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
 
 
 
 
Chuck Nolan
May 3rd, 2014
8:05 PM
Thank you Nigel. I fully concur. Your article is the best explanation of my thoughts and beliefs concerning our global warming crisis. Without cheap, abundant energy life is very brutal and short. cn

Nicanuk
May 3rd, 2014
6:05 AM
The aim of the Malthusian envirofascists is to centrally plan energy production, extraction and distribution with handsome fees, taxes and levies skimmed off all transactions. The subsidies/taxes -carrot/stick -thus control the development of the energy "free market". Brilliant. Except, as with all socialist schemes, it will collapse under its own weight of incompetance and malinvestment. The consumer and the energy sector gets screwed on the way up and doubly screwed during the collapse, but that is the whole point of the exercise. Screw the world to save it. Paraphrasing that Malthusian charlatan (and now FRS) Ehrlich - there is simply only enough resources for the righteous. Hayek saw this coming in the 40s, when he wrote "The Road to Serfdom" ironically while he was at the LSE. You couldn't make this crap up.

Braqueish
May 3rd, 2014
12:05 AM
Geologist are clear that ice ages are normative. Interglacials -- which we're currently enjoying -- are temporary respites. In the end, the scary pseudo-scenarios which climate alarmists employ in order to try and reduce "consumption" (i.e. comfort and civilised society) are phantasies. The truth is that within the next 1,000 years those RSPB "sanctuaries" and the wilfully flooded parts of Somerset will either be tundra or under a significant mass of glacier ice. It is a monstrous over-estimation of human prowess which assumes that the magisterial power of nature is subject to fickle homo sapiens enterprise. What's more, I'd bet on the future survival of our species (despite the financial centres of New York City, Frankfurt, and London being wiped out) will continue to progress in Atlanta, Brisbane and Madeira, or wherever.

Vernon E
May 2nd, 2014
3:05 PM
Lord Lawson says it all, and with great elegance, but still the bandwagon surges on. I, myself, am in contention with my own scientific body, the (UK) Institution of Chemical Engineers, of which I am a Fellow and have been a member for over fifty years. Its organ, TCE, has been hi-jacked of late by an editorial team that espouses just the sort of anti-industrial nonsense that Lord Lawson is addressing. What hope is there?

Steve Davison
May 2nd, 2014
10:05 AM
I am not a natural supporter of Nigel Lawson but this has to be one of the best summaries of the the state of affairs with respect to man-made global warming alarmism and the very real costs to tax-payers and the poorest in society. He is to be applauded.

Anonymous
May 1st, 2014
7:05 PM
An excellent and important article, but one problem with this statement in the second last paragraph: "as they belatedly put in place the sort of economic policy framework that brought prosperity to the Western world." Surely it was the absence of policy - writ from on high or petty interference and corruption - which brought prosperity to the Western world, and and South Korea, and Hong Kong, and Singapore and which is now bringing the same to China and India. A little less "policy," whether for climate management or for selling bananas only by the kilo, and a little more liberty is needed.

NikFromNYC
May 1st, 2014
5:05 PM
All this high minded talk in the face of now the most brazen scam in science is just silly. Here is clear proof that peer review in climate "science" is corrupt and that thus the entire field needs a clean slate after the hockey stick team and its enabling editors on journals are *sacked*: http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg In what other field of science would such pure artifact alarmism be accepted rather than severely punished?

Dr John G Gahan
May 1st, 2014
5:05 PM
Apart from the science, says it all. Well done Nigel.

stephenwv
May 1st, 2014
1:05 PM
The alarmists tell us we must stop the next 2 degrees of warmup. Yet according to the studies of the Dome Fuji Ice Core Samples, the Earth's current average temperature is still 2 to 3 degrees COOLER than all of the past interglacial warmups of the past 450,000 years, as the black temperature line found on the U.S. Government NOAA web site illustrates. One must ask, how can man hope to stop mother nature? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html In the U.S. the environmentalists are constantly harping about the possible extinction of the yellow spotted species de jour. Yet when the Earth enters into the glacial cooling cycle (which we soon will if it has not already begun) the results of a mile deep glacier over Washington D.C. (besides freezing government spending) will include a 15 degree average earth temperature change (causing extinction of 80% of the Earth's species not tolerant of that change), shortening of the world wide growing season (the potential for wide spread starvation), and elimination of much of the Earth's farm land. Perhaps, if the greenhouse effect is significant, these catastrophes can be avoided and the Earth's species and the majority of mankind will not be exterminated.

Roger W. Cohen
May 1st, 2014
1:05 PM
A reasoned, comprehensive view of our current state of affairs. As a physicist, the most painful impact of the dogma has been the dismantling of the scientific process so painfully put together over the past 400 years. As an ordinary human, I find the willful disregard of the health and well being of those in the developing world a criminal act. Looking through my political goggles, the alarmists' attack on freedom of speech is the real alarming feature of this whole business.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.