ozobn
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: ROTFLMAO The "Objectivity" Of The Climate Debate |
 |
|
Peter Foster
October 1 2008
QUOTE: The Kyoto process, he notes, "is fast becoming one of the biggest
scams on the planet."
QUOTE: The first wave of attack, predictably, was that Lord Lawson was
"not a scientist." At his book launch, he agreed, then remarked, "In
which case, I won>t say another word on the subject as long as Gore,
Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, David Cameron and Stern don>t either." Touché!
Nigel Lawson was one of Margaret Thatcher>s most brilliant ministers. In
recent years, Lord Lawson has become fascinated, and troubled, by the
issues of climate change science and policy. The result is An Appeal to
Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, a brief, clearly written critique
of the conventional wisdom on the issue (which he refuses to call
"climate change," a phrase which he sees as "alliterative weasel
words").
Intriguing - although perhaps not surprising given the intellectual
climate of our times - is that Lord Lawson had immense trouble finding a
publisher, and has subsequently been subjected to an onslaught of ad
hominem attacks. He quotes one publisher>s rejection letter: "My fear,
with this cogently argued book, is that it flies so much in the face of
prevailing orthodoxy that it would be very difficult to find a wide
market."
All the more poignant, then, is Lord Lawson>s conclusion: that global
warming "resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great
story, and a phenomenal best-seller. It contains a grain of truth - and
a mountain of nonsense."
He notes that the IPCC, which was set up by the UN in 1988 to oversee
climate research, has mutated into a "politically correct alarmist
pressure group." The "PC" at the heart of the IPCC, he writes, is "the
most oppressive and intolerant form of political correctness in the
Western world today."
When it comes to likely temperature changes and their impacts, Lord
Lawson asks many inconveniently rational questions. If humans can live
in an average temperature of 5 C in Helsinki and 27 C in Singapore,
should we be so concerned that they might not be able to adapt to a
possible increase of three degrees over the next hundred years?
Then there are the alleged "ethical" reasons for rapid and draconian
action. Lord Lawson>s most devastating set of figures is drawn from the
projections of the IPCC itself. These suggest that the "disaster" of
global warming will mean that, in a hundred years, citizens of
developing countries will be only 8.5 times richer than they are now,
compared with 9.5 times!
Lord Lawson is at his most devastating in highlighting the farcical
nature of Kyoto policies (which even the IPCC admits would have had
virtually no impact on the climate) and the wreckage of post-Kyoto
negotiations. He points out that cap-and-trade is in no sense a "market
mechanism." It is, rather, "a government-controlled, administrative
rationing system," which is subject to lobbying and corruption in direct
proportion to its scale.
Kyoto>s "Clean Development Mechanism" is serving, perversely, to
subsidize Chinese coal development. Under "Joint Implementation," Russia
stands to reap billions, which it will use to develop it is oil and gas
interests. Carbon offsets are a feel-good farce, laced with con artists.
The Kyoto process, he notes, "is fast becoming one of the biggest scams
on the planet." Lord Lawson notes that the one truly "market" approach
to the alleged problem would be a carbon tax, but before Stéphane Dion
starts rejoicing, the author points out what Mr. Dion should have known:
Carbon taxes are unsalable because they are just too transparent in
indicating the enormous costs to consumers of cutting back on CO2, quite
probably to no effect.
"Fortunately," he concludes, "the gap between rhetoric and reality when
it comes to global warming, between the apocalyptic nature of the
alleged threat and the relative modesty of the measures so far
implemented (not to mention the sublime disregard of international
obligations solemnly undertaken), is far greater than I can recall with
any other issue in a lifetime of either observing or practicing
politics."
Nevertheless, climate policy still contains many threats: not just from
intolerance, but that governments might get carried away with their own
rhetoric and impose even more damaging policies; and that trade
protectionism might flourish, with disastrous results for the world
economy.
When it comes to intolerance, nothing establishes that threat like the
book>s reception, which has been reminiscent of the sound and fury - but
lack of substantial criticism - which greeted Bjorn Lomborg>s The
Skeptical Environmentalist. The first wave of attack, predictably, was
that Lord Lawson was "not a scientist." At his book launch, he agreed,
then remarked, "In which case, I won>t say another word on the subject
as long as Gore, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, David Cameron and Nicholas
Stern don>t either."
Touché!
Lord Lawson>s book appears to have unhinged a good part of the British
media. The Mirror accused him of "the arrogance that only a public
school Tory grandee . can carry off." The Guardian compared him with Dr.
Strangelove. A snotty review in The Economist suggested that he was "one
of the few remaining serious people who argue against the current
consensus on global warming."
According to The Observer: "Several other individuals, usually male,
elderly and right-wing, still deny climate change is happening, mainly
because they cannot stand the thought that greenies may be right and
that we will have to curtail our use of big cars, international flights
and other carbon-boosting luxuries. These Grumpy Old Deniers feel their
lifestyles are threatened by greenies and so reject the entire concept
of global warming."
Such is the objectivity of the climate debate.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/10/01/nigel-lawson-s-lonely-crusade.aspx
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Let me say it plainly: The environmental movement has been taken over
by anti-capitalist radicals who are using it to wage war against
capitalism and campaign for liberal Democrats. Protecting the
environment is now number three, or lower, on their list of priorities."
Joe Bast, President, Heartland Institute, One-time Ardent
Environmentalist, Has seen it from both sides. |
|
