A politician explains global warming

At the end of a year that most people would like to forget, the environment minister of Northern Ireland shared some thoughts about global warming:

“I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria I’ve got to say as well.

“I mean I get it in the Assembly all the time and most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldn’t have a clue.

“They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, it’s popular and therefore they go along with the flow — and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense.”

IBD observed: “The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not occurred since 1913…in the past 1,000 years, three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750).”

UPDATE — And now sea ice is back to levels of 30 years ago. Oops!

2 Responses to “A politician explains global warming”

  1. gs Says:

    I’ve read that one way the War on Drugs is sustained despite its interminable length and grievous collateral damage is that every federal agency and state gets some “anti-drug” funding. Hence, to oppose the Drug War is to invite a budget reduction.

    Maybe the global warming types are going to try a similar ploy. Climate “authority” James Hansen has written Obama advocating a carbon tax. Hansen favors a version of the tax that serves as a wealth-redstribution mechanism.

  2. gs Says:

    Several bloggers have noted that the Huffington Post, of all places, has published a slam against Gore and his shtick.
    IMO the real issue is not whether warming–ditto for cooling–is real and (if real) humanly caused. The real issue is whether we can make a determination with enough confidence to warrant immediate reengineering of our economy.

    I don’t question that there are forces that tend to warm (or cool) the earth. I don’t doubt that the magnitude of each of these can be estimated reasonably well, but I am dubious that the short- and long-term feedbacks can be adequately quantified. I doubt that every relevant force has been identified.

    And I am completely unconvinced that reliable predictions can be made about the resultant of offsetting forces.

    It’s possible that in the foreseeable future the climate will continue muddling along; it’s possible that warming or cooling will emerge as an overriding ecological threat. However, it would be foolish or worse to reconfigure our civilization on the basis of what is understood today.

Leave a Reply