What do you think?
Rate this book
An Appeal to Reason
In this well-informed and hard-hitting response to the scaremongering of the climate alarmists, Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Energy, argues that it is time for us to take a cool look at global warming. Lawson carefully and succinctly examines all aspects of the global warming issue: the science, the economics, the politics, and the ethics. He concludes that, contrary to the deeply-flawed Stern Review, the conventional wisdom on the subject is suspect on a number of grounds; that global warming is not the devastating threat to the planet it is widely alleged ot be; and that the remedy that is currently being proposed, which is in any event politically unattainable, would be worse that the threat it is supposed to avert.All this is argued with logic, commmon sense, and even wit, and thoroughly sourced and referenced. The book concludes by outlining the form a rational response to global warming should take, and explains why the mistaken conventional wisdom has become the quasi-religion it is today, and the dangers that this presents. Lord Lawson has written a long overdue and much needed corrective to the barrage of spin and hype to which the politicians and media have been subjecting the public on this important issue, which affects us all.
144 pages, Hardcover
First published April 10, 2008
8 people are currently reading
132 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
August 1, 2017
I had to stop reading this. It's not Lawson's climate denial that got to me - although that was grating, I appreciate that science shouldn't be a religion and that the whole scientific method is based on testing, retesting, retesting, etc. Some data 10 years ago shows an uncertainty? Great, question it and test again. Some of the predictions Lawson shouts as bogus have actually come true, so I'd love to see his excuses for it now.
No, it wasn't his total disregard for 98% of scientists who think climate change is real; it was his absolute smug attitude and how he touts it as some sort of expert knowledge. He shrugged off the potential plight that climate change can bring to the global south (though he does address it in the conclusion, I'll get to this), and I had to give up when he mentions the 2003 heat wave in Europe. In one paragraph, he mentions that the death toll was near 20,000. He then blames the French for going on holiday and leaving elderly relatives on their own, and THEN he says he was in southern France in August 2003 and it wasn't that bad. Fuck off, Nigel Lawson. How can anyone take him seriously?
And really what got to me was the fact that, really, he has no opinion about climate change, but more of an opinion on government reactions. First there's no such thing as global warming because it actually cooled; then okay, maybe there is global warming, but only mild so NBD; but okay, even if it IS warming, mitigation isn't the answer, it's adaptation, and it won't be so bad, not really...if you're European. More benefits than costs, so it's FINE if islanders' water supplies are contaminated by rising seawater or there's erratic, intense droughts in east Africa. Make up your mind, champ. The fact is, he's totally fine with adaptation because he figures humans have been adapting since we started out as sapiens. But even as he's making some commentary on adapting, he makes a totally insensitive remark about Tuvalu islanders who were moving from the island to avoid rising waters - they're 'economic migrants' don't you know? And therefore their reasons for moving are less valid. But what was that about adapting? Right, because humans didn't for millennia migrate to adapt. SOME adaptation is fine, as long as it doesn't make us look at our own policies and laws.
After the European heat wave comment, I moved on to the conclusion. Only then did I have some semblance of agreement with Lawson. He did believe that if climate change will affect the world's poorest (it will), then there should be a robust aid budget to help those people, since you know, it wasn't their fault. Naturally he slips in what exactly he thinks 'good aid' looks like, but he's a Thatcherite capitalist and it's just amazing that we would agree on something, so I won't dissect that further. I do remember there may have been one other point I appreciated, but frankly the whole thing was such rubbish I've forgotten the point two days after I threw the book across the room in frustration.
To all climate campaigners: worth a read if you want to know your enemies, but drink with whisky in hand to settle your unnerving and maybe mask the acrid taste it leaves in your mouth.
No, it wasn't his total disregard for 98% of scientists who think climate change is real; it was his absolute smug attitude and how he touts it as some sort of expert knowledge. He shrugged off the potential plight that climate change can bring to the global south (though he does address it in the conclusion, I'll get to this), and I had to give up when he mentions the 2003 heat wave in Europe. In one paragraph, he mentions that the death toll was near 20,000. He then blames the French for going on holiday and leaving elderly relatives on their own, and THEN he says he was in southern France in August 2003 and it wasn't that bad. Fuck off, Nigel Lawson. How can anyone take him seriously?
