Britannia Radio

Bummer: Climate change hoax promoter Lord Stern suggests that CO2 will cause a new permanent feature of life on Earth: Armed conflict as hundreds of millions of people flee 
CO2-induced devastation  

http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/05/bummer-climate-change-hoax-promoter.html 

Nigel Lawson: Rational Climate Economics
Paper presented at the Erice conference “The Role of 
Science in the Third Millennium” – Erice, 20 August 2012: Session 
‘Climate and Climate Economics’
This is an economic session within a conference organized by the World Federation of Scientists.
So it is appropriate, perhaps, to begin by asking who, so far as 
climate change is concerned, have let us down more – the scientists or 
the economists.
In my judgment it is the scientists, not least because we expect so much more of them.
Science is so much greater than economics, and – as a result – the 
achievements of scientists have, over the years, benefited mankind so 
much more than the achievements of economists.
Those achievements have been based on one overarching principle: the 
application of reason, rather than authority, to our understanding of 
the natural world.
The long march from the middle ages to the enlightenment was the 
transition from relying on religion and the authority of the church to 
explain the natural world to relying on the application of reason and 
the open-minded study of empirical evidence.
That is what science is, or should be, about.
But in the case of climate science that is no longer the case.
There is now a new religion – the AGW religion, of which scientists 
are the new priesthood, preaching their dogma with precisely the same 
claim to authority as the mediaeval catholic church.
The truth is, as the best scientists recognise, that the greenhouse 
effect is a highly complex phenomenon, and the scale of the climate 
sensitivity of carbon is hugely uncertain.
Moreover, the greenhouse effect is only part of an even more complex 
and only partially understood overall climate system, and the notion 
that this can be reliably captured in a computer model is arrogant 
folly.
* * *
But if we have been let down badly by the scientists, the economists are not free from blame, either.
The most culpable economist of all is surely Nicholas Stern, now Lord Stern, whose 700-page review of the economics of climate change 
purported to show that the cost of a crash programme to reduce carbon 
emissions would be far outweighed by the benefits of doing so.
Although the Stern review is now almost six years old, it remains the explicit basis on which my own country’s damaging climate and energy 
policies are officially justified, and Stern is taken seriously as 
an authority worldwide.
And although a number of economists – unlike the politicians, the 
media, and the environmentalists, few of whom had even read it – found 
fault with it when it was first published, few have stepped up to the 
plate since.
On 4 September, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the think-tank I founded some three years ago, will be publishing the most comprehensive examination of the Stern Review to have appeared anywhere.
It shows the economic analysis of the Stern Review to be so shoddy as to border on the fraudulent, and wholly unfit to be used as a basis for important policydecisions.http://www.thegwpf.org/nigel-lawson-rational-climate-economics/
 
Stern Report is Fraudulent - Nigel Lawson
One to One: Nigel Lawsonhttp://www.veoh.com/watch/v15406767ztgcP59x