Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Nigel Lawson Calls Stern Report 'Fraudulent'
In an interview with 18Doughtystreet.com on climate change tonight, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson of Blaby calls the Stern report “fraudulent” and compares it to the Iraq dodgy dossier. To watch the clip click http://www.18doughtystreet.com/blog/
This is the transcript…
Lord Lawson: “If I had to sum up the Stern report in a single word, I would say it is fraudulent. You have to remember that Mr Blair was on this tack before the Stern Report, so he really had to have a report which validated the extreme opinion he had before. It’s rather like the dodgy dossier… The Iraq War was Mr Blair’s idea that he was going to save the world from terrorism by going to war in Iraq…in order to do that he had to justify it and produce the dodgy dossier. That hasn’t worked out terribly well so he has changed tack. He now wants to save the plant from the horrors of global warning so Nicholas Stern has provided him with another dodgy dossier.”
The 30 minute interview can be seen in full HERE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Good for Nigel! You'll have at least one viewer, Iain.
The Left desperately wants an excuse to boss people around and environmentalism is that latest excuse. Yet it will be the advances brought about by capitalism that will allow us to deal with any environmental problems.
He was a good egg, though of the Curate variety...only in parts.
Shame he was so keen on shadowing the Deutsch Mark, and he gave Maggie such a hard time when she could see the hopelessness of the ERM and the Euro right from the start.
But now older and wiser he draws a good parallel here, and captures the truth of Blair - dodgy totally.
Is that the highlight?
If so, no reason to watch now.
I know how much you like short 2 minute interviews.
As John Humphrys says, 'if you can't say it in 30 seconds, it isn't worth saying.'
Can we be sure that it's the dodgy dossier and not the sexed-up dossier that's the right comparison?
Nice one Nige.
On climate change Blair will do what his American masters tell him. His job is only to justify it to the British people.
On Nuclear Deterrent Blair will do what his American masters tell him etc.
On everything else Blair will do what his Amxxx - Ausxxx - his press baron master tells him.
I know its just a pipedream but it would be really nice to have a Prime Minister who thinks for himself occasionally.
What's the betting the BBC manages to ignore him?
So that's the Dodgiest Dosser spouting forth then?
He made Norman Lamont seem vaguely competent.
The little walnut also now makes his daughter seem quite tubby.
Ooh...that climate change thing, it's political correctness gone mad I tell you...
Iain Dale, ahead of the curve as ever..
This is about getting more green tax money for Brown to lavish on his various disadvantaged groups, aka grateful Labour voters, and for Blair to claim yet another bogus legacy. I did wonder at the time to what extent Stern was operating under Government orders. The report itself was comprehensively demolished by Christopher Monckton in his Telegraph articles. But that wouldn't stop Blair in his tracks for a second.
There's another parallel, these convenient new NHS reports which Blair has seized upon, the ones which assure us that closing hospitals saves lives. Yet another dungheap of dodgy dossiers.
The more Blair's various proclamations are shown to be false, the more fiercely he asserts them, and the more eagerly he endorses whatever convenient misinformation he thinks will shore up his case. It is the habit of congenital liars.
Fraudulent? The man's got a bloody nerve.
I was one of the poor fools who bought that 'healthy eating' book he chucked together (the one which appeared to be based around Therese's willingness to keep feeding oysters to Fat Owl.
Anyway, it didn't work and I want my money back.
Fraud indeed...
That remonds me why I used to vote Conservative.
meanwhile , today Mr Potato head let the world know that his favourite curry house is in Kensal Green.
Cheers Dave.
Stern but nice....
the end of the world is a (profitable) lie...don't complain , exploit....
jorgen - good point, who gives a stuff about the planet - even if global warming is happening, why bother with the old 'precautionary principle', I mean it's not like WE have to worry about - leave it to the kids to sort out. It'll serve them right for being lazy, ill-mannered, illiterate good-for nothings...
I've never like that man, ever since he pushed into the queue at the Stoney Stanton chippie, saying 'Sorry can't wait I'm in a hurry'
Sorry Nigel, Global Warming and Climate Change are happening, and the cost of places like London (the world's financial centre) being flooded in the future are real and very expensive. Nigel, Tosh! You are preaching King Canute Rhetoric. The Science/ Stern report are not in question. The question is whether we build tidal barriers like the proposed Southend-Sheppey Thames barrier, as a market response, or more The City's financial centre to higher ground. Just one example
My goodness, I suggest some people that are making the above comments actually read the stern review summery, and actually read around the topic of climate change and GHG emissions. Bloody hippies and their climate change…. Stern is primarily an economist, and having studied around the whole topic he has many valid points. Yes there are flaws in the report, like discount rates and things, but the fact is as much as some politicians are suspicious of the whole climate change ‘thing’, abatement is needed. Something globally ought to be done to tackle the US, China, India etc…
Anon, 9.40 thinks that "The Science/ Stern report are not in question". Surely all science is open to question, otherwise it wouldn't be science. It would be more like religious dogma.
Anon feels we should move London to higher ground. Meanwhile Gammarama thinks that "something globally ought to be done to tackle the US, China, India etc..."
Phew. That'll be a tough assignment then, Gamma. Are you up for it?
Albert Einstein wrote this in 1941: "When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible."
The global warming scaremongers deny it because they know it makes them look absurd, but the fact is that they depend entirely upon the very same sort of computer forecasting models that are used by the weather forecasting people to produce forecasts that are useless for more than a couple of days ahead. So you can imagine how accurate this or any other sort of climate forecasting is for a century ahead.
Anyone who puts their faith in these absurd attempts to forecast the intrinsically unforecastable are going to end up looking very stupid indeed.
Do you think someone should tell Windmill Dave? Or does he or anyone else think he is a better scientist than Albert Einstein?
"jorgen - good point, who gives a stuff about the planet - even if global warming is happening, why bother with the old 'precautionary principle', I mean it's not like WE have to worry about - leave it to the kids to sort out. It'll serve them right for being lazy, ill-mannered, illiterate good-for nothings..."
I'm not opposed to doing nothing. I'm just opposed to the government doing anything. We will survive climate change as we have survived past catastrophes (if it even turns into a catastrophe). Leave the market alone and it will provide a solution. The alternative is to follow the Green path of sending us back in time. I'm sure a few caves will be a great defence against tidal waves. Not.
In the 60s and 70s we worried about the coming of a new ICE age.
When did worries re. Global Warming start???
Will we be worrying about another ice age in 20 years time??? Or global warming.
Confused...
Have Steve and dave seen this I wonder?
Anon 9:04,
Ah the "precautionary principle". Funny how lefties always drag that one out when it comes to wasting dosh on their pet projects but it gets conveniently forgotten when it comes to more believable threats like national defence.
Anon 9:40,
I suspect that the disruption caused to the global financial markets if London were to be inundated would be somewhat less than you think (hope for?).
Do you really think that 9/11 didn't force the major financial institutions into making provision for the sudden loss of their office buildings? All computer records will be backed up, probably two or three times. And I'm pretty sure that there are plans to continue with at least a basic service from other locations.
The sudden destructio of the City of London (whether by fire, flood, earthquake or meteorite impact) would be devastating, yes. But I doubt it will mean the end of the financial services industry as we know it.
Anonymous 9:40 PM, said...
"The Science/ Stern report are not in question."
Ho ho ho ho ho.
2br02b said...
"computer forecasting models that are used by the weather forecasting people to produce forecasts that are useless for more than a couple of days ahead"
Those people cannot even get yesterday's weather right never mind the days ahead.
'Environmentalism' is the new home for Marxists after they became too absurd even for sociology.
Anonymous 1:23 AM said...
"In the 60s and 70s we worried about the coming of a new ICE age.
When did worries re. Global Warming start???"
When journalists realised that global cooling meant they could only get expenses paid skiing holidays, but global warming meant free summer and winter holidays.
Lawson giving it to the Stern Report with both barrels just warms the heart. Great interview Iain, you let him get on with it which makes for a rather interesting chat.
If any of you sceptics out there have got real evidence of scientific bias then I'm sure a lot of people want to know.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6196804.stm
note
'"Evidence" does not mean links to blogs, websites, other news articles, or vague rambling condemnations of science and scientists; it means some sort of documentary proof.'
I'm sure Stern contains some dodgy economics - since economics is usually dodgy - but does it contain any dodgy science?
2b0r02b:
Why this insistence on comparing weather forecasts and climate? THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Chaotic systems are unpredictable on the small scale, but behave in predictable ways over longer time periods.
Claiming weather predictions are inaccurate based on TV figures is not helpful, either - both weather and climate models actually produce a probability distribution, not a single value. We then need to ask whether these distributions are born out in practice; something you can't do from a single number. The probability for any particular outcome in a week might be pretty low, but the outcome will lie within a range of possibility.
PS If you think AGW is a new idea, you are most definitely wrong.
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Arrhenius.html
@2br02b
"does he or anyone else think he is a better scientist than Albert Einstein"
I suppose in Einstein's time people were saying the same thing about Newton - not that I disagree with your point but all science and scientists should be open to criticism/discussion - even the Greats.
Dave will be angry............
Dr Random:
'"Evidence" does not mean links to blogs, websites, other news articles, or vague rambling condemnations of science and scientists; it means some sort of documentary proof."
Indeed it does. And what's more, it works both ways.
To see how the PRO AGW people are refusing to supply just that very documentary proof, take a look at the sad saga of the IPCC's prize exhibit, the so-called "Hockey Stick" and all the little hockey sticklets that have grown up around it:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Why this insistence on comparing weather forecasts and climate? THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Chaotic systems are unpredictable on the small scale, but behave in predictable ways over longer time periods.
Twaddle.
(1) Weather and climate forecasts ARE made by exatly the same means. A fact that climate panic merchants try to keep quite about so people don't laugh them out of town. But it IS true.
(2) Chaotic systems are unpredictable in the short term, and even more un preductable over lone time periods.
PS If you think AGW is a new idea, you are most definitely wrong.
Oh, you're so right:
There was consensus we faced catastrophic global cooling (in the 1890s)
There was consensus we faced catastrophic global cooling (in the 1910s)
There was consensus we faced catastrophic global cooling (in the 1920s)
There was consensus we faced catastrophic global warming (in the 1930s)
There was consensus we faced catastrophic global cooling (in the 1940s)
There was consensus we faced catastrophic global warming (in the 1950s)
There is consensus that the world faces catastrophic global cooling (in the 1970s)
There is consensus that the world faces catastrophic global cooling (in the 1980s)
There is consensus that the world faces catastrophic global warming (in the 1990s)
"(2) Chaotic systems are unpredictable in the short term, and even more un preductable over lone time periods."
A die is a chaotic device. I cannot predict what number will come up if I roll it. If I roll it 100 times the average will be close to 3.5, in fact I can give you a probability distribution of how exactly how close provided there is no bias. This is similar to the relationship between weather and climate.
The evidence referred to in the BBC article was about providing evidence of biased science - not the evidence on AGW itself, which I doubt anyone here will be able to provide.
The Wegman report _was_ documenting what it saw to be biased science, which was fair enough. It didn't argue that GW wasn't happening, just asked whether it was warmer than now during the Middle Ages. Comparing the graphs from the 1990 report was a bit dodgy, though, as the hottest years have all been since then (in fact, it looks like 2006 will be the hottest measured yet)
Anyway, since we are quoting the Wegman report, I shall do the same
"What is the current scientific consensus on the temperature for the last 1,000 to 2,000 years?"
Ans: There is strong evidence from the instrumented temperature record that
temperatures are rising since 1850 and that global warming is a fact. How
accurate the reconstructions over the past millennium are is a matter of debate and we do not believe there is a consensus on this issue.
How central is the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record to the overall scientific consensus on global climate change (as reflected in previous reports from the Academy)?"
Ans: In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially
irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature
record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature.
As for Gordon Brown -- we know he doesn't care one way or another as long as he can raise yet more cash. But how does that affect the question?
What I here here are a lot of people prevaricating, in doubt, in denial, shouting lefties,righies, greenies. The science isn't hard to understand. Warmer world, melting ice, rising sea levels. I do it to by fridge once a month. Result chaotic and expensive.
I don't want to boss people around in London, New York at sea level, or say they can't drive Chelsea Wgons. My house is 300ft above sea level and I run an enterprising funeral parlour. Perhaps I should look forward to Global Warming and Sea Level Rise. Let it happen and see what floats!
Dr Random:
A die is a chaotic device.
Yes. It is a linear system with one variable, wherea a previous random outcome has no bearing on the next. The weather/climate is a non-linear system with billions of variables that all interact with each other and where previous outcomes crucially determine the next.
In other words, you are trying to equate a simple non-cumulative system with a complax cumulative one. The comparison is laughable, and demonstrates total ignorance of the actual nature of complax systems. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
The Wegman report ... didn't argue that GW wasn't happening,
No, and I don't deny it either. But I deny that (a) anyone knows why it's happening, or (b) that it's historically exceptional.
...in fact, it looks like 2006 will be the hottest measured yet
In ACTUAL fact, the warmest year in the recent period was 1998, and every year since has been cooler. 2006 is not over yet, but we ARE talking about GLOBAL warming here, and whatever has happened on this little island, it's the global climate that counts: This year North America, which is much bigger than us on the map, for example, has had its coldest summer/autumn for years.
How central is the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record to the overall scientific consensus on global climate change: Ans: In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentiallyirrelevant to the consensus on climate change.
Utter rubbish.
This is THE central question, and it is the area where the pro AGW people are most obviously loosing, which why they now try to pretend its unimportant.
If the post 1850 warming is in line with previous warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the apparent warm period of the Roman Empire (vineyards in Yorkshire, as so on), then it is self evident that it is not a man-made phenomenon but a natural one we are now experiencing.
If it is natural than it is a total and utter waste of time, money and effort to try to prevent it happening: the whole of humanity together is just not powerful enough to change that condition one iota.
If so, we are trying to prevent what we cannot prevent. I had thought King Canute had demonstrated the futility of mankind trying to set its face againt inevitable nature some time ago, but it seems the lesson is going to have to be re-learned. At great expense, while many other things we could do and could be effective in doing, go to hang.
---
Mind you, I do agree about Gordon Brown.
Lawson has been both consistent & intellectually coherent in his disbelief in the catastrophic warming scare.
Here is another http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Climate%20of%20Superstition-Lawson.htm
Compare & constrast with Al Gore.
I get the distinct feeling of a rising tide of doubt on warming not yet reflected in the press but which is visible online, including online rather than paper comments on newspaper sites.
Jim Sillars, who most of you will not have heard of but was a possible charismatic leader of both Scots Labour & the SNP has also come out strongly against warming. This is not an issue which turns comfortably on a left/right axis.
Nigel Lawson isn't being very intellectual on this. It is Canutism. Perhaps he's protecting his oil investment portfolio, which would be understandable.
Post a Comment