And really what got to me was the fact that, really, he has no opinion about climate change, but more of an opinion on government reactions. First there's no such thing as global warming because it actually cooled; then okay, maybe there is global warming, but only mild so NBD; but okay, even if it IS warming, mitigation isn't the answer, it's adaptation, and it won't be so bad, not really...if you're European. More benefits than costs, so it's FINE if islanders' water supplies are contaminated by rising seawater or there's erratic, intense droughts in east Africa. Make up your mind, champ. The fact is, he's totally fine with adaptation because he figures humans have been adapting since we started out as sapiens. But even as he's making some commentary on adapting, he makes a totally insensitive remark about Tuvalu islanders who were moving from the island to avoid rising waters - they're 'economic migrants' don't you know? And therefore their reasons for moving are less valid. But what was that about adapting? Right, because humans didn't for millennia migrate to adapt. SOME adaptation is fine, as long as it doesn't make us look at our own policies and laws.
After the European heat wave comment, I moved on to the conclusion. Only then did I have some semblance of agreement with Lawson. He did believe that if climate change will affect the world's poorest (it will), then there should be a robust aid budget to help those people, since you know, it wasn't their fault. Naturally he slips in what exactly he thinks 'good aid' looks like, but he's a Thatcherite capitalist and it's just amazing that we would agree on something, so I won't dissect that further. I do remember there may have been one other point I appreciated, but frankly the whole thing was such rubbish I've forgotten the point two days after I threw the book across the room in frustration.
To all climate campaigners: worth a read if you want to know your enemies, but drink with whisky in hand to settle your unnerving and maybe mask the acrid taste it leaves in your mouth.
November 12, 2011
I had mixed feelings about this book. It is good to get an understanding of the kind of arguments proposed by the more skeptical side of the political establishment and, for that reason alone, it makes an interesting read. Some of the points Lawson makes are good - about adaptation being a better option in some respects than mitigation, or also the political confusion and duplicity in this area - eg, setting carbon reduction limits whilst simultaneously giving subsidies to coal. Or equally, how stupid it is for a country to claim having reduced their carbon emissions by outsourcing all their heavy industry to China. Given that this is a global problem this clearly achieves nothing other than the illusion of action.
But I also feel that he is inconsistent in many areas. He speaks near the beginning of the book about an average temperature rise being meaningless as it says nothing about local variation which may be much higher, like at the poles - then goes on to argue the triviality of an average long term rise later in the book. Also, he criticizes the notion of any kind of certainty when taking a 100 year view ahead, but then also seems rather too relaxed about the fact that "even by 2030, coal, gas and oil will be satisfying more than 80% of the world's energy demands". 2030 really doesn't sound too far away in the future to me (!) and he neglects to mention what will happen beyond that point. Even if global warming is not as serious as some might think, there are other reasons why moving away from fossil fuels are a necessity - i.e, peak oil, energy security. It seems to me to be a basically undeniably sensible thing to be developing clean energy for these reasons, perhaps more pressingly even than climate change. Read David Strahan's Last Oil Shock for more on this.
There's one last point that really struck me reading this book and I'm not sure whether I should thank Lawson for his frankness or feel slightly nauseous. When talking about how to maximize tax revenue he says:
"I and my predecessors and successors as Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country (and many of our counterparts elsewhere in Europe) have used high sounding health arguments to justify raising substantial revenues from tobacco taxation, always taking care not to pitch the duty so high that too many people gave up smoking, causing the tax yield actually to diminish. In the same way, if people like to feel that they are saving the planet by paying a carbon tax, they should not be deprived of the opportunity to do so."
Maybe I'm naive but I would prefer a middle ground between the hard facts of political reality and a more idealistic ethical principle. Lawson is clearly not devoid of ethics in many of his arguments, but I still find the above disturbing. It also raises the question as to whether the UK government is not seriously seeking alternatives to fossil fuel as long as there are healthy tax revenues from motorists?
But I also feel that he is inconsistent in many areas. He speaks near the beginning of the book about an average temperature rise being meaningless as it says nothing about local variation which may be much higher, like at the poles - then goes on to argue the triviality of an average long term rise later in the book. Also, he criticizes the notion of any kind of certainty when taking a 100 year view ahead, but then also seems rather too relaxed about the fact that "even by 2030, coal, gas and oil will be satisfying more than 80% of the world's energy demands". 2030 really doesn't sound too far away in the future to me (!) and he neglects to mention what will happen beyond that point. Even if global warming is not as serious as some might think, there are other reasons why moving away from fossil fuels are a necessity - i.e, peak oil, energy security. It seems to me to be a basically undeniably sensible thing to be developing clean energy for these reasons, perhaps more pressingly even than climate change. Read David Strahan's Last Oil Shock for more on this.
There's one last point that really struck me reading this book and I'm not sure whether I should thank Lawson for his frankness or feel slightly nauseous. When talking about how to maximize tax revenue he says:
"I and my predecessors and successors as Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country (and many of our counterparts elsewhere in Europe) have used high sounding health arguments to justify raising substantial revenues from tobacco taxation, always taking care not to pitch the duty so high that too many people gave up smoking, causing the tax yield actually to diminish. In the same way, if people like to feel that they are saving the planet by paying a carbon tax, they should not be deprived of the opportunity to do so."
Maybe I'm naive but I would prefer a middle ground between the hard facts of political reality and a more idealistic ethical principle. Lawson is clearly not devoid of ethics in many of his arguments, but I still find the above disturbing. It also raises the question as to whether the UK government is not seriously seeking alternatives to fossil fuel as long as there are healthy tax revenues from motorists?
July 27, 2011
Concise and well-written book investigating the economics behind climate change and the current approaches governments have deemed necessary to mitigate the problem. He concerns himself with the uncertainties of long-term forecasting, and the lack of real cost-effectiveness analysis on recommended policies.
Lawson generally agrees with the warming trend, but goes on to discuss the actual IPCC findings and breaks down common arguments for the future using knowledge, back-of-the-envelope calculations, and common sense. Valid end notes and references are provided for each chapter.
Lawson generally agrees with the warming trend, but goes on to discuss the actual IPCC findings and breaks down common arguments for the future using knowledge, back-of-the-envelope calculations, and common sense. Valid end notes and references are provided for each chapter.
January 30, 2010
Mr. Lawson takes an interesting approach to the global warming debate. He begins where most skeptics end, with the science. In addition the the usual assortment of scientific sources generally labels as skeptics, Lawson uses the science at the heart of the global warming camp, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as the basis for his arguments.
It is starting with the second chapter that Lawson takes on his most unique approach. In essence he says at this point, since the global warming community only gives credence to the reports of the IPCC, the rest of the book will be based on the premise that the IPCC is absolutely correct.
He then points out, very carefully and point by point with references to IPCC reports and data from climatologists:
-how the extreme, near-apocalyptic, alarmist predictions by the likes of Al Gore have no basis in climatologist data or the IPCC reports,
-why the current political approaches to CO2 reduction have consistently failed and will continue to fail in the face of the needs of the developing world,
-why regional (mostly European) approaches to CO2 reduction are both impractical on a local economic scale and detrimental on a global, environmental scale,
-and how it is more sensible in practical, ethical, and economic terms to adapt to the moderate rise in global temperatures predicted by the IPCC [the most extreme projection of the IPCC is that, on average, in 100 years the Earth will be about 4 degrees centigrade (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer:] rather than attempt to prevent it.
It is also worth noting that this book was published before the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit scandal (Climategate), or the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Himalyan glaciers scandal (Glaciergate).
It is starting with the second chapter that Lawson takes on his most unique approach. In essence he says at this point, since the global warming community only gives credence to the reports of the IPCC, the rest of the book will be based on the premise that the IPCC is absolutely correct.
He then points out, very carefully and point by point with references to IPCC reports and data from climatologists:
-how the extreme, near-apocalyptic, alarmist predictions by the likes of Al Gore have no basis in climatologist data or the IPCC reports,
-why the current political approaches to CO2 reduction have consistently failed and will continue to fail in the face of the needs of the developing world,
-why regional (mostly European) approaches to CO2 reduction are both impractical on a local economic scale and detrimental on a global, environmental scale,
-and how it is more sensible in practical, ethical, and economic terms to adapt to the moderate rise in global temperatures predicted by the IPCC [the most extreme projection of the IPCC is that, on average, in 100 years the Earth will be about 4 degrees centigrade (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer:] rather than attempt to prevent it.
