in the press who comes out and says that [00:07:29,160]: So yeah you have to ask yourself did they worry about the fact that they might have been partly responsible [00:07:38,100]: And then you find some of the emails that have come out through congressional investigation [00:07:41,660]: And you find that Fauci is sending emails to colleagues saying we need to have a serious conversation about the grants we gave to this lab [00:07:50,540]: Now why is he having that conversation [00:07:52,820]: He’s concerned [00:07:54,380]: So yes I’m afraid there is an enormous amount of motivated reasoning going on here [00:08:01,440]: You know if you worry that you might be partly responsible for the death of many millions of people then of course your brain is going to tell you that it’s very unlikely that that’s the way it happened [00:08:14,359]: There is a term for what you’re describing Matt a cover up [00:08:19,920]: Well frankly I personally think this makes Watergate look like a picnic [00:08:25,119]: Because at Watergate yeah there was a break in [00:08:27,220]: There was a bit of burglary [00:08:28,820]: There was some financial corruption [00:08:32,219]: Involved a president yes [00:08:33,919]: But it didn’t involve the death of somewhere between 7 and 28 million people [00:08:41,200]: It didn’t involve the turning of the world upside down [00:08:44,840]: The worst industrial accident in the world is probably Bhopal where 25 000 people died [00:08:52,179]: This was probably an industrial accident in a sense [00:08:56,539]: The scientific laboratory accident is much the same thing [00:09:00,219]: We’re talking about 1 000 times as many people dying [00:09:03,159]: It’s a very important issue [00:09:06,140]: And that there was a cover up is not in doubt [00:09:10,320]: Because we’ve seen the emails [00:09:11,659]: We’ve seen the Slack conversations between the people who were writing the paper so called proximal origin paper which came out pretty well five years ago this week which said there is no possibility it came out of a lab [00:09:24,280]: And they were saying to each other in private in their emails I still think it’s frigging likely that it came out of a lab [00:09:30,760]: I hover one way or another one of them said [00:09:33,960]: And they went on saying that even after they published the paper [00:09:36,799]: So their current excuse which is oh we changed our mind in the light of new information doesn’t add up [00:09:41,619]: Because even after they published the paper they went on in private saying I still think it’s a possibility [00:09:46,039]: So I’m afraid that’s the very definition of a cover up [00:09:48,979]: You are covering up information that you have available and suspicions that you have about what happened [00:09:54,919]: Now we when I say me and a number of other scientists well scientists and journalists I’m not a scientist but I’m a commentator on science we are pushing the journal Nature Medicine to retract that paper [00:10:07,760]: Because it was clearly not just factually wrong there was no the arguments it gives for why it couldn’t have come out of a lab don’t stack up [00:10:17,460]: But it was written by people who didn’t believe it [00:10:20,960]: Now in my view writing a scientific paper that says the opposite of what you actually think in private is the very definition of scientific misconduct [00:10:30,479]: And Matt this has damaged and obviously millions of people have lost their lives have you said but it has also damaged people’s faith in science [00:10:40,659]: The amount of people now who were told but follow the science and now are rabidly anti vax rabidly anti institution saying that they can’t trust scientists anymore they can’t trust doctors [00:10:53,280]: This has done a tremendous amount of damage to the scientific institutions themselves hasn’t it [00:10:59,119]: Absolutely [00:11:00,280]: And this is a point I struggle to get across to my scientific friends [00:11:04,900]: They think that it’s the fault of RFK and anti vaxxers that people have turned against vaccines [00:11:13,640]: And I’m saying look in the mirror who was it who built up who gave RFK the viability to make his arguments [00:11:22,020]: How did his numbers shoot up [00:11:24,219]: Because you made claims for the vaccines that were way overblown about whether they’d have limited transmission about whether they were safe for children et cetera et cetera which have damaged vaccines [00:11:35,340]: I’m pro vax [00:11:36,559]: You know I think vaccines are a good thing [00:11:39,119]: But the damage that’s been done to the reputation of that technology and as you say of science in general [00:11:44,960]: So just to take another very simple example five years ago this week the World Health Organization was still saying in capital letters this virus is not airborne [00:12:00,580]: Quite why they were so obsessed with saying this I don’t know [00:12:03,440]: And from that flowed all the stuff about if you stand six feet apart and if you wash your hands all the time you know it’ll be fine [00:12:09,739]: Well that was nonsense [00:12:10,919]: It’s airborne [00:12:11,739]: It doesn’t matter where you stand [00:12:12,940]: I’m breathing at you now [00:12:14,299]: You know if I had COVID you’d get it [00:12:17,099]: I don’t by the way [00:12:19,559]: At least I think I don’t [00:12:21,859]: And so you know giving out genuine misinformation and then not saying sorry we were wrong leads people to say well I wonder what else you’re wrong about [00:12:36,739]: And I’m someone who’s covered science all my life [00:12:39,739]: I’ve championed science [00:12:40,820]: I’m passionate about science [00:12:42,159]: I love science [00:12:43,099]: But I find myself now taking any scientific announcement on any topic with more suspicion than I used to five years ago [00:12:53,739]: It’s had that much effect on me [00:12:55,880]: Now imagine if the effect it’s had on other people who are not such fanatically pro science people [00:13:03,179]: So I think we’ve got a crisis of confidence in scientific truth [00:13:08,380]: And I think it’s largely self inflicted [00:13:11,880]: To paraphrase a Republican strategist in America who was saying something I think just this week there isn’t a mirror big enough for the scientists to see the damage they’ve done to scientific reputation [00:13:25,919]: And the worrying thing is Matt is that we are going to have another pandemic [00:13:28,880]: These things happen every 100 years or maybe less than that [00:13:33,580]: So if we do have another pandemic and we have scientists coming out my concern is and I’m sure yours is as well how many people are actually going to believe them this time around [00:13:43,559]: I hadn’t thought of that but it’s a very good point [00:13:46,979]: And I personally think that proving this was a lab leak will be quite reassuring in one way [00:13:52,539]: And that is it will be the exception that proves the rule [00:13:56,659]: It will be the case where because it was already trained on human beings in the lab it was infectious from the start [00:14:03,599]: And therefore nothing we could do to stop it [00:14:05,479]: Lockdowns didn’t work et cetera et cetera [00:14:08,280]: Whereas if it jumps out of nature it stutters like bird flu is doing at the moment [00:14:14,200]: You get a few infections and then it dies out [00:14:16,479]: It’s quite easy to contain [00:14:17,539]: It’s not very contagious [00:14:19,840]: You can institute controls that will stop it [00:14:23,159]: And therefore there is every reason to think we can stop natural pandemics but we can’t stop artificial ones [00:14:28,780]: