The truth behind global warming?
Former British Chancellor and Secretary of State for Energy, Nigel Lawson, has written a book on Global Warming titled An Appeal To Reason, subtitled a cool look at global warming. In it he suggests that the current reaction to global warming is not a particularly rational one given the facts.
The thing that first caught my eye about this book was the suggestion that global warming may be a modern day substitute for religion.
It is easy to see how Nigel Lawson has come to this idea. The countries where the bulk of the protestations arise are those that are among the least religious. When you add to that the almost religious way in which global warming is now treated: as a near-default apocalypse caused by factors that the bulk of its adherents don’t understand, and the way in which doubters are routinely castigated by the faithful, the comparison seems apt, or at least understandable.
My own view has been a sceptical one, and so it is fair to say that the I am predisposed to the message within the book. I think it is appropriate to be cautious of any idea where the consensus is driven by the ignorant ( within which I include myself ), and benefits the wealthy. The issue has often reminded me of Seneca’s words on religion.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful
To be fair to the book though, this idea is far from the central tenet, but a matter of speculation within the summary. The book as a whole comes with a far stronger rational background than this and so I will leave behind the religious comparisons and consider some of the actual arguments.
The arguments
It is important to note that this book isn’t trying to undermine the science. It gives a nod to the solar flare theory which now seems to have been shown as false, but doesn’t rely on alternative theories for any of its arguments. Lawson uses the results of the IPCC’s publications, and the words of the scientists themselves to look rationally at the evidence. He is no scientist, and says as much very clearly.
In the book he is clear that global warming is happening and that man-made CO2 is a contributing factor to that warming. He does, however, make the point that the extent to which man-made effects have increased the warming that would have happened anyway is not entirely clear, and that the extent of the problem is determined largely by computer-driven climate models which, despite becoming more accurate every day, have nonetheless failed to predict a number of recent climate features such as the fact that the last 7 years have seen no real warming at all.
The key arguments however are not about the science or the warming at all. The point of this book is to look at how we should actually deal with the problem.
Firstly, the book suggests that the projected benefits of global warming go a long way to mitigating the downsides. The UK’s Department of Health suggests that the projected increase in temperature in 2050 would reduce temperature related deaths to the tune of 18,000 people, and the increased temperatures would create better conditions for growing food.
Secondly, he argues that the IPCC’s economic assessment assumes that human kind will be entirely unable to adapt to the changing climate to reduce the costs, which seems patently false considering the vast arrays of temperatures that humans already have adapted to.
Ovenden Moor WindfarmThirdly he argues that the effects of the most pessimistic predictions are to reduce the living standards in the developed world so that they will be only 8.5 times higher than today, instead of 9.5 times which they would otherwise achieve and that the effects on the developing world of capping their emissions would make the vastly worse off in the long run even after global warming takes effect. If anything their quick development is necessary in order to increase the technical capacity of the planet as a whole to finding to potential solutions.
These arguments, plus a few more, result in the suggestion that the one thing we should not be doing is to be making radical changes that would effect the economy and living standards today in order to reduce the decrease in the prosperity of our descendants who, regardless, will be better off than us anyway. He also suggests that limiting growth and technological advancement through restrictive emissions caps, especially if we are the only nation doing it, will ultimately make us worse off then focussing the resources that come from those emission generating industries into finding a practical solution.
The appeal to reason referenced in the title of the book is an appeal to our Goverments to step back from the opportunism and let the scientists do their jobs while implementing measures that encourage a move away from carbon generating activities but without increasing the overall burden on the country or the economy.
This book is very convincing in so much that it is rational and avoids the extremes of both sides. I recommend it to everyone, without exception.
I’m not going to pretend that I understand the science; it is complex enough to not be fully understood by anyone, and there is so much of it that no one besides the specialists in the field are likely to have a good picture of how it fits together. It fair, however, to challenge how much others, particularly those who want to impose severe restrictions on our lives, actually know and understand themselves.
Mick comments:
Solar forcing has not been refuted, in fact, it is looking stronger than ever. The reason being that solar forcing models are the only ones that have predicted the current drop off in temperatures.
The causal mechanism is still unclear, but the solar correlation is far superior to the carbon dioxide correlation.
20th April 2008 , 18:29
TarunKumar comments:
Global warming could lead to higher rates of skin cancer by amplifying the harmful effects of the sun’s rays, scientists said.
New evidence suggests that the same amount of sunshine becomes more likely to trigger cancer as temperature rises.
22nd April 2008 , 04:36
Andrew Rickmann comments:
Mick, I will need to take your word for that. An article on the BBC website a few days before I wrote this suggested the effects were not particularly relevant.
Tarun,
I guess we will need to develop better sun screen to prevent the effects.
26th April 2008 , 16:14