Comment 18 by Nunbeliever :

To btheist:

but it doesn't change the fact that the whole speech was a vivid reminder to be ever skeptical of everything you hear and read, and probably even more so if what you hear is confirming your own bias, lest you fall prey to confirmation bias yourself.

No, if that was true I would have no objections at all. But he does not hide the fact that he thinks mainstream climate scientists are not to be trusted and that there are no good evidence that shows we should do something about climate change. In fact he says he thinks the consequences of us taking actions could be disastrous. He is definately not unbiased. He accepts statements by contrarians like McIntyre or McKitrick without question while he regards mainstream science as unreliable. That is not skepitcism. That is bias confirmation. Ironically exactly what he is blaming mainstram scientists of.

Not to mention that his "attempt" at arguing the AGW skeptic community consists of individuals who finance their own media presences and are not subject to or beholden to special interest funding is a complete load 'o bollocks.

Although I did not know who Matt Ridley was before reading this thread, I have seen many other AGW skeptics who claim independence from special interest who are, from what I've found, up to their necks in association with individuals and groups who definitely have vested interests in denying AGW.