The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a "hysterical psuedo-religion". In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made. "Resources should be used to adapt to the consequences of climate change, rather than King Canute-style vainly trying to stop it," said the minister.
Peter Doran of the Green Party said it was a "deeply irresponsible message." Mr Wilson said he refused to "blindly accept" the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change. "The tactic used by the "green gang" is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact," he said.
The minister said he accepted climate change can occur, but does not believe the cause has been identified. "Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists."
Good man.
31 comments:
I`m not quite sure I understand what your point about the BBC is Iain ?
Why is it a story for a politician to say he is sceptical about man made global warming? The BBC is falling into the green trap of agreeing that anyone who is sceptical is a - gasp - "denier".
O dear Iain Sammy is a character, not least having a pic of him in a field romping with his bare arse on show!!
Meet Sammy 'bare arse' wilson..
I kid you not....
It *is* a story for an Enviroment Minister in the Legislative Assembly to say he is sceptical isn't it?
I can't think of any other Environment Minister in Europe who has been critical of AGW theory
Good to see that the BBC are still on the ball after the all the phone scandals...
From their lead article tonight about who won Big Brother (don't judge me!):
"When Rachel and Mikey faced each other in a head-to-head phone vote after the others had left the house, she received 51.3% of the votes to Mikey's 49.7%."
How much is his opinion worth? Does he know what he's talking about? These are the questions you should be asking.
Aha I see .They assume an orthodoxy so much that a transgressor is a man who bites dog . Yes its an odd mental world and what strikes me is that his remarks are not denying anything they are resisting the misuse of green-washing and associated agendas of climate loons.
I wonder whether the government of which he is part employs a Chief Scientist to advise Ministers on matters like this? Such an appointment was recommended to them by The Institute of Physics in Ireland in 2005.
Wilson read Economics at university and is a school teacher by profession. He probably thinks that climate change is a matter of faith rather than one of evidence and scientific study.
Sammy Wilson - doesn't believe in global warming, but does believe you should be locked up for 42 days without trial and representation. You couldn't make it up...
Well, good for Sammy Wilson - I wish more environment ministers had more courage to state the obvious.
Tom Harris
International Climate Science Coalition
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
'green' taxes = Selling of Pardons. The greens are no better than medieval pardoners and we have become as hysterically ignorant as our medieval forebears.
A couple of years ago when the country was experiencing a summer of prolonged high temperatures and no rain we were told that this was because of "global warming" and that summers will be warmer and drier and now we're told that the last two where its never stopped raining and we're getting flooding that is down to "global warming" and summers will be wetter in future- it's little wonder that the ordinary voter in this country doesn't know what the **** to believe !
I've just thought of a new way to look at global warming.
Suppose you said to a group of scientists "Right boys, I want you to raise the temperature of the whole world by 2 degrees in the next 20 years."
Don't you think that there would be the same reaction that you get from your plumber when you ask him to fit the new boiler just THERE; a sucking in of the cheeks, the ooh I dunno guv, the shake of the head...
Bye, bye Mr Wilson. Me thinks you may be shuffled into the back benches in the enxt re-shuffle.
We can't have a MMGW denier in a seat of power can we. After all, individual thought has been outlawed.
This summer yet again seems to give the lie to the theory of man-made global warming. If the sun doesn't shine we are not warm.
One question I have asked on several blogs, without a satisfactory answer, is "Why have we had ice ages if not because of diminished Sun activity"? I suspect there are no good replies because any reasons given would confirm that the Sun rules our weather.
By all means let us reduce pollution, reduce dependence on imported energy - I am wholeheartedly in favour. I just view those and GW Theory as separate and disconnected issues.
By the way, it is hardly ever called Global Warming any more as that elicits too many references to cooler conditions experienced - it is now Climate Change, and that certainly does happen.
Good old Sammy. Always respected him, and found him one of the more reasonable DUPers. Pity about the 42 days vote. A reason I'd never vote for him.
Surely the news is that the BBC have given an apparently fair and balanced report of an opinion on global warming without the use of pejoritive langauge, and have equally reported the opinion of someone who differred. Given their track record on this subject this is a major turn round and much to be welcomed- if they continue this return to fulfilling their charter I for one will cheer. (Not holding my breath though)
Pat
I wonder when the Green-Worriers will demand that those who disagree should be Sectioned under Mental Health acts and incarcerated?.
In the same way the Soviet Russians did to their dissidents.
Sounds like a Lomborg-ist, almost. Accepting change is occurring, believing man-made element may be exaggerated, recommending spending on adaption instead of the impossibility of prevention.
‘ . . The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important:
• atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane);
• changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy);
• the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which could affect wind and ocean currents;
• variations in solar output;
• the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system;
and • the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.
. . The long-term increase in the Sun's output cannot be a cause of ice ages. The best known shorter-term variations are sunspot cycles, especially the Maunder minimum, which is associated with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. Like the Milankovitch cycles, sunspot cycles' effects are too weak and too frequent to explain the start and end of ice ages but very probably help to explain temperature variations within them . . ‘ [wikipedia]
CurbishlyAuto @ 1018 am -
"I wonder when the Green-Worriers will demand that those who disagree should be Sectioned under Mental Health acts and incarcerated?".
CurbishlyAuto, this is already happening. In the US, in response to the scientific debunking of his infamous Hockey Stick because of its flawed methodology and manipulation of data to produce the desired result, Michael Mann has called for scientists who question (Yes, question - not contradict or gainsay, merely question) his thesis to be put on trial.
overnments do not employ Chief Science Advisers for scientific advice, otherwise they would employ the top scientists for the job. They employ them to have a tame scientist who will say what they wnat & whom the media can represent as the "scientific consensus".
See for example Sir David King who said (in what the BBC described as "his strongest warning yet") that warming would be 3 degrees & previously promised (in what a former editor if Nature described as a "kindergarten analysis") that warming would be so catastrophic that the only habitable continent wiould be Antarctica.
It should be pointed out that Ofcom ruled against the Global Warming Swindle programme on the grounds that Sir David never said that. It should also be pointed out that Ofcom lied - he said it both to the Independent & to parliament.
Rob's Uncle
Thank you. I did know that Wikipedia also had no real explanation.
Surely the reported 15,000 climate scientists who supported the Theory of Global Warming would have the answer to such a very vital question? If they don't then theirs is an Art, not a Science.
By comparison with the amount of coverage & published attacks this statement has produced see the statement by Scottish Environment Minister LibDem Ross Finnie, as reported in the Scotsman, that anybody who believed Al Gore's film was any sort of political propaganda "has got to be on planet Mars".
I would argue that that is a more contentious claim. Anyone thinking the BBC to be in some way impartial will be astonished they never contacted anybody from any progessive organisation for a quote disagreeing with his forthright claim.
As the 9% Growth Party, which disputes the whole warming scam let alone Gore's rubbish & a former LibDem who had debated the need for nuclear power with Mr Finnie, prior to my expulsion, I would have been perfectly willing to give them a quote.
Bloody good man!
In other news Iain Dale says world is flat because "it's obvious innit - look out the window" and "nobody has ever proved to me it is round".
The way you quote him, if it represents fully what he said, is that "he does not believe" it's man made. If, as is implied, he has stated this in terms of belief, rather than by arguing against scientific evidence and/or reasoned hypothesis, isn't he falling into the trap of making this a matter of faith in the same way that it has now become fashionable to describe concern about global warming as "a religion"?
As for the mantra that "they talk about climate change now rather than global warming" - surely you only have to have a moderate facility with the english language to realise that global warming can very logically be a part of climate change? But the issue of more hurricanes, for instance, (if you doubt it, ask the insurance industry) aren't a matter of people suffering from the temperature are they, they are suffering from the wind - hence climate change is a better and fuller description of everything that is going on.
As disagreement that man made carbon emissions are, or can, cause climate change/global warming seems to be becoming a regular them of Iain Dale, is he going to treat us soon to a full length article giving his scientific reasoning for this? Or is it easier just to take up a stance as, ahem, a matter of faith?
I have heard it said that there is only one belief that requires a greater leap of faith than being sure of the existence of God, and that is to be sure in ones aetheism. Iain has a lot of faith - and it will be my grandchildren that will pay the price if his faith is mistaken.
Re : Londoner
"... "he does not believe" it's man made. If, as is implied, he has stated this in terms of belief, rather than by arguing against scientific evidence and/or reasoned hypothesis, isn't he falling into the trap of making this a matter of faith in the same way that it has now become fashionable to describe concern about global warming as "a religion"?"
No. His belief is the conclusion at which he has arrived after some unknown process of evaluation. You have no idea if that process involved examining all the supposed scientific papers on the subject and concluding that they are a load of sloppy rubbish.
You are confusing the word 'belief' with the word 'faith', which is a very appropriate word for the greenies.
You obviously still believe in global warming. Tell us why.
"As for the mantra that "they talk about climate change now rather than global warming" - surely you only have to have a moderate facility with the english language to realise that global warming can very logically be a part of climate change? "
Global warming only began to be taken seriously because of a few hot summers at the end of the 90s, plus some completely bogus statistical studies of tree-rings, and a concerted campaign of spin doctoring by the greenies. (I still want to know who paid for that.)
