WDEL Blog: Rick Jensen's World Famous Thirsty Thursday Blog

British "Climate Secretary" says credible scientists challenging the politcal class are "profoundly irresponsible!"

Ed Miliband: climate change deniers are 'profoundly irresponsible'

(Rick's note: Britain has a "Climate Secretary." It's his job to disparage credible scientists who question the politically correct presumption that man's activities are warming the planet and so we must raise taxes.)

Ed Miliband, the British climate change secretary, today said critics who argue that climate change is not the result of human actions are "profoundly irresponsible".
As negotiating teams from 192 countries gather in Copenhagen for the climate change summit, Miliband admitted there was "further to go" on persuading climate change sceptics here and abroad. But he defended Gordon Brown's criticism of them in the Guardian as "behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics" .
Miliband told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The overwhelming consensus of scientists across the world is that climate change is real and is man-made and is happening. The people who do somehow want to suggest that the science is in doubt are profoundly irresponsible."
He added: "We know that carbon dioxide concentrations are the highest level in the atmosphere in 600,000 years nobody doubts that. We also know from the physicists that the CO2 effect when CO2 is emitted is it traps the heat in the earth's atmosphere and then warms the planet. That is very clear and not in dispute.
"This is not an observation or people just running models. This is a clear scientific effect people are talking about. In those circumstances I think it's right for us to say: 'Look, we are not scientists, but we should represent to you fairly the science, and it's because the scientific view is so clear and overwhelming on this we must fairly represent that.'"
In an article in today's Guardian, the prime minister underlines the historic nature of the summit, which has been described as the most important international gathering since the end of the second world war. "Sometimes history comes to turning points," he writes. "For all our sakes the turning point of 2009 must be real."
Brown calls on the 100 world leaders expected in Copenhagen on the final day of the talks to move quickly to reinforce an anticipated political deal with a fully-fledged treaty, which would be made legally binding in international law within six months.
Miliband said that the central objective of the summit was to secure a political agreement to cap global emissions by 2020. "We are going for something very big. I don't think it is guaranteed that we will succeed, but we will do everything we can in the next two weeks not just to get a deal but to get a deal that is consistent with the science," he said.
He denied that the government's backing for a third runway at Heathrow airport was at odds with government rhetoric on tackling climate change.
He framed the government's decision to allow expansion for extra flights backed by a freeze on aviation emissions as a "sensible approach".
"Increases in passenger numbers will have to be paid for by improvements in carbon efficiency."
He added: "The most important thing is to take people with you, and the way you take people with you is by saying this is a sensible approach."

Here is just ONE list of "profoundly irresponsible" scientists who disagree:


Posted at 7:31am on December 7, 2009 by Rick Jensen

<- Back to all Rick Jensen's World Famous Thirsty Thursday Blog posts

Comments on this post:

Victor Singer
Wed, Dec 9, 2009 4:10pm
That global warming is real is undeniable. Whether it's happening now, and
if yes, how much of it is due to humankind, is worth thinking about a bit

Much evidence supports the finding that during the most recent two million
years, the earth has experienced at least seventeen cycles between extreme
cold (glaciation) and extreme heat (global warming). That mankind
accelerates the CURRENT cycle is an attractive hypothesis of no particular import.
What is important is whether that acceleration (if it is real at all) makes
what would happen anyway happen a decade sooner or a millennium sooner. The
climate change worthies - - despite their Nobel - - haven't begun to answer
such an inquiry.

Remember that as credible as the premise is that activities by mankind have
caused an acceleration of global warming, it is simply incredible that the
other sixteen glaciation/warming cycles in the last two million years were
similarly caused.

Remember also that warming - - shrinkage of polar ice caps - - has been
observed on Mars, particularly over the most recent decade. I'm not anxious to
believe that my own contributions - - the gases released by a couple of
dozen little rocket motors and gas generators that controlled the soft landings
of the three little six-wheeled rovers that we've sent up there - - are the
cause of polar cap shrinkage on Mars.

Similar but less conclusive evidence exists also, of warming elsewhere in
the solar system. Maybe the smug conclusion - - stated with theological
vehemence - - that we are responsible for all or a substantial portion of it,
deserves a bit more attention. Maybe just this once, the REAL answer is
written in the sky. Perhaps the proponents of blaming it all on humankind, who insist that expressions of contrary views are faulty because they aren't politically correct, should be reminded that political correctness is the notion that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Fri, Dec 11, 2009 9:34am
I'm only posting this note here because your previous post about the environment email leak is too far back for anyone to notice now... FactCheck.org just did some pretty good investigation on the topic... Your software won't let me link to it, but you should find it easily at www.factcheck.org. Pretty interesting stuff... if you're interested in actually reading the truth and not your usual propaganda.

Victor Singer
Sat, Dec 12, 2009 2:54pm
Responding to comment #2, the following has been submitted to FactCheck.com:
From a Cost/Benefit and Environmental Impact Study viewpoint, have quantitative studies established (or estimated) which of the numerous suggested approaches to delay the effects of Global Warming would have how large an effect, individually and severally, on the prevailing situation a half century, a century, or two centuries into the future? If yes to the entire question or any part thereof, where can the studies be viewed?

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach