Nigel Lawson - Top bloke
Discussion
Iain328 said:
Lawson said:
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no idea whether the majority scientific view (and it is far from a consensus) is correct. Certainly, it is curious that, whereas their models predicted an acceleration in global warming this century as the growth in emissions accelerated, so far this century there has been no further warming at all. But the current majority view may still be right. ...
Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.
Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. [b]A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.
It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org[/b]), which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.
Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.
Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. [b]A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.
It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org[/b]), which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.
There's more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globa...
He's calling for an urgent public enquiry into UEA global warming data manipulation.
Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.
This is now beyond the internet and fully mainstream and big-time at that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globa...
He's calling for an urgent public enquiry into UEA global warming data manipulation.
Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.
This is now beyond the internet and fully mainstream and big-time at that.
"...It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation www.thegwpf.org, which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy..."
Good news. No doubt, lefty zealots will want to infiltrate it.
Good news. No doubt, lefty zealots will want to infiltrate it.
Guybrush said:
"...It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation www.thegwpf.org, which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy..."
Good news. No doubt, lefty zealots will want to infiltrate it.
They will try but the gift is not theirs to bestow upon themselves.Good news. No doubt, lefty zealots will want to infiltrate it.
turbobloke said:
Guybrush said:
"...It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation www.thegwpf.org, which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy..."
Good news. No doubt, lefty zealots will want to infiltrate it.
They will try but the gift is not theirs to bestow upon themselves.Good news. No doubt, lefty zealots will want to infiltrate it.
Have the Commissars got to him?
Digga said:
Aboslutely top bloke for having the balls to back this thing into the mainstream and call for what everyone feels is the logical next step.
Plus, I will always be grateful for his most valuable contribution to my life:
But what if she ends up looking like her father in 30 years time .....Plus, I will always be grateful for his most valuable contribution to my life:
grumbledoak said:
ludo said:
just amused by the juxtaposition! 
That isn't in his book. 
grumbledoak said:
Read it. Though, in truth, I suspect you have.
One of the more telling lines was (from memory, so please be generous):
"But I can raise these issues largely because my own political career is behind me".
I've not read it, mainly because I am not too interested in the economics or the politics, "The Chilling Stars" is on my reading list though.One of the more telling lines was (from memory, so please be generous):
"But I can raise these issues largely because my own political career is behind me".
Edited by ludo on Monday 23 November 23:57
ludo said:
maybe he wasn't in the best position to write a book rubbishing it?
IIRC, the book doesn't rubbish it. He starts by saying that he doesn't agree with MMGW, but that for the purposes of the book he will assume that he is wrong and that it is true, then goes on to argue- "What's the big f
king deal, bh?".ETA - by which I mean, it's blown out of all proportion, is little to worry about and it's being exploited by tax-hungry governments!
Edited by andy400 on Tuesday 24th November 07:27
Not read the Climategatefiles but spinning like RealClimate on it with dozens of posts in firm language.
Not read the Lawson book (and how much else) yet again willing to criticise a published author who is clearly well-informed to those who have read the book.
Yet to read Svensmark but keen now it seems.
Just how much of the actual climate science literature has been read by this person...
the old turbobloke rhetoric machine rumbles into gear yet again (shame that so uch of it is obviously bullst):turbobloke said:
Not read the Climategatefiles but spinning like RealClimate on it with dozens of posts in firm language.
only yesterday on the other thread (at 19:41)ludo said:
I can see reasonable explanations for many of the topics claiming dodgy scientific methods, they seem to me to be largely misunderstandings of technical issues. I agree that not reading the emails doesn't put me in the strongest position in the argument, but then I didn't claim otherwise.
firm language huh? turbobloke said:
Not read the Lawson book (and how much else) yet again willing to criticise a published author who is clearly well-informed to those who have read the book.
I didn't criticise Lawson, other than the suggestion he had written a book that rubbished AGW, which doesn't sit well with the quote given earlier in the thread. The only reason I haven't read his book is that I am not that interested in economics or politics, which is hardly a criticism of the book, just a statement of my interests. turbobloke said:
Yet to read Svensmark but keen now it seems.
not really, it has been on my reading list for a while, on Tuesday 15th September 2009 21:01 on the thread "In your face evidence of climate change"ludo said:
"The chilling stars" is on my reading list
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff