Lord Lawson - An Appeal To Reason

[King Stromba]

It took me 5 years of scientific research to come to a broad understanding of the scientific literature of a group of chemicals found in fruit called flavonoids. And that’s a pretty small area of scientific literature.

To become 'competent' at understanding the consensus of climate change in the scientific literature (as many claim they are) would take an equal length of time, and this is assuming you have an understanding equivalent to degree level climatology in order to be able to critically assess the papers.

And that’s the key. Critically assess the papers. Reading a paper is all well and good, but they have to be assessed when you read them. The conclusions they draw are not always in keeping with the data they contain. Reading the abstract in Medline or some extracts in a newspaper article just does not cut it.

There are those that do have a good understanding of the literature, but these people are generally already researching the field. The vast majority have no idea whatsoever about the scientific literature, but are still able to dogmatically cling to this belief or that.

I find it all very worrying. I agree with Lawson in this respect.

Edited April 7, 2008 by King Stromba

[munro]

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.

I'm wary of the "appeals to reason". After a bit of googling, it turns out that Lawson read PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) at Oxford, before becoming a financial journalist. He now makes a living out of lecturing and promoting his ideas against climate change. So those who accuse scientists of having a vested interest in climate change because of grants, jobs, etc, should bear in mind that Lawson does exactly the same - he makes his money by taking it from vested interests who are opposed to climate change. So on that one it's a no-score draw.

Lawson comes from the classic Establishment/mandarin background - Westminster then PPE at Oxford. PPE replaced Greats as the educational route for people like him. His idea of reason is the classic a priori model, that clever people like him (and he is undoubtedly clever) can deduce "the truth" from first principles, from the comfort of their armchairs. Any student of philosophy of science in the 20th/21st century will recognise the type - lots of reasoning, very little evidence base. Unsurprisingly such work has become increasingly irrelevant to working scientists. In fact "reason" in the hands of people like Lawson becomes a tool of oppression, because good science often generates counter-intuitive results.

But this was all rehearsed by Russell nearly a hundred years ago (cf Russell's 1914 lecture "On Scientific Method in Philosophy" in his "Mysticism and Logic").

Lawson's appeal to reason is a classic obfuscatory tactic - smear your opponent and try and claim the moral high ground. It is a travesty of scientific method and for one I'd be far more likely to pay attention to his views if he didn't start with such an uscientific, cheapskate attack. Labelling your opponents unreasonable isn't a good start.

[Dr House]

Climate change denial is a right wing capitalist thing. Every right winger, particularly from the Lawson generation upwards has an almost visceral obsession with discrediting the environmental lobby. This is for three reasons:

1. Selfish capitalism - a hallmark of the right, they fear that the sacrifices we may have to make on behalf of the planet are going to affect their investments and incomes

2. Old Fogeydom - reactionary nonsense characterisitic of the last bastions of golf clubs, gentleman's clubs and also aligned with male chavinism

3. Knee jerk anti-Leftism - the greens are associated with the left - and with "those subversive hippy types".

All you deniers - which ones are you? (sadly, I suspect a faction of category 1 on this site)

[yawnIHateSundays]

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.

Yes that's interesting. There is some thought that something other than CO2 starts the warming process, then the CO2 effect kicks in and amplifys it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...2-in-ice-cores/

However this time round the CO2 rise is very rapid and is preceding the warming.

[Injin]

Yay!

Globlal warming again.

It's rubbish, the latest slightly plausible theory redesigned to control you more and tax you more. This is all you need to know.

Right now they are scouring the pages of science journals for the next big threat we need to be taxed and comtrolled a little bit more to defeat.

Recipe is as follows -

1) Be afraid of x

2) Plausible evidence of x to muddy waters of debate.

3) Taxes to prevent x

4) Control mechanisms to prevent x

5) Claim that x is cleared but new threat, threat y is upon us which will lead us back to step 1.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Yay!

Globlal warming again.

It's rubbish, the latest slightly plausible theory redesigned to control you more and tax you more. This is all you need to know.

Right now they are scouring the pages of science journals for the next big threat we need to be taxed and comtrolled a little bit more to defeat.

Recipe is as follows -

1) Be afraid of x

2) Plausible evidence of x to muddy waters of debate.

3) Taxes to prevent x

4) Control mechanisms to prevent x

5) Claim that x is cleared but new threat, threat y is upon us which will lead us back to step 1.

Make sure you recycle that tin foil Injin, you don't want the guvmint listening in on your thoughts.

[Guest Steve Cook]

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.

Now this I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Taxation measures and other fiscal measures designed to combat climate change cannot work. At least not under our current economic systems.

I need to explain my reasoning. I suspect I might manage the tricky acomplishemnt of pissing everyone off here if I am really careful......

Modern capitalism works on the basis of perpetual growth. The reason such perpetual growth is needed for the system to remain healthy relates to our system of compound interest money lending. Lending new money mean effectively bringing such money into existence. This, will naturally casue an inflation of the money supply. The only way to avoid the deliterious effects of inflation is to have continuouis economic growth so as to give all of that new money a home to go to. I have mentioned all of this as a necessary precursor to what follows. Hopefully, it will make sense as I follow this argument through.

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that global warming (or indeed peak oil) are real and that energy efficiency seems to be a desireable course to action to take in order to tackle these problems. Well, all human activity is in fact reconsituted energy. So, if we want to save energy, we must stop economically acting. For example, If I lag my loft out in order to save energy on my heating bills, "great" you might think, that'll save the planet. However, I am now likely to spend my savings on some other consumer item instead. SomethingI would have otherwise been unable to afford. However, that other item has embodied within it, all of the energy required to make it. So, the total energy saved by me is zero. My energy savings made by lagging my loft out are exactly offset by my purchase of some good or servce with my saved money.

How to deal with the above problem? Well, there are two solutions as far as i can see. I could save the money in the bank and not spend it. However, there is a problem with this because my bank will undoubtably lend that money out to someone else who will spend it on some good or service, thus again offsetting any energy savings I might have initially made. OK, then, I could put the money under the mattress or even go the whole hog and burn it, thus destroying the energy embodied in that money and so deprive the economy of the energy consumption that could have occured though spending it.

You can bet our governments wouldn't be happy about that though since this would cause a deflationary depression. If there is one thing that keeps central bankers awake at nights with nightmares it's the thought of a deflationary depression. They know full well, that our entire financial systems operate on perpetual growth and that this is simply the very antithesis of monetary deflation.

So you see, in a modern captialist economy, saving energy simply cannot happen. All that you do by making such savings is that you pass the consumption on to somewhere else

we need a new economics...fast

Steve

Edited April 7, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Bloo Loo]

Climate change denial is a right wing capitalist thing. Every right winger, particularly from the Lawson generation upwards has an almost visceral obsession with discrediting the environmental lobby. This is for three reasons:

1. Selfish capitalism - a hallmark of the right, they fear that the sacrifices we may have to make on behalf of the planet are going to affect their investments and incomes

2. Old Fogeydom - reactionary nonsense characterisitic of the last bastions of golf clubs, gentleman's clubs and also aligned with male chavinism

3. Knee jerk anti-Leftism - the greens are associated with the left - and with "those subversive hippy types".

All you deniers - which ones are you? (sadly, I suspect a faction of category 1 on this site)

If you DENY climate change, then you are silly. CLimate change is natural. Like the stock market or the sea, it is NEVER static.

However the cause as being man made is a legitimate argument.

I personally think that its cutting down the forests that is the biggest issue here as a cause. Forests consume carbon, burning them down releases it. Having less forest means more carbon in the air.

Its simple, its logical, and yet its never mentioned. And they are cutting down even more to make- BIO FUELS. FFS

[Injin]

Climate change denial is a right wing capitalist thing. Every right winger, particularly from the Lawson generation upwards has an almost visceral obsession with discrediting the environmental lobby. This is for three reasons:

1. Selfish capitalism - a hallmark of the right, they fear that the sacrifices we may have to make on behalf of the planet are going to affect their investments and incomes

2. Old Fogeydom - reactionary nonsense characterisitic of the last bastions of golf clubs, gentleman's clubs and also aligned with male chavinism

3. Knee jerk anti-Leftism - the greens are associated with the left - and with "those subversive hippy types".

All you deniers - which ones are you? (sadly, I suspect a faction of category 1 on this site)

4) Rational people, who think that things don't exist until presented with something called "evidence".

[yellerkat]

Surely if AGW were such a threat; governments worldwide would, in concert:

1) Ground all private jets

2) Require airlines to remove 1st and Business classes

3) Legislate for maximum engine capacities for vehicles

When the plutocrats discommode themselves then they may expect we peasants to take them seriously.

[Injin]

Make sure you recycle that tin foil Injin, you don't want the guvmint listening in on your thoughts.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

There was a bloke on here around January that pointed out a few scientific papers that linked sun activity with higher temperatures and how less sunspot activity occuring would lead to a particulary cold year. It seemed quite reasoned, but I noticed most of the people insisting global warming is man made ignored him and opted to argue with someone else whose arguments were easier to dispute. I tried having a look for the thread, but I can't find it.

Anyway there's some pretty reasoned arguments on here against it too such Maxwell pointing out that the models that the global warming scientists have come up with have been completely wrong so far therefore the assumptions that their models are based on could be wrong too. These types of arguments tend to be ignored by the people insisting man made global climate has been proved beyond all doubt.

[bearcrunch]

Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason'

The article is too long to post in its entirety but it concludes with the following:

"The fact is," he concludes, "that the science of what determines the earth's temperature is far from settled or understood - and fortunately opinion surveys suggest that the majority of people, even in the UK where politicians of all parties sing from the same politically correct hymn sheet, instinctively sense that this is so."

Lord Lawson closes on a note that others of us have struck in trying to puzzle out the deeper reasons for this great climate panic. He recognises that in many ways the global warming ideology has filled the vacuum left by the collapse of Marxism: "Green is the new red."

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.

He ends by describing "the new religion of global warming" as "the Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a best-seller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense.

"We have entered," he says, "a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet."

It's idiots like this guy who will ensure that we react too slowly to climate change and end up destroying the planet as we know it. The very fact that the science of the earth's temperature is uncertain is a cause for concern with some scientists predicting today that the extent of the warming has been grossly underestimated. We'll all have a lot more to worry about than houseprices soon!

www.baserateday.com

An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming will be published on Thursday (Duckworth, £9.99)

[munro]

<--completely true post-->

We don't need a new economics, what we need is to learn restraint. We need to learn to be less greedy and, as far as the natural world goes, less rapacious. Irrespective of climate change. Otherwise the human population will expand and over-consume resources until a tipping point is reached, followed by die-out. As commonly happens with animal populations. The difference is that we are self-conscious beings who can choose to alter our behaviour to fit the circumstances.

In this respect the Lawsons of this world are certainly not role models, as all they want is more of the same for themselves and their families (House 1, above) until there's nothing left. At which point, as the American Indians put it, you'll find you can't eat money.

Taxation is simply the means whereby politicians try and get people to adapt their behaviour because they know that if they tell us the truth, we'll vote them out - in favour of some other group who literally promise the earth. Because one thing people aren't prepared to do is accept individual responsibility - it's always it doesn't matter what we do, the Chinese will pollute more and wipe out any benefits. So let's do nothing. That doesn't make it right, any more than acting badly is OK because other people do it.

The problem is our collective inability to restrain individual greed and rapacity, until the whole system is utterly trashed. The credit crunch is a forerunner for eventual environmental collapse if we don't learn to change our ways.

[cells]

Surely if AGW were such a threat; governments worldwide would, in concert:

1) Ground all private jets

2) Require airlines to remove 1st and Business classes

3) Legislate for maximum engine capacities for vehicles

When the plutocrats discommode themselves then they may expect we peasants to take them seriously.

you should ask gordon for a job

if global warming was a threat, we would have a global tax on hydrocarbons

that simple, $100 per barrel tax

that would supress demand by a lot, and mean the oil stays in the ground.

you cant produce co2 if you dont pump the oil out and burn it now can you!

but, look at the link in my sig. it explains perfectly within 3 mins why global warming is nonsense

its politics, nothing more

[Guest Steve Cook]

Anyone want to take issue with the following?

Taxation measures and other fiscal measures designed to combat climate change cannot work. At least not under our current economic systems.

I need to explain my reasoning. I suspect I might manage the tricky acomplishemnt of pissing everyone off here if I am really careful......

Modern capitalism works on the basis of perpetual growth. The reason such perpetual growth is needed for the system to remain healthy relates to our system of compound interest money lending. Lending new money mean effectively bringing such money into existence. This, will naturally casue an inflation of the money supply. The only way to avoid the deliterious effects of inflation is to have continuouis economic growth so as to give all of that new money a home to go to. I have mentioned all of this as a necessary precursor to what follows. Hopefully, it will make sense as I follow this argument through.

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that global warming (or indeed peak oil) are real and that energy efficiency seems to be a desireable course to action to take in order to tackle these problems. Well, all human activity is in fact reconsituted energy. So, if we want to save energy, we must stop economically acting. For example, If I lag my loft out in order to save energy on my heating bills, "great" you might think, that'll save the planet. However, I am now likely to spend my savings on some other consumer item instead. SomethingI would have otherwise been unable to afford. However, that other item has embodied within it, all of the energy required to make it. So, the total energy saved by me is zero. My energy savings made by lagging my loft out are exactly offset by my purchase of some good or servce with my saved money.

How to deal with the above problem? Well, there are two solutions as far as i can see. I could save the money in the bank and not spend it. However, there is a problem with this because my bank will undoubtably lend that money out to someone else who will spend it on some good or service, thus again offsetting any energy savings I might have initially made. OK, then, I could put the money under the mattress or even go the whole hog and burn it, thus destroying the energy embodied in that money and so deprive the economy of the energy consumption that could have occured though spending it.

You can bet our governments wouldn't be happy about that though since this would cause a deflationary depression. If there is one thing that keeps central bankers awake at nights with nightmares it's the thought of a deflationary depression. They know full well, that our entire financial systems operate on perpetual growth and that this is simply the very antithesis of monetary deflation.

So you see, in a modern captialist economy, saving energy simply cannot happen. All that you do by making such savings is that you pass the consumption on to somewhere else

we need a new economics...fast

Steve

[Guest Skint Academic]

*sigh*

OK, guys, burn up all the oil, pollute yourselves and everyone else to death, start some runaway global warming process. I really honestly don't care. We all get what's coming to us.

Me? I'm still planning to hide away in the Scottish highlands. I don't care about the rest of you. I don't think humans can change their fundamental nature any more than a leopard can change it's spots. We are all animals and therefore competitive, selfish and greedy. The only difference is that we have developed a neocortex that has allowed us to rationally justify our greed.

I honestly am starting to wonder if it's not better that we burn up our oil as quickly as possible so that we are forced to find alternatives sooner rather than later. But knowing our luck, the next flu pandemic will wipe out 10% of the population, kill the global economy and make us eke out the rest of the oil.

[Dr House]

4) Rational people, who think that things don't exist until presented with something called "evidence".

There is so much statistical evidence on climate change it is overwhelming. Even the Chinese government FFS are aware of what they are doing to their country.

Let me add a 5th category:

5) People who deny evidence when it is staring them in the face - aka deniers (see capitalists above - there is always a vested interest for such a strongly held belief, when it is against the data).

Man has plundered and polluted his planet and the day of reckoning is coming. Man being the most unattractive and selfish of all creatures (the only animal which kills its own kind at random) has stopped at NOTHING to suvive and now excessively prosper. Once we got past the scabre toothed tiger there was no stopping us.........

