Lord Lawson - An Appeal To Reason

[THE BALD MAN]

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 believe in protecting the environment but nevertheless doubt many scientific findings. I believe that this is my right. Over the years we have heard it is the coming of the ice-age then the coming of global warming. By all means lets have a healthier environment but if this means goung back to the ages Europe lets think again. For me A lot of measures just apear to raise taxes for our political masters to waste an dexempt themselves from.

[nmarks]

I believe in protecting the environment but nevertheless doubt many scientific findings. I believe that this is my right. Over the years we have heard it is the coming of the ice-age then the coming of global warming. By all means lets have a healthier environment but if this means goung back to the ages Europe lets think again. For me A lot of measures just apear to raise taxes for our political masters to waste an dexempt themselves from.

It would appear sadly that all too many lay-people suspect scientists of harbouring ulterior motives because of their own experiences with politicians.

This is truly a lamentable state of affairs yet one a great many vested interests would be delighted to hear of.

If you don't believe scientists are reliable and truthful, perhaps you would be so bold as to shun emergency ward professionals in favour of a witch doctor?

[huw]

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.

I agree, digging up vast amounts of carbon that's been captured over millions of years and then setting it on fire would ideally have been subject of a thorough risk assessment before it was done Too late now, but my point is that regardless of whether climate change is a problem, the government has a hidden agenda: when they talk of climate change, they mean energy security.

As for the Lawson thing ... he got it catastrophically wrong as Chancellor, which was presumably his core competency, so why should he given credence on climate change, which presumably isn't? A stupid question, I know, to ask of a man with a book to sell! He's going to be plugging it on Newsnight tonight, apparently.

[Kurt Barlow]

I agree, digging up vast amounts of carbon that's been captured over millions of years and then setting it on fire would ideally have been subject of a thorough risk assessment before it was done Too late now, but my point is that regardless of whether climate change is a problem, the government has a hidden agenda: when they talk of climate change, they mean energy security.

As for the Lawson thing ... he got it catastrophically wrong as Chancellor, which was presumably his core competency, so why should he given credence on climate change, which presumably isn't? A stupid question, I know, to ask of a man with a book to sell! He's going to be plugging it on Newsnight tonight, apparently.

I think we agree that energy security is a more immendiate and pressing issue.

Lawson is a shill - he fooked this Countries economy in the 1980's and now peddles himself as some sort of economic expert

[Injin]

It would appear sadly that all too many lay-people suspect scientists of harbouring ulterior motives because of their own experiences with politicians.

This is truly a lamentable state of affairs yet one a great many vested interests would be delighted to hear of.

If you don't believe scientists are reliable and truthful, perhaps you would be so bold as to shun emergency ward professionals in favour of a witch doctor?

When I go to an emergency ward, I am injured, I have a problem I want solving.

When discussing global warming, I have no problem, so why am I being asked to solve it?

As for scientists, the vast majority of whom are state funded, state supported, and state licenced/trained........they find what they are supposed to find, they find what they are told to look for.

[yawnIHateSundays]

Lawson is a shill - he fooked this Countries economy in the 1980's and now peddles himself as some sort of economic expert

I remember seeing him on a BA flight to Brussels in the 90's. He was sitting in the row behind me looking smug and talking some pompous nonsense all the flight to his equally pompous colleague.

[john_coller]

The real issue excersising government planners at the moment is our energy security.

I thought that seemed more likely than a slight rise in temperature by about 2 degrees a couple of years ago, it took me a couple of months after reading 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton.

Although it is a bit of a conspiricy it does seem to have positive reason behind it -- if they told people to become more self sustaining to avoid a potential wealth / power crisis in 20-30 years time it wouldn't have worked.

[Tin Foil Hat]

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?

Not intent on an online grief-session but for my 3rd year dissertation I chose to test homeopathic medicines. Ended up with something at 100c or whatever was below Avogadro's number, and used it on live tissue. I got responses quite unlike the control responses, indicating this may be worthy of real research, but wasn't statistically conclusive.

[South Lorne]

Lawson is a shill - he fooked this Countries economy in the 1980's and now peddles himself as some sort of economic expert

....just like Gordo has done today .....it's these academics again...no common sense....

[South Lorne]

Not intent on an online grief-session but for my 3rd year dissertation I chose to test homeopathic medicines. Ended up with something at 100c or whatever was below Avogadro's number, and used it on live tissue. I got responses quite unlike the control responses, indicating this may be worthy of real research, but wasn't statistically conclusive.

...that's OK ...you proved 1+1=2....good start....

[Gurgle]

On the subject of the Romans growing grapes in Britain, there are 55 records of vineyards in the Domesday book. Not Roman clearly, but it makes the point. Not sure how many vineyards we have in Britain today, but I'd guess its a similar number.

[Guest Skint Academic]

When I go to an emergency ward, I am injured, I have a problem I want solving.

When discussing global warming, I have no problem, so why am I being asked to solve it?

Wrong. You have a problem you know about. There are plenty of problems that can happen that you don't know about.

This mentality is analogous to only treating cancer when it becomes obvious and will kill you.

As for scientists, the vast majority of whom are state funded, state supported, and state licenced/trained........they find what they are supposed to find, they find what they are told to look for.

Pish flaps. Have you met any scientists? No. If you did then you would find out that you only get into science to learn about your subject and to find out more. Wanting to educate others and to share that enthusiasm and knowledge is an obvious consequence of this. You don't get into science for the money. If you want to sell out, there's plenty of other, easier and more profitable ways to do it, for example, by working in industry.

So stop talking shite and stop insulting all the hard work that has been put in for the betterment of humanity.

[South Lorne]

On the subject of the Romans growing grapes in Britain, there are 55 records of vineyards in the Domesday book. Not Roman clearly, but it makes the point. Not sure how many vineyards we have in Britain today, but I'd guess its a similar number.

....distilleries are the gold nuggets in the genre....

[Injin]

Wrong. You have a problem you know about. There are plenty of problems that can happen that you don't know about.

I only want problems solving that I know about.

If there is no effect to me, and I don't know about it - why am I being asked to do anything?

This mentality is analogous to only treating cancer when it becomes obvious and will kill you.

Cancer is killing some humans, is making many others ill. I have evidence of an effect which might eventually come to my doorstep. What's global warming doing and has done to hurt anyone again?

Pish flaps. Have you met any scientists? No. If you did then you would find out that you only get into science to learn about your subject and to find out more. Wanting to educate others and to share that enthusiasm and knowledge is an obvious consequence of this. You don't get into science for the money. If you want to sell out, there's plenty of other, easier and more profitable ways to do it, for example, by working in industry.

Okidoki - find me an independantly funded scientist (non state) that agrees with global warming.

So stop talking shite and stop insulting all the hard work that has been put in for the betterment of humanity.

Sell out? You mean like taking tax money that been extorted from the productive to indulge in what is essentially a hobby?

[roadtoruin]

I only want problems solving that I know about.

If there is no effect to me, and I don't know about it - why am I being asked to do anything?

Okidoki - find me an independantly funded scientist (non state) that agrees with global warming.

I work in drug R & D, totally non-state; probably biggest non-state-funded scientific sector in the world and the most hard-nosed.

In the last ten years I have only ever met one colleague who did not believe in Global warming. The extent to which it is anthropogenic and what exactly to do about is something to be argued over. But the existence of it, the statistical certainty of it outside of any natural cycle - well that argument, for almost all scientists I know - is long over.

There may be a 1% chance the science is wrong, but the downside of being over-conservative is just that we husband resources and are more sensible with energy use. If we're right and we do nothing - well the consequences could be unthinkable, and by the time you see a tangible impact on you it could be too late. That's why, Injin, so many believe waiting for your 'proof' is just too dangerous a strategy.

[Authoritarian]

I work in DRUG R & D, totally non-state; probably biggest non-state-funded scientific sector in the world and the most hard-nosed.

So, nothing to do with climate change then?

That's why, Injin, so many believe waiting for your 'proof' is just too dangerous a strategy.

Thats right, people like Injin are 'dangerous', perhaps he should be locked up for being a climate change denier.

[Injin]

I work in drug R & D, totally non-state; probably biggest non-state-funded scientific sector in the world and the most hard-nosed.

Really?

No licence?

No state qualifications?

You just have you and some others working in a lab and when you are ready to go, you market your product direct to tesco or the consumer, do you?

In the last ten years I have only ever met one colleague who did not believe in Global warming. The extent to which it is anthropogenic and what exactly to do about is something to be argued over. But the existence of it, the statistical certainty of it outside of any natural cycle - well that argument, for almost all scientists I know - is long over.

Which isn't proof in any way shape or form. An accumulation of opinion doesn't make a fact.

There may be a 1% chance the science is wrong, but the downside of being over-conservative is just that we husband resources and are more sensible with energy use. If we're right and we do nothing - well the consequences could be unthinkable, and by the time you see a tangible impact on you it could be too late. That's why, Injin, so many believe waiting for your 'proof' is just too dangerous a strategy.

Yes, yes if right, then the world will end and we are all doomed (part 97). Terrible consequences do not make facts either.

if I am right about the loch ness monster traveling down to london with a giant lazer which will kill everyone in the city.....thn the consequences are too terrible to contemplate, so let's not bother with any direct evidence, Nessie must be presumed to exist!

Behave.

[Guest anorthosite]

Thats right, people like Injin are 'dangerous', perhaps he should be locked up for being a climate change denier.

That's quite a jump from the original post! Quite provocative words you're putting in his mouth as well.

[roadtoruin]

Really?

No licence?

No state qualifications?

You just have you and some others working in a lab and when you are ready to go, you market your product direct to tesco or the consumer, do you?