It is also worth noting that this book was published before the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit scandal (Climategate), or the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Himalyan glaciers scandal (Glaciergate).
August 1, 2012
What a horrible piece of political propaganda (and against Europe too!!!) This book is based on wrongly interpreted facts, displaced scientific therms, confused arguments. For instance it mentions first that there is no global warming, second that it exists but we are able to adapt and finally that it will be beneficial for Europe (because less people will die of hypothermia!). It also says that a global agreement on CO2 emissions is impossible, so we should just give up on that. It insults scientists and states that they should not interfere in regulation issues (sure, let's not listen to specialists on this matter!), says that water management issues are not relevant and finally also talks of this "age of terrorism" (propaganda, propaganda, propaganda!)... This book seriously made me sick.
July 6, 2008
An excelent book. It peels away the layers of global warming data and provides reasoned and sensible comments on it all. At last there is another side to the alarmist stuff from Mr Gore et al. I would love to hear their reasoned reponse to this book (and hope it doesnt just resort to the heritic attitude to all non climate change stories)
A must read for the world in these times!
A must read for the world in these times!
October 8, 2009
Clear, concise, calm and realistic. Shows that enviromentalism is the new religion.
February 27, 2010
I didn't really learn anything concrete as I am a bit of a science geek at the moment. I did get a fresh look at the subject though and it was interesting to see it differently.
January 21, 2023
This I found an interesting, yet flawed, read. For all that the author succeeded in his aim in challenging my preconceptions about climate change and how the problem should be dealt with, it was more that the book left me with an awareness that 'the debate is more complicated than I thought it was', as opposed to necessarily convincing me of Nigel Lawson's arguments and views on what should and should not be done about it.
The main reason for this was that the author's reasoning was frequently lacking. This is somewhat ironic, considering the title, but if Lawson aims to encourage critical appraisal of anyone's views on climate change then maybe he succeeded. Much of the book jumped in a not fully connected way from the claims of one side of the argument, to a fact or counterargument that seemed to refute these claims. It was however jumbled and full of fallacies that didn't bring me around to the author's view - essentially it was a list of cherry-picked examples which appeared to contradict cherry-picked examples on the other side, and as such only served to say "it's a little more complicated than that" as opposed to "limiting CO2 / predictions on global warming and the consequences of it / the assumption that climate change is due to anthropogenic causes / any effort by the individual to be 'green' .. is factually wrong".
A point was made relatively early on in the book about how climate policy is dictated not just by science but by economics and politics. This is never going to be globally agreed so it felt a little moot to argue for so long (even though this was a fairly short book). I'm hence going to remain pragmatic and try and be individually responsible, use my own critical and scientific reasoning.
The main reason for this was that the author's reasoning was frequently lacking. This is somewhat ironic, considering the title, but if Lawson aims to encourage critical appraisal of anyone's views on climate change then maybe he succeeded. Much of the book jumped in a not fully connected way from the claims of one side of the argument, to a fact or counterargument that seemed to refute these claims. It was however jumbled and full of fallacies that didn't bring me around to the author's view - essentially it was a list of cherry-picked examples which appeared to contradict cherry-picked examples on the other side, and as such only served to say "it's a little more complicated than that" as opposed to "limiting CO2 / predictions on global warming and the consequences of it / the assumption that climate change is due to anthropogenic causes / any effort by the individual to be 'green' .. is factually wrong".
A point was made relatively early on in the book about how climate policy is dictated not just by science but by economics and politics. This is never going to be globally agreed so it felt a little moot to argue for so long (even though this was a fairly short book). I'm hence going to remain pragmatic and try and be individually responsible, use my own critical and scientific reasoning.
May 25, 2025
Regardless of one’s views about global warming/climate change, it is hard not to agree that a dogma has been established (which is being supported and actively promoted by the mainstream media) to the effect that urgent and drastic action is needed with regard to carbon emissions in order to avoid catastrophic consequences for the planet. This position has become akin to a religion, in the sense that it is believed fanatically and any questioning of it (even by scientists and politicians) is forbidden and considered heresy. As a result, many intelligent people are accepting this position on face value without attempting to look deeper into the issue and form their own views about what has actually happened with the climate to date, what can be expected to happen in the future, and what steps should be taken as a policy matter. Refreshingly, in this book Lawson provides a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the issue. Even though he makes a strong case that the scientific position remains far from settled, he acknowledges that he is not a scientist and he “errs on the side of caution” by starting with an assumption that that the forecasts on global warming made by the “consensus” are true. He then undertakes an analysis of what such forecasts mean and what should be done in response to them. In addition to being essential for getting a real understanding of the climate change issue, this book could serve as a model for how to throughly analyse a policy issue, in a measured way, taking into account economics, politics and ethics.
November 7, 2025
This book is a masterwork of half-truths, cherry-picking, misdirection, outright lies, and in fact every logical fallacy known to man. Its only value lies in the study of the art of lying, and as a window into the minds of those who propagate destructive dishonesty to the public.
Did Lawson know that his book was a pack of lies, or did he genuinely believe all the deceptions he shares here? For example, he presents falling sea levels in specific places as evidence against sea level rise, either deliberately ignoring or culpably ignorant of the fact that places like the California coast are rising due to tectonic processes faster than sea levels are rising due to climate change. The whole book is like this: every argument in there can be deconstructed using a spot of critical thinking.
Lawson certain was an intelligent man when he was younger. When he wrote this book, was he deliberately spreading lies in the misguided belief that concealing the truth about climate change was somehow good for humanity? Or was he doing it for self-interest? Or had he become so gullible that he was totally taken in by the clever arguments of other climate deniers? We may never know, but these are the only interesting questions asked by this book. Otherwise, it is better used as toilet paper.
Did Lawson know that his book was a pack of lies, or did he genuinely believe all the deceptions he shares here? For example, he presents falling sea levels in specific places as evidence against sea level rise, either deliberately ignoring or culpably ignorant of the fact that places like the California coast are rising due to tectonic processes faster than sea levels are rising due to climate change. The whole book is like this: every argument in there can be deconstructed using a spot of critical thinking.
Lawson certain was an intelligent man when he was younger. When he wrote this book, was he deliberately spreading lies in the misguided belief that concealing the truth about climate change was somehow good for humanity? Or was he doing it for self-interest? Or had he become so gullible that he was totally taken in by the clever arguments of other climate deniers? We may never know, but these are the only interesting questions asked by this book. Otherwise, it is better used as toilet paper.
Read
March 2, 2024moving to read but unfinished, not my cup of tea at all and haven't revisited for years
June 5, 2025
Dnf cause what is bro on about 😹
December 24, 2010
I should perhaps confess that I didn’t approach this book with complete disinterest; my mind is not a tabula rasa with regard to the issue of global warming. I was inclined to view favourably a book that questioned the prevailing opinion on climate change. The idea that we can predict the climate 100 years hence with any degree of certainty has always seemed to me somewhat absurd, particularly when we struggle to forecast accurately the weather 2 days ahead. As well as reaffirming my own sceptical opinion, Lawson's clear and concise exposition of the sceptical view of global warming will hopefully give the theory’s more ardent proponents some pause for thought.
In calm, measured tones, Lawson makes his case: that the science is not certain, despite claims to the contrary by man-made global warming proselytisers; that the threat to human life is in any case exaggerated, even if the predictions of global warming prove to be accurate; that it is politically and economically unrealistic to take the severe measures advocated by many proponents of global warming theory; and that we would be better off trying to adapt (as humans always have done) to a changing climate rather than trying to radically alter our way of life.
Events have been kind to Lawson since this book was published in 2008: two very cold winters in Britain; the email 'Climategate' controversy; and the wild exaggeration about the rapidity with which the Himalayan glaciers might melt. All of these have served to undermine or cast doubt on (whether justified or not) the global warming agenda.
It is possible that we have already passed the peak of hysteria about global warming, at least in this country. Much of the concern expressed by people over the last few years has been shown to be quite shallow; the financial crisis has focused minds on problems of a more immediate nature.
