Nigel Lawson's new book.

[bindeweede]

Has anyone read "An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming"
Nigel Lawson?

It has only been published fairly recently. Just ordered my copy.

I haven't tried looking for reviews yet, but will do some searching.

This seems to be a fair review.

http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/heath_04_08.html

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I'm not sure I agree with this part of the review:


If Lawson is eventually proved right, this book will be remembered as a milestone; if, instead, he turns out to have been completely wrong, at least Lawson had the courage of his convictions, an increasingly rare virtue in today's excessively consensual age.


If he is proved right, he has gone against the vast consensus of scientific opinion.

I'd be interested in what you think of the book though.

[bindeweede]

I'm not sure I agree with this part of the review:



If he is proved right, he has gone against the vast consensus of scientific opinion.

I'd be interested in what you think of the book though.

I have also ordered the Ernst/Singh book, which isn't out until the 21st, I believe, so it will be a little while before I can say anything about Lord Lawson's.

[Mulder]

Personally, I'm convinced about the scientific evidence for global warming. However, as I'm sure most people here would agree, we always need skeptics to question any consensus.

We humans have a nasty habit of jumping on band wagons. If a little is good then a lot must be better is the kind of logic produced by such a mob mentality. Without skeptics to constantly query things every step of the way, we might end up taking what later turns out to be the wriong route in tackling global warming and end up triggering a new ice age or even worse global warming!

I'm definitely skeptical about some of the proposed technical fixes. The problem is that with many of them, once they're started you cannot stop them and they could have unexpected side effects (or possibly not even work). Just look at the way biofuels may be causing food shortages that could easily end up triggering famine, global inflation and even new wars! That's definitely not a solution to our current problems.

[Matt]

From that review


Lawson agrees that there has been some global warming over the past hundred years and that increased man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are partly to blame. But he argues that natural causes are more important than commonly agreed and that the science of climate remains in its infancy.


If your're standing in the middle of the road and a car is comng towards you, do you wait until you have calculated it's momentum to several decimal places from multiple inertial frames or do you act as soon as your best estimate is that it is going to hit you?

Climate science though in it's infancy has made it's best guess. It has acknowledged a margin of error but the time to act is now as it is more than likely correct on these core facts.

Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the warming of the planet.
We're releasing gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere that has been locked away under the earth since the carboniferous - many milloins of years before mankind (or mammals) evolved and adapted to these more temperate climes.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
The globe is starting to warm.

[tolman]

Personally, I'm convinced about the scientific evidence for global warming. However, as I'm sure most people here would agree, we always need skeptics to question any consensus.

We humans have a nasty habit of jumping on band wagons. If a little is good then a lot must be better is the kind of logic produced by such a mob mentality. Without skeptics to constantly query things every step of the way, we might end up taking what later turns out to be the wriong route in tackling global warming and end up triggering a new ice age or even worse global warming!
Still, it's informed and credible skeptics that are useful. If anything, a poor skeptic is worse than nothing, since once they are dismissed, a mob might think all skeptics on the particular issue are as wrong.

I'm definitely skeptical about some of the proposed technical fixes. The problem is that with many of them, once they're started you cannot stop them and they could have unexpected side effects (or possibly not even work). Just look at the way biofuels may be causing food shortages that could easily end up triggering famine, global inflation and even new wars! That's definitely not a solution to our current problems.
Briefly donning a devil's advocate's horns, from a deeply cynical point of view, maybe it is a partial solution: less humans = less warming.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I'm with Matt on this one - things need to change regardless of whether everything that is being reported or said is 100% accurate or not.

Incidentally, I heard this on the radio this afternoon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/18/climatechange.carbonemissions


Sir Nicholas Stern has warned that the gloomy predictions of his high-profile review of the future effects of global warming underestimated the risks, and that climate change poses a bigger threat than he realised.
.....

Another observation - my gut feel is that there are many parallels between anti-climate change campaigners and other conspiracy movements. Some of it may be people being contrarian for the sake of it, encouraged by rags like the Daily Mail.

