Lord Lawson - An Appeal To Reason

[StainlessSteelCat]

Let's face it if he's wrong - he's hardly going to suffer as being rich, living in a temperate Western country and unlikely to live longer than another 20 years will probably insulate you from the worse effects of climate change. The rest of us will be pretty screwed though - why pay this deluded old fool any heed?

People are right to be sceptical in the face of contradictory behaviour from politicians - but it doesn't make the argument for action a false one. A future based on cleaner technologies is there for the taking. And with our scientific and technical expertise we'd be well placed to take advantage of it (and it would generate lots of manufacturing and engineering jobs) if the government actually put its money where its gob is.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Who would want to discuss science with an abusive fishwife?

Outline the aspects of climate change evidence you take issue with and they can be debated point by point.

Steve

Edited April 7, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Methinkshe]

He sees parallels with the apocalyptic visions held out by certain religious movements in the past. He is alarmed by the fanatical intolerance shown by many believers in global warming to any heretic who dares question their certainties.

Yes, we are not allowed to point out that he is talking garbage, that's oppressive. By this token, I'm intolerant of flat-earthers, creationists, homeopathists, and anyone else who thinks that their personal beliefs trump reality.

Got any scientific arguments you'd like to present, or are you dead set on avoiding such a debate?

I wouldn't even dream of debating the topic with you. You have proved on other threads about global warming that you are one of those fanatics of whom Lord Lawson is rightly wary; one whose unreasonable intolerance of opposing views is a far greater threat to humanity than global warming ever could be.

You seem to have some touching faith in the inerrancy of scientific theories (at least, those that concur with your personal opinion) and to have ignored the fact that science is in a constant state of flux. Indeed, that is the very basis of science - that new knowledge gives rise to new theories that replace outdated theories, vis a vis Newton and Einstein. No doubt Einstein's theories will be trumped at some future stage, too.

Your belief in manmade climate change is an article of faith; if that were not the case you wouldn't so vehemently dismiss the opposing SCIENTIFIC views that have been presented to you on other threads, and would take a less opinionated and more honest and humble stance similar to that articulated by Steve Cook in a previous post:

"Whether all of the above is correct or not, only time will tell. The next five to ten years will settle it."

For all of the above reasons and more, I decline to debate the topic with you.

[Guest Steve Cook]

..... and would take a less opinionated and more honest and humble stance similar to that articulated by Steve Cook in a previous post.....

God bless you..

That's the very first time I have ever been accused of humility. I'm copying and pasting that post for posterity...

Seriously though. I don't wish to overstate the case for my scepticism about the issue of global climate change. I do indeed accept the evidence regarding the seriousness of the issue. I just think that a more immediate worry on the minds of our illustrious leaders is energy security and they are making hay with the climate change issue for reasons related to this.

Nontheless, I would be happy and indeed eager to cover the evidential basis for arguing for or against climate change. Given that there is now a very large body of evidence indicating such change is taking place, I would suggest that the only real debate left is how severe it will be, how fast it will occcur, and how far man's activity is implicated in it. I take it you do not question the evidence that it is actually happening on a human timescale irrespective of arguments about it's causes and eventual severity?

Steve

Edited April 7, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Guest Skint Academic]

The climate has always changed.

It always will.

It was a lot warmer 300 or so years ago. There were settlements in greenland, UNDER THE ICE.

There were No Ford Fiestas around then.

In the 1970, science beleived too much CO2 would COOL the Earth.

Nobody knows, but rebels need a cause.

You are Scarlets79 and I claim my 5 Shekels!

[PricedOutNative]

If you are a global climate change sceptic, outline those scepticisms here then and we can debate them.

Steve

During Roman times it was possible to grow grapes in the north of England, indeed most of the medieval period had considerably warmer weather than today, while in the 17th century it was common for the Thames to freeze over, so climate change is a feature of earth’s environment.

People rather over estimate their power, even if we unleashed all the toxic weapons we had, burned all the fossil fuels we had and detonated all our nuclear weapons within a million years the earth would have recovered and all evidence of us would have crumbled away.

As for the science, I’m not sure, I work in an R&D department and there is no consensus on the man made global warming theory, like so many things those who know little are very sure of their beliefs while wise people are so un-certain.

