Don’t Forget Global Warming: Chapter 7 Nigella Lawson’s less interesting dad

Nigel Lawson offers some indignant waffle and not much else.

Intro, Ch 1, Ch2, Ch3, An Aside, Ch4, Ch5, Ch6, Section 1, …

There really isn’t a lot to this chapter. Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer heads up a registered charity called the Global Warming Policy Foundation. In this chapter, Nigel moans about people being mean to him and doing awful things like asking who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is definitely not the fossil fuel industry because he says so and he wouldn’t lie about things like that.

As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the Foundation’s Board of Trustees decided, from the outset, that it would neither solicit nor accept any money from the energy industry or from anyone with a significant interest in the energy industry. And to those who are not— regrettably— prepared to accept my word, I would point out that among our trustees are a bishop of the Church of England, a former private secretary to the Queen, and a former head of the Civil Service. Anyone who imagines that we are all engaged in a conspiracy to lie is clearly in an advanced stage of paranoia.

In the meantime, we are supposed to accept the implication that thousands of scientists, as well as many research institutions and peak scientific bodies, are lying about the dangers and science of global warming.

However, we do know that the Global Warming Policy Foundation broke the rules according to the UK’s Charity Commission  and have a track record of being substantially less that truthful. There track record on civil debate is pretty poor also, given that the foundation appears to be quite openly engaged in spreading falsehoods, Nigel is quite right to deny that this a conspiracy.

8 thoughts on “Don’t Forget Global Warming: Chapter 7 Nigella Lawson’s less interesting dad

  1. Nigel Lawson has several times come close to destroying the BBC reputation for impartiality – or, rather, their rules. I wish he had, because the EU referendum campaign might have been more realistic and helpful rather than horrifically unbalanced by the need for, well, balance.
    But for years he’s been the reliable go-to “skeptic” whenever this topic came up on BBC news or current affairs shows, thus reinforcing the impression that the subject was still active and that we didn’t need to move on to discussing things like “what to do” since it wasn’t settled. But the BBC could never take the position that we could move on simply because there were people like Lawson around; thus we got trapped in a vicious circle.
    Having said that, it’s worth noting that the consensus of economists pre-2007 was that everything was hunky-dory, and it was the rogues and mavericks who were proclaiming oncoming potential disaster. But at least those mavericks were generally economists themselves so understood what they were talking and arguing about. Lawson never really gives the impression of understanding the science at all.


    1. Lawson waffles around the issue – trying to score debate points without owning a particular position. Hard to imagine that I could end up somehow having LESS respect for one of Thatcher’s ministers and yet I do.


Comments are closed.