[Mongrel]

Another observation - my gut feel is that there are many parallels between anti-climate change campaigners and other conspiracy movements. Some of it may be people being contrarian for the sake of it, encouraged by rags like the Daily Mail.

Personally I'd have said that they're into full blown denialism (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/)at this point.

[Cuddles]

Another observation - my gut feel is that there are many parallels between anti-climate change campaigners and other conspiracy movements.

When it comes down to it, many of them are the same people. The problem with believing that a secret group of incredibly powerful people run everything is that it is extremely easy to connect absolutely everything to the conspiracy, which means that most conspiracists end up believing in almost all of the conspiracies they hear about. However, I think global warming denialism is more widespread than most other conspiracies.

The main problem that global warming has compared to other conspiracies is that it requires people to actually do something. Since most people don't want to accept responsibility for anything and don't want to change, the denialist view tends to be quite popular. If the world really is run by giant lizards, it doesn't actually make any difference and there's nothing we can do about it anyway, so very few people feel the need to worry about it. If global warming really is happening, regardless of whether it's our fault, we actually need to act, and so people refuse to believe because that would mean doing something. If it actually is partly our fault, that's even worse because not only would we need to do something, but we'd have to accept the blame as well.

[SKIRRID5]

When I saw this, my first thought was " What exactly are Lawson's credentials for writing a book about climate change". What next - a book on cosmology by a retired Home Secretary, or "How to Save the Whale" by Jack Straw?

[bindeweede]

Both books have just arrived .

The Lawson book in quite slim - 106 pages, + 23 pages of notes and a comprehensive bibliography. For what it's worth, this comes from the back cover -

"This brief and elegant book treats the science of global warming seriously, but convincingly shows that whatever view one has of the science, almost all proposed approaches to the putative problem are intellectually deficient, economically absurd and harmful, and morally misdirected at best. Lawson's "An Appeal to Reason" is an appeal that must be heeded if one is to truly avoid great harm to man and the planet"

(Richard S Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, MIT.)

[Matt]

Richard S Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, MIT.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen

[brodski]

"This brief and elegant book treats the science of global warming seriously, but convincingly shows that whatever view one has of the science, almost all proposed approaches to the putative problem are intellectually deficient, economically absurd and harmful, and morally misdirected at best. Lawson's "An Appeal to Reason" is an appeal that must be heeded if one is to truly avoid great harm to man and the planet"

(Richard S Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, MIT.)

So a climatologist endorses the book, not because of its science, but on the basis of his opinions on economics, morality and the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with him.

That wouldn’t be an appeal to authority at all, would it. ;)

[El Capitano]

Hi All,
My theory of 'Global Warming' is that the politicians have realised that
the demand for oil and other fossil fuels is likely to become much greater
as the second and third world industrialises.
(We can see this already with China & India).
As a result the price goes up (as is happening) causing economic
and political crises.

To alleviate this they needed a way to get us to use less.
Saving the planet gives us a warm smug feeling as we shiver with the thermostat on minimum whilst being heavily taxed.

The truth of climate change wont be known for many years.
In the meantime we'll get fed a steady stream of dire predictions from dodgy computer models and any slightly unusual local weather will be attributed to it.

[Matt]

Hi All,
My theory of 'Global Warming' is that the politicians have realised that
the demand for oil and other fossil fuels is likely to become much greater
as the second and third world industrialises.
(We can see this already with China & India).
As a result the price goes up (as is happening) causing economic
and political crises.

To alleviate this they needed a way to get us to use less.
Saving the planet gives us a warm smug feeling as we shiver with the thermostat on minimum whilst being heavily taxed.

The truth of climate change wont be known for many years.
In the meantime we'll get fed a steady stream of dire predictions from dodgy computer models and any slightly unusual local weather will be attributed to it.

