Has Nigel Lawson lost it?

[Dave2002]

Watching Question Time on TV last night I was interested to watch Nigel Lawson denying anything to do with "climate change".
As far as I could see he simply just denied everything, denied "facts" whatever. Bit sad really.

I think it is possible to make a case (perhaps rather a slim one) against climate change, but simply stonewalling and denying everything
is, IMO, not the way to do it.

Also, about half way through, he came out with some pronouncement about immorality, again with no or very weak justification.

Overall, a depressing sight.

[ahinton]

Watching Question Time on TV last night I was interested to watch Nigel Lawson denying anything to do with "climate change".
As far as I could see he simply just denied everything, denied "facts" whatever. Bit sad really.

I think it is possible to make a case (perhaps rather a slim one) against climate change, but simply stonewalling and denying everything
is, IMO, not the way to do it.

Also, about half way through, he came out with some pronouncement about immorality, again with no or very weak justification.

Overall, a depressing sight.

I've long wondered about his entrenched and seemingly obdurate (for its own sake) "view" on this subject and trust it about as much as I'd be inclined to trust those who claim that all or most of current climate change is man-made.

[amateur51]

I've long wondered about his entrenched and seemingly obdurate (for its own sake) "view" on this subject and trust it about as much as I'd be inclined to trust those who claim that all or most of current climate change is man-made.

I recall that Big Nige's judgement has always been questionable ever since he accidentally precipitated a housing crisis when he abolished double MIRAS by flagging it up with six weeks to go to implementation. The ensuing panic buying led to a huge surge in house prices and subsequent negative equity when it all crashed that blighted many people's lives for decades.

This is what happens when you appoint former journalists to high office, witness Mr Gove & education these days.

[french frank]

The subject of NL came up in discussion over lunch yesterday. My friends certainly commented that he had viisibly lost a lot.

[MrGongGong]

The answer is obviously YES
Did he ever "have it" ?

You can't deny "Climate Change" as the climate is changing ........

[teamsaint]

The answer is obviously YES
Did he ever "have it" ?

You can't deny "Climate Change" as the climate is changing ........

weather we like it or not.

[Flosshilde]

The answer is obviously YES
Did he ever "have it" ?

No, the answer is obviously 'NO' - because he didn't have it in the first place.

[Dave2002]

I've long wondered about his entrenched and seemingly obdurate (for its own sake) "view" on this subject and trust it about as much as I'd be inclined to trust those who claim that all or most of current climate change is man-made.

Of course not all change is directly due to human efforts. Volcanic explosions for example have very significant effects, and when they occur can swamp most other effects. On the other hand, the correlations between various factors from the start of the Industrial Revolution do tend to suggest, and now to suggest strongly, that there are substantial anthropogenic effects. Causation is difficult to argue, and indeed nowadays we don't always look for 100% causality - "I flicked the switch and the light came on", but rather for a more complex factor analysis. The consensus of scientific opinion now does appear to be going in the direction of there being real changes in the climate - and while 100 (1000 even 100,000) people could assert that Budapest is the capital of France the rest of us would know otherwise. It's right to be sceptical, but on balance for a multiplicity of reasons I would suggest that the scientists studying weather changes have got it more right than wrong. Scientific opinion is based not only on observations, but also on simulation modelling. Simulation modelling can fail for many reasons, but some of the predictions from modelling do appear to be matching developing reality as confirmed by observations and measurements.

[amateur51]

Of course not all change is directly due to human efforts. Volcanic explosions for example have very significant effects, and when they occur can swamp most other effects. On the other hand, the correlations between various factors from the start of the Industrial Revolution do tend to suggest, and now to suggest strongly, that there are substantial anthropogenic effects. Causation is difficult to argue, and indeed nowadays we don't always look for 100% causality - "I flicked the switch and the light came on", but rather for a more complex factor analysis. The consensus of scientific opinion now does appear to be going in the direction of there being real changes in the climate - and while 100 (1000 even 100,000) people could assert that Budapest is the capital of France the rest of us would know otherwise. It's right to be sceptical, but on balance for a multiplicity of reasons I would suggest that the scientists studying weather changes have got it more right than wrong. Scientific opinion is based not only on observations, but also on simulation modelling. Simulation modelling can fail for many reasons, but some of the predictions from modelling do appear to be matching developing reality as confirmed by observations and measurements.

Thanks for a charmingly expressed and balanced assessment, Dave2002

[Mr Pee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

No, Nigel Lawson hasn't lost it.

[MrGongGong]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...cientists.html

No, Nigel Lawson hasn't lost it.

Mr Pee seems to have stopped trying to talk about things just posting links

so here you go Peester

http://www.bagpussshop.co.uk/

[french frank]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...cientists.html

No, Nigel Lawson hasn't lost it.

That was in September. Meanwhile today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25328508

[amateur51]

After some serious digging around, details of two of Nige's funders are revealed ...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders

[P. G. Tipps]

After some serious digging around, details of two of Nige's funders are revealed ...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...sation-funders

Ahhh, and all this self-confessed 'serious digging around' on Google from the member who recently roundly berated another for daring to provide a link in support of his point on another thread!

Whether Mr Lawson is right or wrong it is refreshing to hear one ... even in a vastly-reduced physical state ... stand up to the climate-change bullies who are intolerant of any views which conflict with their self-righteous and scientifically-unproven dogma!

Of course, that is quite different from claiming the bullies are wrong. Even bullies can turn out to be right.

[Dave2002]

Whether Mr Lawson is right or wrong it is refreshing to hear one ... even in a vastly-reduced physical state ... stand up to the climate-change bullies who are intolerant of any views which conflict with their self-righteous and scientifically-unproven dogma!

Some moght say that science never proves anything, but most reasonable people would say that it does a fairly good job of disproving things. I would say that "dogma" comes from those who unthinkingly oppose scientific thought and questioning.