Monday, December 18, 2006
Global Warming - Thatcher economist de-hypes climate debate
A "sheer force of reason in public debate".
I wish we could get more of it...
I wish we could get more of it...
At AmericanThinker.com, Peter C. Glover covers a recent speech:
"Lawson then goes back to basics. First, is global warming occurring? Second, if so, why? And third, what should be done about it? As to the first, he cites the Hadley Centre for Climate Change
Noting that carbon dioxide emissions are an important contributor to the build up of greenhouse gases (gases which keep the earth warmer than it would otherwise be) he points out that carbon emissions are 'a long way back' behind the major contributor - water vapour, including in cloud form - and that 'neither is a pollutant'. He confirms the published view of the British Met Office that attributes around 0.3 degrees C out of the 0.5 degrees increase between 1975 and 2000 to man-made sources of greenhouse gases. 'But this is highly uncertain, and reputable climate scientists differ sharply over the subject. It is simply not true to say that the science is settled.' And he cites the intervention of the Royal Society 'to prevent the funding of climate scientists who do not share its alarmist view' as 'truly shocking'. He goes on to identify from where our uncertainty ought to derive:"
And this later paragraph also caught my attention...
The irrationality and intolerance of Eco-fundamentalism, says Lawson, regards the "questioning of its mantras" as "a form of blasphemy." And he concludes with an apocalyptic vision of his own - and one far more devastating in its consequences than Climate Change: "There is no greater threat to the people of this planet than the retreat from reason we see all around us today."
