You are here:   Text > Cool It
 
This is also, of course, inflicting increasing damage on the British economy, to no useful purpose whatever. More serious morally, because it is on a much larger scale, is the perverse intergenerational transfer of wealth implied by orthodox climate change policies. It is not much in dispute that future generations — those yet unborn — will be far wealthier than those — ourselves, our children, and for many of us our grandchildren — alive today. This is the inevitable consequence of the projected economic growth which, on a "business as usual" basis, drives the increased carbon emissions which in turn determine the projected future warming. It is surely perverse that those alive today should be told that they must impoverish themselves, by abandoning what is far and away the cheapest source of energy, in order to ensure that those yet to be born, who will in any case be signally better off than they are, will be better off still, by escaping the disadvantages of any warming that might occur.

However, the greatest immorality of all concerns the masses in the developing world. It is excellent that, in so many parts of the developing world — the so-called emerging economies — economic growth is now firmly on the march, as they belatedly put in place the sort of economic policy framework that brought prosperity to the Western world. Inevitably, they already account for, and will increasingly account for, the lion's share of global carbon emissions.

But, despite their success, there are still hundreds of millions of people in these countries in dire poverty, suffering all the ills that this brings, in terms of malnutrition, preventable disease, and premature death. Asking these countries to abandon the cheapest available sources of energy is, at the very least, asking them to delay the conquest of malnutrition, to perpetuate the incidence of preventable disease, and to increase the numbers of premature deaths.

Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.

This essay is based on the text of a speech given to the Institute for Sustainable Energy and the Environment at the University of Bath.

View Full Article
Tags:
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
WL-Day
August 4th, 2014
11:08 PM
An excellent - and much needed - read. I differ with him on one point, however. Based on reading I have done, I don't think that Christianity is "clearly in decline." Quite the opposite - it is booming in China, South America, and Africa. Good news, in my opinion.

hegels advocate
July 7th, 2014
4:07 PM
Nigel Lawson could well be right. But what he and the eco-alarmists never mention is the evolution and progress of Uruguay. It`s not one of the big `dinosaur-ideology` economies nor does it need them. The Yes/No "Tartling" about climate is twee and quaint. Nigel Lawson and his enemies are both just Morris Dancing. I`m `pro-utopia` with Zizek and the people of Uruguay.

Jake J
May 13th, 2014
9:05 PM
I like this article, except for the discussion (such as it is) of renewables. There are good arguments to make on both sides of that question, but it's truly a strawman argument to (pardon the pun) smear the concept of renewable energy by including all the cow dung burned in India and Africa.

Rob
May 13th, 2014
8:05 PM
A fascinating essay, and good to hear alternative views, even if I haven't made up my mind yet. Two things spring to mind: 1. With regards to the points at the end about forcing poor countries to cut emissions it struck me that there is a linked issue concerning nuclear energy. Existing nuclear powers try to prevent the technology spreading due to the link to weapons development, yet it is clearly a zero carbon energy source. So there is a moral issue here. If we are to believe that emissions must be curbed it seems particularly evil to prevent most countries from having access to the least carbon intensive form of energy. 2. Irrespective of climate change, a bigger issue could be the fast deteriorating EROEI (energy return on energy invested). So whereas it used to take a barrel of oil to produce 100 barrels, I've seen estimates ranging from 1:1.5 to 1:5 for shale oil, and falling. As the reserves become less and less efficient to exploit, we may be forced off oil, gas and coal anyway, on pure economic grounds.

freetheCO2
May 13th, 2014
9:05 AM
Lord Lawson states: " [greenhouse gases] in effect, trap some of the heat we receive from the sun and prevent it from bouncing back into space. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would be so cold as to be uninhabitable". Blind acceptance of this unproven theory by Luke Warmers such as Lord Lawson merely sustain the hegemony of argument that "the science is settled". The existence of an atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect (GHE) is necessitated by the false construct typified by the Kiehl/Trenberth earth energy budget cartoon. This makes the fatal error (or fraud, you decide) of equating solar flux in = terrestrial flux out, which is incorrect. It should equate solar energy in = terrestrial energy out. Kiehl/Trenberth use a false and physically meaningless average, whereby they halve the actual incoming solar flux, by simply ignoring the reality that it only hits 50% of the globe at any one time. Instead, they say that half the actual solar flux hits a flat earth 24/7. So what? If the actual incoming energy is used over HALF surface area, using the same formula as K/T, the linearly-averaged temperature of the lit half of the globe is more like +30C, vice -18C. Considering the 'average' global temperature is +15C, the false conclusion is drawn that the GHE lifts global 'average' temperature by +33C. If you stick to energy conservation, not energy flux conservation, which depends on surface area, there is no requirement for a GHE, on any planet. Just think about it - you are asked to believe that the hottest the sun can heat us to is -18C. This is supposedly "settled science". So, the sun can't melt ice nor evaporate water, they would have you believe. Sounds more like "settled nonsense" to me. It's about time we had a Chief Scientific Adviser with some of his objectivity remaining. Numbers here: http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/09/25/fraud-aghe-18-conserving-wattag...

Alex Garcia
May 12th, 2014
8:05 PM
You've read the essay, now see the video .... complete with Q&A session. 88 minutes total. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0QTkYjwtFA

AlecM
May 12th, 2014
5:05 AM
My Dear Lord Lawson, having studies the subject independently for >4 years, and being one of the few real heat transfer and GHG experts from Industrial Science who has actually measured coupled convection and radiation, I have concluded that CO2-AGW is near zero. This is because the atmosphere self controls using CO2 as the working fluid of a heat engine. Furthermore, there is zero, yes ZERO, net surface IR emission in the self-absorbed IR bands of water vapour and CO2. The IPCC 'science' is a clever fraud based on a form of Gresham's Law, bad science displacing good. Those responsible should be put on trial for Malfeasance in Public Office.

Burl Henry
May 11th, 2014
5:05 PM
An excellent monograph, but it is possible to show that the theory of Climate Change due to greenhouse gasses has a fatal flaw, one that that is irrefutable, and can be PROVEN with existing data. The flaw is that the warming 1970-2000 of approx. 0.5 deg C is all attributed to the accumulation of CO2 and other grenhouse gasses, when in fact hundreds of Megatons of aerosols were being removed from the atmosphere in that time period, cleaning the air and allowing greater insolation(warming) of the earth's surface. This inevitable warming needs to be subtracted from the 0.5 deg. C atrbuted to CO2, and will be so large that the CO2 congribution will be zero. Everything, including the "pause" can be explained in terms of aerosols.This needs to be pursued. Nigel,please contact me for supporting references and further details.

Nosophist
May 11th, 2014
5:05 PM
Catmando's May 4th comment, regarding the use of the term, "denier", is factually correct, I'm certain. However, she presumes the term's users, in this context, have far greater depth than they likely do. Lord Lawson is without doubt correct when he says the intention is to paint climate-change skeptics with the same brush as those dastardly miscreants who dare to claim the Holocaust never happened.

NikFromNYC
May 11th, 2014
4:05 PM
Catmando commands: “To claim that the term is designed to make one think of Holocaust deniers is ignorant.” Tell this to Jim Hansen's old second in command who now runs the NASA office above Tom's Diner here in the Columbia University area, who last year pointed out *exactly* how the term renders activists ridiculous: http://tinypic.com/r/2lsehp2/5 -=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
More Text
Popular Standpoint topics