35 of 53 people found the following review helpful
Convincingly Written yet Misleading,
This review is from: An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming (Paperback)
I feel rather insulted by this book. I had no preconceptions about this topic so decided to research the best books which are consensual and sceptical about climate change. I read `An Appeal to Reason', and `Global Warming - A very short introduction' by Mark Maslin, after multiple recommendations on both.
During the science section in Mr Lawson's book, he cherry picks and actively misinterprets data to fit his argument. I chose to look up all the data (which is largely available free on the internet) which he uses, and I was shocked that he is even allowed to publish these clearly misleading interpretations.
Do not believe his arguments until you have looked at the data for yourself.
I felt that the rest of the book was interesting, and highlights logical actions which the `green army' for some reason choose not to recognise. And I do agree with his comments that reducing carbon emission becomes like an unwavering religion to some. But with his clear bias in earlier chapters I feel as if this he taken the equivalent, though opposite stand. Neither extreme group are willing to concede the other might have a good point, which may have terrible consequences for the rest of us in the middle.
Clearly Mr Lawson is very talented, and his economic arguments appear strong, but he is actively misleading in this book, therefore I have very little trust in what he says.
Do read this book, but please cross-reference other material. You will be amazed at the way you can be mislead if you only take one source.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 16 Jan 2011 17:58:06 GMT
P. J. Latham says:
I cannot agree with your comment that Nigel Lawson has been misleading in his authorship of this text. He was fortunate to find a publisher, many had been persuaded that AGW based climate change was fact and refused to accept any critical work that spoke out against much of the theory.
The 'Ten Myths of Climate Change' are now well understood and people who have set out to convince the public that AGW is in fact 'done and dusted' and 'put to bed' as well proven theory are now sadly mistaken.
The climate hypotheses have been shown to be false by their own standards. Inaccurate computer modelling and poor statistical trends together with simple mistakes made about historical data are behind this.
There are some errors particularly, for example, in the claims made about sea level rise in IPCC reports from the early 1990s but later figures are substantially correct.
If you consider Lawson's economic points, to fully understand them, you need to familiarise yourself with William D. Nordhaus & Joseph Boyer text 'Warming the World' in which detailed analysis using RICE and DICE modelling techniques about the various possible impacts of climate change upon the world economy from a cost vs marginal benefit viewpoint. Lawson's analysis can then be seen as a reasoned argument as one would expect from a respected former Chancellor in Thatcher's Government. [Nordhaus is a world authority and a Professor of Climate Economics at Yale]
Sorry Sam Bernard but you are wrong, or perhaps you were a convinced 'climate changer' already?
Posted on 9 May 2011 21:19:17 BDT
I commend you for your attempt to check the evidence behind claims made in this book. However, I notice you have failed to give any examples of the alleged misrepresentations. Please could you provide examples of the claims you believe to be false?
Posted on 13 May 2011 17:10:23 BDT
C. Phillips says:
Please could you give an example of how cherry picked data has been used to mislead. Without this I'm afraid your review doesn't have a great deal of credibility. Given that you are so scathing in your criticism I would have thought it reasonable to back up your opinion with some actual facts.
Posted on 2 Feb 2013 01:28:16 GMT
So, Sam's had over 2 years to come up with an example of Lawson's alleged 'misrepresentations'. But answer came there none. I can tell you why: Because there are absolutely no misrepresentations in this excellent book. And with global temperatures remaining flat and most catastrophists slowly backing away from their more wild predictions, the case for Lawson's appeal to reason grows stronger every year.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›