Lord Lawson - An Appeal To Reason

[Methinkshe]

Sure, but Lawson's call for reason is based on his desire to brand people who argue that global temperatures are rising because of human activity as unreasonable. "Reason" is an unmitigated good only if it isn't being put to use by those with an agenda. Lawson clearly has an agenda. It's also striking that unreason, as in various rhetorical/ad hominem strategies, is most notably used in this thread by those who deny that global warming is influenced by human activity.

I haven't seen any evidence to show that Lawson genuinely knows what he's talking about. What is evident in this debate is lots of people throwing opinions around about subjects that they aren't experts on. A core aspect of rationality is assessing whose opinions are worth listening to, and whose aren't. If your doctor diagnoses you with xyz, it is rational to trust them. It is irrational to go to a website and look for countervailing opinions from people who you have no good reason to trust. Similarly it is rational to trust people who have strong scientific credentials and are telling us that man-made global warming is a major concern. Like Dr James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, perhaps:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...carbonemissions

Given the choice between Hansen and his peers, and Lawson, I know whose views I would opt for. The choice is a rational one that I can justify. What rational grounds are there for believing Lawson? Where's his expertise, his ability to critically examine the evidence and evaluate it?

To the extent that all non-scientists, politicians in particular, are reliant on hearing as broad a range of scientific opinion as possible, and drawing conclusions from same, I'd say Lord Lawson is as well placed as any. Did you read the whole article or just the final few paragraphs that I posted? If you read the whole article you will know that Lord Lawson did indeed hear a huge amount of evidence before forming an opinion.

Unless you wish to advocate that the country may only be run by scientists, then you have to allow that politicians must make decisions based on the weight of evidence presented/available to them at any given time.

[Injin]

exactly, the argument here is not whether GW is man made or not, but what the political opportunists are doing, and then NOT doing.

The evidence is so overwhelming that pensioners have to recycle cereal boxes or go to jail but the wests governments can run a huge petrol consuming economy + a completely optional war that runs on oil, was started to acquire oil and contiunes to expand to acquire even more oil from Iran.

Not only that but they still produce oil themselves! If it was o bad it would be the first thing they'd stop doing, surely?

Anyone else heard wolf just too many damn times?

[munro]

To the extent that all non-scientists, politicians in particular, are reliant on hearing as broad a range of scientific opinion as possible, and drawing conclusions from same, I'd say Lord Lawson is as well placed as any. Did you read the whole article or just the final few paragraphs that I posted? If you read the whole article you will know that Lord Lawson did indeed hear a huge amount of evidence before forming an opinion.

Unless you wish to advocate that the country may only be run by scientists, then you have to allow that politicians must make decisions based on the weight of evidence presented/available to them at any given time.

Yes, politicians should indeed evaluate and act on the evidence. I'm not suggesting scientists should run the country, only that their opinions in their area of expertise are of more value than those of laypeople.

The reason I don't trust Lawson and his advocacy of reason is that it is in the service of a particular agenda, one that has vested interests in not acting to limit emissions of gases that lead to warming. Just as I don't trust politicians who are paid by lobbyists, as it's only a short step from there to outright corruption. And as far as I'm aware, Lawson is no longer a politician, he's a private citizen. So I can't look up a register of members' interests to see who is paying him and how much. In the absence of this information there is good reason to be sceptical; he's a businessman peddling a product (his book, lectures, and so on), just as the man selling you a mortgage has his eye on the fee and not on your future financial wellbeing.

Edited April 7, 2008 by munro

[Methinkshe]

So, who was first to accuse others of being fanatics?

Who called thair opponent's position ' a reliegon', implying that they follow without question?

Who accused people of peddling a mountain of nonsense?

And then had the raw nerve to ask for 'Reason'???

Do you not think that there is just a bit of double standards going on here? 'Hey, I want to have a nice reasonable debate with those stupid poopy-heads, but they keep insulting me, the dribbling idiots'?

Lord Lawson was the first to refer to fanaticism - that is why I posted the article.

As for the remainder of your questions, perhaps you would like to address them to particular points that I have made. I assume they come from my post which I quote below:

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.

Edited to add:

Actually, on second thoughts, I really do not want to waste time debating the minutiae surrounding the presentation of a debate at the expense of the debate itself. Therefore, if I have in any way caused offence to you through any of my posts, I sincerely apologise and I hope that hereafter we can continue the debate in good faith.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Methinkshe

[Injin]

Yes, politicians should indeed evaluate and act on the evidence. I'm not suggesting scientists should run the country, only that their opinions in their area of expertise are of more value than those of laypeople.

The reason I don't trust Lawson and his advocacy of reason is that it is in the service of a particular agenda, one that has vested interests in not acting to limit emissions of gases that lead to warming. Just as I don't trust politicians who are paid by lobbyists, as it's only a short step from there to outright corruption. And as far as I'm aware, Lawson is no longer a politician, he's a private citizen. So I can't look up a register of members' interests to see who is paying him and how much. In the absence of this information there is good reason to be sceptical; he's a businessman peddling a product (his book, lectures, and so on), just as the man selling you a mortgage has his eye on the fee and not on your future financial wellbeing.

Not when you are asking said lay people to change their behaviour.

Only person who should decide what you do is you.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Injin

[latvianmidget]

I have very clear memories of the global cooling scare of the 1970s. But I don't wish to take the thread off-topic so perhaps we should agree to differ. If I were more inclined I could probably Google and find a reference to the global cooling theories propounded in the 1970s, but to be perfectly honest, I simply can't be bothered to argue about historical opinions. That the theory has been abandoned in favour of global warming relegates it to historical curiosity as far as I am concerned, although it should serve as a warning that scientific theories are as much subject to the fashion of the day as are hemlines.

as the thread is gently (!) decending into a flamewar I'll resist the urge to bite at that one!

As a further point of discussion however perhaps it isn't just the theories (if indeed they are) that are subject to fashion but also importantly their portrayal in the media?

munro makes a very very good post above regarding the dangers of just accepting a point of view from those with an agenda, which should apply to both sides of the debate. Me, I'll take Lord Lawson with a big old spoon of salt.

[Gurgle]

As if the debate needed more fuel, I thought I'd put forward my view. Having looked (admittedly not extensively) at a variety of reports both for and against the man-made nature of global warming, my personal conclusion is that the current trend of global warming is an undisputable fact. The man-made nature of it is very much uncertain and I personally don't believe that this is a man-made phenomenen (sp?). My views are loosely based on the following points and I'm sure these will cause controversy (as they are designed to, to some extent) but:

1. There is clear evidence that the planets temperature fluctuates and always has, and by all accounts the world was a much hotter place during the time of the dinosaurs for example.

2. The planet has been functioning for a lot longer than the 100 years or so that carbon emissions have been around. Its pretty arrogant of humankind to believe it is powerful enough to destroy a planet in such a short period of time.

3. Scientists don't even understand weather patterns and how the weather works. How the hell they think that thay can understand something much bigger beggars belief.

4. Without a perceived threat to mankind those scientists wouldn't get any more funding so its in their interest to say this is man made

5. Government needs a cause to rally the people around, both for tax raising purposes and for public order purposes. It distracts people from thinking too much about other things.

These may be cynical to some extent, but being cynical sometimes helps to focus the mind.

As an aside, from memory SA is a politics academic.

[Guest Skint Academic]

I think 10% is an optimistic figure. Fatality rates from H5N1 are >65% overall >80% in Indonesia who have the highest number of cases and >90% in Vietnam (up from >50/60% in previous years) H2H clusters are increasing though the number of human cases are still mercifully small.

The fatality rates may attenuate downwards should this virus go pandemic but there is no real evolutionary pressure for it to do so.

Mr Brown was quite right when he said Bird Flu was a greater threat than Terrorism or Climate Change

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080317/101468676.html

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2008_04_03/en/index.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

Thanks for those links and that information. I do intend to look into this subject in more depth. As with house prices and the economy etc, I want to be prepared for the future.

It always strikes me as odd that people 'plan' for the future by taking out a mortgage or a pension, but don't learn about what can happen beyond the immediate future. It's like they just don't actually want to think about the future and buying a pension or whatever is just a way of allowing them to forget about it.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Skint Academic

[Guest Skint Academic]

As an aside, from memory SA is a politics academic.

Sorry, I'm a scientist. I know that there are other academics on here though. Allaytollah bhuggery (sp?) is a history academic IIRC.

(No offence intended A.B. I just couldn't remember how to spell your name)

Edited April 7, 2008 by Skint Academic

[Methinkshe]

Yes, politicians should indeed evaluate and act on the evidence. I'm not suggesting scientists should run the country, only that their opinions in their area of expertise are of more value than those of laypeople.

The reason I don't trust Lawson and his advocacy of reason is that it is in the service of a particular agenda, one that has vested interests in not acting to limit emissions of gases that lead to warming. Just as I don't trust politicians who are paid by lobbyists, as it's only a short step from there to outright corruption. And as far as I'm aware, Lawson is no longer a politician, he's a private citizen. So I can't look up a register of members' interests to see who is paying him and how much. In the absence of this information there is good reason to be sceptical; he's a businessman peddling a product (his book, lectures, and so on), just as the man selling you a mortgage has his eye on the fee and not on your future financial wellbeing.

I don't think one can dismiss Lord Lawson's conclusions too readily. As the article says, he was sitting on a committe and able to call many scientists to give evidence. Here is the relevant passage from the article.

How did he come to develop such an informed interest in this subject? "When, in 2005, I was invited to serve on the Lords committee," he explains, "I felt there was no issue more appropriate for us to look at than the economic implications of global warming, because they are so enormous, and so few people seemed to be doing it."

What was most striking about that Lords inquiry was the range of expert witnesses it called. These naturally included leading supporters of the official orthodoxy, such as Sir John Houghton, chairman of the working group of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which since 1988 has been the central player in alerting the world to the supposed dangers of global warming.

But also invited to testify were some eminent dissenters, such as the US climatologist Professor Richard Lindzen and Paul Reiter, the world's leading expert on tropical diseases, both outspoken critics of the much-vaunted "scientific consensus" on global warming.

"Considering the differing views our committee started with," says Lord Lawson, "it was quite an achievement that we ended up unanimously agreed on what was in many ways a fairly critical report. But the key was that we based our findings on examining the evidence"

This was a unanimously derived conclusion by a committee, and can therefore not easily be attributed to Lord Lawson's personal vested interests.

[nmarks]

I was hoping that a debate on the subject of climate change could be avoided here on HPC.co.uk as its almost entirely irrelevent yet quite devisive.

A number of points to observe:

Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer up until October 1989. If he failed so spectacularly to grasp that a house price crash was looming then un der hso overy owmn stewardship, in what way is he now qualified to talk about climate change. Since when has he shown scientific interest in the subject? Where is his scientific credibility?

His successor as Chancellor Kenneth Clarke is now non-executive deputy chairman of British American Tobacco. For decades the tobacco industry concealed evidence that smoking causes cancer. Not that I'd want to tar them with the same brush but lets say birds of a feather flock together.

The smoking industry employed PR spin merchants to ensure uncertainty in the public's mind, infamously boasting that

Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of creating a controversy in the public's mind.

so the question you have to ask yourself is are they now doing the same with the issue of climate change? Every HPCer knows fulwell how the property market has been manipulated in much the same way as smoking was, so why not global warming?

When Lawson speaks, remember you're listening to a politician with huge vested interests he shares with his Bilderberg buddies.

Having said that Nigel Lawson's famous daugther is a babe!

Edited April 7, 2008 by nmarks

[Methinkshe]

I was hoping that debate the subjetc of cliamet change could abe avoided here on HPC.co.uk as its almost entirely irrelevent yet quite devisive.

A number of points to observe:

Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer up until October 1989. if he failed to grasp that a house price crash was looming then in what way is he qualified so talk about climate change. He successor Kenneth Clarke is now non-executive deputy chairman of British American Tobacco. For decades the tobacco industry concealed evidence that smoking causes cancer. Not that I'd want to tar them with the same brush but lets say birds of a feather flock together.

The smoking industry employed PR spin merchants to ensure uncertaintyin the public's mind infamously boasting that

When Lawson speaks, remenber you're listening to a politician with huge vested interests

Having said that Nigel Lawson's famous daugther is a babe!

THis thread isn't about whther or not manmade global warming is a fact (at least, it wasn't INTENDED to be) but about an attitude of intolerance towards dissenting views.

This attitude can be seen in more and more areas of public life - it sometimes comes under the name of political correctness. However, I call it "totalitarianism" where views that dissent from government-spun orthodoxy are increasingly disallowed. I think this growing tendency towards intolerance of opposing views is very relevant to the economy in general, and house prices in particular.

[Bardon]

THis thread isn't about whther or not manmade global warming is a fact (at least, it wasn't INTENDED to be) but about an attitude of intolerance towards dissenting views.

This attitude can be seen in more and more areas of public life - it sometimes comes under the name of political correctness. However, I call it "totalitarianism" where views that dissent from government-spun orthodoxy are increasingly disallowed. I think this growing tendency towards intolerance of opposing views is very relevant to the economy in general, and house prices in particular.

environmentalism = facism

[huw]

Let's hope he has a better understanding of climate change than economics.

Nonsense, he has a perfect grasp of UK post-war economics -- which is why a massive boom was named in his honour

[huw]

I think that this issue is being hijacked and used by Western governments around the World as a ruse designed to disguise the real reason for the dash towards cutting energy consumption.

I agree with this, Steve.

Does anyone seriously believe that the likes of Blair and Brown give a damn about whether farming becomes unviable in Himalayan valleys, or Tuvalu disappears under the waves?

The truth of what might happen to us is politically unpalatable, so they are dressing it up as concern about what could happen mainly to others.

[huw]

I'm gonna sod off permanently now and stop using this site. Now we both know that the brainless f*ckers will see that as a kind of victory.

Well, lets be honest SA, that's cos they're brainless f*ckers, isn't it....

Steve, if you allow the 'brainless f*ckers' to deter you from using a forum, you'll be a long time looking for a usable forum...

Or to paraphrase: all that's required for the triumph of brainless f*ckerdom is for for the brainful f*ckers to withdraw behind their own walls.

[nmarks]

THis thread isn't about whther or not manmade global warming is a fact (at least, it wasn't INTENDED to be) but about an attitude of intolerance towards dissenting views.

This attitude can be seen in more and more areas of public life - it sometimes comes under the name of political correctness. However, I call it "totalitarianism" where views that dissent from government-spun orthodoxy are increasingly disallowed. I think this growing tendency towards intolerance of opposing views is very relevant to the economy in general, and house prices in particular.

I'm not sure whom you're labeling as politically correct - the scientific community so unanimous over climate change or those who insist on casting doubt on their conclusions.

If you're labeling those who are concerned to act and those who want action (and that's a huge proportion of the population representing a very wide spectrum of opinions) then yes for sure there will always be a fundamentalist fringe within such a very large group. But they do not represent the reasonable majority.

To label all these ordinary, concerned citizens as behaving in a totalitarian way is nothing more than the signature tune of Freudian projection from the vested interests that cast the aspersion.

In simple terms - its the Illuminati pot calling the We, The People kettle black.

Those aspersions emanate from the usual suspects all of whom have been exposed very well indeed on this website over the last few months in so many other arenas of human activity, property most obviously.

I refer to the Machiavellian politicians, the Wall Street bankers, the oil men, the Ponzi pornographers and arms dealers and other insidious vested interests. I'm talking about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the people they really represent.

With incandescent visceral rage, they know full well their fun and games are damaging the environment and worst still that the common man, the fodder they've manipulated with such consummate ease for centuries can see the evidence for themselves.

That's why they had to rig the 2000 Presidential Elections. That's why we've all heard of hanging chads. They had to prevent - at all costs - any threats to their interests.

Their best defense is now to tar those that pose their greatest threat with their very own worst traits. That's how bullies think. That's how they evade being made accountable. They malign, humiliate and degrade good people accusing them of the very behavior they themselves are guilty of.

This is why the vested interests shamelessly use their shills to accuse ordinary people and scientists as being totalitarian.

This is why the vested interests shamelessly use their shills to accuse ordinary people and scientists as being politically correct.

They hope it will shame ordinary people into a silence that they themselves can then dominate.

They will defend themselves at any cost from losing their grip on such comfortable profitable yet vile, repugnant businesses.

Its happened throughout history and until the common man learns to recognize the symptoms it will continue to happen.

What they have to lose is their grip on society; their ability to control it and to extract profit from it.

What the rest of us risk in our obedience of them is losing the precious fragile environment we need for our very own survival.

Edited April 7, 2008 by nmarks

[Methinkshe]

I'm not sure whom you're labeling as politically correct - the scientific community so unanimous over climate change or those who insist on casting doubt on their conclusions.