Nice theory, it fits some but not all of the known facts. I have a similar theory. Invisible pixies are putting holes in my socks. Like your theory it fits some but not all of the known facts.

It doesn't take a computer model to determine absolutely that CO2 is a greehouse gas, nor that without the very real greenhouse effect (from CO2, water vapour and other gasses) the average global temperature would be cooler by about 30 degrees celcius. You can do it with pen and paper using empirical data from experiments reproducible in any high school lab.

It doesn't take a computer model to determine what would happen to sea levels if large chunks of ice caps melted. Again you can do it with pen and paper using empirical data from experiments reproducible in any high school lab.

It doesn't take a computer model to determine which huge population centres would be affected by such sea level rises. This time all it takes is an atlas.

You can check these things for yourself or simply rely on the knowldge that if there is a conspiracy telling you lies it includes millions of proffessional and amateur scientists, science teachers and science students who have confirmed these details.

If you don't want to or can't check these facts for yourself then simply ask any scientist whether science is ruled by an oligarchy enforcing conformity to the party line or whether it is a brutal free for all where any fact presented will be assulted by a hundred eager individuals hungry to make their name by disproving it, finding exceptions or refining it.

The computer models you mention are of course imperfect. They predict how elevated CO2 levels will affect a system influenced by chaos theory. They not only give predictions but they provide error bars. They acknowledge the assumptions made. The models undergo continuous improvement. The assumptions are tested against reality.

The quesiton you must ask yourself is how dodgy you think they are. HOw much improvement you think is required before action is warrented.

They've given their best guess. That's all that's available. They say there's a 90% chance that at least 50% of the currently observed warming trend is down to our emissions. They say that even if we stabilise CO2 levels at their current value the earth will continue to warm for some time and some temperature to come. The uncertainty here is admittedly large but even the best case scenarios presented by reliable climate scientist predict disaster unless action is taken.

I hope those models are right. Because the bad news stays the same whatever is causing the warming. Millions will die. If the warming is being cause by our emissions then there's something we can do about it. If not then all we can do is hope that an unknown cause decides to cease for no discernable reason.

[seren]

My theory of 'Global Warming'

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v718/karuna1978/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

[Cuddles]

You can check these things for yourself or simply rely on the knowldge that if there is a conspiracy telling you lies it includes millions of proffessional and amateur scientists, science teachers and science students who have confirmed these details.

Of course, it's actually worse than that. Not only must there be a massive conspiracy involving pretty much everyone, it must have existed for thousands of years. Working out that ice melting means more water is something that could have been done pretty much any time after it was worked out that the world was round. If global warming is just a conspiracy it must have included pretty much every scientist who has ever lived.

[bindeweede]

I wonder if people would be interested in just a few points Lawson raises in the first chapter. I for one found them interesting.

The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and research noted that annual-mean global temperatures rose 1920-40, were static or showed small cooling 1940-75, and showed a sustained rise 1975 on. There has been no global warming since the start of this century. But CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. Global warming is expected to resume in 2009 or thereabouts.

The most important contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapour. IPCC –“Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.

The “Hockey-stick” chart of global temperatures was produced by Prof. Michael Mann and colleagues. Two Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick were irked when Mann refused to share his data or divulge his methods. The Climate Research Unit at the UEA also refused to disclose data to an Australian researcher. Dr Jones apparently wrote, “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Some of the data was released under the Freedom of Information Act in October 2007.

Recorded warming has been greatest at the poles, and least in the tropics. Some glaciers are retreating; some are not (Mont Blanc). The edges of the Greenland ice sheet are melting, but at the centre it is thickening. There are places where sea levels are rising, others where they are static – or even falling as the land itself is rising.

Lawson suggests understanding of the climate is still in its infancy.

[tolman]

There are places where sea levels are rising, others where they are static – or even falling as the land itself is rising.
It has long been observed that there is uplift or sinking of land in some localities, but that has nothing at all to do with 'sea level rise' in the context of climate change, which is clearly a simplified synonym for 'increase in the volume of the oceans'.
There are a great many places in the world where land is neither rising nor falling to any meaningful degree, so it's fairly easy to measure sea level at those locations and see if the oceans are growing in volume.

