Lord Lawson

Taking a cool look at Global Warming.

An interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph from the former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson, probably the only UK politician prepared to speak out against the religion of anthropogenic global warming. I have to say, sitting here in South Shields that as the past few years have gone by, just about every politician, MP, and councillor that I have ever met has jumped onto this rolling bandwagon, accepting “the faith” and daring not to blaspheme by speaking ill of it. I too was caressed and cajoled by some of the dramatic moments of Al Gore’s film, but as more and more material creeps out from under the artillery barrage of the climate change evangelists, I start to harbour creeping doubts. It’s only natural, why not?

Lord Lawson has had his doubts for some time, there have even been doubters within the IPCC but someone seen to it that there thoughts would be either rewritten or discarded.

He says:

“Our politicians, need to be honest with the people. If they believe that we need to cut back drastically on carbon dioxide emissions today, at considerable cost and disruption to our way of life, because there is a remote risk of major disaster some time in the distant future, they should make the case explicitly in those terms. The fact is, that the science of what determines the earth’s temperature is far from settled or understood – and fortunately opinion surveys suggest that the majority of people, even in the UK where politicians of all parties sing from the same politically correct hymn sheet, instinctively sense that this is so.”

Nigel claims that the new environmentalist movements have filled the vacuum left by communism and that Green is the new Red.

He sees parallels with the apocalyptic visions held out by certain religious movements in the past. He is alarmed by the fanatical intolerance shown by many believers in global warming to any heretic who dares question their certainties.

He ends by describing “the new religion of global warming” as “the Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a best-seller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense.

“We have entered,” he says, “a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet.”

I wonder, what if, what if?

It is so easy to accept a majority view sometimes, that dissenting opinion is so easily rubbished and poo pooed. A libertarian should always allow some room to respect, accommodate, and tolerate views and opinions from a whole spectrum of sources, even if the majority don’t want to here them.

Or perhaps I just like backing the underdogs

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::