I suspect also that the current very cold winter has (unreasonably, it should be said) dampened enthusiasm for global warming theory. We were told in Britain to expect mild, wet winters. In the last couple of years, Britain has instead suffered two of the most severe winters in a generation, with December 2010 the coldest since records began in 1910. Two successive cold winters in the UK don't disprove global warming, of course, but the explanation offered - that the current cold spell of weather might be caused by low solar activity - suggests that forces much larger than human agency affect the global climate. The explanation is also illustrative of how global warming theorists use weather events to fit their theory: anything which appears to corroborate the global warming hypothesis, such as a hot summer or a tropical storm, is presented as evidence for the theory. Weather that conflicts with the theory is attributed to some other cause.
Lawson might be wrong; the prevailing opinion might be right. Either way, this is an important contribution to the debate, and it deserves to be widely read.
In calm, measured tones, Lawson makes his case: that the science is not certain, despite claims to the contrary by man-made global warming proselytisers; that the threat to human life is in any case exaggerated, even if the predictions of global warming prove to be accurate; that it is politically and economically unrealistic to take the severe measures advocated by many proponents of global warming theory; and that we would be better off trying to adapt (as humans always have done) to a changing climate rather than trying to radically alter our way of life.
Events have been kind to Lawson since this book was published in 2008: two very cold winters in Britain; the email 'Climategate' controversy; and the wild exaggeration about the rapidity with which the Himalayan glaciers might melt. All of these have served to undermine or cast doubt on (whether justified or not) the global warming agenda.
It is possible that we have already passed the peak of hysteria about global warming, at least in this country. Much of the concern expressed by people over the last few years has been shown to be quite shallow; the financial crisis has focused minds on problems of a more immediate nature.
I suspect also that the current very cold winter has (unreasonably, it should be said) dampened enthusiasm for global warming theory. We were told in Britain to expect mild, wet winters. In the last couple of years, Britain has instead suffered two of the most severe winters in a generation, with December 2010 the coldest since records began in 1910. Two successive cold winters in the UK don't disprove global warming, of course, but the explanation offered - that the current cold spell of weather might be caused by low solar activity - suggests that forces much larger than human agency affect the global climate. The explanation is also illustrative of how global warming theorists use weather events to fit their theory: anything which appears to corroborate the global warming hypothesis, such as a hot summer or a tropical storm, is presented as evidence for the theory. Weather that conflicts with the theory is attributed to some other cause.
Lawson might be wrong; the prevailing opinion might be right. Either way, this is an important contribution to the debate, and it deserves to be widely read.
February 9, 2017
Another book casting doubt on the validity of anthropogenic climate change...surely a retired politician could find something better to do with his spare time! In fact, while looking at the science component of the issues, most of the book treats the consensus position seriously and critically analyses the proposed responses to it.
The environmental response to a warming planet is looked at first, and each of the five areas of concern by the ipcc are argued to be relatively small iin scope when climate effects are compared with the stresses humans are causing (to water resources, ecosystems, food and coasts). The issue of health is argued as potentially positive as a result of warming, whereas economically, it is argued that instead of being 9.5 times better off in 3 generations, we will only be 8.5 times better off, I.e. still a pretty good improvement. The fact that adaption is barely included in the ipcc's estimates of how these areas will change is discussed next: both natural and human systems are capable of change and are already doing so, and there is no reason to think that much of this will enable the world to cope with future changes. In summary, Lawson notes that the prospect of a warming Armageddon is not substantiated by a close scrutiny of the ipcc documents.
The argument then turns to the economic responses proposed by Stern and various government or UN bodies, and this is the strength of the book in my view. Two key arguments stand out. Firstly, the cost of alternative energy sources, especially to the developing world, remains prohibitive. And while subsidies for carbon intensive fuels should be removed, low carbon energy is poor alternative (unless nuclear is to be redeemed) for meeting ongoing needs. Secondly, the trading schemes and Kyoto agreement have been utter failures, negating the possibility of a real carbon reduction solution. Ironically he suggests that a tax, without the artificial subjectivities determined by people somewhere, is the best means to determine what price is needed to obtain the required carbon reduction response from people. As a final note, the ethics of sacrificing for the future are questioned: loving those close to us in time and space is fundamentally moral and to neglect them for those further away immoral.
Since so much has been written on the science debate, despite it's complexity, the views expressed here will not move anyone from the position they have already (I suspect). The arguments posed about how to respond are well worth the read regardless of the science aspect and doing what feels good is not the same as doing something effective. Short, witty and well articulated, the arguments made will not appeal to some, but deserve at the very least, to be heard.