If you're labeling those who are concerned to act and those who want action (and that's a huge proportion of the population representing a very wide spectrum of opinions) then yes for sure there will always be a fundamentalist fringe within such a very large group. But they do not represent the reasonable majority.

To label all these ordinary, concerned citizens as behaving in a totalitarian way is nothing more than the signature tune of Freudian projection from the vested interests that cast the aspersion.

In simple terms - its the Illuminati pot calling the We, The People kettle black.

Those aspersions emanate from the usual suspects all of whom have been exposed very well indeed on this website over the last few months in so many other arenas of human activity, property most obviously.

I refer to the Machiavellian politicians, the Wall Street bankers, the oil men, the Ponzi pornographers and arms dealers and other insidious vested interests. I'm talking about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the people they really represent.

With incandescent visceral rage, they know full well their fun and games are damaging the environment and worst still that the common man, the fodder they've manipulated with such consummate ease for centuries can see the evidence for themselves.

That's why they had to rig the 2000 Presidential Elections. That's why we've all heard of hanging chads. They had to prevent - at all costs - any threats to their interests.

Their best defense is now to tar those that pose their greatest threat with their very own worst traits. That's how bullies think. That's how they evade being made accountable. They malign, humiliate and degrade good people accusing them of the very behavior they themselves are guilty of.

This is why the vested interests shamelessly use their shills to accuse ordinary people and scientists as being totalitarian.

This is why the vested interests shamelessly use their shills to accuse ordinary people and scientists as being politically correct.

They hope it will shame ordinary people into a silence that they themselves can then dominate.

They will defend themselves at any cost from losing their grip on such comfortable profitable yet vile, repugnant businesses.

Its happened throughout history and until the common man learns to recognize the symptoms it will continue to happen.

What they have to lose is their grip on society; their ability to control it and to extract profit from it.

What the rest of us risk in our obedience of them is losing the precious fragile environment we need for our very own survival.

I didn't label anyone politically correct. What I said was that sometimes intolerance of dissenting views is labelled as political correctness. Intolerance of dissent, whatever guise it may appear in (including political correctness) is undesirable and symptomatic of totalitarianism.

[Injin]

The problem in the west is pretty simple, totally pervasive and getting worse. It's like this for pretty much everything -

1) There is a right answer.

2) Only officials can tell you what it is. Your opinion doesn't count.

3) Once officials and important people have found the "right" answer, it's ok to use force to make everyone behave the "right" way.

4) Officials and other important people are not included, that is they are exempt from the "right" answer.

5) Questioning the "right" answer is fine, acting as though the "right" answer is wrong is not.

6) Only by begging officials and other important people can anything be achieved.

This the orthodoxy in the western ex-democratic nations. only by fixing this mindset could anything else be meaningfully achieved.

[Methinkshe]

The problem in the west is pretty simple, totally pervasive and getting worse. It's like this for pretty much everything -

1) There is a right answer.

2) Only officials can tell you what it is. Your opinion doesn't count.

3) Once officials and important people have found the "right" answer, it's ok to use force to make everyone behave the "right" way.

4) Officials and other important people are not included, that is they are exempt from the "right" answer.

5) Questioning the "right" answer is fine, acting as though the "right" answer is wrong is not.

6) Only by begging officials and other important people can anything be achieved.

This the orthodoxy in the western ex-democratic nations. only by fixing this mindset could anything else be meaningfully achieved.

Yes; I can't find anything with which I disagree in this summation.

[munro]

I don't think one can dismiss Lord Lawson's conclusions too readily. As the article says, he was sitting on a committe and able to call many scientists to give evidence. Here is the relevant passage from the article.

How did he come to develop such an informed interest in this subject? "When, in 2005, I was invited to serve on the Lords committee," he explains, "I felt there was no issue more appropriate for us to look at than the economic implications of global warming, because they are so enormous, and so few people seemed to be doing it."

What was most striking about that Lords inquiry was the range of expert witnesses it called. These naturally included leading supporters of the official orthodoxy, such as Sir John Houghton, chairman of the working group of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which since 1988 has been the central player in alerting the world to the supposed dangers of global warming.

