You are here:   Text > Cool It
 
This puts into perspective the UK's commitment, under the Climate Change Act, to near-total decarbonisation. The UK accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions: indeed, its total emissions are less than the annual increase in China's. Never mind, says Lord Deben, chairman of the government-appointed Climate Change Committee, we are in the business of setting an example to the world.

No doubt this sort of thing goes down well at meetings of the faithful, and enables him and them to feel good. But there is little point in setting an example, at great cost, if no one is going to follow it; and around the world governments are now gradually watering down or even abandoning their decarbonisation ambitions.  Indeed, it is even worse than that. Since the UK has abandoned the idea of having an energy policy in favour of having a decarbonisation policy, there is a growing risk that, before very long, our generating capacity will be inadequate to meet our energy needs. If so, we shall be setting an example all right: an example of what not to do.

So how is it that much of the Western world, and this country in particular, has succumbed to the self-harming collective madness that is climate change orthodoxy? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that climate change orthodoxy has in effect become a substitute religion, attended by all the intolerant zealotry that has so often marred religion in the past, and in some places still does so today.

Throughout the Western world, the two creeds that used to vie for popular support, Christianity and the atheistic belief system of Communism, are each clearly in decline. Yet people still feel the need both for the comfort and for the transcendent values that religion can provide. It is the quasi-religion of green alarmism and global salvationism, of which the climate change dogma is the prime example, which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.

The parallel goes deeper. As I mentioned earlier, throughout the ages the weather has been an important part of the religious narrative. In primitive societies it was customary for extreme weather events to be explained as punishment from the gods for the sins of the people; and there is no shortage of this theme in the Bible, either — particularly, but not exclusively, in the Old Testament. The contemporary version of this is that, as a result of heedless industrialisation within a framework of materialistic capitalism, we have directly (albeit not deliberately) perverted the weather, and will duly receive our comeuppance.

There is another aspect, too, which may account for the appeal of this so-called explanation. Throughout the ages, something deep in man's psyche has made him receptive to apocalyptic warnings that the end of the world is nigh. And almost all of us, whether we like it or not, are imbued with feelings of guilt and a sense of sin. How much less uncomfortable it is, how much more convenient, to divert attention away from our individual sins and reasons to feel guilty, and to sublimate them in collective guilt and collective sin.

Why does this matter? It matters, and matters a great deal, on two quite separate grounds. The first is that it has gone a long way towards ushering in a new age of unreason. It is a cruel irony that, while it was science which, more than anything else, was able by its great achievements, to establish the age of reason, it is all too many climate scientists and their hangers-on who have become the high priests of a new age of unreason.

But what moves me most is that the policies invoked in its name are grossly immoral. We have, in the UK, devised the most blatant transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich — and I am slightly surprised that it is so strongly supported by those who consider themselves to be the tribunes of the people and politically on the Left. I refer to our system of heavily subsidising wealthy landlords to have wind farms on their land, so that the poor can be supplied with one of the most expensive forms of electricity known to man.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
WL-Day
August 5th, 2014
12:08 AM
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
5:07 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
10:05 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
9:05 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
10:05 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
9:05 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
6:05 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
6:05 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
6:05 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
5:05 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.