People can adapt, I’d prefer a warmer, wetter future than a colder one, in geological time we are here for a blink of an eye, I’d prefer to see all the ‘green taxes’ I pay going towards saving natural habitats rather than being used as a cover for more general taxation.

Edited April 7, 2008 by PricedOutNative

[Guest Skint Academic]

I’m a global warming skeptic and it’s quite amazing the hostility with which my views are met, I can imagine it will soon be the equivalent to questioning the views of the Pope in medieval Europe.

I’m personally more concerned with the destruction of natural forests through land clearing than production of CO2…

Maybe it's how you are suggesting it? If a climate scientist publicly said "Hold on, we haven't thought about this yet! This could soak up all the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere." for example, then the other climate scientists would think "Ah he has a point, we need to find out more about this. It's a big unknown."

But if someone comes along with the usual myths whilst not trying to counter the usual arguments against those myths, then yes, there will be hostility. Now I don't know which camp you fall in, but 99.99999999% fall in the latter camp and it gets slightly tiring.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Lord Lawson is chairman of the Central European Trust, an investment consultancy specialising in Eastern European business. CET's clients include BP Amoco, General Electric, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Texaco and Total Fina Elf.

Some might think Lord Lawson has a vested interest in attacking environmental groups.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Lord Lawson is chairman of the Central European Trust, an investment consultancy specialising in Eastern European business. CET's clients include BP Amoco, General Electric, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Texaco and Total Fina Elf.

Some might think Lord Lawson has a vested interest in attacking environmental groups.

Well, yes...there is that little VI issue...

[Guest Steve Cook]

During Roman times it was possible to grow grapes in the north of England, indeed most of the medieval period had considerably warmer weather than today, while in the 17th century it was common for the Thames to freeze over, so climate change is a feature of earth’s environment.

People rather over estimate their power, even if we unleashed all the toxic weapons we had, burned all the fossil fuels we had and detonated all our nuclear weapons within a million years the earth would have recovered and all evidence of us would have crumbled away.

As for the science, I’m not sure, I work in an R&D department and there is no consensus on the man made global warming theory, like so many things those who know little are very sure of their beliefs while wise people are so un-certain.

People can adapt, I’d prefer a warmer, wetter future than a colder one, in geological time we are here for a blink of an eye, I’d prefer to see all the ‘green taxes’ I pay going towards saving natural habitats rather than being used as a cover for more general taxation.

All of the issues you mention here are quite true regarding climatic variability in human history. As I mentioned in a previous post, though, I fail to see how this deals with the issue of whether or not climate change is actually happening now. What exactly is your position on this?:

Do you believe climate change is happening right now?

If you do, do you believe it's magnitude to be severe enough to take account of irrespective of its causes (man made or not)?

Irrespective of your views on the severity of climate change, assuming you believe it to be occuring, to what extent do you believe man's activities are implicated in it?

Steve

Edited April 7, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Bloo Loo]

Which bits of the scientific literature is it based on? Or is it.. wait for it.. deliberately avoiding the scientific process to as to avoid informed scurutiny of the claims involved? Thought so. Anyone can publish a book.

Once upon a time, people would be ashamed to be seen as completely wrong. Now it is worn as a badge of honour, apparently. The joys of postmodern relativism where pointing out that a person has delusional beliefs is counted as discrimination..

IF anyone here wants to debate the science behing man made global warming, I'm more than happy top correct any misconceptions. If you want to post brain dead, completely refuted garbage on the subjest to make yourself look stupid, I'll happily call you stupid.

trouble, is the research now refuted itself refuted what was the status quo.

If you beleive science has found all the answers, then the fool is you.

And calling someone stupid during a debate is pretty rude.

[fluffy666]

I wouldn't even dream of debating the topic with you. You have proved on other threads about global warming that you are one of those fanatics of whom Lord Lawson is rightly wary; one whose unreasonable intolerance of opposing views is a far greater threat to humanity than global warming ever could be.

Yeah, right. You mean you know full well you won't win a scientific argument so you won't have one.

You seem to have some touching faith in the inerrancy of scientific theories (at least, those that concur with your personal opinion) and to have ignored the fact that science is in a constant state of flux. Indeed, that is the very basis of science - that new knowledge gives rise to new theories that replace outdated theories, vis a vis Newton and Einstein. No doubt Einstein's theories will be trumped at some future stage, too..

Oh, spare me the self righteous whining. Yes, science advances over time and old theories are overturned. They are overturned by this thing called 'evidence'. Or, more specifically, 'Evidence showing that a new theory has a better power of explanation than the old.'. Not personal attacks, complaints of being oppressed, claims of conspiricy, avoidance of debate and constant repitition of discredited points.

I haven't even seen what the anti-global warming 'new theory' actually IS, let alone any attempt to explain evidence contrary to the existing theory.

Your belief in manmade climate change is an article of faith;

Liar.

if that were not the case you wouldn't so vehemently dismiss the opposing SCIENTIFIC views that have been presented to you on other threads,

Would you like to provide links?

and would take a less opinionated and more honest and humble stance similar to that articulated by Steve Cook in a previous post:

"Whether all of the above is correct or not, only time will tell. The next five to ten years will settle it."

Such a statement would have been correct circa 1985. Man made global warming is in the proven-beyond-reasonable-doubt area now; unreasonable doubt can continue, of course.

For all of the above reasons and more, I decline to debate the topic with you.

Well, stop posting on the topic, then.

[Bloo Loo]

Just read the FAQ...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

Thank you for that.

Now cal me a sceptic, but as I have a fair knowledge of maths, I can easily conceive that a mathematical model forced to look at effects from a retrospective point of view, and found to be wrong, can be made to look right for a small portion by changing parameters.

The thing is, for me, is that people modelled this in the past and came to a different conclusion.

For example, the Ozone layer. it is getting a hole in it and in New Zealand, it appears you are exposed to space without the ozone layer. Now you can model its behaviour and depending on the model, you can predict what it will do. But ANY mistake or misconceived cause and effect on the model could give wildy differing results.

I just think that to say it is DEFINATE that Humans have caused such an effect totally is misconceived.

To add £10 per journey to a flight will do nothing to alleviate any effects regardless of the cause.

IF its carbon fuels causing the problem then the answer is simple. Stop digging them up.

[Methinkshe]

God bless you..

That's the very first time I have ever been accused of humility. I'm copying and pasting that post for posterity...

Seriously though. I don't wish to overstate the case for my scepticism about the issue of global climate change. I do indeed accept the evidence regarding the seriousness of the issue. I just think that a more immediate worry on the minds of our illustrious leaders is energy security and they are making hay with the climate change issue for reasons related to this.

Nontheless, I would be happy and indeed eager to cover the evidential basis for arguing for or against climate change. Given that there is now a very large body of evidence indicating such change is taking place, I would suggest that the only real debate left is how severe it will be, how fast it will occcur, and how far man's activity is implicated in it. I take it you do not question the evidence that it is actually happening on a human timescale irrespective of arguments about it's causes and eventual severity?

Steve

The problem as I see it, Steve, is that the evidence of climate change and whether or not mankind is a contributor (whether to global cooling as was the fashionable scientific theory in the 1970's or to global warming - today's fashionable scientific theory) is open to interpretation. Some scientists interpret the evidence this way and some scientists interpret the evidence another way. Then scientists devise models that extrapolate trends: some scientists include this variable and some dismiss the same variable. Some scientists base their models on information from this source and this start-date and some from another source and another start-date, usually based on preconceptions and/or desired outcomes.

My personal opinion is that climate change is not manmade and there are plenty of scientific papers to support my opinion - they've been posted in other threads so I am not going to repeat them here.

I am also extremely wary of the snowball effect that is currently perpetuating manmade global warming theory; too many jobs, too many research grants have become dependant on upholding the theory to make for good, unbiased science. I think it is EXTREMELY important that opposing views are given an airing and that the fanaticism and unreasonable intolerance that is all too often dispalyed by those with a vested interest in perpetuating the theory is frequently and publicly challenged, which is why I welcome Lord Lawson's book.

I do not have a personal problem with people who disagree with my opinion - vis a vis climate change is a natural and not a manmade pehenomen. But I do have a problem with those who are intent on silencing people like me who have an alternative view to the orthodoxy of the day. As Lord Lawson says, this kind of unreasonable fanaticism presents a far greater threat to humanity than climate change - manmade or otherwise. It comes from the same stable as the fanaticism that impelled otherwise intelligent men to slam aeroplanes into the World Trade Centre. And I would no more debate climate change with such a person than I would debate suicide bombing with Osama Bin Bag.

Also, I was rather hoping this thread would tackle the issue of the unreasonableness of manmade climate change fanatics towards opposing views, rather than the issue of climate change itself which has already been done to death on other threads.

Imo Lord Lawson's most telling point is his appeal to reason. To even make such an appeal is indicative of the unreasonableness that already exists concerning the issue. This is a huge threat to humanity and presages a return to the dark ages or, worse still, a fascist state where anyone who dares oppose currrent orthodoxy - whatever the subject - is silenced, or "re-educated" to use totalitarian terminology.

[Scunnered]

During Roman times it was possible to grow grapes in the north of England.

Absolutely not. If you can provide proof of this I'll give you £50. This "fact" is often repeated in discussions like this, but there seems to be no foundation for it whatsoever. I've spent a considerable amount of time looking into this question, and it appears that this idea can be traced back to one Melanie Philips, who I believe writes for the Daily Mail. She appears to have repeated this statement a number of times in her newspaper columns (usually something along the lines of "Global warming is nonsense: for heaven's sake, the Romans used to grow grapes in Northumberland!"), but I've no idea where she got it from unless it's just due to geographical ignorance. As far as I can tell there is no literary, historical, botanical, or archaeological basis for the claim. This is rather typical of discussions of climate change: people simply quote stuff that they've seen on the internet or in a newspaper, but which they've made no attempt to understand or substantiate. If I'm incorrect then I apologise, and your £50 awaits.

[Minos]

Yeah, right. You mean you know full well you won't win a scientific argument so you won't have one.

Oh, spare me the self righteous whining. Yes, science advances over time and old theories are overturned. They are overturned by this thing called 'evidence'. Or, more specifically, 'Evidence showing that a new theory has a better power of explanation than the old.'. Not personal attacks, complaints of being oppressed, claims of conspiricy, avoidance of debate and constant repitition of discredited points.

I haven't even seen what the anti-global warming 'new theory' actually IS, let alone any attempt to explain evidence contrary to the existing theory.

Liar.

Would you like to provide links?

Such a statement would have been correct circa 1985. Man made global warming is in the proven-beyond-reasonable-doubt area now; unreasonable doubt can continue, of course.

Well, stop posting on the topic, then.

Save the world. KILL YOURSELF.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Such a statement would have been correct circa 1985. Man made global warming is in the proven-beyond-reasonable-doubt area now; unreasonable doubt can continue, of course.

My point about the next 5 to 10 years settling the issue related to peak oil. I absololutely accept that the evidence for climate change is now irrefutable. I also accept that the evidence for man's activity being implicated in it is rather strong. I am inclined to be slightly more sceptical as to the proportion that man's activity is implicated over and above naturally occuring variability, though am happy to concede that evidence for the relative importance of man's activities is increasing all the time. For instance, we now know, as a matter of scientific fact, that CO2 causes atmospheric warming.

In an effort to find some common ground, I would suggest that if people can at least agree that such change is occurring irrespective of it's causes (as important as that may well be in the longer term), then at least some progress can be made on policies regarding what we are going to do about it.

Steve

Edited April 7, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Bloo Loo]

You are Scarlets79 and I claim my 5 Shekels!

Close. Captain Scarlet- altered by aliens.

I dont know Scarlets79, but I assume he debates Global Warming. I dont normally as I see it as a political football at the moment.

[Nicholas Cage]

Biggest problem is feeding climate models data from the past, and asking them to model the future (i.e. today) they get it badly wrong. The longer the timespan the worse it gets, using 22 of the computer models used by the IPCC (or "God" for man made change devotees)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/27/an...climate_models/

The people most damaging to man made climate change are it's supporters, do as I say not as I do, or preaching from a position of confidence when they have as little understanding as I do of the complexities. Even scientists are guilty of doing this, jumping on the wagon to help secure what little money they get that year.

Edited April 7, 2008 by maxwell

[Cinnamon]

If you are a global climate change sceptic, outline those scepticisms here then and we can debate them.

Steve

The problem is that no-one has any data or a model that is actually useful(and comprehensive enough), and so, any discussion quickly descends into a competition of believes because there are few facts to work with and lots of stuff we don't fully understand, plus our tools are too crude to trust in -- computational modeling is more of an art than it is a science. It can sometimes be useful in finding out how stuff works, but it's not a prophetic discipline. Our most complex models are crude against what nature can build in it's smallest systems.