Now that’s a very important lesson to learn if we want to learn it [00:14:31,640]: But what’s happening in virology labs at the moment [00:14:37,280]: There are more opening than ever before [00:14:39,679]: There’s no increase in the biosafety regulations in any country on this [00:14:48,440]: They’re accelerating [00:14:50,020]: The Wuhan Institute of Virology lab that is at the center of this run by a professor called Dr Shi Zhengli announced a new experiment on a MERS like virus the other day [00:15:02,239]: Well that’s comforted [00:15:03,659]: Now you know maybe they sat down and said let’s do it in a more safe way [00:15:08,479]: But actually in the paper they published in Nature the other day about this they said we used biosafety level 2 plus [00:15:18,500]: Well we’ve never heard of 2 plus [00:15:19,840]: We know 2 is not good enough for these kinds of viruses [00:15:22,719]: We know 3 is probably OK [00:15:24,320]: But we don’t like the sound of 2 plus [00:15:26,440]: So what are these Western journals doing publishing this stuff without saying hang on are you sure it was safe to do this experiment [00:15:35,719]: You know there’s an enabling factor in the West here that needs to be looked at [00:15:42,039]: And I just want to examine China’s part in it [00:15:44,539]: Because how much responsibility does China have to take for being opaque about the virus not disclosing what happened as to us to really understand what was going on [00:15:58,159]: What I guess what I’m really trying to say is Matt can we absolutely say for certain that it came from a lab without Chinese cooperation [00:16:07,258]: Sorry without Chinese cooperating [00:16:09,698]: Without Chinese cooperating [00:16:10,678]: Can we prove that without the Chinese cooperating with the investigation [00:16:14,058]: Yes [00:16:14,158]: I see what you mean [00:16:14,978]: I thought you meant without they didn’t cooperate in making the virus which I wouldn’t agree with [00:16:23,818]: Probably not [00:16:24,878]: We probably won’t get to 100 without some kind of whistleblower or other opening up the records in the laboratory [00:16:38,658]: But in terms of beyond reasonable doubt I think we’re pretty well there frankly [00:16:43,438]: I think the evidence when you look at it is so extraordinarily strong [00:16:46,978]: I mean the coincidence of this thing happening without leaving a trace in any wild animals in the very city that is doing an extraordinary range of experiments that includes a plan to do the very experiment that would have put a fear in cleavage site for the first time I won’t go into the details but you know what I mean [00:17:06,998]: Now what happened in Sverdlovsk in 1979 is relevant here if you don’t mind me going into that for a second [00:17:15,178]: And that is that there was an outbreak of a lot of 65 people died [00:17:22,558]: The Americans said we think you’ve just had a leak from your biowarfare anthrax plant in the city [00:17:30,778]: The Russians said no they’ve died of food poisoning [00:17:35,758]: Come and look [00:17:37,178]: And an international team went in and looked and said yeah the Russians are probably right [00:17:41,578]: And it all died down [00:17:43,638]: And then the Soviet Union collapsed about 12 years after the event [00:17:49,058]: A scientist came to the West and said you are absolutely right [00:17:53,418]: It was an anthrax lab [00:17:56,798]: We left a filter off one day and we sent a plume of anthrax over a suburb [00:18:01,178]: If it had gone the other way it would have killed hundreds of thousands [00:18:03,678]: In fact it only killed 65 people [00:18:06,458]: So it took a long time but the truth eventually emerged [00:18:12,338]: Now I still maintain it’s going to be quite hard for the Chinese authorities to keep the lid on what happened in those months in the autumn of 2019 in that lab in Wuhan where they had some kind of drill they had some kind of emergency that caused them to close down their database offline where they called for new ventilation equipment for the lab where they suddenly banned the sale of experimental laboratory animals in markets as food [00:18:43,378]: There’s a whole string of events that happened that autumn that we would like to know more about [00:18:48,838]: There are people who know exactly what happened [00:18:52,158]: Are they still alive [00:18:53,938]: Well one of them isn’t [00:18:56,258]: The guy who was developing a vaccine from very very early in the pandemic so early that we think he probably started developing the vaccine before we knew about the outbreak because otherwise it’s just impossible to see how he worked that fast [00:19:08,758]: He fell off a building the roof of a building and died [00:19:13,298]: And these new labs coming back a little bit that you’re talking about because this is the thing that concerns me [00:19:19,078]: We all make mistakes [00:19:21,078]: We all do stupid things [00:19:22,378]: Governments do stupid things [00:19:24,298]: Scientists do stupid things [00:19:25,238]: We all make mistakes [00:19:27,118]: The mark of someone who is dangerous is someone who refuses to learn from their mistakes [00:19:31,878]: And in this instance are you saying gain of function research is ongoing [00:19:36,258]: Well gain of function can be quite a broad term [00:19:39,378]: It can mean enabling a plant to photosynthesise more efficiently [00:19:47,778]: Let me rephrase [00:19:48,478]: Are we still doing things that could lead to another pandemic [00:19:52,058]: Gain of function research of control GOFROC is the sort of narrower category that we’re talking about [00:19:58,278]: Sorry to be pedantic about it [00:19:59,598]: Please be pedantic [00:20:01,838]: Isn’t it pronounced pedantic [00:20:10,158]: Is continuing I think in the West with more caution [00:20:17,118]: I’m sure lessons are being learned even while they may not be being acknowledged [00:20:21,338]: But we have no such confidence about Chinese laboratories [00:20:26,958]: We certainly have no such confidence about laboratories in places like Iran and North Korea where they would actually quite like to start another pandemic if you see what I mean [00:20:37,158]: And in general as I say calls for stiffer regulation of virology experiments that cause increases in lethality or infectivity of viruses are being resisted by the scientific community [00:20:57,018]: So there’s a famous meeting called Azilomar which happened in 1975 soon after the invention of genetic engineering in California [00:21:03,558]: And at Azilomar they agreed on a set of self policing principles that the biotechnology industry and research would do [00:21:11,018]: And one of those was not to work on highly pathogenic creatures [00:21:15,918]: Well somewhere along the line they gave up on that [00:21:20,098]: Azilomar 2 happened a few weeks ago the 50th anniversary of that meeting [00:21:26,998]: Yeah it was 1975 [00:21:28,098]: So yeah the 50th anniversary [00:21:31,358]: Nobody who has been arguing for a lab leak in this case was invited to that meeting [00:21:38,198]: The people who went were all the people who were saying it was definitely not a lab leak [00:21:41,898]: So there’s a real danger of science turning in on itself and talking to itself and thinking it doesn’t need to listen to the concerns of the public or of informed critics [00:21:52,958]: And I don’t think that’s healthy [00:21:56,198]: There’s something powerful about hearing the story of a country not just as a list of events but as a journey [00:22:03,058]: There are many I find more inspiring than America’s story [00:22:06,858]: The Great American Story and Land of Hope is a free online course from Hillsdale College that brings it to life [00:22:14,138]: It covers the American Revolution the Civil War the World Wars the Cold War the defining moments that shaped a nation [00:22:21,258]: But it’s more than a timeline [00:22:23,398]: It’s about the ideals that held through those challenges liberty self governance perseverance and hope [00:22:30,098]: What makes this course special is the way it blends honesty with inspiration [00:22:34,538]: It doesn’t avoid the hard moments but it also highlights the achievements the progress the principles the resilience [00:22:43,118]: It’s taught by Hillsdale President Larry Arnn and historian Wilfred McClay and it’s designed for anyone who wants to understand America’s past in a way that actually builds perspective [00:22:56,478]: It’s completely free [00:22:57,998]: Just go to hillsdale edu [00:23:01,178]: slash trigger [00:23:02,158]: That’s hillsdale edu slash trigger and enrol today [00:23:07,938]: You’ll come away with a deeper appreciation for the story and the promise of America [00:23:14,878]: Are we missing something in this analysis Matt [00:23:17,718]: Is there a holy grail at the end of this type of research that the trade offs of killing a few million people are just so worth it [00:23:26,158]: Well that of course is the phrase that they’ve actually used in a paper you know that the risks are worth the benefits [00:23:33,138]: Right [00:23:33,358]: So there must be some massive benefits [00:23:35,318]: A long time ago [00:23:36,778]: We can’t see it [00:23:38,118]: I mean the benefits in theory are being able to predict and prevent the next pandemic [00:23:42,818]: Well that went well didn’t it [00:23:47,198]: But even at the time this stream of research was kicked off 15 years ago there were other biologists saying look going out and finding viruses in bats in the real world and bringing them into a laboratory and souping them up to see how dangerous they are you’re very unlikely to find the one that actually is going to cause the next pandemic anyway [00:24:12,898]: And if you do you might make it more dangerous [00:24:14,978]: It’s not really a very good use of money this [00:24:17,698]: Why not just beef up surveillance and testing and tracing so that when there’s a local outbreak we’re quicker onto it [00:24:27,698]: Why try and predict it [00:24:29,378]: Why not just be better at stopping it when it first starts [00:24:32,598]: And that has always seemed to me a very good argument because if this kind of research can lead to 20 million deaths then it’s got to have an enormous upside for it to be worth it [00:24:44,418]: And the upside they talk about is pretty small [00:24:47,038]: Well in that case I am in a position where I don’t understand [00:24:51,858]: I always think why are people doing certain things [00:24:54,978]: And people generally respond to some kind of incentive structure within the culture and mentality they operate in [00:25:02,258]: So if what you’re saying is this type of research is ongoing in one form or another why are those people doing it [00:25:10,198]: To get papers in Nature to get promotion to get scientific fame and renown [00:25:18,318]: That’s the big motivation for most scientists in most fields [00:25:22,558]: Most humans in most fields [00:25:24,958]: Yes exactly [00:25:26,278]: So that’s that [00:25:27,198]: You don’t need to get complicated about this if you know what I mean [00:25:30,418]: That tells me the incentive structure within science is all wrong then [00:25:34,918]: Yes [00:25:35,558]: In that area [00:25:36,738]: Well and in quite a lot of areas [00:25:40,638]: Because I think if you examine what gets you fame renown and promotion in science it’s publishing a lot it’s doing something that nobody’s done before et cetera [00:25:54,638]: It’s not necessarily solving a problem that humanity wants you to solve [00:25:58,898]: I mean they’d like to do that as well [00:26:01,148]: And I’m not here to say that all scientists are evil [00:26:06,538]: I don’t think that evil is the wrong word here [00:26:08,778]: But I think there are misaligned incentives that have become very out of control [00:26:14,458]: And for me the big problem is the monolithic nature of the funding and publishing system [00:26:19,978]: The fact that basically all the money flows through one government agency [00:26:25,878]: So in this country UKRI [00:26:27,478]: In America NIH or whatever [00:26:29,178]: And you say well there’s the Wellcome Trust [00:26:31,518]: Wellcome Trust just falls in line with UKRI [00:26:34,778]: There’s no attempt to be the red team to their B team and to fund different things [00:26:41,738]: And then when it comes to publishing you don’t find science says well I’m not going to publish that [00:26:47,058]: Nature says I will [00:26:48,338]: Except in a sort of competitive sense we’d like to do it first [00:26:51,018]: They all have exactly the same criteria [00:26:52,798]: So it’s become very monopolistic science [00:26:55,858]: And for me monopoly is the big theme of what’s wrong with this world [00:26:59,398]: What’s wrong with government [00:27:00,318]: What’s wrong with crony capitalism et cetera [00:27:03,438]: Wherever you get monopoly you’ve got a problem [00:27:07,058]: It’s a fantastic point because I have a lot of friends who work in science [00:27:11,098]: And what they say is if you want to get funding which is actually the most important thing for a scientist is to get funding [00:27:19,178]: And people would be very shocked to hear that [00:27:20,738]: And so was I [00:27:21,498]: But apparently it’s true [00:27:22,458]: If you want to get funding you know the avenues that you need to go down [00:27:27,178]: You know the research that is looked upon favorably [00:27:30,378]: So you’re not going to do something which is deemed to be slightly conspiratorial or slightly dodgy for whatever reason [00:27:40,578]: You are going to stick to the current paths [00:27:42,698]: And that’s a tragedy for science and human innovation isn’t it [00:27:46,598]: Well to take another example from a different field Alzheimer’s research decided some years ago that the hypothesis they liked best was the amyloid plaque hypothesis that if we could find a way for these features not to form inside brain cells then we would be curing Alzheimer’s [00:28:11,838]: And at various points along the way scientists have said hang on a minute [00:28:18,258]: I’m not sure you’re not just treating the symptoms rather than the causes here [00:28:23,438]: We don’t seem to be getting anywhere with this hypothesis [00:28:26,738]: And they have been excluded [00:28:29,218]: There’s been a really shocking degree of we refuse to publish you if you don’t subscribe to the amyloid plaque hypothesis [00:28:36,618]: You’re a nutcase [00:28:37,378]: You’re conspiratorial blah blah blah [00:28:39,398]: There are other hypotheses out there [00:28:41,738]: And they get ostracized [00:28:43,498]: An even more striking example which is admittedly from longer ago in the 1980s is the stomach ulcer story [00:28:51,198]: I don’t know [00:28:52,358]: The guy who proved that by swallowing the thing and giving himself a stomach ulcer [00:28:56,378]: So Glaxo and others were making an absolute fortune out of these antacid drugs that fought the symptoms of stomach ulcers but never cured them [00:29:05,758]: And this guy comes along and says look I think they’re caused by a bacterium called helicobacter [00:29:10,358]: And they wouldn’t publish him and they wouldn’t fund him and they wouldn’t give him grants [00:29:15,118]: Barry Marshall was his name in Western Australia [00:29:17,898]: And eventually in order to prove his point he swallowed a glass of helicobacter and got the most ferocious stomach ulcers [00:29:23,838]: And he then swallowed an antibiotic and cured himself [00:29:27,678]: And at that point the world had to sit up and take notice [00:29:30,658]: And he eventually got the Nobel Prize [00:29:32,818]: But the degree to which he was pushing uphill for most of his career is quite shocking [00:29:38,018]: So in order to disprove what was a commonly thought hypothesis he had to give himself literal stomach ulcers [00:29:47,598]: Yeah [00:29:49,538]: That’s demented [00:29:52,038]: There’s a great tradition of self infection [00:29:56,558]: I think Robert Ross the guy who made the link between malaria and mosquitoes he deliberately infected himself too [00:30:04,498]: They’re quite mad some of these doctors [00:30:07,578]: Brave is the word I should use [00:30:10,338]: So moving that along to a subject which is even more controversial than COVID which is climate change or the climate crisis I mean that’s going to be even worse isn’t it [00:30:21,558]: Well I have covered that topic for 45 years now [00:30:25,738]: I wrote about it when I was science editor of The Economist in the mid to late 80s [00:30:30,998]: And I have watched a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that carbon dioxide might cause runaway warming be tested and discussed and debated [00:30:43,698]: And for 10 or 20 years you could argue both sides of it and then gradually get closed down to the point where if you say something like yeah I think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas [00:30:56,098]: But I don’t think there are positive feedback effects [00:30:58,338]: And I think it’s a diminishing effect [00:31:01,258]: So I don’t think we’re going to get runaway warming or dangerous warming [00:31:04,738]: And I don’t see any evidence that it’s causing more extreme weather which is basically what the facts show after 40 years [00:31:12,438]: If you say that you are a denier [00:31:16,398]: Now what does that word even mean in this context [00:31:19,298]: It’s an extraordinary thing to level at someone [00:31:23,198]: And now you’re not just a denier if you say I think climate change is not as bad as you think [00:31:31,258]: You’re a denier if you don’t use the word crisis [00:31:35,798]: You know you and I have always been in meetings I’m sure where people say the climate crisis is very important [00:31:41,138]: If you stick out your hand and say look can we talk about climate change but not the climate crisis [00:31:44,438]: Because I feel that’s a motive language [00:31:46,878]: It’s like you farted [00:31:54,078]: And as I say you know I’ve never thought that carbon dioxide has no effect at all [00:32:01,818]: I’ve never thought that we’re not in a period of warming [00:32:04,153]: But I’ve been blacklisted by the BBC because I once said some of these things on the Today program et cetera [00:32:15,193]: And someone with my view in a university would never get funding would never get published and would be quite quickly canceled [00:32:26,873]: Now I don’t think that’s healthy [00:32:29,373]: I mean I’d love to hear [00:32:30,353]: There are other people out there who say there’s no carbon dioxide warming it’s all caused by the sun [00:32:36,373]: I think they’re wrong too by the way [00:32:39,113]: But I don’t see why they couldn’t occasionally be allowed one job in a university or one paper in a journal which we can then criticize if you see what I mean [00:32:48,813]: And is it your assertion therefore that the consensus that we are often told about that exists within science you know 90x and it changes every day whatever that percentage is [00:32:58,573]: But basically the way it lands with a member of the ordinary general public like me or Francis is basically all the sane scientists agree and there’s this guy who thinks you know that the sun revolves around the Earth and he’s a bit weird [00:33:13,713]: That’s why no one listens to him [00:33:16,713]: Well are you saying that’s manufactured by the fact that basically you can’t say a different opinion and therefore therefore 93 of scientists agree [00:33:24,893]: Yes [00:33:25,113]: It’s partly that that it’s a self fulfilling prophecy [00:33:28,513]: But also the very study that got to 97 of scientists think climate change is happening said they think it’s happening [00:33:36,713]: Well I’m in the 97 [00:33:38,013]: They didn’t say they thought it was a crisis do you see what I mean [00:33:40,353]: You cannot find any study that says 97 of scientists think it’s a crisis literally [00:33:46,033]: You can probably get to 50 or 40 or 60 [00:33:48,313]: So what’s the in your assessment what is the reality of climate change and the human impact on that process and therefore the measures that we ought to be looking at and taking to mitigate that problem [00:34:04,153]: Well that’s a very big topic [00:34:05,673]: But to be blunt I think we are in a period of warming [00:34:09,593]: I think we’re going to have to adapt to that anyway because there’s every chance that we’re not going to be able to stop it [00:34:16,453]: Can I just stop you there Matt [00:34:17,753]: You said we’re in a period of warming [00:34:20,053]: What does that mean [00:34:21,193]: What does that actually mean in terms of data et cetera [00:34:23,793]: Because there’ll be people going I don’t know what that means [00:34:25,873]: I mean made by the way [00:34:27,733]: Well the average temperature of the planet does seem to be going steadily upwards [00:34:32,593]: Since when [00:34:33,293]: Since the mid 80s [00:34:35,633]: It went down in the 70s [00:34:37,293]: I remember all the fears about the ice age [00:34:39,113]: Yes in the 70s [00:34:40,073]: So we were told the planet is about to freeze in the 70s [00:34:43,693]: And that wasn’t a fringe view by the way [00:34:45,553]: It was covers of Time and Newsweek and all that kind of stuff [00:34:49,553]: People have forgotten [00:34:50,333]: And it was going to be 6 degrees of cooling [00:34:52,233]: And it was going to be amazing changes [00:34:54,893]: And that didn’t happen [00:34:56,593]: It bottomed out and started warming gently [00:34:59,753]: And since then it’s warmed at about a quarter of a degree per decade on average across the last 30 40 years [00:35:12,053]: And they say it’s 1 5 degrees above pre industrial levels now [00:35:16,893]: But pre industrial levels did this [00:35:18,933]: So which bit do you want to prove [00:35:20,953]: We know that in the medieval period it was warmer than today because you find whole forests that are emerging from melting glaciers now [00:35:27,333]: Well they were forests in 1500 where there would have been no glacier there now [00:35:32,873]: So the glaciers come and then gone away again [00:35:35,333]: So we’re not in a period of unprecedented warmth [00:35:37,973]: We’re not in a period of unprecedentedly fast warmth [00:35:41,433]: We’re not in a period of increasing extreme weather floods droughts storms [00:35:46,273]: There’s no increase in either frequency or severity [00:35:53,973]: Floods you need to take into account the fact that we’re building on floodplains and making it harder for rivers to lose their energy and things you know [00:36:01,213]: So there of course there’s man made factors [00:36:03,213]: But that’s not the same as saying that it’s the climate that’s making them worse [00:36:07,893]: So for me climate change is real [00:36:11,413]: It’s happening [00:36:11,993]: It’s producing an effect some of which is deleterious and we need to work out what to do about it [00:36:19,153]: But at the same time the carbon dioxide we’re putting in the air is having a very measurable effect that’s beneficial [00:36:25,633]: And we refuse to take that into account [00:36:28,233]: And that is global greening [00:36:30,753]: There is more green vegetation on the planet now compared with the 1980s equivalent to a continent the size of North America that’s been added of green vegetation [00:36:42,953]: That’s an enormous impact [00:36:45,333]: It’s approximately 16 or 17 percent more green vegetation on the planet now than there was in the 80s [00:36:53,373]: And there’s lots of ways of proving that [00:36:55,433]: It’s satellites it’s the variation seasonally but on the ground too [00:37:00,153]: You take photographs in deserts you can see how much greener they are than they were then [00:37:04,733]: And that’s because carbon dioxide is plant food [00:37:07,433]: And when there’s more in the air the plants grow better particularly in arid areas [00:37:11,033]: Now that’s had an effect on crop yields [00:37:14,193]: It’s not the only effect on crop yields but it’s 15 percent [00:37:16,913]: It’s quite a good improvement [00:37:20,033]: And if you add the dollar value of that up it’s very hard to make it smaller than the dollar value of the increase in warmth that has effect you know done damage [00:37:32,333]: Because even the warmth you know that means that fewer people are dying in winter [00:37:36,453]: Most of the warmth is concentrated in winter at night in the north not in summer and daytime and in tropical areas [00:37:43,533]: So for me the cost benefit analysis is not clear [00:37:48,073]: And yet there are so many vested interests now in continuing to talk about it as a crisis and fund it as a crisis that I’ll not get a hearing for what I just said [00:37:59,833]: Well you’re getting it here [00:38:01,173]: And I find it very interesting because it sounds to me a little bit [00:38:04,993]: And you know as part of the media ecosystem now I kind of start to see human behavior over time and I begin to see patterns [00:38:13,493]: And I think one of the patterns is particularly among the commentary the people who may be not informed is to kind of go well you know the line is moving in this direction [00:38:23,313]: And if we continue moving in this direction for the next 50 years things are going to get really bad [00:38:28,613]: And then the line starts moving in another direction [00:38:31,293]: And we’re like well if it moves in this direction 50 years and we forget that like the line moves up and down [00:38:37,473]: And that’s where I think the real concern about climate change is which is the runaway effect [00:38:42,733]: Yes [00:38:43,113]: Which is if this carries on for a long time at this rate we really do have a problem [00:38:48,973]: And I don’t think you would deny that [00:38:50,473]: Absolutely [00:38:51,113]: So what is the reality of the runaway thing [00:38:54,333]: Because that’s really the big piece of this [00:38:56,333]: Yes you’re quite right [00:38:57,253]: The tipping point where it’s a little bit of warmth creates a lot more warmth [00:39:02,473]: That would be the worry [00:39:03,913]: You start to collapse the ice sheets [00:39:05,373]: That makes everything darker and therefore warmer because ice is white and water is dark [00:39:10,153]: You know things like that [00:39:12,773]: Maybe when you make it warmer you get less clouds and therefore you get more sunlight coming in [00:39:18,753]: Most of the evidence on that is that the positive feedbacks are pretty small and diminishing [00:39:24,473]: We know for example that for every extra bit of carbon dioxide you put in the air you get a diminishing effect [00:39:31,913]: The first bit has a big effect [00:39:33,453]: The second bit has a smaller effect and so on [00:39:36,453]: So there are negative feedback effects and positive feedback effects [00:39:42,293]: Most of the attempts to find tipping points you know the collapse of the Atlantic circulation collapse of the Greenland ice sheet etc the acceleration of sea level rise [00:39:53,413]: That’s another possible threat [00:39:56,073]: After 40 50 years we can be much more relaxed about them than we were [00:40:00,633]: And you know it was reasonable to worry about them in the 80s as I do [00:40:03,593]: And I read some alarmist articles in the 80s saying this thing might go haywire after a certain point [00:40:10,333]: I now think that’s pretty unlikely [00:40:14,413]: But if we had a technology that said we can stop emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow and it won’t cost you a penny [00:40:21,313]: Fine [00:40:22,353]: No problem [00:40:24,133]: You then have to say well how difficult is it to stop emitting carbon dioxide [00:40:30,593]: And we’ve tried for 30 40 years now to do that [00:40:35,173]: And today 82 of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels [00:40:43,073]: The year 2000 83 roughly [00:40:47,413]: We’ve hardly changed [00:40:48,773]: It’s gone up a bit and then down a bit [00:40:50,393]: You know may have got to 84 at one point down to 81 at one point [00:40:54,873]: But you know we can’t find a replacement for fossil fuels that is both reliable and cheap [00:41:03,213]: And you know just think about heating your home or driving your car or whatever [00:41:09,213]: You know it ain’t that easy [00:41:10,473]: And if you’re living in Burkina Faso and you’re burning brushwood which you’ve collected from the surrounding forest or scrub to keep yourself to cook food at night and the World Bank says you can’t have money for a bottled gas program in that country because it’s a fossil fuel then I think you should be pretty cross about that because you’re burning fire is killing your kids [00:41:43,633]: Indoor air pollution kills four million people a year [00:41:48,033]: It produces more carbon dioxide than burning gas [00:41:51,333]: It steals the wood from beetles and other creatures who want to eat it [00:41:55,293]: Whereas gas doesn’t do any of those things [00:41:57,933]: And so that’s the reality of our obsession with trying to stop using fossil fuels is that we are doing genuine harm today [00:42:06,593]: And you have to put that in the balance against the potential future harms of runaway warming [00:42:12,553]: And what are the policy sorry Francis on this [00:42:15,053]: What are the policy implications of what you’re saying Matt if you were the chief scientific advisor or chief advisor to blah blah blah would you go full Trump drill baby drill no net zero scrap all of that stuff [00:42:29,053]: Should we be trying to reduce carbon emissions at all [00:42:32,393]: I think it’s relatively simple [00:42:34,733]: The advice I’d give was don’t set a deadline [00:42:37,793]: I mean 2050 net zero UK only country doing it [00:42:42,013]: We only produce 0 87 percent of the world’s emissions anyway [00:42:45,813]: It won’t make a damn bit of difference whether we hit that or not [00:42:48,573]: And the technology to do that as I say is not here [00:42:51,953]: And it might come along in 2051 you know and then you’d look a fool wouldn’t you [00:42:55,553]: You’d spend a fortune trying to get rid of emissions and you could have done it for free [00:42:59,613]: So I think that’s a crazy way of going about it [00:43:02,213]: I think what the UK has done is unbelievably foolish [00:43:05,213]: And we should tear up net zero get rid of the climate change committee [00:43:08,793]: And instead fund research into energy technologies that might be able to solve the problem in the future [00:43:20,553]: Because if you could get fusion going economically five years earlier than it would otherwise by a bit more funding or if you could get small nuclear reactors cheaper five years sooner that would make far more difference [00:43:38,393]: Than heat pumps and electric vehicles and all these kind of things [00:43:43,413]: So you know for me it’s about researching the problem to find solutions rather than enacting deadlines today [00:43:57,353]: Gentlemen it’s time to upgrade your grooming game [00:44:00,513]: The Lawnmower 5 0 Ultra from Manscaped isn’t just engineered for performance [00:44:04,873]: It’s designed to impress especially in the areas that matter most [00:44:09,693]: With skin safe technology and a dual blade setup it gives you a clean precision trim while helping prevent those awkward slips [00:44:17,793]: Waterproof lightweight and equipped with a built in light [00:44:20,933]: It’s made for accuracy even in low light or high stress situations [00:44:25,413]: We’ve been partnering with Manscaped for over three years now and that’s no accident [00:44:30,513]: Their grooming tools are top tier and their customer support is consistently excellent [00:44:36,333]: Head to Manscaped com and use the code Trigger15 to get 15 off your entire order [00:44:43,213]: That’s Trigger15 at Manscaped com [00:44:46,233]: Precision tools unbeatable results and smooth skin that doesn’t come at the cost of your dignity [00:44:53,453]: One of the things when we talk about climate change is that people tend to fold it into pollution [00:44:59,313]: And damage to wildlife and the environment which I know you’re very passionate about [00:45:05,133]: I am so is Constantine [00:45:07,413]: How do we disentangle these things [00:45:10,313]: Because it’s very important because I think we can all agree that we need to do more to preserve our wildlife and our ecology not only for ourselves for our children and our grandchildren [00:45:20,913]: So how do we essentially disentangle and make sense of this [00:45:25,683]: Well I was in a meeting the other day where a presentation was made in which the importance of preventing nature decline and nature depletion was talked about comma as a result of the climate crisis [00:45:40,013]: And I stuck up my hand and said look wherever I go in the world and I’m a keen birdwatcher and love nature the threat to wildlife that I see is nearly always not climate [00:45:55,513]: It’s nearly always invasive species or habitat destruction [00:45:58,813]: So I was recently in India and I said what’s your biggest problem in this lovely habitat in the edge of the Tar Desert [00:46:04,793]: And they said well we’ve got this new invasive tree that’s coming in [00:46:07,373]: Well a couple of years ago I was in Africa [00:46:09,153]: I said what’s your biggest problem [00:46:10,413]: There’s an invasive ant which is displacing the [00:46:13,233]: And then when I think about my own farm in Northumberland the water vole has gone extinct because of invasive mink [00:46:18,693]: The red squirrel is going extinct because of invasive grey squirrels etc [00:46:23,953]: So and if you look at extinctions of birds and mammals invasive alien species that compete with them particularly on islands are the biggest threat [00:46:35,793]: That topic gets neglected but you’re right [00:46:39,013]: People think of it as part of the same [00:46:41,193]: You know they say oh I didn’t mean just the climate crisis [00:46:43,173]: I meant man’s impact generally [00:46:44,713]: So they’re sort of [00:46:47,013]: They’re already there if you know what I mean [00:46:49,173]: They’re just using that as a shorthand for human impacts which is fine [00:46:56,173]: But I do think it distorts our priorities because if you Climate change can be a very convenient excuse for politicians [00:47:05,333]: Yes we can’t do anything about nature decline because it’s climate change [00:47:08,493]: Yes we can’t stop fires destroying Malibu because it’s climate change [00:47:13,493]: Politicians love talking about climate change because then they don’t have to take any responsibility for not doing preventive burns in California not designing better flood mitigation schemes in Britain or whatever it might be not doing anything about the grey squirrel [00:47:29,913]: And it becomes like a doomsday cult where you can’t do anything or you can’t say anything against it because there is going to be this day where the fires are going to engulf us all [00:47:42,393]: Well I think there is a sort of love of doom in the human spirit [00:47:49,133]: And if you want to get attention on the media which you guys do then it really pays to do the sackcloth and ashes profit on a hill thing about how we’re all doomed [00:48:06,453]: You know people have said to me you keep writing these books saying that people are wrong to be so pessimistic about things [00:48:13,833]: You’re as you can make more money if you said the opposite [00:48:18,593]: Does that I guess explain the phenomenon of Greta Thunberg [00:48:23,648]: Well she’s moved on mate [00:48:26,028]: We’re getting left behind [00:48:27,428]: So she was the head of the climate thing [00:48:30,788]: Now she’s got a whole different issue [00:48:32,628]: She’s on Palestine [00:48:33,428]: She’s on Palestine mate [00:48:34,488]: So your references are behind the times [00:48:37,528]: But I mean I’m sorry that was peak strangeness [00:48:42,428]: I was going to say a ruder word but [00:48:45,488]: It was weird [00:48:46,328]: Let’s just call it what it was [00:48:47,488]: It was deeply weird [00:48:48,468]: That photograph of Leila Moran and Michael Gove and Ed Miliband standing looking at a 14 or 15 year old girl as if she was Joan of Arc hanging on their every word when she came to Parliament here [00:49:03,968]: I mean I’m sorry she knew relatively little about the topic [00:49:11,428]: I love how diplomatic that is [00:49:14,348]: A 14 year old knew relatively little about one of the most complicated scientific subjects in human history [00:49:21,408]: Yeah [00:49:21,728]: She didn’t quite understand the climate models at 14 [00:49:27,208]: It of course showed that you know there is an element of religious dogma into this topic [00:49:36,328]: And it’s got all the features of a religious cult [00:49:39,948]: Now that doesn’t mean there isn’t any science there either [00:49:43,168]: Of course there is [00:49:44,508]: But you know if you’re banning Nigel Lawson from the BBC which happened to him before he died but you’re allowing Greta Thunberg something’s wrong with your priorities about truth [00:50:00,348]: Yes indeed [00:50:00,928]: We had Nigel on the show during the pandemic right before his death actually [00:50:05,788]: Very interesting conversation [00:50:06,928]: We didn’t talk about climate [00:50:09,308]: Well Matt one of the things you talk about in your latest book which is there is you know one of the things that we wanted to explore is the kind of maverick the maverick theory of science like the great man theory of science if you like which is you know the idea that quite a lot of progress does get made [00:50:28,688]: You call them brave stroke mad people [00:50:32,188]: Is that an exaggeration [00:50:34,248]: Is that a story we like to tell our kids so they think anything is possible [00:50:38,348]: But actually most science is sort of a bunch of people working together on a thing and eventually coming to a conclusion [00:50:44,328]: Or is quite a lot of it genuinely you know the crazy guy coming up with a theory [00:50:48,988]: Everyone thinks he’s an idiot for 20 years [00:50:50,628]: And then we go oh actually he gave himself a null sir [00:50:53,388]: He’s right [00:50:54,808]: Where’s the balance between those two [00:50:56,868]: It’s a very good question and one that I wrestle with and I don’t fully know the answer to [00:51:01,428]: On the one hand yes of course an awful lot of science is incremental improvements to knowledge by perfectly sensible normal people working in the orthodox mainstream [00:51:13,068]: You know one can’t deny that [00:51:15,428]: And I’m not a huge fan of the great man theory of history [00:51:18,048]: I do think there’s an inevitability about certain things happening in history [00:51:23,708]: But you cannot deny that an awful lot of scientific theories start out as heresies and are advanced by mavericks [00:51:34,188]: And those mavericks have a tough time being heard [00:51:38,028]: But you also can’t deny that that doesn’t mean that every maverick is a genius [00:51:42,928]: You know not everyone is Galileo [00:51:44,908]: Not everyone is Charles Darwin [00:51:46,688]: But I mean in the book I’ve written Bird Sex and Beauty it’s about the debate on sexual selection which is an idea that Darwin had that the choice of your mate can drive evolution in interesting ways that survival of the fittest can’t [00:52:06,488]: Seduction of the hottest versus survival of the fittest is the way I put it [00:52:09,628]: And it’s a much more creative and different force [00:52:11,928]: And it often doesn’t help you survive but it does help you get a mate and therefore have attractive grandchildren which can attract others et cetera et cetera [00:52:18,788]: So it can result in peacock’s tails and flamboyant plumage and all that [00:52:23,688]: Now Darwin had that idea quite early [00:52:25,828]: He pushed it quite hard [00:52:27,248]: All his friends said he was wrong [00:52:30,128]: Wallace completely disagreed with him [00:52:32,228]: Alfred Russell Wallace his rival co discoverer of natural selection [00:52:37,228]: Even his chums like Thomas Henry Huxley and Herbert Spencer thought he was talking through his hat [00:52:41,808]: But we now know he was basically right that mate choice is an important force in evolution and not to be underestimated [00:52:49,208]: And so I was very curious about the idea that we think of Darwin as triumphantly successful [00:52:54,468]: But actually one of his favorite ideas that he’s devoted a lot of energy to he lost the argument in his lifetime [00:53:01,748]: And partly because in Victorian England if you say female lust may be behind male coloration it doesn’t work for crusty old Victorians who are sitting around discussing these things [00:53:17,168]: They don’t understand about female lust [00:53:20,328]: They certainly don’t want to talk about it [00:53:22,868]: So there’s a cultural background there that’s quite interesting [00:53:27,388]: But partly this was an excuse to go birdwatching for a year and write a book about it [00:53:31,388]: Partly I’m fascinated by the colors and flamboyant plumage of birds [00:53:36,828]: Frances you’re a birdwatcher [00:53:37,828]: You know what I mean [00:53:39,968]: And it’s genuinely difficult to explain why should birds be so conspicuous [00:53:46,728]: Why do they dance so much [00:53:48,248]: Why do they sing so much [00:53:50,568]: And maybe it has a story to tell about human beings too because we are selective about our mates both ways [00:53:58,608]: Males are very selective in which females they mate with and vice versa [00:54:03,368]: And a chap called Geoffrey Miller has written a book called The Mating Mind 20 years ago [00:54:07,108]: Former guest on the show [00:54:08,168]: You’ve had Geoffrey on the show [00:54:09,088]: Yes big fans of his [00:54:10,568]: Yeah he’s a great guy [00:54:12,208]: And it’s a really good book [00:54:14,308]: And in it he argues that we think the human brain exploded in size over the last couple of million years because of natural selection [00:54:25,548]: It helped us survive on the savannah [00:54:28,268]: Well why [00:54:29,408]: I mean A why did it do that [00:54:31,808]: And B why didn’t baboons or gazelles need bigger brains too [00:54:36,028]: They were also on the savannah [00:54:37,948]: So maybe it wasn’t about surviving in practical terms [00:54:41,788]: Maybe it was about social survival [00:54:43,768]: Maybe it was about working out what’s going on in other people’s heads was an important part of our life [00:54:49,048]: And so there was a sort of social arms race between us to have big brains to figure out what each other was thinking [00:54:54,308]: That’s a perfectly good hypothesis [00:54:56,248]: People discuss that ad nauseam [00:54:58,688]: Geoffrey says well maybe actually it was about seducing each other [00:55:01,608]: Maybe once we got into the habit of saying the guy who sings well or makes good jokes is the one I want to mate with that could drive an explosion of the human brain that could suddenly take off in the way that it did take off [00:55:14,928]: It’s such an interesting idea I think [00:55:18,548]: But nobody takes it very seriously [00:55:20,648]: And nobody has thought through the implications of it in terms of how we rethink social sciences economics sociology all these things if it is what we devote a lot of our mental energy to [00:55:34,968]: But having a good sense of humour is an incredibly important part of seduction [00:55:40,988]: You’re comedians aren’t you [00:55:42,228]: So I shouldn’t really tell you that [00:55:43,988]: Well he’s single mate [00:55:45,288]: So it hasn’t worked for him [00:55:47,988]: By the way I was just thinking Francis that book title in your accent takes on a whole different meaning doesn’t it [00:55:54,588]: Well Birds Sex and Beauty [00:55:56,088]: Birds Sex and Beauty [00:55:57,528]: Yeah exactly [00:55:58,448]: Why is that a different take [00:56:00,168]: Birds is I mean is it cockney to you Women yes [00:56:06,348]: Birds Sex and Beauty [00:56:07,628]: Yeah [00:56:08,068]: So if you’ve written that book it would take on a whole different meaning [00:56:11,288]: Yeah more of like a naturist approach [00:56:13,328]: If I was you know I’m a Northumbrian if I spoke in Geordie birds sex and beauty like [00:56:21,528]: But it’s an interesting point you make [00:56:23,548]: And there was a term for it on the internet many many years ago which was called peacocking [00:56:29,548]: Oh really [00:56:30,288]: Yes [00:56:30,648]: Yes [00:56:31,168]: And the term peacocking in the kind of dating slash manosphere culture of the time was you displaying your peacock feathers in whatever in like making jokes or displaying a particular talent that women would then become interested in [00:56:44,608]: Right [00:56:45,068]: So it’s interesting that you say that when it comes to birds because it makes complete sense [00:56:49,808]: And by the way it’s quite an important point that I make in the book because we’ve done experiments show that in some birds it goes both ways [00:56:55,948]: You know that males have to be brightly colored to attract females and females have to be brightly colored to attract males [00:57:01,368]: So this isn’t necessarily about saying it was the male brain that did all this [00:57:06,808]: It could have been just as much the other way [00:57:08,728]: I think it’s quite important to say that because [00:57:10,548]: Well bird feminists will be very happy you’ve made that point [00:57:15,388]: The avian feminist movement will send you a letter of thanks for that meaningful contribution [00:57:21,448]: Quick question though [00:57:22,588]: So if why is it that in some species it’s a female that’s colorful [00:57:27,448]: Why is it in some species it’s the male that’s colorful or is it arbitrary [00:57:31,508]: No well the answer to that was brilliantly spotted and we should have spotted it years earlier by a guy called Robert Trivers at Harvard in the 1970s [00:57:39,688]: He said whichever species invests most time and energy in bringing up the offspring [00:57:47,668]: Ends up being dully colored and competed for by the other one that gets brightly colored because he’s got the spare time as it were to show off [00:57:56,688]: And so the exceptions prove the rule again here which is that there’s a bird I used to study and I mentioned it in the book called the phalarope in which it’s the females that are brightly colored and do a lot of the displaying and they do a lot of the harassing of the males and the males sit on the eggs [00:58:14,448]: And it’s because the males sit on the eggs that they’re the scarce resource that the other sex is going to fight for [00:58:19,788]: Do you see what I mean [00:58:20,848]: Grabbing a mate who’s going to look after your eggs for you for two weeks is so valuable that it makes sense for you to invest time and energy in being seductive [00:58:31,788]: Because there was something that I used to think when I used to see these brightly colored tropical birds in Venezuela where I was like I understand there’s a beauty aspect to it and then you’re demonstrating to your potential mate how healthy you are how strong you are [00:58:47,428]: But doesn’t that then make you more vulnerable to predators [00:58:50,968]: Absolutely [00:58:52,608]: And this was one of the points that got Darwin interested in this because he’s saying how does this help survival [00:59:00,728]: I mean it’s supposed to be survival of the fittest [00:59:02,828]: And the answer is yeah no [00:59:05,108]: If you can win the jackpot in the next generation by fathering beautiful sons who all get lots of mates then it doesn’t matter if your life is short because you get hit by a hawk as long as you’ve managed to mate first [00:59:22,588]: Do you see what I mean [00:59:23,848]: So it’s a price you pay for winning the seduction lottery is you lose the survival lottery [00:59:34,648]: And obviously there’s a balance [00:59:36,168]: But it makes perfect sense within the selfish gene explanation of these things doesn’t it [00:59:40,848]: Because it’s not about the unit Matt Ridley or Constantine Kissin [00:59:44,848]: It’s about me passing on my genes [00:59:46,788]: So if I can live to 50 and have 10 kids that’s a hell of a lot better than living to 100 and having none right [00:59:53,248]: Exactly that [00:59:53,808]: You put it beautifully [00:59:55,028]: Yes I don’t think I would [00:59:55,788]: Matt you should come on many many more times [00:59:58,868]: Just keep saying you put it beautifully [01:00:01,648]: See this is why Matt is a regular guest on the show [01:00:04,108]: He’s just he’s so spot on about everything isn’t he [01:00:07,128]: He just knows how to just you know say it exactly how it is [01:00:10,548]: And he does it at the end of the interview [01:00:11,988]: So we remember it [01:00:12,828]: So then we invite him back for the next time [01:00:14,808]: Matt always a pleasure to have you on [01:00:16,348]: We’re going to take some questions from our audience in a second on our sub stack [01:00:20,408]: Before we do we always end with the same question as you well know what’s the one thing we’re not talking about that we should be [01:00:25,668]: Is it Anthony Fauci getting that pardon [01:00:30,408]: Pre pardon [01:00:30,948]: Wasn’t it a pre pardon [01:00:32,268]: It was a pre emptive pardon [01:00:33,588]: Yeah it went back to 2014 [01:00:40,148]: There’s something on the tip of my tongue on the back of my hand [01:00:45,028]: I think we’re not talking about that asteroid that’s aiming at us in 2032 or something [01:00:54,608]: There’s an asteroid [01:00:55,648]: Well yeah [01:00:56,068]: I mean it’s only 0 1 chance it’s going to hit us or 0 1 [01:01:00,988]: I can’t remember [01:01:01,868]: But you know [01:01:03,608]: So why are you scaring the public Matt [01:01:06,468]: At one point at some point [01:01:09,668]: We’re all going to die [01:01:10,628]: Well we’re going to have to work out how to deflect one [01:01:14,768]: It’s not an Earth killer but it could be a city killer this one [01:01:20,468]: Now I gather they’ve downgraded its chances [01:01:23,108]: It was 2 [01:01:23,648]: It’s now 1 or something you know [01:01:25,168]: So we probably don’t need to worry about that [01:01:27,108]: But do we know where it’s going to hit [01:01:29,128]: No no [01:01:29,948]: I mean it’s a long way off yet [01:01:31,388]: I mean you know whatever [01:01:33,788]: The planet spins [01:01:34,728]: No sorry [01:01:35,188]: That was a very non scientific way of saying it [01:01:39,668]: That was the plane of the ecliptic [01:01:44,148]: No sorry [01:01:44,868]: It’s a better one actually [01:01:46,468]: I don’t know if you can edit that out [01:01:48,708]: We can but why would we [01:01:50,528]: Yeah exactly [01:01:52,588]: There’s a guy called Avi Loeb who’s the professor of astrophysics at Harvard University [01:01:58,408]: And he is convinced that an object came in from another solar system vertically sort of through the plane of our solar system and passed between us and the sun in 2017 [01:02:17,988]: It was called something like Oumuamua [01:02:19,708]: It’s got a Hawaiian name [01:02:23,188]: And this is true [01:02:24,388]: I mean that’s a fact that it did that [01:02:26,208]: But he’s convinced it might have been an artificial object not a natural object [01:02:31,728]: Because it was flashing on and off [01:02:33,768]: It was bright then dark bright then dark bright then dark [01:02:36,928]: Probably that means it was long and thin [01:02:38,608]: And so it was spinning [01:02:39,348]: And when it was pointing towards us it was dark [01:02:40,948]: And when it was sideways on it was brighter [01:02:43,688]: It then did an acceleration that is quite hard to explain [01:02:47,488]: Not impossible to explain but quite hard to explain [01:02:50,208]: Now most of the astrophysics community says he’s talking through his hat and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about [01:02:56,308]: And it’s far more likely to be natural [01:02:58,568]: Well why [01:02:59,608]: He’s saying we don’t know the Bayesian prior logic here whether it’s more likely to be natural or artificial [01:03:06,228]: If it’s come from another solar system an interstellar trajectory it’s possible that it was sent to our solar system [01:03:22,108]: And it’s possible it had a solar wind collector to speed it up [01:03:25,728]: So as it gets past the sun it does speed up [01:03:27,748]: You can imagine a technology that would do that [01:03:30,688]: A solar sail I think is the word [01:03:32,768]: And he wrote a wonderful book about this [01:03:35,468]: And all his colleagues think he’s a complete nutcase [01:03:38,368]: And I like nutcases [01:03:41,288]: Clearly [01:03:42,008]: Well thanks for being here with us [01:03:44,388]: We’ll take a look at it [01:03:46,228]: But I mean this object went past us but didn’t make any contact [01:03:50,888]: And probably took a look at what’s happening on Earth and went oh f**k that [01:03:53,688]: Just carried on [01:03:56,608]: Well Matt it’s great to have you on the show [01:03:59,068]: Head on over to Substack where we ask Matt Ridley your questions [01:04:03,348]: How much of this politicization of the sciences can be attributed to people just being unwilling to accept that life isn’t fairTranscribe your media with TRNSCRB.
Transcribe multiple languages, effortlessly. Chat with your projects. Enhance your workflow.