OK, Well, following David's quick reply, and without reference to the
inimatable Mr. Lawson, here's a little clarification of my previous entry:

Any anthropogenic aspects of climate change that exist/may exist (ahem) are
the by-product of an imbalance in all aspects of the way we live and
perceive (and are taught to do so). (By the Way, it is TRUE and a Fact in
Life and Physics that EVERYTHING AFFECTS EVERYTHING ELSE, it's just a
question of BY HOW MUCH - so Anthropogenic effects DO absolutely definitely
exist, irrespective of whether they are RELATIVELY small or RELATIVELY large
(against what do you compare of course!)

One can alter the way we live in such a way that the imbalance is naturally,
as a by-product, re-balanced, or at least more so, without ever having to
address climatic change, or any other symptom, directly - these symptoms
will take care of/redress themselves if a more balanced position is
attained. Simplicity in Daily Life, not stressful unhealthy complexity,
hype, or excessive technology, is one aspect of the answer. Adaptability at
all levels rather than stolid refusal to change, refusal to go with the
flow, to physically move, or to adapt, is another. All individuals being
more linked to Nature and their ability to survive Daily irrespective of
Climatic, Financial, Environmental, Social etc circumstances is another.
Using Limited Resources to affect positive, enjoyable, confidence-building,
and simplifying change in our Lifestyles and Attitudes, INSTEAD OF/RATHER
THAN creating more technology to try to combat symptoms (using considerably
more resources again, thus creating ever more symptoms, never learning the
lesson - this is inclusive of "Renewable Technologies" that are nonetheless
based upon non-renewable Raw materials/huge foundries/transport
networks/computers to design etc))), creating more research and financial
demand to keep such going, and continuing more
never-will-get-the-right-answer modelling, etc, is another. Realising just
how little we know and understand, and just how fashionable,
financially-dependent, and limited to human lifespan thinking much of what
is discussed is, is yet another aspect. And it goes on...

I've said it before in this Forum, but many of the well-meaning means to
address Human and Environmental issues at the present may not be coming
from the correct vantage point, from a position of balance. Wouldn't you
all like to be Happier, including all those who feel their
livelihoods/society structure to be threatended by the above ? Well this is,
in fact, potentially possible for all, irrespective of who you are or your
viewpoints, or even how much RELATIVE money or "power" you wish to earn or
have. This comes from Simplicity at every level. And that simplicity costs
the least, and is the most stable, healthy, adaptable, flexible, and
all-round effective state to be in, and this can be proven and physically
shown. And that Simplicity has the least impact upon all aspects of the
Environment. And that, thereby, as a natural by-product, minimises causes
of such things as any anthropogenic climate changes, or all other
alledgedly-adverse Symptoms. Indeed, when you've been ill, or things have
not gone well for you, these, if you've survived them, have often been the
best learning experiences you've had - Climatic and Environmental Changes
are another example of this.

And that is where the Idea that I am to further comes in, peacefully and
constructively, in a very practical, simple, basic, and subtle way, at all
levels, for everyone (inc. for BP bosses, Mr Lawsons of all types, Secret
Agents, etc... whom might think that this was anti-their view/interests,
which it is not, and must never be), for those readers here who may also be
interested.

All the Best to you All ! Perhaps we can all work Neutrally or Positively on
the above Together ?

Chris. McCOY


Quoting David Ballard <[log in to unmask]>:

> Don't quite catch your drift, I'm afraid.
>
> David Ballard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Chris McCoy
> Sent: 03 November 2005 17:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Nigel Lawson joins ranks of climate change deniers
>
> I know that it may be unpopular to say so, and it is certainly true that
> Mr.
> Lawson's article does state many truths, as well as having several
> notable
> errors, and, ultimately omits a far broader picture than even Climate
> Change. The last and 3rd to last paragraphs agreeably being rather
> short-sighted and not especially pleasant, particularly the parting
> comment. However, at hand is something simple:
>
> If the readers of the Forum really wish to do something at all, and are
> adamant in doing something/s, then what approach would they select ?:
>
> "To Treat the Symptoms, or the Disease"?
>
> Adaptability, for example, treats the latter. Reducing CO2 treats the
> former. Which is Economic growth? Which do you want to do? Or do you wish
> to "see" the bigger/broader picture than this, and in fact get it right
> first time ? The latter can be reached in many ways, and taking people
> (Ooman beens) and language out of the equation is one such way, and it's
> good for you too, makes you Happier, and the Disease gets treated at
> source, and costs nothing (other than endless fragile "Economic Growth")!
>
> All the Best,
>
> Chris M.
>
> Quoting George Marshall <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > in this new article Nigel Lawson, still a powerful figure in the
> > financial world, argues for growth and adaptation rather than
> > mitigation. His analysis comes from Lomborg and some of his critique
> > from the hard core climate change deniers. What is especially
> concerning
> > is his aggressive line against environmentalism and the IPCC,  and his
> > apparent disregard for the impacts in the poorest countries.
> >
> > Yours
> >
> > George Marshall
> > Co-Executive Director
> > The Climate Outreach and Information Network (COIN)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > November 2005 | 116
> >
>
<http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/vis_index.php?issue=512&AuthKey=a0e85ae88
> bab9c4f8cda49c8b87d0c2a>
> > > Web
> > exclusive
> >
>
<http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/list.php?category=171&AuthKey=a0e85ae88ba
> b9c4f8cda49c8b87d0c2a&issue=512>
> > > Against
> > Kyoto
> >
>
<http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/list.php?category=7117&AuthKey=a0e85ae88b
> ab9c4f8cda49c8b87d0c2a&issue=512>
> > Not only is the Kyoto approach to global warming wrong-headed, the
> > climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is
> > little short of a scandal. The IPCC should be shut down
> >
> >
> >       Nigel Lawson
> >
> > *http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7117*
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Nigel Lawson is a former chancellor of the exchequer
> >
> > Nothing could better illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of what
> > might be termed the climate change establishment than Michael Grubb's
> > September article in Prospect "Stick to the Target." He is clearly
> > outraged by the fact that, in July, the House of Lords select committee
> > on economic affairs published a report, "The Economics of Climate
> > Change," which had the temerity to express considerable scepticism
> about
> > both the reliability of the IPCC process--the intergovernmental panel
> on
> > climate change, set up under the auspices of the UN to inform and
> advise
> > governments on what is clearly a global issue--and the desirability of
> > the Kyoto/emissions targets approach to tackling the problem.
> >
> > Although I was a member of that committee, I cannot speak for it as a
> > whole. But my own understanding of the issue is clear. The IPCC story,
> > which appears to have been swallowed hook, line and sinker by most
> > governments, not least our own, is as follows. Over the past
> millennium,
> > the world's mean temperature scarcely changed at all until around 1860,
> > when direct records first began. Since then it has risen (not steadily,
> > in fact: there was a period of cooling between 1945 and 1965) by an
> > unprecedented 0.6 degrees Celsius. This can only be due to the
> > simultaneous growth in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
> as
> > a result of industrialisation, which warms the planet by the so-called
> > greenhouse effect. Unless something is done about it, this warming is
> > set to continue, and probably to accelerate, as world economic growth
> > continues apace, and with it carbon dioxide emissions. On this basis, a
> > range of possible scenarios can be produced, showing further increases
> > in world temperature ranging from 1.7 degrees to 6.1 degrees by the end
> > of the present century, with dire consequences on a number of fronts.
> > The only solution is to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions as much
> and
> > as soon as possible, and the best way to do this is by the Kyoto
> process
> > of internationally agreed emissions targets.
> >
> > While there is little doubt that carbon dioxide emissions, other things
> > being equal, do warm the atmosphere--although reputable climate
> > scientists differ over the extent of this warming--every other aspect
> of
> > the IPCC story is seriously flawed.
> >
> > First, the history. The "hockey-stick" chart of temperatures over the
> > past millennium (so called because the constant temperature over the
> > long period up to 1860 resembles the straight handle and the subsequent
> > rise the curved blade), which featured prominently in the government's
> > 2003 energy white paper, is almost certainly a myth. There is, for
> > example, ample evidence of a warm period--warmer than today--in the
> > middle ages and of a very cold period around 1800. Historical treeline
> > studies--showing how far up mountains trees are able to grow at
> > different times, which is clearly correlated with climate
> > change--confirm this variation. This would not matter very much, merely
> > indicating that the climate fluctuates all the time and that the
> present
> > warming phase is by no means without precedent, were it not for the
> > IPCC's consistent refusal to entertain any dissent, however well
> > reseached, over the issue since it first published the "hockey-stick"
> > chart.
> >
> > Next, the scenarios. It is of course hard to form a view of the likely
> > rate of world economic growth over the next hundred years; but it is
> > striking that all the IPCC scenarios incorporate a heartwarmingly rapid
> > rate of growth in the developing world, so that by the end of the
> > century income per head in the developing world is well above what it
> is
> > in the rich world today. This may happen--I hope it does--but it is
> > clear that the IPCC scenarios do not capture the true range of
> > realistically possible outcomes.
> >
> > This upward bias is further compounded by the translation from economic
> > growth to growth in carbon dioxide emissions. The recent historical
> > record shows a steady decline in this rate of growth, from 2.3 per cent
> > a year over the past 40 years, to 1.6 per cent a year over the past 30
> > years, to 1.3 per cent a year over the past 20 years, to 1.2 per cent a
> > year over the past 10 years. This should not be surprising. In the
> first
> > place, economic progress is a story of increasing efficiency in the use
> > of all factors of production. In the case of labour this is customarily
> > referred to as growth in productivity, but precisely the same applies
> to
> > land and energy. Second, the pattern of world economic growth has been
> > changing, with services, which are less energy-intensive, growing
> faster
> > than manufacturing, which is more so.
> >
> > What is surprising, however, is the IPCC's assumption that this trend
> > will now be reversed. Its six scenarios for the 21st century are based
> > on an annual rate of growth in carbon dioxide emissions ranging from
> 1.4
> > per cent a year (appreciably greater, rather than less, than in the
> > recent past) to 2.3 per cent a year (almost double the rate of the
> > recent past). Once again, although the future is inevitably uncertain,
> > it is clear that the IPCC scenarios do not capture the true range of
> > plausible futures. And of course this upward bias feeds directly into
> an
> > upward bias in projected climate change.
> >
> > There are two possible reasons why this should be so, and why the IPCC
> > is so adamant that it will not revisit its assumptions. Both may be
> > true. The first is that those involved in the exercise are so
> profoundly
> > concerned about the perils of global warming, and the risk of
> > governments deferring the action they believe is needed, that the
> > scarier the outlook they can produce the better. The second is a
> > characteristic of any institution looking into any problem: the more
> > serious the problem can be made to appear, the more important the
> > institution and its personnel become and the more attention they can
> > command.
> >
> > But however understandable, this is not helpful in a world of limited
> > resources where there are many other problems jostling for attention
> and
> > the devotion of additional resources: to take just two examples,
> dealing
> > with the more imminent dangers posed by Islamic terrorism and by
> nuclear
> > proliferation--and by the possible interaction between them.
> > Humanitarian aid to the world's poorest is another obvious candidate
> for
> > more resources. At the margin, choices have to be made, and it is
> > essential they are made on the basis of the most rational assessments
> we
> > can achieve.
> > Which brings us to the question of what is to be done about such global
> > warming as is likely to occur. There are two possible approaches, not
> > mutually exclusive: mitigation: seeking to stabilise and, if possible,
> > reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; and adaptation:
> > to accept that the climate may well be warming, and to take action to
> > counter any harmful consequences that may flow from this. The IPCC and
> > its acolytes make only the most perfunctory acknowledgment of
> > adaptation, base their estimates of the damage from global warming on
> > the assumption that very little adaptation occurs, and focus almost
> > exclusively on the need for mitigation. By contrast, perhaps the most
> > important conclusion of the House of Lords report is that adaptation
> > needs to take centre stage.
> >
> > Numerous studies have shown that adaptation is the more cost-effective
> > option. Not only is it the way we normally come to terms with climatic
> > vagaries, but--a fact which the IPCC does its best to play down--there
> > are benefits as well as costs from global warming. There are, of
> course,
> > regional variations: in northern Europe, for example, including
> Britain,
> > for the rest of this century the benefits are likely to exceed the
> > costs, whereas for the tropics the reverse is the case. But adaptation,
> > which implies pocketing the benefits while acting to diminish the
> costs,
> > has obvious attractions.
> >
> > The four principal costs potentially involved in global warming are
> > damage to agriculture and food production, water shortage, coastal
> > flooding (as sea levels rise), and--allegedly--malaria. In the case of