Another thing that poisoned the debate (other than the odd fishwife) is the fact that data had been manipulated and massaged to yield what was desired.

Then there is the history of the planet, where high levels of CO2 and high temps are part of the normal pattern, along with the normal ice ages.

Another thing that also doesn't help is that my generation was told we'll all be freezing to death in the global cooling that is about to come... *snicker*

Plus of course the many VIs who are raking it in with a wide range of paranoia products aren't helping either here.... nor does the biased academic culture of grant allocation.

So, I don't think it can be discussed rationally, it is far better to be honest and say that it cannot be determined.

A good book to read about the abuse of science with statistics and bogus modelling is here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/book.htm#Sorry and also his other book: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/book.htm

and just for completeness, here is a long list of all things caused by global warming!

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

So, yeah, I'm a skeptic, not so much of global temperature change, but of the 'scientific' methods that we've (ab)used.

[fluffy666]

If you beleive science has found all the answers, then the fool is you.

And calling someone stupid during a debate is pretty rude.

What would you call someone who repeatedly insisted that there was no house price bubble? Even after they had been presented with all of the evidence? And if they relied on Inside Track press releases as a source of information?

Seriously, I have lost patience with the whole global-warming-denial thing, and I just don't see why I should be polite to people who are certainly not polite to me or interested in finding out what the reality is. And I'm NOT the one bringing the whole topic up.

[Bloo Loo]

What would you call someone who repeatedly insisted that there was no house price bubble? Even after they had been presented with all of the evidence? And if they relied on Inside Track press releases as a source of information?

Seriously, I have lost patience with the whole global-warming-denial thing, and I just don't see why I should be polite to people who are certainly not polite to me or interested in finding out what the reality is. And I'm NOT the one bringing the whole topic up.

I dont think I ever called anyone stupid for saying house prices were only ever to go up.

If you lose patience and start name calling, then your serious, and possibly, correct opinion will be lost as people close their mind to your thoughts.

You have clearly thought long and hard about this problem, far more than I have, but you are in danger of losing the debate before you start.

[Methinkshe]

My point about the next 5 to 10 years settling the issue related to peak oil. I absololutely accept that the evidence for climate change is now irrefutable. I also accept that the evidence for man's activity being implicated in it is rather strong. I am inclined to be slightly more sceptical as to the proportion that man's activity is implicated over and above naturally occuring variability, though am happy to concede that evidence for the relative importance of man's activities is increasing all the time. For instance, we now know, as a matter of scientific fact, that CO2 causes atmospheric warming.

In an effort to find some common ground, I would suggest that if people can at least agree that such change is occurring irrespective of it's causes (as important as that may well be in the longer term), then at least some progress can be made on policies regarding what we are going to do about it.

Steve

I think it is beyond doubt that the climate has changed in the past, is changing in the present, and will change in the future. The world has experienced big ice ages and mini ice ages interspersed with returns to warmer periods. Climate change was never in doubt. What is in doubt is man's contribution or otherwise to climate change.

Personally I do not believe that mankind has anythng to do with climate change - or at least, any contribution he may make is so negligible in the greater scheme of things as to be dismissable.

[yawnIHateSundays]

I just think that to say it is DEFINATE that Humans have caused such an effect totally is misconceived.

I don't think anyone is saying that CO2 emissions have DEFINITELY caused such an effect. What they are saying is that there is data on the rise in CO2 emissions since industrialization. And there is data on the correlation of temperature vs. CO2 level (for example the Vostok ice cores go back 400,000 years - see http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm). So, given that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is now ~380 ppm and still rising, there is a high probability that global temperatures will continue to rise.

[Bloo Loo]

I don't think anyone is saying that CO2 emissions have DEFINITELY caused such an effect. What they are saying is that there is data on the rise in CO2 emissions since industrialization. And there is data on the correlation of temperature vs. CO2 level (for example the Vostok ice cores go back 400,000 years - see http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm). So, given that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is now ~380 ppm and still rising, there is a high probability that global temperatures will continue to rise.

i think Nulabour and many governments are saying Exactly that- they are "combatting" global warming by adding taxes!

As for the ice cores and CO2, is not the amount in the atmosphere a "trailing factor", ie the CO2 increases AFTER the warming? I think one to the anti's puts this point. Your view on this would be appreciated.