So, yesterday the once Chancellor presents his latest ‘essay’
on the familiar subject, ‘Global Warming is Good for You’.
The summary, which is presented as an Article at the GWPF,
drew the Old Man’s attention, and so, helpfully, he thought to provide a little
annotation or two to help the ‘Lay Reader’ traverse the words…
Date: 27/05/14 Nigel Lawson, Global Warming Policy
Foundation
Climate change
alarmism is a belief system, and needs to be evaluated as such.
Grains of truth and undermining.
It is probable that some people who are alarmed about climate change are
inclined to accept the evidence provided partly on faith, since they lack the
academic tools to evaluate the science. But Climate change itself is the target
here, and the implication is that there is no scientific basis on which to
work, which is, of course, false. Where the old Man agrees with Lawson is that
extreme views tend towards the irrational. Ore on this below.
There is something odd about the global warming debate — or
the climate change debate, as we are now expected to call it, since global
warming has for the time being come to a halt.
Yes, there is; first, there is
no ‘debate’ about Global Warming/climate change, within science, only at the
Policy end. And global warming has not come to a halt, so the last statement is
a simple falsehood.
I have never shied away from controversy, nor — for example,
as Chancellor — worried about being unpopular if I believed that what I was
saying and doing was in the public interest.
It is actually mildly plausible
that L. believes that he works in the public interest, but only insofar as we
may imagine any politician does the same; of course they do, but idealism is
rapidly driven out by the survival instinct in politics, and generally, we
remain suspicious of politicians claiming to act from some noble altruistic
motive. This is less to do with belief than with experience; we do not all
forget the lessons of history…
But I have never in my life experienced the extremes of
personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I — along with other
dissenters, of course — have received for my views on global warming and global
warming policies.
So, now L. has, perhaps, had a
small taste of the experience meted out by those whom he encourages, to those
whom he opposes. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him?
For example, according to the Climate Change Secretary, Ed
Davey, the global warming dissenters are, without exception, “wilfully
ignorant” and in the view of the Prince of Wales we are “headless chickens”.
Not that “dissenter” is a term they use. We are regularly referred to as
“climate change deniers”, a phrase deliberately designed to echo “Holocaust
denier” — as if questioning present policies and forecasts of the future is
equivalent to casting malign doubt about a historical fact.
Putting aside the obvious point
that these people are simply using the terminology generally in use, rather
than specifically implying malignity, that final word choice is an interesting
one, because in this respect there is something important to understand; many
of Lawson’s detractors probably do attribute a malign intent in his words and
actions, which may be wrong, and even unfair, but is not entirely
incomprehensible, given the track record enjoyed by, for example, the Koch ‘people’.
The heir to the throne and the minister are senior public
figures, who watch their language. The abuse I received after appearing on the
BBC’s Today programme last February was far less restrained. Both the BBC and I
received an orchestrated barrage of complaints to the effect that it was an
outrage that I was allowed to discuss the issue on the programme at all. And
even the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons shamefully
joined the chorus of those who seek to suppress debate.
At the time, it seemed like most
of the complaints were about ‘false balance’, and the fact that a political
figure was chosen to ‘debate’ what was meant to be a scientific discussion.
This is a strange reversal of history, and was not about ‘suppressing debate’,
as L. suggests, but about a presenting a balanced view of the current state of
scientific knowledge and the (very small) voice of dissent within that context.
No – not ‘suppresses debate’, but ‘demanding honesty and fairness’…
In fact, despite having written a thoroughly documented book
about global warming more than five years ago, which happily became something
of a bestseller, and having founded a think tank on the subject — the Global
Warming Policy Foundation — the following year, and despite frequently being
invited on Today to discuss economic issues, this was the first time I had ever
been asked to discuss climate change. I strongly suspect it will also be the
last time.
(Let’s hope the Beeb has got it
out of its system. Personally, I think it might be interesting to invite Benny
Peiser to discuss ‘the global warming debate’, since the result might actually
be informative)
The BBC received a well-organised deluge of complaints —
some of them, inevitably, from those with a vested interest in renewable energy
— accusing me, among other things, of being a geriatric retired politician and
not a climate scientist, and so wholly unqualified to discuss the issue.
Another amusing reversal – and also
extremely unlikely. Who does L. believe ‘orchestrated’ the deluge of
complaints? Perhaps it was one of those Renewable Energy companies which
despoil the planet for profit… as for that final point, it seems less of an
accusing than a simple (if impolite) statement. This isn’t accusing, this is
simply blunt speech.
Perhaps, in passing, I should address the frequent
accusation from those who violently object to any challenge to any aspect of
the prevailing climate change doctrine, that the Global Warming Policy
Foundation’s non-disclosure of the names of our donors is proof that we are a
thoroughly sinister organisation and a front for the fossil fuel industry.
Well, yes, there are people who
say this, but they aren’t necessarily ‘those
who violently object to any challenge to any aspect of the prevailing climate
change doctrine’. And who are these people anyway? Do they actually exist?
It seems as if L. is creating a dragon to slay, by constructing a frightening
and irrational antagonist. Note also the insertion of the term ‘doctrine’, just
to emphasise the primary claim of irrationality which is the supposed basis of
the article.
As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the
Foundation’s Board of Trustees decided, from the outset, that it would neither
solicit nor accept any money from the energy industry or from anyone with a
significant interest in the energy industry. And to those who are
not-regrettably-prepared to accept my word, I would point out that among our
trustees are a bishop of the Church of England, a former private secretary to the
Queen, and a former head of the Civil Service. Anyone who imagines that we are
all engaged in a conspiracy to lie is clearly in an advanced stage of paranoia.
Perhaps such a person is less
paranoid than cynical. And this particular idea ‘conspiracy to lie’, appears to
be a strawman. Perhaps L. should be grateful to those who, rather than presume
he is, on this subject, being dishonest, are more inclined to believe him an
idiot or fool, on the basis that what is, to them, self evident, is, to him,
false, and vice versa. Given the choice between believing the global warming
opinions of an atmospheric physicist or those of a bishop, one might be
forgiven for imagining that the former is more rational.
The reason why we do not reveal the names of our donors, who
are private citizens of a philanthropic disposition, is in fact pretty obvious.
Were we to do so, they, too, would be likely to be subject to the vilification
and abuse I mentioned earlier. And that is something which, understandably,
they can do without.
This is not the place to raise
the issue of personal privacy rights, and the comparative protections which
exist for the ‘privileged’ and the ‘common person’. Suffice to say that ganders
and geese really should share their sauce.
That said, I must admit I am strongly tempted to agree that,
since I am not a climate scientist, I should from now on remain silent on the
subject — on the clear understanding, of course, that everyone else plays by
the same rules. No more statements by Ed Davey, or indeed any other politician,
including Ed Milliband, Lord Deben and Al Gore. Nothing more from the Prince of
Wales, or from Lord Stern. What bliss!
But of course this is not going to happen. Nor should it;
for at bottom this is not a scientific issue. That is to say, the issue is not
climate change but climate change alarmism, and the hugely damaging policies
that are advocated, and in some cases put in place, in its name. And alarmism
is a feature not of the physical world, which is what climate scientists study,
but of human behaviour; the province, in other words, of economists,
historians, sociologists, psychologists and — dare I say it — politicians.
In the same way that a ‘dissenter’
might object to the implications of using the term ‘denier’, a scientist who
sees which way the cookie is crumbling and provides observations of said
cookie, might object to the implication that such observations are ‘alarmist’, ie,
irrational. But of course, this is not ablout the science, because the science
contradicts L. consistently and irrevocably.
And en passant, the problem for dissenting politicians, and
indeed for dissenting climate scientists for that matter, who certainly exist,
is that dissent can be career-threatening. The advantage of being geriatric is
that my career is behind me: there is nothing left to threaten.
Indeed, one who embraces the
motley is likely to be imagined a jester.
But to return: the climate changes all the time, in
different and unpredictable (certainly unpredicted) ways, and indeed often in
different ways in different parts of the world. It always has done and no doubt
it always will. The issue is whether that is a cause for alarm — and not just
moderate alarm. According to the alarmists it is the greatest threat facing
humankind today: far worse than any of the manifold evils we see around the
globe which stem from what Pope called “man’s inhumanity to man”.
So let’s summarise the GWPF’s
world view then: global warming is just natural (ho, hum). Is it a cause for
alarm? On appropriate timescales, the inevitable collapse of the WAIS might be
considered to be a bit worrying, for example, but really, the number and depth
of the changes wrought by GW, and the uncertainties over the speed and severity
of systemic step-changes (tipping points), are simply far too numerous to list.
You’ll note the clever insertion of the word ‘today’. On its own, this one word
reveals the basis of the GWPF’s arguments, and the fundamental misunderstanding
of why global warming is a problem. It isn’t about today, never was. It’s about tomorrow, on which subject, the
GWPF is often relatively quiet.
Climate change alarmism is a belief system, and needs to be
evaluated as such.
Some types of extreme alarmism
seem to function in this way, but the kind of concerns reiterated over the past
20 years (50 years?) and more about where our actions and choices are leading
us are derived from scientific observation and practice and provide an evidence
base so large that ignoring it does, in the end, look like wilful ignorance
after all.
The Old Man’s final thoughts on
this, for now?
Global Warming dissent, being
less based on science, and more on personal prejudice, has many more characteristics
of a belief system than its converse, but this misses the point, as the GWPF
does. Forget your dislike of wind farms, Mr Lawson, and your faith in the
generation of wealth to bypass any ‘problems’ which might arise. Instead, ask
yourself how genuinely rational you are being.
