Customer Reviews

An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This short book is more "telling" in its review of the global warming/climate change controversy than the many tomes and movies that have preceded it. The author looks at all sides of the issue, including the dissenters who cannot get their work published. He is willing to assume the "what if" scenario that accepts the global warming predictions and then proceeds to analyze just what the reasonable consequences of such warming would be, and how mankind would adapt and handle it. With a little bit of thought and reason, as opposed to political motivation and the panic approach, the author removes much of the doomsday alarmism from the issue. A must read for anyone wanting to explore the entire issue, rather than just the closed minded "consensus" we are all told to accept.

This book is an extremely rational look at global warming that ultimately asks the reader, although not explicitly, to consider why human-kind still has a pronounced, if not suicidal, collectivist, and socialistic instinct when in all of human history only freedom has produced salutatory results. As the world socialistically unites around global warming here is the heart of Nigel Lawson's thoroughly footnoted and brilliant argument. It should encourage you to read the book, and then go on to read more about this incredible issue that so threatens the capacity for reason which we have so painstakingly developed over the centuries.

1) "The 21st century standstill [ 8 years of temperature decline], which has occurred at a time when global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever, is something that the conventional wisdom, and the computer models on which it relies, completely failed to predict." (page 6)

2) "They [The Hadley Centre] now forecast that, after an unpredicted, almost decade-long lull global warming will resume in 2009 or thereabouts". ( page 7)

3) "For the United States, only three of the last twelve years emerge as among the warmest since records began; and the warmest year of all was 1934." (page 9)

4) "two thirds of the Green house effect.... is water vapor....Rather a long way behind is carbon dioxide the second most important greenhouse gas." (Page 10)

5) "....the science of clouds, which is clearly critical (not the least because water vapor [the major component], as we have seen, is far and away the most important contributor to greenhouse gases is one of the least understood aspects of climate science." (page 12)

6) ...the mediaeval warm period, a benign time when temperatures were probably at least as high, if not higher than they are today ....during the Roman period, it was probably even warmer....vineyards existed as far north as Northeastern England." [where they do not exist today] (page 16)

7) "........the Greenland ice sheet appears to be melting, while at its centre, the ice is thickening. ...all to easy for Al Gore to cherry-pick local phenomena which best illustrate their [his] predetermined alarmist global narrative". ( page 19)

8) " .....making a total increase of some 1.3 F [a prediction that is hardly alarming] over the [entire] 20th century as a whole. (page 10).

9) "...is it really plausible that there is an ideal average world temperature, which by some small departures in either direction would spell disaster? The average annual temperature is...41 degrees F in Helsinki... in Singapore.... 81 degrees F. Man can successfully live with that [ a 40 degree F difference]."

10) ".....polar bears, which have been around for millennia, during which there is ample evidence that polar temperatures have varied considerably" (page 30).

11) "Sea levels have, in fact been rising very gradually for as long as records exist, and there is little sign of any acceleration so far. .....may have been less in second half of 20th century than first." (page 31)

12) "to assess the cost of climate change [assuming climate change] in the absence of adaptation is about as sensible as assessing the risk of catching pneumonia in London on the assumption that we all go out and about in the cold and the rain in our bathing costumes. Yet to a considerable extent that is just what the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) does." (page 39)

13) "The Dutch managed [sea level rise] even with the technology of the 16th century."( page 42)

14) Seven out of 10 [of the worst hurricanes] occurred before 1975." (Page 50)

15) "...the overwhelming land-borne mass of polar ice [that could effect sea levels] ..is over Antarctica, not Greenland in the North....where the ice sheet is growing" (page 51).

16) "the Gulf Stream [ the ocean conveyer of warm water that Al Gore says may freeze England if interrupted by warming]...is largely a surface current, and thus a wind driven phenomena..[not related to warming]." (page 52)

17) "China's....annual increase [in emission will] .... far exceed the UK's total annual emissions." [China will] increase its power-generating capacity each year by roughly the equivalent of Britain's total capacity." (page 55)

18) "On the one hand you [the world] increase the production in China, and on the other you criticize China on the emission reduction issue, so it is unfair."......"targets should be in terms not of greenhouse gas production but in terms of gas consumption." (page 56)

19) "It was calculated at the time that if every signatory ratified Kyoto and subsequently met its emission target, [none of the signatories actually did meet their targets] the world's temperature by 2100 would be 0.1C/0.2F less than would otherwise be the case - a trivial amount". ( Page 59)

20) "According to the Hadley Center, only by a reduction of about 70% [nearly impossible] in [global] carbon dioxide emissions would we be able to stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere," ( page 65)

21) "...indeed in 2007 China suspended its production of ethanol for this reason..[ higher food costs, consumes more energy than produces, uses land and rain forests]. ( page 68)

22) "....cap and trade is arbitrary and distortionary covering some admissions and not others....anti competitive, since permits are issued to existing emitters, and not new entrants...scores badly on transparency.. lends itself to lobbying, corruption and abuse." ( page 74)

23) "...India and China have made billions by building factories whose primary purpose is to produce greenhouse gases, so that carbon traders in the rich world will pay to clean them up." ( page 76).

24 ".. [A largely gov't and bureaucracy free carbon tax such as an increase in the gasoline tax, not cap and trade] ..is the only practical means of discovering how expensive carbon needs to be in order to stimulate the changed behavior necessary to stabilize emissions...if that is the objective."

25) ..." saviors of the planet [climate warriors] are, in practice, the enemies of poverty reduction in the developing world. [due to the tremendous costs] (Page 106)

26) "With the collapse of Marxism, those who dislike capitalism..and the United States... have been obliged to find a new creed. For many of them, green is the new red." ( page 101)

27) "In primitive societies it was customary for extreme weather events to be explained as punishment from the gods for the sins of the people," ( page 102)

26) "Capitalist rationality does not do away with sub-or super-rational impulses. It merely makes them get out of hand by removing the restraint of sacred or semi-sacred tradition." (Page 104). also printed to TheIntellectual Republican, www.thedumbdemocrat.blogspot.com, Ted Baiamonte

I've read a lot about Global Warming and the human contributions thereto. This is the best treatment on the subject that I've seen. It combines a reasonable review of the science involved, including attribution, and the politics being spent by governments world wide. The author is uniquely qualified to challenge the now popularly held opinions.

Nigel Lawson has long had a reputation as a razor sharp intellect. In this book he does not disappoint, offering up a succinct yet thorough analysis of the economics, science and politics of climate change. Lawson draws on his experience as Great Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer and Energy Secretary to produce a careful examination of the dangers we face and the options available to us. Lawson's discussion of the costs of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions is particularly valuable, as is his summary of the ethical issues raised by discounting future costs and benefits. Highly recommended.

A short but sweet book. Thankfully with a full bibliography of sources.
It is an interesting look from a "government" viewpoint. One area that should give great concern and may explain why governments are so keen to adopt "global warming" policies, or as it is now known (for safety's sake in case the climate suddenly cools) "Climate Change", is that there is huge potential for raising indirect/stealth taxes at the expense of the economy. Whether or not there is climate change and that humans have anything to do with it, the impact on the world's economy and namely emerging countries is going to be tremendous. And all in the name of fashionable science. The author argues the science lightly, but well, and points to overall negative impact to mankind, as a result of what may well turn out to be hysteria. Worth reading with an open mind.

In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?

He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.

The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.

On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.

Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.

He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.

In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.

We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.

Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.

In an `Appeal to Reason' Nigel Lawson takes a brief but critical look at the issue of global warming. For those unfamiliar with the author, Lawson is a member of the House of Lords and a former British Cabinet Minister.

While Lawson points out some of the more obvious challenges to the global warming thesis (e.g. absence of temperature increases in 21st century despite record CO2 emissions), for arguments sake, he largely accepts the global warming argument, and focuses his examination on suggested policy initiatives put forth by global warming advocates rather than the `science' itself. Lawson discusses the morality, potential effectiveness and cost of some of the more popular policy proposals (i.e. a global emission agreement) - concluding that they are largely untenable and ill-conceived.

With regard to short comings, while the book addresses many broad issues pertaining to global warming, it has a distinctly British flavor - this was a minor drawback from my perspective. Additionally, while Lawson is a clear and concise communicator the text has a `governmental' feel. These criticisms aside, the book is worthwhile for readers seeking a relatively reasoned look at this often emotionally charged issue. In particular, it offers is reasoned counter to some of the more sensational popular pieces such as Gore's `An Inconvenient Truth'.

The book left me with two key impressions. First, while I consider myself an environmentalist, I found myself in agreement with Lawson on many points - particularly, in his call for reasoned discussion. I too am skeptical of Global Warming advocates who seek to stifle discussion and shout down descent. Second, his brief remarks regarding the quasi-religious function that apocalyptic movements such as global warming play in the belief systems of many contemporary Western atheists also warrant consideration.

Overall, it is a quick read, worth a look for readers interested in the issue of global warming.

The Global warming hypsters hate Nigel Lawson. He is a major public figure with real world experience in a major public offic- and a man who believes in approaching things rationally. He is not a 'Denier' ( a false pejorative used by the doommongers to avoid any rational thought when it comes to dealing with global warming). Instead, he believes in measured steps that makes sense both environmentally and economically. The Al Gores of the world hate guys like this because they know, deep down in their hearts, that they can only keep their snakeoil salesmanship going just so long. In the end, Abraham Lincoln is always right: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time". Lawson was a major British politicion long enough to learn this and to have absorbed that lesson. This book is exactly what the title says: a cool rational look at the problem of global warming and what a truly rational response actually looks like.