Which isn't proof in any way shape or form. An accumulation of opinion doesn't make a fact.

Yes, yes if right, then the world will end and we are all doomed (part 97). Terrible consequences do not make facts either.

if I am right about the loch ness monster traveling down to london with a giant lazer which will kill everyone in the city.....thn the consequences are too terrible to contemplate, so let's not bother with any direct evidence, Nessie must be presumed to exist!

Behave.

Are you suggesting that in order to have a 'non-state' scientific opinion I should be educated privately and only work in a non-regulated environment. Do you think that if I espouse anti-GW views that any drug I work on will be hammered by the UK regulator. (Please don't tell me you do believe that...)

An accumulation of opinion doesn't make a fact, but certainly gives you some tips about likely 'truths'. With no other available knowledge, I don't usually back 100-1 shots in horse-races, I find the favourites are usually thereabouts.

With only the Loch Ness monster to hit me over the head with, perhaps it's you who should 'behave'.

[Authoritarian]

That's quite a jump from the original post! Quite provocative words you're putting in his mouth as well.

Ok the locked up thing was perhaps a bit to far but re-read what was written, basically he's saying that Injin's views represent a threat. If you turn this itno a political doctrine those that 'threaten' the rest of society are going to be dealt with. Thats the trouble with the Green agenda IMO, its aim is to restrict liberty.

Lets not forget too, what have environmentalists ever contributed to society? Nothing thats what. Engineering has given the world everything, the greens have contributed nothing. Not a single damn thing.

[tegan]

Global warming is purely an economic issue. Even if the science is completely true its still purely an economic issue. The alleged effects of global warming (which has been re-labelled 'climate change' by the movement in recent years to cover their arses) will effect poor people, not the rich people living on the metaphorical hill. Destroying any potential for prosperity of the worlds poorest people in some insane attempt to somehow stabilize the earth's temperature at some arbitrary 'correct' level is so ridiculous that I think the sincerity of the political global warming movement needs to be questioned. As to what their real intentions are I don't know. But it's obvious the only practical way of dealing with any potential problem is to do what humans have always done - adapt. The earth will be fine, it'll get hotter and it'll get colder, we need to adapt to whatever the climate presents us, not engage in this arrogant and vainglorious attempt to control the climate system of a whole planet.

[eightiesgirly]

Having worked in research some years ago I take all this global warming stuff, or indeed any research with a pinch of salt. Governments always have an agenda, always.

However I do think we live in times of extraordinary, extravagant waste. That needs sorting out.

[Kurt Barlow]

Ok the locked up thing was perhaps a bit to far but re-read what was written, basically he's saying that Injin's views represent a threat. If you turn this itno a political doctrine those that 'threaten' the rest of society are going to be dealt with. Thats the trouble with the Green agenda IMO, its aim is to restrict liberty.

Lets not forget too, what have environmentalists ever contributed to society? Nothing thats what. Engineering has given the world everything, the greens have contributed nothing. Not a single damn thing.

I would agree that engineering has found solutions.

However I believe environmental pressure groups have provided a valuable lever in helping to achieve a number of things including:

Action on acid rain - mainly desulphurisation of smokestack emissions.

Introduction of Environmental Protection Act 1990 authorisations to reduce emissions of prescribed pollutants

Action on CFC emissions / stratospheric ozone depletion

Improved safety and transparency in the nuclear power sector (a fact that annoys many of my anti nuclear friends )

[roadtoruin]

Global warming is purely an economic issue. Even if the science is completely true its still purely an economic issue. The alleged effects of global warming (which has been re-labelled 'climate change' by the movement in recent years to cover their arses) will effect poor people, not the rich people living on the metaphorical hill. Destroying any potential for prosperity of the worlds poorest people in some insane attempt to somehow stabilize the earth's temperature at some arbitrary 'correct' level is so ridiculous that I think the sincerity of the political global warming movement needs to be questioned. As to what their real intentions are I don't know. But it's obvious the only practical way of dealing with any potential problem is to do what humans have always done - adapt. The earth will be fine, it'll get hotter and it'll get colder, we need to adapt to whatever the climate presents us, not engage in this arrogant and vainglorious attempt to control the climate system of a whole planet.

If the science is competely true, then a purely economic issue is exactly what it isn't. Unless you consider low-lying land such as Bangladesh going underwater and displcing millions is simply an economic exercise.

But I don't understand your point about poor people being affected by attempts to stabilise the world's temperature. The first people to suffer from GW (if it happens) will be that very group that cannot easily adapt/move/build defences. If you were a Pacific Islander slowly being inundated, what would you want the West to do??

Is using less energy, conserving whether for GW or fossil fuel conservation not part of that human adaptation process you mention?

[Scunnered]

Pish flaps.

... as we scientists say.

While I'm here, you might be interested in an article in the Herald about living "off-grid" in Scotland a few days ago: link.