When it comes to glaciers, it would seem that higher temperatures clearly explain both the growth of some (higher altitude) glaciers and the decline of lower ones.
Are you suggesting that the growing high-level glacier indicates that Mont Blanc is experiencing colder weather, are you suggesting that variable glacier response to temperature rises means there won't be any overall glacier loss, or are you suggesting something else?

The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and research noted that annual-mean global temperatures rose 1920-40, were static or showed small cooling 1940-75, and showed a sustained rise 1975 on
A great deal depend on where people choose to pick data points. The graph of 5-year average temperatures over the 20th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png)
seems basically to be a fairly consistent slope upwards (overall increase ~1 degree C) with a couple of notable drops. Looking at the 5-year averages, you could make just as good an argument for a sustained rise from 1950 onwards as you could for a rise from 1975 onwards.
Indeed, as a description of what actually happened, it would seem clearer to describe the graph as a decline from 1900 to 1910, an rise from 1910 to 1940, a decline from 1940 to 1950 and an rise from 1950 onwards. Characterising the period 1940-1975 in a way that many people would take to suggest 'nothing much happened' (ie 'static') would seem to be seriously misleading.

It's certainly worth trying to understand what factors might have caused the drops, but the drops don't come close to casting real doubt on the overall trend.

[Cuddles]

The “Hockey-stick” chart of global temperatures was produced by Prof. Michael Mann and colleagues. Two Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick were irked when Mann refused to share his data or divulge his methods. The Climate Research Unit at the UEA also refused to disclose data to an Australian researcher. Dr Jones apparently wrote, “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Some of the data was released under the Freedom of Information Act in October 2007.

The hockey stick is a popular one for deniers to jump on since it was one of the first pieces of evidence that global warming has been faster recently. The usual criticism is that it is just one set of data and that it has not been reproduced. However, this is simply not true. Virtually all datasets show a similar shape, regardless of the source - ice cores, tree rings, soil samples and so on. While the exact details are open to debate, there is no doubt that there is some kind of hockey stick shape there.

Recorded warming has been greatest at the poles, and least in the tropics. Some glaciers are retreating; some are not (Mont Blanc). The edges of the Greenland ice sheet are melting, but at the centre it is thickening. There are places where sea levels are rising, others where they are static – or even falling as the land itself is rising.

Warming greatest in the parts where the ice is? So that would mean things are actually a lot worse than if the temperature just increased evenly. As for glaciers, they aren't actually very important. Although they can act as indicators, the vast majority of ice is in the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, and they are both reducing in size. Tolman has already addressed the sea level thing.

This is one of the big problems with global warming deniers. They love to focus on local conditions and conflate weather with climate. The thing is, local conditions are irrelevant. It makes no difference if some glaciers are growing or some temperature dropping, the global average is what matters, and overall the amount of ice is dropping and the temperature is growing.

Lawson suggests understanding of the climate is still in its infancy.

Certainly. But just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean we can't see what is happening. We may not know exactly how much the climate is changing, why it is changing and how much it might change in the future, but we can certainly see that it is changing, and that that change has the potential to cause a lot of problems. Far better to anticipate problems now before they become problems than to do nothing until it is too late.

[Muttley]

The hockey stick is a popular one for deniers to jump on since it was one of the first pieces of evidence that global warming has been faster recently. The usual criticism is that it is just one set of data and that it has not been reproduced. However, this is simply not true. Virtually all datasets show a similar shape, regardless of the source - ice cores, tree rings, soil samples and so on. While the exact details are open to debate, there is no doubt that there is some kind of hockey stick shape there.

Sorry, but the hockey stick has been widely discredited, and the IPCC has quietly dropped it from its 2007 report, without of course acknowledging any error or inadequacy.

And can I take exception to the use of the term 'denier', as if the evidence is beyond question? I won't say anything about open-mindedness.....

We may not know exactly how much the climate is changing, why it is changing and how much it might change in the future, but we can certainly see that it is changing.....

Can we? Over what time period? Am I the only one to see a certain illogicality in that statement?

.....and that that change has the potential to cause a lot of problems.

Extrapolation. The greatest fallacy in science.

[Matt]

Sorry, but the hockey stick has been widely discredited, and the IPCC has quietly dropped it from its 2007 report, without of course acknowledging any error or inadequacy.

Not true. Some of Mann's Data has been disputed. There is an ongoing disscussion on the best way to reconstruct historical temperatures over the last 1000 years, what proxies to use, how reliable they are and how to treat the local temperatures that such proxies reflect to get average global temperatures. Moreover what the uncertainties in such reconstructions are. Note this disccussion started by Mann, Bradley and Hughes themselves. The title of their original paper was "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"

However discussion of Mann's methods does not apply to everybody just because they get similar results. If I eyeball you froma distance and say that you're approximately six foot tall then people may dispute the inaccuracies of my methods but that doens't mean that other people who use other methods and get a similar result are necessarily wrong.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


As Cuddles said virtually all datasets produce some sort of "Hockey stick" shape.


And can I take exception to the use of the term 'denier', as if the evidence is beyond question? I won't say anything about open-mindedness.....

No evidence is "beyond question" it is the defining characteristic of the scientific method to continually quesiton evidence. It is the characteristic of the denier to exploit trivial uncertainties and extrapolate these uncertainties far beyond their applicable scope.

There is no doubt that denialism exists. Witness the campaign of tobacco denialism in the 70s. Much of the saem tactics and indeed the same players (Heatland institute, AEI etc) can be seen being used by vested interests notably Exxon Mobile to deny the concensus on global warming.

Take for example the notorious list of 500 dissenting scientists issued by veteran denialist think tank the Heartland Institute. It turns out that many of the scientists listed were not asked if they wanted to be on the list. Not only were their name used without their permission but it seems against their express wishes. The non-issue of this sort of argumentum ad popularum is highlighted in the similar campaign mounted by the discover instutute and parodied by project steve.

[Muttley]

Thanks to all for the comments on this thread. Looking back, the OP asked if anyone had read Lawson's book.

Looking through the replies, other than BW and myself, it looks as if the answer is 'no'.

But thanks for your opinions anyway.

:undecided:

[tolman]

It would seem fairly unlikely that Lawson would come up with anything more than a rehashing of previous climate-change-doubter arguments.

If he *had* somehow come up with anything significant and original, it would be even more unlikely that it would fail to be picked up on by other people, so it would seem that an individual choosing not to purchase and read the book would be highly unlikely to end up missing anything significant, and would spare themselves some time and expense.

Likewise, there is effectively little or no point in my buying or reading books by Creationists, since in the event one author did stumble upon some real evidence, there are enough people around to ensure the evidence doesn't vanish, and my reading or not reading the book won't change that, nor speed or delay the acceptance of the evidence my any meaningful degree.
If there wasn't enough evidence to convince a biologist, my becoming convinced would be a mistake.
If there was enough evidence to convince a biologist, then my becoming convinced before the expert would be immaterial, absent some desire on my part to be able to claim prior conviction.

[Cuddles]

Thanks Matt.

It would seem fairly unlikely that Lawson would come up with anything more than a rehashing of previous climate-change-doubter arguments.

If he *had* somehow come up with anything significant and original, it would be even more unlikely that it would fail to be picked up on by other people, so it would seem that an individual choosing not to purchase and read the book would be highly unlikely to end up missing anything significant, and would spare themselves some time and expense.

More to the point, if he really had come up with something interesting, it would be published in scientific journals, not a book for the general public. Unless you want to go down the conspiracy nonsense route and claim opposing views are being suppressed, there is no reason not to follow scientific procedure, unless you don't actually have anything scientific to publish. Anyone writing a populist book before actually showing that they have anything new to say is unlikely to have anything new to say.

[Muttley]

It would seem fairly unlikely that Lawson would come up with anything more than a rehashing of previous climate-change-doubter arguments.

Well, if you'd read the book, you wouldn't have to conjecture.

And why do you assume that Lawson is a doubter?

Whether he is or not, after the first chapter of the book, the remainder of his discussion is based on the 'majority' (IPCC) view of global warming as being correct.

And are scientists, publishing in scientific journals, the only people permitted to pontificate on such topics? When the doom-laden scenario, among other things, is used to predict the consequences for the lives of future generations, then on certain aspects, an economist is probably in a better position to comment than a scientist.

And as an aside, am I the only one here to notice in this thread a strange reversal of the sceptic/believer situation normally encountered on this forum? :ponder:

[bindeweede]

Lawson is consistently critical of the Stern Review – “at the extreme end of the alarmist camp” – and at the flawed economic analysis of the IPCC. He also suggests the IPCC should place more emphasis on adaptation to global warming, which he is not denying – flood-prevention measures, water conservation, etc.

In the final chapter, I like his term “green is the new red”, and he refers to “the quasi-religion of green alarmism”.

It is a concise book, clearly-written and referenced. I found it very interesting and well worth reading.

I’d be happy to pop it in a jiffy-bag if anyone is interested.

[tolman]

There would seem to be little point paying to read a non-scientist partially agreeing with a scientific consensus, unless that can actually illuminate the science in some particular way.

Scientists aren't the only people allowed to pontificate, it's just that people who actually understand the science are generally rather better qualified, and more likley to be paid attention to by people wanting to find out what the scientific opinion is.

A properly self-critical climate skeptic who doubts there is anthropogenic warming, assuming that they had even a minimal scientific literacy, would at least ask themselves whether they accept CO2 is increasing due to human action, and if so, what is their argument to support the position that it won't affect climate.

A climate-change-skeptic who doubts there is warming yet doesn't have a sufficient scientific understanding to explain why they think there isn't any warming doesn't really deserve an audience for their pontifications.

An economist is only in a position to comment if they have enough data to base comments on. It's also pretty obvious that scientists are very rarely in control of what governments do - even when advice is clear, it's often overruled for reasons of politics/money, so economists and politicians will be involved, one way or another.

And as an aside, am I the only one here to notice in this thread a strange reversal of the sceptic/believer situation normally encountered on this forum?

There's a great difference between being a regular skeptic (looking critically at something to see if it seems to make sense, and examining alternative positions, including what one thinks/hopes is the case, with equal skepticism) and what appears to be the position of the great majority of the people arguing against climate change, who appear to have taken a largely emotional/political decision, and then scrabble around for supporting evidence.

When there seem to be multi-threaded arguments such as "Warming isn't happening, but even if it is happening, it isn't down to humans, and even if some of it may be down to humans, we don't know exactly how much, and even if we're confident a significant amount is down to humans, there isn't anything I/my country/my hemisphere can/should do about it", it doesn't make their proponents look good.

A shaky argument is a shaky argument, whoever it comes from, and the hordes of conspiracy nutters who seem to latch onto climate change as some odd scientific/NWO thing to tend to make me switch off.

If there *are* good arguments to suggest the scientific consensus is fundamentally wrong, (rather than minor nitpicking or claims that we don't know everything in perfect detail so we shouldn't do anything), those arguments will survive and grow without my attention.

[bindeweede]

I came across a balanced review of the book here.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/5204/

[brodski]

I came across a balanced review of the book here.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/5204/

A balanced review of the topic of global warming from spiked online?
Good lord, have you seen the size of the axe they have to grind on this issue?

[bindeweede]

A balanced review of the topic of global warming from spiked online?
Good lord, have you seen the size of the axe they have to grind on this issue?

No. But I have not only read the review, I have actually read the book.