“our party’s policy is that the Bill is necessary.” – redux

One interesting point of the Northern Ireland Environment Minister, the DUP’s Sammy Wilson’s views on man-made greenhouse gases, including CO2, and their contribution to climate change is that he is in opposition to the NI Executive, which is fully signed up to the UK Climate Change Act, and he is in opposition to his own party, which supports the Act. But he wasn’t opposed to the extent that he claimed during the studio discussion with Green Party MLA Brian Wilson on Stormont Live today. When challenged on his opposition to his party’s line Sammy Wilson told Martina Purdy – “I spoke against the Bill. I voted against the Bill.” Well, he’s half-right. According to Hansard, neither at the 2nd reading, nor at the 3rd and final reading, did Sammy Wilson MP ever vote against the Climate Change Bill. Which was pointed out on Slugger at the time. [clip below the fold]
Here’s the NI Environment Minister on Stormont Live.

Adds It’s also worth noting this point from the BBC report.

Sammy Wilson argued that the Scottish executive had objected and stopped the adverts being broadcast. However, the Scottish executive told the BBC the reason it did not run these adverts was because they are already running their own climate change adverts.

, , , , ,

  • 6cp

    Sammy’s in good company:

    …Highlights of 2008 report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears (link below):

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…. As a scientist I remain skeptical… The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

    “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

    For full quotes, click below:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

  • 6cp

    A few more:

    “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken… Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

    “Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” -Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic.

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    “Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska,

    “The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

    “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

    “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, …When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

  • Pete Baker

    6cp

    Try to focus on the actual detail in the original post.

    There are enough pointless conversations taking place already were quotes are being bandied about to substitute for science.

    This post isn’t about what you or Sammy or anyone else believe.

  • Pete Baker

    Adds And, on topic, it’s also worth noting this point from the BBC report.

    Sammy Wilson argued that the Scottish executive had objected and stopped the adverts being broadcast. However, the Scottish executive told the BBC the reason it did not run these adverts was because they are already running their own climate change adverts.

  • circles

    Indeed 6cp – you’re slowly becoming the new John O’Connell withthat kind of rant. Copy and paste is, in my opinion, the quickest way to have yourself written off as a nut-job – especially when its a collection of random propaganda quote.

    I just caught Sammy embarassing himself in a “debate” with George Monbiot on the BBC world service here in West Africa. I was sitting with a group of Germans who were also listening and pissing themselves laughing at Sammy floundering along in the face of well presented arguments. One of them then said “Er ist bestimmt von dieser Paisley-Partei, oder?” (“He’s definitely from the Paisley party, isn’t he?”) Funny how the eternal “No” tranlsates even to non-english speakers isn’t it?

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Is there another political party in Western Europe that has such wild anti-science ideas as the DUP or do we have to look further afield. circles what about West Africa ? or are they more enlightened round those parts?

  • beta

    @It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Saying that we must mend our ways to avoid environmental catastrophe is about as scientific as Marxism, or eugenics. It is fundamentally political, even if there are scientific claims wrapped up in it. Some of the factual scientific claims of the green lobby, Marxists, and eugenicists are undoubtedly true, but advocating less fossil fuel usage on the grounds of averting catastrophe is political, and is rather religious too in the way that Marxism is.

    Leaving fossil fuels in the ground will cost us much in treasure, and even blood. Even if we accept man made warming I still need to see the cost benefit analysis that leaving such a resource unutilised will be of net benefit rather than taking it on the chin. Perhaps I’m not looking in the right places, but I see little in the way of such things apart from “The Skeptical Environmentalist” guy. Where are they?

    Some of the green advocates are obviously less motivated by a pragmatic accounting / engineering problem than they are with their own guilt / redemption / purity narrative rather similar to that I get when I talk to Jehovah’s Witnesses. That much I can see.

  • beta

    Saying that we must mend our ways to avoid environmental catastrophe is about as scientific as Marxism, or eugenics.

    Or to put it in a nutshell science NEVER tells us what we OUGHT to do, it only deals with IS statements. Therefore anyone who claims that science tells us we should do X is automatically talking bollocks.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

    It is ethics / religion / politics.

    If we have a climate change problem, then it is a problem of accountancy / economics / engineering. When I look at environmental activists they don’t look particularly like accountants or engineers to me, so my spider sense starts tingly from the get go, even if I’m wrong.

  • Pete Baker

    And back to the actual topic..

    Rather than an argument that some are far too familiar with..

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Most Politicans are not expert scientists and should use their abilities ( fairly limited in Sammys case) to evaluate the relative merits of each case. Unfortunately Sammy and his fundmanetalist colleagues dont do rational evaluation – they do ideology. Their obsession with 18th century politics seems to inform their non-scientific beliefs and their social policy.

    One can only imagine the absolute mad-house that Norn Ireland would have become if Unionist rule had been allowed to continue to the present day.

  • 6cp

    Three posts on Slugger in order to vilify Sammy. What are you guys afraid of? And, do the views of the scientists listed above mean nothing just because they are not caught up in the hysteria of the moment?

    Come on folks, be men and women enough to acknowledge that the debate is far from settled (scientists are changing sides), and you might just be wrong about this whole malarkey.

  • Pete Baker

    6cp

    “Three posts on Slugger in order to vilify Sammy.”

    You’re still not paying attention to the detail in the original post.

    And back to the actual topic..

  • Elvis parker

    6Cp – leaving aside for the moment the climate change argument the truth is he has conveniently forgotten that he is so Busy double jobbing he has had to imagine he bothered to turn up at Westminster

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    6cp

    If Sammy belonged to a party that didnt specialise in policies that would not be touched by mainstream European parties then you might have a point. Anti-gay, Anti-Darwin, Anti-GlobalWarming and of course Anti-Catholic. Secular, sensible Unionists must despair at who their fellow Unionists have elected.

  • Reader

    6cp: And, do the views of the scientists listed above mean nothing just because they are not caught up in the hysteria of the moment?
    Have you any idea how many scientists there actually are in the world? And what a small proportion are on your list?
    And once your list gets long enough, all it will mean is that it’s time for another Project Steve:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

  • Steaky

    Not that I agree with Sammy, but given his position can I now ask for my road tax, enforced by his Department, to be reduced given that it is part based on emissions?

  • daisy

    Surely Sammy should’ve declared his membership of the Flat Earth Society before taking up the post of environment minister?

  • beta

    @Pete Baker

    And back to the actual topic..

    Rather than an argument that some are far too familiar with..

    It is perfectly on topic to explain why global warming scepticism is political, and it is therefore a legitimate and proper position for politicians to take a stance on.

    People have been calling for Sammy Wilson to resign, as if this issue is somehow beyond democratic political discourse, which is both wrong and dangerous.

    @It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    If Sammy belonged to a party that didnt specialise in policies that would not be touched by mainstream European parties then you might have a point. Anti-gay, Anti-Darwin, Anti-GlobalWarming and of course Anti-Catholic. Secular, sensible Unionists must despair at who their fellow Unionists have elected.

    A silly argumentum ad populum. I am an atheist and “fully signed up” to evolution by natural selection, but I am extremely worried about the global warming irrationality I see around me. While I certainly can’t support anything between consenting adults being illegal, I am very open on the question of gay marriage as well, and think that most of it’s proponents don’t understand what they are doing. In particular I can concede many of the arguments made here,
    http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/jane-galt-a-libertarian-view/

    I find particularly distasteful you bandying about that your position is somehow rational and beyond ideology, when most I see putting forward pro non carbon use are not ticking either box. At least Sammy Wilson has come to his own conclusion, and his opinions are a necessary part of democratic debate on the issue. The idea that most politicians who oppose his position are coming from a position of greater study of the evidence and a proper cost-benefit analysis I find highly dubious as I see no evidence for this.

  • halfer

    Isn’t this topic related to Sammys decision to ban a tv advert asking you to switch your lights and t.v.’s off to save a wee bit of energy?

    even if you don’t believe in man made global warming, how can you justify banning a telly ad givin a bit of friendly and useful advice.

  • Iveagh Man

    Global warming is a Fraud perpetuated by Marxist nature worshippers who with the use of Facist tactics want to control the lives of us all. They are interested in power and influence and are using scare tactics to herd the world to their point of view.
    Thank Goodness there are some politicians and many scientists who have not bought the lie. Of course they will never get a fair hearing on the TV media as they are controlled by Marxists too.
    Here is a radical idea, perhaps the earths temperature is effected by that big heater in the sky, our SUN.