Stop climate hysteria
Global climate change is often subject to heated debate, not just in the scientific community but also in the political arena.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations, says that there is overwhelming evidence that recent climate change is caused by human activity and will have catastrophic effects in the future.
Critics believe that the underlying data of climate models used by the IPCC are unreliable, since temperature data from historic times were reconstructed through secondary sources like ice-cores and tree rings and have been compared with accurate modern day temperature measurements.
In its report entitled Nature, not human activity rules the climate the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) argues that warming periods of greater magnitude have occurred in the historic past, without any catastrophic consequences.
Little over a month ago, a Dutch government advisory committee published its long term recommendations on how to protect our country from the sea, at present as well as in future. We would have to raise the dikes and widen coastal areas to avert the danger of an estimated sea level rise by more than a meter by the end of this century.
Not even the IPCC is that pessimistic!
The measures recommended by the committee will amount to a total cost of one hundred billion euros. With its Doomsday scenario, the committee takes the Al Gore approach. It scares the public by predicting a catastrophic outcome that goes beyond current worst case scenarios.
A government trying to push through plans by instilling functional fear into the minds of citizens is inexcusable and indeed unacceptable. We shouldn’t be spending billions of euros trying to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide when the full extent of its influence is unknown. The government is spending an insane amount of taxpayer’s money based on little more than a hunch.
Until we have a full understanding of climate development and there is conclusive evidence that warrants human action, we should go about our business as usual. There is no need for Al Gore’s freaky hysteria.
–
Geert Wilders (1963) is the political leader of the populist Party for Freedom (PVV), which he founded after breaking away from the right-wing liberal party (VVD). The parliamentarian is well-known internationally for his outspoken views on Islam and the making of his short film Fitna.
Tuesday 14 October 2008, 17:05
Quote: A government trying to push through plans by instilling functional fear into the minds of citizens is inexcusable and indeed unacceptable.
Replace the word “A government” in above sentence by
Geert Wilders and you get an accurate description of the man.
Tuesday 14 October 2008, 19:42
In case the models are wrong, the problem is even bigger because we have a lake of knowledge. The best thing that we can do in that situation is to prepare flexible plans and start executing them.
Doing nothing or go as usually is the same as closing your yes for the future. We can expect that climate change and all aspects of it in relation to water is also a business. Given the situation and traditions of the Netherlands the government plans are a investment into the infrastructure of the Nethelands
Tuesday 21 October 2008, 0:03
Bit late perhaps, but I don’t want to leave it unsaid. The Netherlands have been known to deal with the sea for many centuries now, and succesfully. We’ve also been able to learn from mistakes in the past. So why not have some confidence, and ‘cross that bridge when we come to it?’ And no, mr(s) Nivard: lack of knowledge is not a reason for action. If that were so we would all get killed by exhaustion.
And yes, mr. Lodder, you are so right in saying that mr. Wilders instills functional fear into the minds of people. However: that is not at all inexcusable or unacceptable, it is needed! Who wants to see danger ahead? Nobody, but anyone’s better off facing it. As for me: I’m much rather swept of my feet by the sea than by Islam. By the sea you’re given a chance.
Tuesday 21 October 2008, 5:20
Geert Wilders is never short on using strong language, but it is true that there is uncertainty about the immediate effects of C02 increases on the climate. There is an interesting book of the American physicist Richard Muller, called Physics for new presidents, that gives a readily understandable survey of the current state of knowledge. I would suggest that any politician reads this book before entering debates concerning societal implications of scientific work. With regard to the sea level rise, it is certain that the projected increase will not occur overnight, even if the average world temperature would suddenly rise dramatically, as the heat capacity of the oceans is large enough to spread out the effects on the sea level. The projected amount of money involved per year to counter effects of sea level rise is however not really dramatic and most of the work can be done related to maintenance work, so plans can be easily adjusted to observed changes. The major uncertainty related to the climate change debate is that we realize that storms may bring unexpected surges in sea level, although this is a model based prediction and not an observed one. Muller shows clearly that there is no observation supporting that storms are indeed increasing in number and ferocity. The margin of safety is difficult to determine, but is likely underestimated if historic data are used because we cannot estimate extreme value distributions from short series. Delta dike height has been set according to intuition and not hard science because there is no other way. Scientist now claim that we should consider setting the margin of error lower and increase the strength of the dikes. Even if there is debate whether this is justified, politicians need to pay attention to that debate. It is a political decision to determine dike height and contingency planning if an unlikely event occurs but I would submit that the cost of the proposed plans relative to the value of the protected area is minor -so why take the risk of not preparing (at least in planning) for the worst and slow down or speed up relative to observed rises in sea level, while at the same time give a boost to the current protection level? By the way: such large infrastructural works have a very stabilizing effect on the economy and the knowledge gained with executing these works is an excellent export product.
Wednesday 22 October 2008, 15:59
Inge, I don’t understand you writing that instilling functional fear into the minds of people is needed. Not in the case of the Islam, not in the case of the environment. What is important, is recognizing problems, based on facts. That there is a problem with the environment, is based on facts, so we have to do something to try to stop this. But the problem you write about is not based on facts, but on opinions, shared by a lot of people. I do recognize that there is a problem, but not as big as you describe it. But by writing, saying and believing things like you wrote, you can make this problem bigger. Is that really what you want?
Wednesday 22 October 2008, 18:45
The tangible prove of climate change will soon be delivered, thanks to scepticists like mr. Wilders.
Friday 24 October 2008, 0:22
Geert, it would be nice if you would try reading the IPCC report — even just the summary for policymakers of the first working group. You could learn that the IPCC works with multiple scenarios, whose respective projected impacts have a broad range.
The NIPCC is, appropriately, a collection of people funded by the tobacco and oil industry, as 5 minutes on the sourcewatch website could have told you.
Go to the source, Geert! There is a great mine of information just waiting for you to access it.
Friday 24 October 2008, 1:51
@4
There is some evidence of decrease in numbers and increase in ferocity of storms, however it applies to tropical cyclones and I do not know whether it can be applied to “cold core” North Atlantic storms which are of interest from the duch prospective.
All evidence from the past several millions of years shows that the strong and often fast fluctuation (especially increase) of global temperatures is completely normal and a part of the natural cycle and the fact that the recent temperature increase is partially man made does not change the fact that there is an almost religious fervor in fighting the global warming.
It concerns me because real enviromental problems are being put on back burner and sometimes you hear crazy stuff, like that the global dimming( caused by runaway air pollution) is somehow a good thing and even more really dangerous ideas.
The only reason why global warming is a problem is because the ecosystems are allready fragmented, isolated and damaged and the overpopulated civilization became extremely unflexible and vulnerable.
Monday 27 October 2008, 19:27
Fact: The climate is changing.
Fact: The climate has been changing since the retreat of the ice age some 10,000+ years ago.
Fact: There were no man made CO2 problems 10,000+ and the climate still warmed up enough to melt tons of ice, sometimes quickly.
Fact: There were no man made influences to initiate the cool down of the planet to start the ice age.
Fact: The earth revolves in cycles: Seasons, day and night, and so on. Why would there not also be a climate cycle?
I’ll believe all the climate hysteria when they uncover all the SUV’s and other CO2 producing industries in the retreating glaciers.
(BTW – The Sahara was at one time tropical. There are ancient river beds under the sands. I wonder how it dried up considering bikes weren’t even around then, never mind vehicles.)
Tuesday 28 October 2008, 15:02
I didn’t know there was room for any other topic in mr. Wilders head. Hope he knows what he is talking about here, for he is dead wrong with that one topic he has tried so hard to monopolize ;(
Of course the Netherlands has to secure their tiny homeland, being sub sealevel for a rather big skunk. And of course the powers that be will exaggerate all existing estimates and what not; political business as usual!
He for one should know all that, being totally Islamofobic himself.
Next!
Saturday 8 November 2008, 19:47
This is just another post intenting to draw the attention away from the stated issue on the top. I definately agree with most of the former contributers and think that Islam is a serious threat.