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
 
 
 
 
Oliver K. Manuel
May 6th, 2014
4:05 PM
Thank you, Nigel Lawson, for speaking out! George Orwell correctly forecast our future when he moved from London to the Scottish Isle of Jura to start writing "Nineteen Eighty-Four" in 1946!

Oliver K. Manuel
May 6th, 2014
4:05 PM
Climategate has now exposed sixty-nine years (2014 - 1945 = 69 yrs) of global abuse of the scientific method by members of the UN's IPCC, the National Academies of Sciences of the US, UK, USSR, Sweden, Norway, Germany, etc. These leaders of science now refuse to publicly address nine pages of precise experimental data (pages 19-27) that falsify their post-1945 models of the cosmos, the Sun, Earth's climate and the atomic nucleus. Their present actions suggest that their past acts of deception were intentional! “A Journey to the Core of the Sun – Chapter 2: Acceptance of Reality" https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf

richard2
May 5th, 2014
10:05 PM
Renewable energy- Germany plans to build 60,000 new wind turbines — in forests, in the foothills ………. 60,000 turbines x 45 cement mixer lorries per turbine x 20 tons of cement per lorry. = 54,000,000 tons of cement in pristine countryside. every wind farm is a city of concrete.

Anonymorichardus
May 5th, 2014
9:05 PM
Right about the deserts greening, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm Deserts 'greening' from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world's arid regions Date: July 8, 2013 Source: CSIRO Australia Summary: Increased levels of carbon dioxide have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called carbon dioxide fertilization, according to new research.

Laughsatconspiracytheroists
May 5th, 2014
5:05 PM
Lord Lawson expends many words to describe a vast conspiracy. The scientists aren't wrong, he is. Who does fund the GWPF?

Mervyn
May 5th, 2014
9:05 AM
The IPCC can be conveniently ignored because although it is disguised as the world's "peak scientific body" (which it is certainly not), in reality it is blatantly evident it is a political body engaged in activism to achieve international agreement over the control of fossil fuel energy use.

Anonymous
May 5th, 2014
9:05 AM
An excellent article, which will, of course, persuade no one. Lord Lawson is correct in observing that Climate Guilt has replaced Original Sin as the justification for the self-flagellation of the developed world; but I wouldn't say that it has replaced Communism - the hijacking of ecological responsibility by the diletante left is the New Communism. The waste implicit in extravagant policies feeds the time honoured fallacy that levelling down leads to greater equality and is "therefore" fairer. In "1984" the extravagance of War was an instrument of the Party whose sole aim was to maximise their own power. Now the unelected bureaucrats and technocrats have their own supernational Ministry of Impoverishment.

David Walker
May 4th, 2014
2:05 PM
Excellent. Thank you,your Lordship.

grimm
May 4th, 2014
11:05 AM
The discussion of the global warming issue in the broadcast media is almost totally one-sided. Where are the in depth news features and documentaries dealing with the issues Mr Lawson writes about in this article? The C4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" back in 2007 stands as a sole example of the sceptics being given substantial air time. Broadcasters should have a duty to inform the public about all aspects of this issue. Instead we get bland uniformity of opinion. It is as though the TV companies were staffed with environmentalists and their sympathisers. Environmentalists I have known personally have always been the artistically inclined and drawn to the creative professions. They tend to have an irrational distaste for industrial development seeing it as self-evidentally evil, ugly and driven only by "mankind's foolishness and greed". For them industry means "black satanic mills", chemicals mean pollution, third world poverty and backwardness mean sustainability and "unspoiled" cultures. Environmentalism also has a strong class bias. Whatever their stated goals the underlying drive is toward a more comfortable and aesthetically pleasing world for the better off.

Catmando
May 4th, 2014
9:05 AM
Shame on Lord Lawson for presenting a rather whining and self-pitying piece. He would know, if he bothered to read more widely, that the term denier has been used of people who have contradicted the science without any basis in credible evidence for 150 years. For instance, Herbert Spencer was a vaccine denier way back when. To claim that the term is designed to make one think of Holocaust deniers is ignorant.

Post your comment

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