The greeneis started trying to relabel everything to 'Climate Change' a few years later when there were a few cooler summers. Any rational person immediately recognised that a giant hole had been blown in their argument, even before the hockey stick studies were shown to be completely bogus. But the nice thing about 'Climate Change' is that it is a label that can be applied to any extreme weather event. Sort of like 'God's will', really.
"But the issue of more hurricanes, for instance, (if you doubt it, ask the insurance industry) aren't a matter of people suffering from the temperature are they, they are suffering from the wind "
The main issue for the insurance industry is that as more and more americans get rich and retire to the south where it is warm, more and more of them start building property on the beach front, where it is most likely to get hit by a hurricane.
Which is probably why that awful little Trot Bob Ward - spin doctor at the Royal Society under the dreadful Bob May, booted out by Rees shortly after he took over - next popped up working for the insurance industry, preaching the line about there will be more hurricanes, therefore we have to treble your insurance premiums.
"- hence climate change is a better and fuller description of everything that is going on."
Well, this is true enough. It is also true of religion, of course.
"As disagreement that man made carbon emissions are, or can, cause climate change/global warming seems to be becoming a regular them of Iain Dale, is he going to treat us soon to a full length article giving his scientific reasoning for this? Or is it easier just to take up a stance as, ahem, a matter of faith?"
Come, Londoner, first explain your faith in catastrophic man-made global warming.
By the way, you aren't Steve Bloom, are you ?
"I have heard it said that there is only one belief that requires a greater leap of faith than being sure of the existence of God, and that is to be sure in ones aetheism."
What a very silly thing to say. Had I heard it, I suspect I would have blown a raspberry.
"Iain has a lot of faith - and it will be my grandchildren that will pay the price if his faith is mistaken."
Still the confusion between 'belief' and 'faith'.
More to the point, if you clowns prevail, your grandchildren will grow up in an impoverished world where 'science' is a word used by whoever has the biggest PR budget to spend on selling whatever totalitarian lie you people think of next.
Oh, yes, and my respects to Sammy Wilson. Can we have some Tories with the same good sense, please ?
Well I am complimented that Freddie has spent so much time "fisking" me.
Other than a basic understanding of the causality whereby increasing carbon dioxide (which has been measured) reduces heat loss from the atmosphere, a process that I have never seen challenged, I do not claim to have any scientific knowledge of the subject, still less insights into what other factors might be causing global warming. The carbon emissions contribution is just one that seems plausible, is supported by the majority of scientists, and does not seem to be easily refutable by those who dislike the consequences of the analysis. (The major consequence being the need for a degree of personal and collective restraint and self-denial - I believe that is the true overlap with religion, not that the analysis is a leap of faith.) Indeed the reason I alight upon threads such as this is because I keep hoping that someone with more knowledge than me will further explain and debate the science in something other than slogans.
Second, it is total rubbish to say that global warming first became a political issue in the 1990s. I was first drawn to it in 1988 when Mrs Thatcher, a professional scientist before entering politics, made a famous speech on the subject. She was not being original as the issue had been around for a while before that. I believe that if she has not been ejected a couple of years later that she would have done a lot more about it than the very half-hearted actions of her inadequate successors Major and Blair. I admit an element of faith here: a faith in her judgement as someone with a scientific mind whose political instincts I share. I think we form a lot of our original political opinions according to the company they keep, and I have never been convinced out of it by anyone since.
Related to my second point, it would be as fatuous to think that global warming is a myth because of a short run of a few years' cooler weather as it would be to base the opposite argument on a few years' hotter weather. No-one is saying that the only thing affecting global temperatures are carbon emissions. The question is what the long term trend is and whether what mankind is doing is making its effects worse.
No, I am not Steve Bloom; indeed I have never heard of him. Who is he, so I can decide whether I should be pleased or horrified to be mistaken for him?
"it would be as fatuous to think that global warming is a myth because of a short run of a few years' cooler weather as it would be to base the opposite argument on a few years' hotter weather"
Precisely. We had cooling from the 1930s to the 1970s, warming from the mid 70s to 1998 & cooling since. There is no long run trend excpet that there is a clear trend over thousands of years of the temperature closely shadowing the sunspot cycle.
Anybody see the BBC's Climate Wars programme. Lots of pictures, mood music & the presenters kids. Many of the relatively few alleged facts were lies (Hansen's predictions 20 years ago have not proven right but spectacularly wrong). In promoting Lysenkosim Stalin was a piker compred to the BBC.
Post a Comment