This is a short and well-written book, provocative and full of smart and no nonsense arguments. Lawson provides end notes for each chapter and all bibliographical sources are properly referenced. The book's aim is to examine each of the dimensions of the consensus view of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), including the science, the economics, the politics, and the ethical aspects. He is concerned with the uncertainties of long-term forecasting and the lack of a real cost-effectiveness analysis in the policies recommended and advocated by the majority view on climate change, particularly by the radical change in lifestyle that will have to take place in the developed countries, and the unnecessary burden that will be put on the poor in the developing world. Lawson questions the fundamentals of AGW orthodoxy just armed with common sense, his political experience, and some very clever back-of-the-envelope calculations.

Lawson opens the book arguing that although he agrees that there is a real warming trend, he is skeptical of the validity of predictions made with global climate simulation models, and more importantly, he questions if indeed the sole cause of this warming is man-made greenhouses and how big the contribution of CO2 is. Lawson also raises several issues regarding the IPCC process, its findings and policy recommendations, and throughout the book he strongly criticizes the The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, which he considers "at the extreme end of the alarmist camp".

He might not be right in all the issues, but certainly he will at least let you wonder about some of them. Besides the reasonable critic of the economics, I found particularly robust his argument regarding the lack of falsifiability of climate simulation models and their predictions, which means that these complex models do not meet one of the most basic criteria required for any theory to be considered within the domain of science (for more on falsifiability read Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics)). He sarcastically notes the fact that all models have failed so far to predict that there has been no further warming between 2001 and 2007. And by the way, this trend continued during 2008, ending with one the coolest boreal winters in recent decades (just Google to verify by yourself). Personally I do not think this recent short trend means that AGW is not real but more likely just part of the normal blips within long term climate patterns, in this case regarding the effects of the normal sunspot cycles and La Niña, as Lawson later in the book explains. However, it is a good example of the risks of advocating a cause with incomplete science, oversimplifications and by obstructing any real scientific debate.

After making his case in Chapter 1 about why he thinks "the science of global warming is far from settle", Lawson proceeds as any respectable economist would do, and assumes a prudent position "to err on the side of caution". Therefore, for the rest of the book he works under the assumption that the AGW theory is correct as reported by the IPPC's 2007 Report (see Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Climate Change 2007) - a PDF version is available for free through the web) .

First he goes on to discus the practical consequences of the predicted warming over the next hundred years, based on the IPCC scenarios and policy recommendations. Next he analyzes the importance of adaptation, what Lawson claims is the IPPC's most serious flaw regarding the impact of global warming, as there is a "systematic underestimation of the benefits of adaptation" and "the most cost-effective way of addressing the likely consequences" as opposed to reducing CO2 emissions. He also is critical of the Stern Review and the Kyoto Protocol and the practical difficulties of reaching a global agreement. Then he discusses the different technologies and market alternatives being implemented and available to reduce emissions, closing with his own proposal to impose a carbon tax across the board, but implemented simultaneously with a reduction of other taxes to compensate for the extra revenues and avoiding any additional burden on the taxpayer. The book closes with a discussion about the discount rates used by the IPCC and the Stern Review in their economic analysis, with a more detailed discussion on the latter. The book ends with a warning about the dangers of the environmental movement, calling it "the new religion of eco-fundamentalism" and claiming that "we appear to have entered a new age of unreason."

I highly recommended this book for those with a genuine interest in the AGW controversy, and particularly in the aspects regarding the economics of mitigation and/or adaptation that will be necessary and that is being debated right now.

PS (2009): For a bold and politically incorrect critic of the reliability of climate science and modeling, as well as a proposal of more affordable mitigation solutions read Chapter 5 of SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance

In assessing the authority and independence of this book, it's useful to understand why Lawson felt compelled to write it - and the problems he subsequently had in getting it published.

Lawson, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Secretary) and Energy Secretary for the UK, was appointed a member of the House of Lords Select Committee on `The Economics of Climate Change'. That report is itself an outstanding analysis of the `global warming' debate, and worth reading.

The Committee was able to call for direct evidence from many of the leading figures in the debate, including, from the `pro Global Warming' side Dr Patchauri (IPCC Chairman), Dr David King (UK Government Chief Scientific Officer), the Royal Society and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, and from amongst "The Deniers", Prof Ross McKitrick, Prof Bjorn Lomborg, Prof Fred Singer, Prof Richard Lindzen and Prof Paul Reiter.

Having heard both sides of the argument from leading proponents, the report's conclusions included the following observations:
"We can see no justification for an IPCC procedure which strikes us as opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence.
"We are concerned that there may be political interference in the nomination of scientists to the IPCC.
"There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC's emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios.
"We are concerned that UK energy and climate policy appears to be based on dubious assumptions."

Inspired by what he had learned, Lawson went on to give a lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies on these findings, and followed up by what was originally intended to be a small pamphlet, but ended up as the transcript for this book. Every British publisher to whom it was submitted rejected it, despite all his previous books being accepted before even being written.

The book has particular power because the author has listened to all sides of the scientific debate, as presented by leading authorities. His analyses and conclusions are driven by sound economic and political insight.

This is an excellent overview - but clearly a dangerous book. Read it now, before it gets banned!