The environmental response to a warming planet is looked at first, and each of the five areas of concern by the ipcc are argued to be relatively small iin scope when climate effects are compared with the stresses humans are causing (to water resources, ecosystems, food and coasts). The issue of health is argued as potentially positive as a result of warming, whereas economically, it is argued that instead of being 9.5 times better off in 3 generations, we will only be 8.5 times better off, I.e. still a pretty good improvement. The fact that adaption is barely included in the ipcc's estimates of how these areas will change is discussed next: both natural and human systems are capable of change and are already doing so, and there is no reason to think that much of this will enable the world to cope with future changes. In summary, Lawson notes that the prospect of a warming Armageddon is not substantiated by a close scrutiny of the ipcc documents.
The argument then turns to the economic responses proposed by Stern and various government or UN bodies, and this is the strength of the book in my view. Two key arguments stand out. Firstly, the cost of alternative energy sources, especially to the developing world, remains prohibitive. And while subsidies for carbon intensive fuels should be removed, low carbon energy is poor alternative (unless nuclear is to be redeemed) for meeting ongoing needs. Secondly, the trading schemes and Kyoto agreement have been utter failures, negating the possibility of a real carbon reduction solution. Ironically he suggests that a tax, without the artificial subjectivities determined by people somewhere, is the best means to determine what price is needed to obtain the required carbon reduction response from people. As a final note, the ethics of sacrificing for the future are questioned: loving those close to us in time and space is fundamentally moral and to neglect them for those further away immoral.
Since so much has been written on the science debate, despite it's complexity, the views expressed here will not move anyone from the position they have already (I suspect). The arguments posed about how to respond are well worth the read regardless of the science aspect and doing what feels good is not the same as doing something effective. Short, witty and well articulated, the arguments made will not appeal to some, but deserve at the very least, to be heard.
April 3, 2009
Nigel Lawson's cool look at Global Warming. Nige was Chancellor in Thatchers government when Black Wednesday arrived, the treasury lost a cool three and a half billion and the Chancellor resigned.
Here Mr Lawson argues that climate science is flawed, along with the reports from the IPCC, and that the green evangelism is the new loony left.
He selectively quotes Prof.James Lovelock. (Who gave a lecture to the Royal Society in Oct 2008, avail.on Yahoo.) Even the Royal Society has a pro agenda. So CO2 has as much impact on global warming as rain clouds, and climate change is a natural happening that man has coped with since Adam was a lad.
Magic, I can sleep easier now. Oh, and if you need to put on a few extra pounds (lbs), there's also The Nigel Lawson Diet Book!
Here Mr Lawson argues that climate science is flawed, along with the reports from the IPCC, and that the green evangelism is the new loony left.
He selectively quotes Prof.James Lovelock. (Who gave a lecture to the Royal Society in Oct 2008, avail.on Yahoo.) Even the Royal Society has a pro agenda. So CO2 has as much impact on global warming as rain clouds, and climate change is a natural happening that man has coped with since Adam was a lad.
Magic, I can sleep easier now. Oh, and if you need to put on a few extra pounds (lbs), there's also The Nigel Lawson Diet Book!
February 17, 2014
It was an informative book on his opinion on why global warming isn't happening. It had a lot facts and inferences. I didn't really like it because it had a lot of big words that didn't really make sense.
February 27, 2017
I heard about this book on Red Eye. recommended by Felix Dennis,(rich guy poet, and publisher. Read it thru on my last flight from San Jose to Dallas.
It is very ballanced book and actually has references to review. Highly recommend.
It is very ballanced book and actually has references to review. Highly recommend.
August 17, 2024
Like another reviewer, I heard about this book on RedEye. back when Gutfeld was host it was funny as well learning something...that was then.
This is a pretty well thought out book and is balanced. I enjoyed it a lot and did learn more about the religion of global warming
This is a pretty well thought out book and is balanced. I enjoyed it a lot and did learn more about the religion of global warming
September 6, 2011
Concentrates on the economic impact of global warming which is where the government's arguments definitely don't stack up (as opposed to the science upon which I'm not really qualified to comment).
November 3, 2014
A bit dry and repetitive, but worth the time. I haven't done much climate change research but this one makes you stop and think.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews