Comment 8 by Hume's Razor :

Is there any reason in particular why this is featured on the RDF's website? Should we take this to mean that the RDF is sympathetic to the message? If so, please let us know so those of us who still care about truth, critical thinking and intellectual honesty can make sure not to touch the RDF with a ten foot pole in the future. link text

Is there any reason in particular why it should not be featured on a website devoted to reason and science?

I think you are welcome to take (interpret) this to mean whatever you will. That doesn't mean your interpretation or take on the matter is correct. The same may be said about Ridley's discussions.

Rather than be hyper-critical about the posting of a speech which mostly focuses on a hot-bed topic and which obviously reaches conclusions you do not. Why don't you offer some reasonable, scientific critique of Matt's monologue?

Or, perhaps that is asking too much?

For my part, I'm undecided. Ripley clearly makes some logically errant arguments. Or rather I should say his argument includes some logical fallacies. Not everything he says in this speech is flawed, but clearly he is not above reproach (none of us are or should be). And I mean that based on the merits of his speech, not his "pedigree". I couldn't give a rat's arse who he is. If he has something of merit to say, what he says and how he says it will provide me with the information I need to base a reasonable conclusion on.

My conclusion is that his skepticism of the projected consequences of anthropogenic climate change is reasonable, but many of his supporting arguments are not without flaws.