- 29,080
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It seems somewhat odd that Nigel Lawson should start out by saying that 'the only answer is that we do not know' (with regard to why and how the observed global temperature increases have happened), without also then emphasising that anthropogenic causes are atleast a candidate that should be considered as a possible factor (and potentially a significant one at that). He goes on to debunk some of the data previously put forth by the IPCC and others without also highlighting the fact that other explanations have also been similarly attacked, debunked, disregarded or simply ignored as well - surely not everyone can be completely wrong?
However, I strongly agree with his contention that the debate should not be allowed to be hijacked by 'eco-fundamentalists', esp. those who seek to equate environmentalism with anti-capitalism, without any respect or knowledge for the scientific debate - but by the same token, the final say on the 'scientific consensus' must come from the scientific community itself, and the economists shouldn't have anything to do with that, IMO. If the scientific community en masse turned around tomorrow and declared anthropogenic global warming to be complete bunk, then maybe I'd be a little less skeptical of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and economist (for the current UK opposition party) challenging what is still the scientific consensus opinion.
He seems to be suggesting here that the warnings from the scientists should always be taken with a pinch of salt (which arguably may be true), but doesn't seem to be leaving any lea-way for the scenario (and very real possibility) that there may come a time in the very near future when the scientific evidence becomes so compelling, that to ignore it would constitute irresponsibility - the argument that neither scientists nor politicians should not pretend to know more than they do cuts both ways - this is a limiting factor on both sides of the debate, and until the true effect of anthropogenic emissions is known (for which much further study is warranted/required) then should we not be keeping an open mind on the matter?First, the relatively new and highly complex science of climatology is an uncertain one, and neither scientists nor politicians serve either the truth or the people by pretending to know more than they do.
This, to me, is an almighty cop-out - of course, we will have to adapt to it, regardless of blame or cause - but if that cause (or atleast some part of it) is found to be attributable to manmade emissions which could have been reduced if a concerted effort had been made, then we would have to hold our hands up and say that this "adaptation" that will be required by many millions of people, could have been minimised if only we had not ignored the possibility that our actions are partially responsible.Second, far and away the most rational response to such climate change as, for any reason, may occur, is to adapt to it.
However, I strongly agree with his contention that the debate should not be allowed to be hijacked by 'eco-fundamentalists', esp. those who seek to equate environmentalism with anti-capitalism, without any respect or knowledge for the scientific debate - but by the same token, the final say on the 'scientific consensus' must come from the scientific community itself, and the economists shouldn't have anything to do with that, IMO. If the scientific community en masse turned around tomorrow and declared anthropogenic global warming to be complete bunk, then maybe I'd be a little less skeptical of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and economist (for the current UK opposition party) challenging what is still the scientific consensus opinion.