Location: Home > Science & Nature > Government & Politics > An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming

An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming

Author: Nigel Lawson
Publisher: Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd
Category: Book

List Price: ~~Ł9.99~~
Buy New: Ł4.49
You Save: Ł5.50 (55%)

New (23) Used (5) from Ł4.49

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

23 reviews
Sales Rank: 836

Media: Hardcover
Pages: 144
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 7.8 x 5.2 x 1

ISBN: 071563786X
EAN: 9780715637869
ASIN: 071563786X

Publication Date: April 10, 2008
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Condition: Perfect condition

Also Available In:

•	Hardcover - An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming

Similar Items:

•	Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth
•	Squandered
•	Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming
•	The Great Global Warming Swindle
•	Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years

Customer Reviews: Read 18 more reviews...

4 out of 5 stars

Thought-provoking contribution August 19, 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?

He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.

The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.

On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.

Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.

He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by 18-22 billion a year.

In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.

We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.

Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.

1 out of 5 stars

Deluded amateur challenges the science August 12, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful

Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.

1 out of 5 stars

Bad science sells well to those who want to hear his message August 11, 2008
2 out of 4 found this review helpful

It's a shame this book was actually released without the facts being checked. Claims made bear no resemblance to verifiable facts. Global warming isn't strictly speaking the correct term - it should be global climate change. The latest climate models predict a slightly warmer and much wetter future for the UK.
I suspect there is a target market for Lawsons fantasies and that he is preaching to those who will clutch at any straw telling them what they want to hear. Controversy sells and doesn't Nigel know it...

4 out of 5 stars

Good for those short on time July 7, 2008
2 out of 4 found this review helpful

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.

1 out of 5 stars

Complacent and Irresponsible - a non-scientists response to the scientific evidence of climate change June 29, 2008
7 out of 24 found this review helpful

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.