Editing Nigel Lawson (section)

=== Position on global warming ===
Lawson was involved with the [[climate change denial]] movement and believed that the impact of [[man-made global warming]] had been exaggerated.<ref name="Kazmi 2015">{{cite book |last=Kazmi |first=Azhar |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ByWDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA393 |title=The SAGE Encyclopedia of Economics and Society |date=19 November 2015 |publisher=SAGE Publications |isbn=978-1-5063-4617-5 |editor-last1=Wherry |editor-first1=Frederick F. |page=393 |section=Climate Denial Movement |editor-last2=Schor |editor-first2=Juliet B.}}</ref>

In 2004, along with six others, Lawson wrote a letter to ''[[The Times]]'' opposing the [[Kyoto Protocol]] and claiming that there were substantial scientific uncertainties surrounding [[climate change]].<ref name=20041004globalwarming>{{cite web |last=Murray |first=Iain |title=Distinguished signatories take on British political consensus |publisher=[[Cooler Heads Coalition]] |date=October 8, 2004 |url=http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=795 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070911190004/http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=795 |archive-date=2007-09-11 }}</ref> In 2005, the [[House of Lords]] Economics Affairs [[Select committee (United Kingdom)|Select Committee]], with Lawson as a member, undertook an inquiry into climate change. In their report, the committee recommended the [[HM Treasury]] take a more active role in [[Politics of climate change|climate policy]], questioned the objectivity of the [[IPCC]] process, and suggested changes in the UK's contribution to future international climate change negotiations.<ref>{{cite web |author=House of Lords, Select Committee on Economic Affairs |year=2005 |title=The Economics of Climate Change |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf |publisher=UK Parliament |language=en-US |access-date=14 March 2007}}</ref> The report cited a mismatch between the economic costs and benefits of climate policy and also criticised the [[greenhouse gas]] emission reduction targets set in the Kyoto Protocol. In response to the report, Michael Grubb, [[chief economist]] of the [[Carbon Trust]], wrote an article in ''[[Prospect (magazine)|Prospect]]'' magazine, defending the Kyoto Protocol and describing the committee's report as being "strikingly inconsistent".<ref>{{cite web |last=Grubb |first=Michael |date=1 September 2005 |title=Stick to the Target |url=http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/grubb/publications/GA09.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910213846/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/grubb/publications/GA09.pdf |archive-date=10 September 2008 |access-date=24 January 2008}}</ref> Lawson responded to Grubb's article, describing it as an example of the "intellectual bankruptcy of the [...] climate change establishment". Lawson also said that Kyoto's approach was "wrong-headed" and called on the IPCC to be "shut down".<ref name=20051101prospect-magazine>{{cite web |last=Lawson |first=Nigel |date=1 November 2005 |title=Against Kyoto |url=http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?search_term=lawson&id=7117 |website=Prospect |access-date=20 November 2007}}</ref>

At about the same time as the release of the House of Lords report, the UK Government launched the [[Stern Review]], an inquiry undertaken by the HM Treasury and headed by [[Lord Stern of Brentford]]. According to the Stern Review, published in 2006, the potential costs of climate change far exceed the costs of a programme to stabilise the climate. Lawson's lecture to the [[Centre for Policy Studies]] (CPS) [[think tank]], published 1 November 2006, opposed the Stern Review and advocated adaptation to changes in global climate rather than reducing [[greenhouse gas emissions]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Lecture on the Economics and Politics of Climate Change – An Appeal to Reason |url=http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061115/20061115_08.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061214005336/http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061115/20061115_08.html |archive-date=14 December 2006 |publisher=Centre for Policy Studies |language=en-GB |date=1 November 2006 |access-date=14 March 2007}}</ref>

In 2008, Lawson published a book expanding on his 2006 lecture to the CPS, ''[[An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming]]''.<ref>{{cite news |last=Lawson |first=Nigel |date=6 April 2008 |title=Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason' |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/04/06/ealawson106.xml |location=London |work=The Sunday Telegraph |access-date=19 April 2008}}{{dead link|date=July 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> He argued the case that, although global warming is happening, the impact of these changes will be relatively moderate rather than apocalyptic. He criticised those "[[alarmist]]" politicians and scientists who predict catastrophe unless [[Climate change mitigation|urgent action]] is taken.

In July 2008, the Conservative magazine ''Standpoint'' published a transcript of a double interview with Lawson and Conservative Policy Chief [[Oliver Letwin]], in which Lawson described Letwin's views on global warming as "pie in the sky" and called on him and the Conservative frontbench to "get real".<ref name=20080720standpointmag>{{cite web |title=The Politics of Climate Change |url=http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/dialogue-july?page=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C6 |work=Standpoint |language=en-GB |date=20 July 2008 |access-date=18 October 2009 |archive-date=7 January 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110107063613/http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/dialogue-july?page=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C6 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

On 23 November 2009, Lawson became chairman of a new think tank, [[The Global Warming Policy Foundation]] (GWPF),<ref name=ParlProf /><ref name="nige 9 nov">{{cite news |last=Lawson |first=Nigel |date=23 November 2009 |title=Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100106170050/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 January 2010 |work=[[The Times]] |location=London |language=en-GB |access-date=26 February 2010}}</ref> a registered education charity,<ref name=20130218guardian>{{cite news |last=Monbiot |first=George |date=18 February 2013 |title=The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/charities-pr-rightwing-ultra-rich |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |access-date=8 March 2013}}</ref> involved in promoting climate change denial.<ref name="Kazmi 2015" />

In 2011, [[Bob Ward (communications director)|Bob Ward]] of the [[Grantham Research Institute]] said that the GWPF was "spreading errors" and "the 'facts{{'"}} Lawson "repeats are demonstrably inaccurate".<ref name=bob>{{cite news |last=Ward |first=Bob |date=21 October 2011 |title=Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation is spreading errors |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/21/lord-lawson-global-warming-errors?INTCMP=SRCH |work=The Guardian |language=en-US |access-date=9 April 2012}}</ref> Ward also criticised Lawson for repeating in a 2010 BBC radio debate that [[Antarctic ice sheet|Antarctic ice]] volumes were unchanged even after his error was highlighted by his opponent, Professor [[Kevin Anderson (scientist)|Kevin Anderson]].<ref name=bob /> Ward said that Lawson provided no evidence to back his claim which is contrary to satellite measurements, and Lawson similarly incorrectly implied that the correlation between {{CO2|link=yes}} and sea levels was uncertain as well as that [[Sea level rise|sea levels were rising]] more slowly since 1950 than before it.<ref name=bob />

The [[Charity Commission]] requires that statements by campaigning charities "must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base". They reviewed the GWPF, which was subsequently split with its campaigning arm and renamed the Global Warming Policy Forum without [[charitable status]], while the charitable section retained the original title.<ref name="bob" /> Lawson's son, [[Dominic Lawson]], is also a [[climate change denier]], taking a similar viewpoint as his father in his columns in the ''[[Independent on Sunday]]''.<ref>{{cite news |last=Lawson |first=Dominic |date=22 September 2006 |title=The debate on climate change is far too important to be shut down by the scientists |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-the-debate-on-climate-change-is-far-too-important-to-be-shut-down-by-the-scientists-416998.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220620/https://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-the-debate-on-climate-change-is-far-too-important-to-be-shut-down-by-the-scientists-416998.html |archive-date=20 June 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |location=London |work=The Independent on Sunday |language=en-GB |access-date=20 April 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Lawson |first=Dominic |date=23 November 2007 |title=Dominic Lawson: Fight climate change? Or stay competitive? I'm afraid these two aims are incompatible |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-fight-climate-change-or-stay-competitive-im-afraid-these-two-aims-are-incompatible-760078.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220620/https://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-fight-climate-change-or-stay-competitive-im-afraid-these-two-aims-are-incompatible-760078.html |archive-date=20 June 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |location=London |work=The Independent on Sunday |language=en-GB |access-date=20 April 2008}}</ref>

In a [[BBC Radio]] interview in August 2017, Lawson claimed that "official figures" showed "average world temperature has slightly declined" over the preceding decade and that experts in the IPCC found no increase in [[extreme weather]] events. In a follow-up programme on the BBC's presentation of these claims, [[Peter A. Stott]] of the [[Met Office]] said Lawson was wrong on both points.<ref name="McGrath 2017">{{cite news |last=McGrath |first=Matt |date=11 August 2017 |title=Anger over 'untrue' climate claims |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40899188 |work=BBC News |language=en-US |access-date=25 October 2017}}</ref>