But also invited to testify were some eminent dissenters, such as the US climatologist Professor Richard Lindzen and Paul Reiter, the world's leading expert on tropical diseases, both outspoken critics of the much-vaunted "scientific consensus" on global warming.

"Considering the differing views our committee started with," says Lord Lawson, "it was quite an achievement that we ended up unanimously agreed on what was in many ways a fairly critical report. But the key was that we based our findings on examining the evidence"

This was a unanimously derived conclusion by a committee, and can therefore not easily be attributed to Lord Lawson's personal vested interests.

The appeal to reason is, as far as I can see from the original article, to do with his book rather than the House of Lords report. Do you have a link to the text of the report itself?

Re-reading the Telegraph article is rather alarming, though, if this typifies the Lawson/House of Lords committee view:

"One huge gap in the IPCC's thinking, Lord Lawson suggests, is that "it fails almost completely to take account of the capacity of human beings to adapt to changing temperatures - as we can see from comparing Finland with Singapore, two of the world's most successful economies. In the first, people manage to live happily with an average annual temperature of 5C; in the second, they can cope with an average of 27C.""

Sure, you can shift people around like that. And maybe lots of mammals. But try doing that with more static eco-systems; I don't see many tropical plants surviving in Finland, nor polar bears in Singapore.

[Methinkshe]

The appeal to reason is, as far as I can see from the original article, to do with his book rather than the House of Lords report. Do you have a link to the text of the report itself?

Re-reading the Telegraph article is rather alarming, though, if this typifies the Lawson/House of Lords committee view:

"One huge gap in the IPCC's thinking, Lord Lawson suggests, is that "it fails almost completely to take account of the capacity of human beings to adapt to changing temperatures - as we can see from comparing Finland with Singapore, two of the world's most successful economies. In the first, people manage to live happily with an average annual temperature of 5C; in the second, they can cope with an average of 27C.""

Sure, you can shift people around like that. And maybe lots of mammals. But try doing that with more static eco-systems; I don't see many tropical plants surviving in Finland, nor polar bears in Singapore.

NO, I'm sorry, I don't have a link to the report itself. No doubt it is available on the internet somehow and somewhere - if you are cleverer than I at finding information, which I am sure you are!

I don't think that Lord Lawson was suggesting that we shift either animals or eco-systems around the globe; rather he was pointing out that mankind, animals, and plants are extremely adaptable to extremes of temperature, thus it would not be too far-fetched to expect all of these to adapt to gradual changes in climate. Yes, we will lose some species - if that were not the case then dinosaurs would still be roaming the planet. You could argue that mankind is responsible for ensuring that no species becomes extinct but that we be to ignore the fact that dinosaurs became extinct without the help of mankind, either to save or to see off.

[cells]

need i say more

Edited April 7, 2008 by cells

[Kurt Barlow]

I agree with this, Steve.

Does anyone seriously believe that the likes of Blair and Brown give a damn about whether farming becomes unviable in Himalayan valleys, or Tuvalu disappears under the waves?

The truth of what might happen to us is politically unpalatable, so they are dressing it up as concern about what could happen mainly to others.

It should be a concern. I know this is going to be a shock to the flat earthers here but the earth is spherical. If a 5 degree band in the tropics becomes uninhabitable / un farmable this represents a much bigger land / sea area than in the temperate regions. These areas also tend to be the most productive - think tropical sugar cane and yields per hectare. Also huge populations could be displaced. - India, South East Asia, African central belt. - Imagine that lot turning up on Europe / North Americas door step

Im not saying its going to happen - but it is a risk factor with some dire consequences if it does.

[THE BALD MAN]

The problem in the west is pretty simple, totally pervasive and getting worse. It's like this for pretty much everything -

1) There is a right answer.

2) Only officials can tell you what it is. Your opinion doesn't count.

3) Once officials and important people have found the "right" answer, it's ok to use force to make everyone behave the "right" way.

4) Officials and other important people are not included, that is they are exempt from the "right" answer.

5) Questioning the "right" answer is fine, acting as though the "right" answer is wrong is not.

6) Only by begging officials and other important people can anything be achieved.

This the orthodoxy in the western ex-democratic nations. only by fixing this mindset could anything else be meaningfully achieved.

Gordans Britain! At least the Tibetans have the balls to protest. We lost that long ago. Whatever the party machine and their lackey boy officials say is correct.