[Guest X-QUORK]

There was a bloke on here around January that pointed out a few scientific papers that linked sun activity with higher temperatures and how less sunspot activity occuring would lead to a particulary cold year. It seemed quite reasoned, but I noticed most of the people insisting global warming is man made ignored him and opted to argue with someone else whose arguments were easier to dispute. I tried having a look for the thread, but I can't find it.

I'm afraid that little chestnut has just been blown out of the water:

Daily Telegraph: Solar activity 'not behind climate change'

[Guest Steve Cook]

We don't need a new economics, what we need is to learn restraint. We need to learn to be less greedy and, as far as the natural world goes, less rapacious. Irrespective of climate change. Otherwise the human population will expand and over-consume resources until a tipping point is reached, followed by die-out. As commonly happens with animal populations. The difference is that we are self-conscious beings who can choose to alter our behaviour to fit the circumstances.

In this respect the Lawsons of this world are certainly not role models, as all they want is more of the same for themselves and their families (House 1, above) until there's nothing left. At which point, as the American Indians put it, you'll find you can't eat money.

Taxation is simply the means whereby politicians try and get people to adapt their behaviour because they know that if they tell us the truth, we'll vote them out - in favour of some other group who literally promise the earth. Because one thing people aren't prepared to do is accept individual responsibility - it's always it doesn't matter what we do, the Chinese will pollute more and wipe out any benefits. So let's do nothing. That doesn't make it right, any more than acting badly is OK because other people do it.

The problem is our collective inability to restrain individual greed and rapacity, until the whole system is utterly trashed. The credit crunch is a forerunner for eventual environmental collapse if we don't learn to change our ways.

You havn't addressed the central aspect of my argument that capitalism, of structural necessity, simply must promote perpetual growth and that it is this that must be adressed. Do you disagree with this hypotheis. If so, why?

[Injin]

Anyone want to take issue with the following?

I would but you've got me on ignore.

I think last time though I asked you what real world, day to day problem that I face is all this supposed to solve.

Any takers on answering this question?

how has global warming affected any of you personally and directly, apart from having your local council send you a leaflet threatening you with court if you don't give their buddies in the recycling industry your paper and tins for free or other state bullying?

[cells]

The problem is our collective inability to restrain individual greed and rapacity, until the whole system is utterly trashed. The credit crunch is a forerunner for eventual environmental collapse if we don't learn to change our ways.

you remind me of this scruffy old man who used to preach the bible screaming and shouting outside earls court station

take a look at the link in my sig if you have 2 mins to spare and your eyes will be opened

[Injin]

You havn't addressed the central aspect of my argument that capitalism, of structural necessity, simply must promote perpetual growth and that it is this that must be adressed. Do you disagree with this hypotheis. If so, why?

Capitalism doesn't, banking system does.

[Scunnered]

The Lawsons seem to have a bit of a family business in this area. His son Dominic regularly produces climate-change-debunking articles in the press (here and here for example). To get an idea of the flavour, one of them begins

For the past 35 years a number of well-funded lobbying organisations have spread lies that have caused the deaths of countless millions of Africans, mostly children.

and then goes on to reveal that he's talking about Greenpeace.

Dominic's wife is the sister of Christopher Monckton, an eccentric viscount and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, who's famous for calling for life imprisonment for HIV carriers. After that he invented a puzzle called Eternnity with a £1,000,000 prize which was supposed to be insoluble, but which was solved prematurely by a couple of mathematicians. He's now reinvented himself as a climate-change debunker and he published a couple of lengthy articles in the Telegraph a couple of years ago. These were accompanied by a pseudo-scientific paper which claimed to refute almost all of the climate-change research of recent years; it looked kind of convincing since he had stuff like calculations involving the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, but he rather spoiled it by claiming that the Chinese navy had been to the North Pole in the 13th century and found the Arctic completely devoid of ice.

About the only family member who hasn't joined in yet is Nigella. It can only be a matter of time.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Scunnered

[Guest Steve Cook]

...I don't think humans can change their fundamental nature any more than a leopard can change it's spots. We are all animals and therefore competitive, selfish and greedy. The only difference is that we have developed a neocortex that has allowed us to rationally justify our greed....

This just about sums it up SA.....