> > agriculture, adaptation, much of which will occur without the need for
> > government action, would consist of cultivating areas which have
> > hitherto been too cold to be economic and, in other cases, switching to
> > crops better suited to warmer climates. In the case of water shortage,
> > we already waste water on a massive scale, and there is ample scope for
> > water conservation measures.
> >
> > The most serious likely cost is that caused by coastal flooding of
> > low-lying areas, where government action is clearly required, in the
> > form of the construction of effective sea defences--as the Dutch have
> > had for more than 500 years. With modern technology this becomes a
> > highly cost-effective option. Finally, as to malaria--which leading
> > malaria experts argue is unrelated to temperature, noting that the
> > disease was endemic in Europe until the 17th century--the means of
> > combating if not eradicating this scourge are well established.
> >
> > By contrast, the Kyoto/emissions targets approach seems a most
> > unattractive option. Michael Grubb admitted, in his evidence to the
> > House of Lords committee, that even if the existing Kyoto targets were
> > attained, they would make little if any difference to the rate of
> global
> > warming: Kyoto's importance for him was as a first step to other,
> > stiffer, such agreements. But this is pie in the sky. The developing
> > countries, including major contributors to future carbon dioxide
> > emissions like China and India, are determined to remain outside the
> > process, while the US, the biggest emitter of all, has declined to
> > ratify the treaty. Moreover, since the only sanction against
> > non-compliance with Kyoto (which is likely to be widespread) is even
> > stricter targets in any successor agreement, the realism of this
> > approach is even harder to detect.
> >
> > This is no bad thing, since the cost of going the emissions targets
> > route, if it were effective, would be horrendous. Essentially, it would
> > work by raising the cost of carbon-based energy to the point where
> > carbon-free energy sources, and other carbon-saving measures, become
> > economic. Given that only last month Gordon Brown told the annual TUC
> > conference that the recent rise in oil prices was a global problem
> > requiring a global solution, and called on the oil-producing nations to
> > reduce their prices, there seems to be some lack of coherence in the
> > government's approach. For Kyoto-style mitigation to be seriously
> > effective involves a substantially greater rise in energy prices than
> > anything we have yet seen--although the government's energy white paper
> > was curiously silent about this.
> >
> > But the real cost of this approach is not so much dearer energy as the
> > reduction in world economic growth. It is far from self-evident, not
> > least for the developing world, that over the next 100 years a poorer
> > but cooler world is to be preferred to a richer but warmer one. And why
> > should the present and next generations sacrifice their living
> standards
> > in order to benefit more distant generations, who are projected in any
> > event to be considerably better off?
> >
> > The IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution so closed to reason,
> > that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, close
> > it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the
> > issue of climate change to the established Bretton Woods institutions.
> > Meanwhile, whether this happens or not, it is imperative that in this
> > country the treasury becomes fully involved in all this. In my time as
> > chancellor, it would have been unthinkable for the treasury not to have
> > made its own independent and rigorous economic analysis of a matter as
> > important as climate change.
> >
> > But the IPCC's apparent determination to suppress or ignore dissenting
> > views, which has become little short of a scandal, is part of a wider
> > problem. In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its
> strongest,
> > the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue
> > in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with
> > reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.
> >
> > We have recently seen a further example of this in the widespread
> > assumption that the Mexican gulf coast hurricanes, Katrina and Rita,
> are
> > a consequence of global warming--a punishment, it is implied, for our
> > heedless materialism and disregard of the planet. One wonders, in that
> > case, what caused the region's worst recorded hurricane, which
> > devastated Galveston in 1900. In fact, the balance of scientific
> opinion
> > is that there is no convincing evidence that the further climate change
> > which is feared might occur over the coming decades will lead to an
> > increased incidence and severity of hurricanes, let alone the modest
> > degree of warming that we have seen so far.
> >
> > As Dick Taverne has pointed out, we appear to have entered a new age of
> > unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is
> > profoundly disquieting. It must not be allowed to prevail.End of the
> > article
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > George Marshall
> > Co-Executive Director
> > The Climate Outreach and Information Network (COIN)
> > 16B Cherwell St. Oxford, OX4 1BG, UK.
> > Telephone 01865 727 911
> > Mobile 0795 150 4549
> > E-mail [log in to unmask]
> > Web: www.COINet.org.uk
> >
> > COIN is a charitable trust, registration number 1102225. It supports
> > initiatives and organisations that increase public understanding and
> > awareness of climate change.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>