| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| UK: Lawson attacks green 'alarmists' |
| 2006-11-02 |
| Scientists warning of climate change disaster are "eco-fundamentalists" who regard any argument as "blasphemy", former chancellor Lord Lawson has said. He warned of "alarmist" predictions and said some countries would "actually benefit from a warmer climate". This week, economist Sir Nicholas Stern said mankind had to act "urgently" to stop temperature increases. But Lord Lawson told the Centre for Policy Studies sea level rises should not be "too difficult to live with". He said that, according to Sir Nicholas' predictions, there would be "an additional sea rise of less than a quarter of an inch per century". The Stern Report suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%. But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says. Up to 200 million people could become refugees as their homes are hit by drought or flood, Sir Nicholas, a former chief economist of the World Bank, claims. Environment Secretary David Miliband said the Queen's Speech would feature a climate bill to establish an independent Carbon Committee to "work with government to reduce emissions over time and across the economy". Tory leader David Cameron has also led calls for action on climate change. But Lord Lawson, who served as chancellor for six years under Margaret Thatcher, said scientists had a "pre-determined alarmist global narrative", containing "distinctly unconvincing" models for climate change. Some countries would benefit from higher temperatures, as farmers would adapt by growing new crops, he added. If ocean levels rose, there was a "clear case" for governments spending money on better defences for low-lying areas, such as already happened in the Netherlands. Poorer countries, including Bangladesh, should be given help to achieve this, Lord Lawson said. The Kyoto agreement, under which many of the world's industrialised countries agreed to reduce carbon emissions, was an "absurd response" to supposed global warming, he said. It would do "virtually nothing" to slow change, as the US had not signed up and developing economies like Brazil, China and India would increase their building of coal-fired power stations. People in rich countries would not be willing to pay higher fuel taxes, and the costs would affect poorer countries unfairly. One possible solution to global warming could be "geo-engineering", such as "blasting aerosols into the stratosphere, so as to impede the sun's rays", Lord Lawson said. He added: "In primitive societies it was customary for extreme weather events to be explained as punishment from the gods for the sins of the people; and there is no shortage of examples of this theme in the Bible, either - particularly but not exclusively in the Old Testament. "The main change is that the new priests are scientists (well rewarded with research grants for their pains), rather than clerics of the established religions, and the new religion is eco-fundamentalism." |
| Posted by:.com |
| #7 very nice Homer - *I applaud* ©¿© |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-02 19:38 |
| #6 Up to 200 million people could become refugees as their homes are hit by drought or flood... Unless they move uphill a few feet. DOH! ~(_8^(|) |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2006-11-02 18:42 |
| #5 Steve, it's already too late. The world as we knew it ended in 1986, and we are all having a collective delusion, a la Ambrose Bierce's An Incident at Owl Creek Bridge |
| Posted by: Slaviger Angomong7708 2006-11-02 15:17 |
| #4 Sure, you can mock them as 'alarmists', but we will see who is laughing when Earth is overpopulated and uninhabitable. I've read the Club of Rome reports and The Population Bomb and I know for a fact if we don't take immediate and drastic action that we humans will be utterly and irredeemably screwed by the time the 1980s roll around. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-11-02 14:31 |
| #3 The people that output these scenarios are idjits. Unless there is a sudden change of external and internal conditions, the changes are gradual and adjusted for. For instance, a warmer climate would mean more evaporation and thus water vapor released as precipitation. In the case of polar regions, that translates to more snow and more deposits on ice sheets. That also would mean higher albedo as the reflective surface would increase. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-11-02 09:31 |
| #2 Global warming is a lot of hot air. Sure it's happening but we can't stop it. And the planet has heated and cooled many times in history: change is NORMAL. To stay the same would be unnatural. We have to evolve and change and move with it, not try to stop it!!! Anyway, they are ensuring nuclear power gets a ramp up so buy uranium shares, people, it's now inevitable (though I believe not healthy). Paladin are good, as are Summit Resources. |
| Posted by: anon1 2006-11-02 07:47 |
| #1 Were global warming a real problem and it's not, there is a ridiculously simply solution - cover the roofs of buildings with a reflective coating (a common practice here in Oz). I really should crunch the numbers but it comes down to how much you can reduce solar heating on a watts per sq meter basis times the area over which its reduced, versus the global total of supposed global warming calculated again as watts per sq M. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-11-02 04:32 |