Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #560 in Books
• Published on: 2008-04-10
• Binding: Hardcover
• 144 pages

Review
'Only one senior political figure in Britain has dared stand apart from [the] stifling orthodoxy: Nigel Lawson' --The Telegraph

'On many points the sceptics happen to be correct. Nigel Lawson's short splendid book ... can leave no fair-minded reader in doubt on that score ... Elegantly written, thorough, entertaining and, above all, convincing' --The Financial Times

'Tightly argued ... Bombarded with the zealous certainties of those deaf to reasoned argument on the most important of issues, it is intensely refreshing to find in Nigel Lawson someome who, without claiming to have all the answers, is at least brave enough to ask eminently sensible questions' --The Spectator

Synopsis
In this well-informed and hard-hitting response to the scaremongering of the climate alarmists, Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Energy, argues that it is time for us to take a cool look at global warming. Lawson carefully and succinctly examines all aspects of the global warming issue: the science, the economics, the politics, and the ethics. He concludes that, contrary to the deeply-flawed Stern Review, the conventional wisdom on the subject is suspect on a number of grounds; that global warming is not the devastating threat to the planet it is widely alleged ot be; and that the remedy that is currently being proposed, which is in any event politically unattainable, would be worse that the threat it is supposed to avert.All this is argued with logic, commmon sense, and even wit, and thoroughly sourced and referenced. The book concludes by outlining the form a rational response to global warming should take, and explains why the mistaken conventional wisdom has become the quasi-religion it is today, and the dangers that this presents.

Lord Lawson has written a long overdue and much needed corrective to the barrage of spin and hype to which the politicians and media have been subjecting the public on this important issue, which affects us all.

Customer Reviews

a lone voice of reason?
This is a clear, well-argued short polemic. Lawson is not arguing against the consensus scientific establishment view that man is contributing to global warming, primarily through increasing CO2 emissions. His book is about what policy makers have been advised to do to remedy the perceived immanent threat of global disaster that continued global warming will entail. Lawson is sceptical of decisions that are made in an alarmist environment. He does ask a radical-seeming question given current consensus opinion (and it is only radical in this sense): will global warming be all bad? Tied to this, he questions whether humans may have the capacity to adapt to changes in the climate, as available historical evidence suggests the species has generally done. Fundamental to Lawson's main argument is that adaptation to global warming may be better than mitigation, given the costs of mitigation.

It should be stressed: this book is not about the truth or otherwise of a phenomenon, but what certain groups of people (the scientific community, politicians, think tanks, cultural commentators, the media, entrepeneurs and developers of innovative technologies) do as a result of treating something as though it were true. And, besides its clarity, concision, and academic rigour, this, for me, is the strength of Lawson's polemic. Should we have expected members of mid-Victorian society, briefly afflicated with God-given predictive insights, seeing that industrialisation's addiction to coal would inevitably lead to late-C20 global warming, to halt 'progress' and return to older agrarian modes of living within their inherent gross disparities between rich and poor? Similarly, should we be making decisions about what will be best for societies hundreds of years in the future, as the Stern Review proposes, even though these decisions will, according to a distinguished British Chancellor, be economically disastrous to both the developing and the developed worlds?

Something has been made of the fact that Lawson could not publish this book in the UK. While I live in a reasonably rural area, this book is not being stocked in any of the bookshops that are within a 20 mile radius of my home. There clearly is an ideological hostility towards anyone who is looking at global warming from the wrong angle in this country at the present time. That, sadly, is unlikely to change any time soon. It is a sign of a frightening residual religious mentality in the UK, which denied any other idol has unleashed on the rack of sin a new myth of final times, while all around life carries on as usual -- full of heartbreaking natural disasters, oppressive financial insecurity and the atrocious success story of the free market.

Good for those short on time
At just 106 pages excluding references this is not a weighty tome. However the author points out that this developed from a speech, to a pamphlet, and finally to a book. It provides a good grounding for the subject in terms of the science and potential effects and takes the IPCC line as a base and plays a bit of what-if, rather than trying to debunk the idea entirely, which is a much more sensible approach.
I'd certainly recommend it for those that are frustrated by the one sided media hype and need to get some more balanced background without embarking on a degree in climate and socio-economic sciences to do it.

Complacent and Irresponsible - a non-scientists response to the scientific evidence of climate change
If you are looking for a hard-headed critique from the other side of the climate change debate you will not find it here. A few points that Nigel and his editors should consider:
1. The fact that the warmest years of the last decade or more have not happened in strictly ascending order is not a rational argument that climate change is not happening, any more than a snow flurry in spring means that summer will not happen after all.
2. When plants take in Carbon Dioxide and release Oxygen to the atmosphere it is not called 'breathing', as any moderately able GCSE student will be able to confirm.
3. When the political and scientific realities do not match up, however difficult it may be, it will be easier to change the politics.
In summary, if you are looking for reassurance that your children and grandchildren will not suffer from the consequences of our current actions, you will find none here. I suggest all readers stick to the science of the IPCC reports and their interpretation, and take appropriate action.