The former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson will lead the Conservative 'Out' group
It has been confirmed this morning that former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson will lead a Conservative campaign group which will push for the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Writing in the Times, Lord Lawson said that David Cameron was only likely to secure ‘wafer-thin’ reforms from the European Union.
Many Eurosceptics seem pleased with the choice of Lord Lawson to head up the out campaign. Viewed as a political heavyweight, Lawson was chancellor during the most tumultuous period of Margaret Thatcher’s time in office between 1983 and 1989.
Yet for a supposedly mainstream political big hitter, Lord Lawson has a number of crackpot views. Take his position on man-made climate change.
Lord Lawson is the chairman of the climate change-sceptic group the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Notoriously cagey about its funding, in June of this year the GWPF invited climate change sceptic Judith Curry to speak at the House of Lords about climate change, where she poured scorn on the idea of man-made climate change. “The punch line is this,” Curry told the House of Lords, “Any impact of human caused global warming is lost in the noise of climate variability.”
According to the GWPF, telling kids to “avoid polluting the world”, “recycle” and “reduce their carbon footprint” is “brainwashing” carried out with the express intention of turning children into “foot soldiers of the green movement”.
Lord Lawson has also previously claimed that there has been no global warming so far this century:
“Whereas there was some very modest warming in the last quarter of the twentieth century there has been absolutely no further warming this century so far, despite a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, and despite the models predicting an acceleration, not just a continuation, but an acceleration of warming.”
Yet as the Met office made clear in 2008, global warming has not stopped and natural climate variations may ‘temporarily enhance or reduce observed warming’:
“Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming.”
As for man-made climate change more generally, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) it is “extremely likely” that humans have been the principal cause of warming since the 1950s. Meanwhile an analysis of abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed scientific papers, published between 1991 and 2011 and written by 29,083 authors, found that 98.4 per cent of authors who took a position endorsed man-made climate change, with just 1.2 per cent rejecting it and 0.4 per cent uncertain.
In the past Lord Lawson has urged local authorities to do “absolutely nothing” to reduce their carbon emissions and claimed that people were “ignoring the benefits of global warming”.
I’ll leave the floor to Ed Miliband to expound on the substance of Lord Lawson’s views on climate change:
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
39 Responses to “Head of Tory EU exit group is climate change denier”
WhiteVanMan
Like Kate Hoey then
kingkevin3
Oh christ what a retard. Are you an Arts student by any change?
kingkevin3
What planet were you born on? You think tree-huggers and socialists give a fuck about old people?
Denis Ables
Alarmistsconfiscated the term “climate change”, which originally referred to natural events, such as ice ages. Now, both they and the major news media make that expression equivalent to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW), and skeptics are accused of being “climate change” deniers.
President Obama recently visited Alaska, and explained that two receding glaciers he visited are because of “climate change”. One of those glaciers, has been receding since 1750, a century before co2 began increasing and two centuries before co2 could have had any noticeable impact on anything. Neither he nor the major news media bothered to mention that some other Alaskan glaciers, including Hubbard and Taku have been advancing. Obviously both phenomenon cannot be attributed to global warming. Readers should consider the serious implication if no glaciers were receding; that is likely the beginning of our next ice age! The average duration of recent ice ages is 90,000 years whereas the pleasant interims between ice ages (interglacial periods, one of which we are now enjoying) average only 10,000 years. Instead of dealing with a few feet of water in NY City (very speculative, no facts), how about having to deal with what really happened last time – a mile high glacier?
The claims of a “97% consensus” have been thoroughly debunked. Among other problems these professional “surveys” count many skeptics as part of their supposed consensus. These “surveyors” made
no distinction between the IPCC cabal, which claims human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, and the other respondents (invariably skeptics) who merely acknowledge that increasing co2 MIGHT have SOME impact on global warming. Had those alarmist surveys been designed (and handled) by unbiased professionals the result would have likely shown that skeptics were actually in the majority, but it’s irrelevant since scientific truths are not dependent on vote counts.
When you light a match, it may have some impact (unlikely measurable) on global warming. The Urban Heat
Island (UHI) effect is well known, but also turns out to have no impact on global temperature because urban areas represent only a small portion of the earth’s surface and even the rural areas immediately surrounding an UHI show little or no temperature impact from the UHI. However, no sensible critic would flatly declare that human activity is having NO impact on global warming. It is the IPCC (and its cohort) unjustifiable claims that (1) co2 increase causes global warming and (2) human activity, which appears to be responsible for most of the co2 increase, is therefore the principle cause of our current warming.
During most of our planet’s history the co2 level has been several times higher than now, and yet, even over geologic periods, there is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on global warming. In fact, over geologic periods there is a strong correlation showing the opposite – that temperature variation occurs FIRST and only 800 to 2800 years LATER do similar variations show up in the co2
level. Furthermore, a comparison of our current interglacial with the immediate four prior interglacial periods (a span of about 340,000 years) shows that our current maximum temperature is about two degrees cooler than in any of the four earlier interglacials. However, our current co2 level is 40% higher than in these earlier interglacials, so evidently co2, even at its now much higher level, appears to be have little, if any, impact on global temperature. Since both co2 level and UHI are therefore ruled out insofar as having even a measurable (let alone significant) impact on global temperature, what is the basis for the IPCC claim? either can the alarmist computer models account for how the “missing heat” might disappear into the ocean, sink unnoticed past 3,600 ARGO buoys, subsequently hide in the deep ocean, to somehow later re-surface and escape back into the atmosphere. The measurable increase in ocean temperature, even if due to atmospheric increase, is miniscule, hardly sufficient to explain the “missing heat”.
It is also known that the capability of co2 to influence warming diminishes as its level increases, and that a greenhouse is hardly an adequate model for our open atmosphere. There is no convection from within a real greenhouse, and in the open atmosphere satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither does a greenhouse experience planetary-level feedback, such as significant ocean feedback. Finally, computer models cannot begin to deal with ongoing chaotic events which are an integral part of the climate system.
Alarmist computer models have all consistently projected higher temperature increases than have subsequently been recorded, and this has continued even after several rounds of revisions to those models. In fact, the spread between actual temperature and computer projected temperatures continues to WIDEN.
Climate computer model results are clearly not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) limited understanding of climate. Ironically, all these alarmist models ASSUME that water vapor is the real culprit, creating 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as supposedly brought on directly by co2 increase. Without that assumption, it’s clear co2 increase would have little mpact for a very long time. As it turns out, nobody understands whether water vapor feedback is even positive, let alone 2 to 3 times that of the co2 impact (which itself is in question.) Cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, clearly appears to have a cooling rather than a warming effect. In response to the hiatus in further temperature increase for almost the past two decades the alarmists have, so far, come up with dozens of different excuses as to where the missing heat is hiding. However, these frantic speculations have not deterred the believers from continuing to claim their “science” is “settled.”
The current co2 level is 400 ppmv, (parts per million by volume) clearly a trace gas, which can also be stated as 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere, by volume. (4/100 of one percent of a mile is about 2 feet). The annual rate of increase in co2 is about 2 ppmv. Projections for co2 level by the year 2100 are 600 ppmv, still a trace gas. A crowded gym with poor ventilation may reach 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews survive for months in a 5,000+ ppmv environment. Plants, grow faster, healthier, produce more oxygen, and need less water in higher co2 environments. In fact, the earth is greening even as this controversy continues.
The proponents (alarmists) of CAGW base their entire hypothesis on a very brief period (30 years) of climate history. This is because even the most rabid CAGW scientists understand that increasing co2 level would have to build up (from 2ppmv) so have no measurable impact on global temperature until about 1950. Co2 began rising in the mid 1800s, but our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, so in the mid 1600s. That of course implies there was 300 years of natural warming. There was a mild cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, followed by THE warming, from the 1970s to about 1998. It remains warm, but there has been no additional warming since then.
There are 5 global temperature datasets, 3 terrestrial and 2 satellite. However, according to Phil Jones (2003) the three terrestrial datasets are all comprised of most (90 to 95%) of the same raw data. There are three sets of terrestrial results because three separate groups are involved and each applies different revisions to this raw data. With regard to satellites, UAH shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 5 months and RSS shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 8 months. (However, the upcoming el Nino, a natural warming event, may bring on some additional temporary warming!) This 18+ year duration of no additional warming is not cherry picked since the calculation depends on the data itself and is the answer to a very relevant question, namely – for how long has there been no additional warming? If the same analysis applied to satellite data, but instead uses the mean of all 5 datasets, there has been no additional warming for the past 13+ years. (However, since all three terrestrial datasets are basically derived from the same raw data, the 3/5 weighting used in determining the mean for terrestrial data appears to be over weighted towards terrestrial data.)
The three terrestrial datasets also have various other issues. Even the current raw data must be continually revised because many stations are located within or near UHIs so that effect, which can change over time,
must be estimated and removed. Land based stations are also subject to other changing environmental conditions. (Why not confine the analysis, or at least derive an independent separate analysis, for comparison, using raw data from rural locations?) The distance between some land stations may be as much as 1200km, and there are very few stations in remote (jungles, mountains, deserts, plains, grasslands, etc.) areas. Finally, many land based temperature stations do not satisfy even the basic requirements laid down by the government.
Some alarmists, including politicians, continue to blame severe weather on “climate change” and/or
insist that sea level rise is “evidence” of CAGW. Sea level has been rising for the past 15,000 years, ever since the last ice age BEGAN melting, and sea level is now up 400+ feet. More recently the rate of sea level increase has been flat, or dropping, with sea level rise now at a miniscule 1 to 2 mm per YEAR, (1 mm = 4/100 of one inch. In 25 years, the level will be up one inch.) Viewing a graph showing sea level over the past 12-15 thousand year period should assuage any concerned rational being. Statistical analysis has demonstrated that, for the past several decades, severe weather events of all types have remained within
natural climate variation. Weather events (hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, floods, rain, droughts) have been no more severe nor more frequent during this period.
At least one well known member of the IPCC cabal, Phil Jones, stated that if the Medieval Warming
Period (MWP) was global and as warm as now, then “that’s another ballgame”. The Climate Gate email conversations showed great concern about the MWP. (In fact, one email made clear that they had to
get rid of the MWP! Why?) The IPCC and its usual cohort of alarmists insist that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon. Their unjustifiable claim likely has more than a little to do with the threat of an embarrassing question — “If the MWP was as warm (probably warmer) than now, why do you think humans are the cause of this warming?” In order to support the CAGW hypothesis any credible scientist would have surely found it necessary to temporarily put their hypothesis on hold and undertake a global investigation to ensure that there was actually no global warming trend during the MWP. This would have involved a
world-wide research effort. They chose instead to cling to their claim that the MWP was merely regional and not all that warm. This flies in the face of numerous peer-reviewed studies, and also with various anecdotal evidence. The alarmists also reverse the theorist’s usual position by demanding that skeptics instead provide the evidence that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. Please note that if even one region remote from Europe shows the same warming trend, their hypothesis (having no empirical
evidence besides) becomes very questionable. As it turns out the MWP trend shows up in many other regions.
The CAGW hypothesis not only lacks any empirical evidence, it is further exacerbated by their denials of any conflicting evidence. What is so amazing is there were numerous peer-reviewed studies available showing the MWP to be global and as warm, likely warmer, long before the alarmist position even reverted from cries of an oncoming ice age to global warming. (Holdren, science adviser to Obama, has been an alarmist both times.) The alarmist denials continue even now, as new studies contradicting CAGW continue to show up almost weekly. The website co2science.org has links to all the MWP peer reviewed studies. These studies have employed numerous different temperature proxies, some not available to earlier studies. In addition, there are also some 6,000 boreholes around the globe which confirm that the MWP trend was global.
But wait….there’s more! There were several earlier warmings during this interglacial before the MWP, all warmer than the MWP. Even the IPCC only claims that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with less likelihood, (but no justification provided) for the past 1200 years. Lord Monckton points out that while the IPCC has finally admitted in its latest report that the current rate of warming is now lower than published earlier their committee (which reviews every word of that report multiple times) has
managed to avoid correcting their erroneous out-years high temperature estimate.
An ancient forest in Alaska (Mendenhall Glacier), recently retreated sufficiently to expose some splintered
tree trunks preserved in their original upright positions. Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4000 year old forests showing that area to have been glacier free at that time. Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also been exposed in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today. Attempts to brush off such solid information as “anecdotal evidence” is ridiculous.
Both NASA and NOAA base their “analysis” strictly on terrestrial data, evidently ignoring the satellite
data! In late 2014 these two “science” organizations claimed that 2014 was the “hottest” year, but both soon backed down after skeptics pointed out that if their same analysis were applied to satellite data, then 2014 was either 3rd or 6th hottest. (Either situation would imply at least a short term cooling underway.) Also, neither agency felt the need to include in their initial press release that the difference amongst recent annual global temperatures was miniscule, (a few hundredths of one degree) so well within the uncertainty error of one half a degree, and therefore their contrived comparison across recent years is meaningless. The
major news media, as usual, jumped on their original news (2014 “hottest”) release, but overlooked the NOAA/NASA subsequent retreat. These agencies are apparently still at it, now claiming that June 2015 was the “hottest” month. There has also been no accompanying acknowledgement that sea ice extent in the Arctic recently increased about 30% and sea ice extent around the south pole continues to break records. New weather trends begin at the two poles.
Quite recently the two agencies (now evidently desperate) decided to revise the sea surface temperatures in an apparent effort to do away with the temperature “hiatus”. But, as CFACT points out “…NOAA “adjusted”
sea-surface temperature (SST) data from buoys upward by .12 degrees C, to make them ‘homogeneous’ with lengthier records from past engine intake systems in ships. However, engine intake data are ‘clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the ships, and that data were never intended for scientific use – whereas the global buoy network was designed for environmental monitoring”. These agencies also recently declared that their three datasets were “independent”, which is clearly debatable, since all three datasets are basically derived from the same raw data.
It’s now time to look at the government “solution” for what is very likely a non-problem. Obama wants
to reduce electrical power emissions by 32% by 2030. The following is quoted directly from Joanne
Nova’ website which merely confirms what the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, recently admitted:
This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels
estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100.
Since our global temperatures are still 2 degrees below the high in each of the past four inter-glacials there may be a bit more natural warming ahead. We know that co2, even at much higher temperatures than now, has had no discernable influence on global temperature. We do need to be concerned about our utilization of energy resources, but it will take centuries before co2 attains those earlier levels, so technology should be available long before co2 level would be troublesome. Politicians’ rush to implement costly policies appears to be a much larger threat.
Whether these alarmists are “useful idiots” or willing to lie because they believe in some higher principle (one-world government, abhor the fossil fuel industry, want to transfer western resources to third world countries, etc.) hardly matters. The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions.
4TimesAYear
“Lord Lawson has a number of crackpot views”
I say old chap, that you have quite some prejudice against those who have a difference of scientific opinion, especially since CO2 has been found to have much less of an effect than what was previously thought. You have no objectivity whatsoever and should resign as a reporter. FYI, what goes up, must come down, and it’s no different with the global mean temperature, which has been pretty doggone stable over the last 150 years. Not that a “global mean temperature” means anything at all.