Tony Blair Says "Spend Trillions Just in Case"

In the wake of the Climategate scandal, Tony Blair says that we should "take action" to halt global warming even if the science is not certain. From the report in the Daily Telegraph:

"Following the ‘climategate scandal’, Mr Blair said the science may not be “as certain as its proponents allege”. But he said the world should act as a precaution against floods, droughts and mass extinction caused by climate change, in fact it would be “grossly irresponsible” not to."

Now does this make sense? Dominic Lawson, writing in the Times Online doesn't think so. He thinks that Blair is using the same reasoning that took the UK into the invasion of Iraq.

"Tony Blair, turned up in Copenhagen to give his take on the leaked emails. The former prime minister declared that they did not lessen by one jot what he called “the need for action” and added: “It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be.” Blair is clearly not troubled by irony, since this approach is exactly the one that got us into such a mess over Saddam Hussein’s suppositious biological threat. The actual evidence was tenuous at the time — but to persuade the public of the need for action, Blair was prepared to say that it was watertight. For weapons of mass destruction, read weather of mass destruction.

Blair now argues that even if the science is less clear than is claimed by the climate catastrophists, we have to act because of the risks to humanity if their worst fears turn out to be well founded. This would make perfect sense if there were no risks attached to what he calls “action”, just as it would if there had been no lives put at risk by attacking Iraq. In fact, there are vast costs involved in the war against weather, which could actually cost lives. The highly respected climate economist Professor Richard Tol, a senior member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said that the CO2 tax required to bring emissions down to the levels demanded by the IPCC would reduce global GDP by an amount that would equate — in 2100 — to $40 trillion (£25 trillion) a year. It’s pretty obvious, really: just as cheap energy has transformed the lives of millions for the better, it follows that reversing the process would have an opposite effect."

Willis Eschenbach in a guest post entitled "Climate, Caution and Precaution" at Watts Up With That, analyzes the "Precautionary Principle" that Blair and others are appealing to in this argument. His conclusion:

"All the different types of climate-related destruction that people are so worried will happen in fifty years are happening today. Droughts? We got ‘em. Floods? There’s plenty. Rising sea levels? Check. Insect borne diseases? Which ones would you like? Tornados and extreme storms? We get them all the time. People dying of starvation? How many do you want? All the Biblical Plagues of Egypt? Would you like flies with that?

Forget about what will happen in fifty years. Every possible climate catastrophe is happening now, and has been for centuries.

So if you are truly interested in those problems, do something about them today. Contribute to organizations developing salt resistant crops. Put money into teaching traditional drought resisting measures in Africa. Support the use of micro-hydroelectric plants for village energy. The possibilities are endless.

That way, whether or not the doomsayers are right about what will happen in fifty years, both then and now people will be better prepared and more able to confront the problems caused by the unpleasant vagaries of climate. Fighting to reduce CO2 is hugely expensive, has been totally unsuccessful to date, will be very damaging to the lives of the poorest people, and has no certainty of bringing the promised results. This is a very bad combination.

Me, I don’t think CO2 will cause those doomsday scenarios. But that’s just me, I’ve been wrong before. If you do care about CO2 and think it is teh eeeevil, you should be out promoting your favorite no-regrets option. Because whether or not CO2 is a danger as people claim, if you do that you can be sure that you are not just pouring money down a bottomless hole with very poor odds of success. That’s the real Precautionary Principle."

Read it all here. This guy makes a lot more sense than Tony "We'd Better Depose Saddam Just in Case" Blair.

This Just In: Benedict XVI Somehow Finds the Strength to Go On after Blair's Criticism

Incredibly, Pope Benedict XVI has managed to pull himself together and go on with his pontificate despite the devastation of Tony Blair criticizing him. One can only admire his pluck. Imagine having the greatest unemployed ex-politican in London thinking that you are wrong just because you teach what the saints and doctors of 20 centuries have all unanimously taught, not to mention the Bible. It must keep him up at night wondering what is the right thing to do.

The problem with Tony Blair is that he can't resist telling whomever he is talking to at the moment that he agrees with them. This, presumeably, is why he recently told a homosexual magazine that the pope is wrong on homosexuality. Mr. Blair has been a Catholic for nearly two years, so naturally he feels eminently qualified to instruct the pope in moral theology. The very fact that he apparently believes that a pope could just wake up one morning and think: "Today I think I'll make homosexuality A-ok and hunky dory, just for the heck of it," suggests that Blair lives in a quite possibly drug-induced dream world much of the time.

Benedict XVI has taken a lot of criticism for his media relations department not being internet savvy enough lately. In fairness, it probably should be pointed out that a fair bit of what appears on the internet - OK, 99% of it then! - is not worth bothering about. Certainly the Holy Father has better things to do that to let himself worry about what a washed-up, socialist, trimmer like "The Lap Dog of the White House" thinks.

I would have though that George Bush's "Yes-Man" would be too busy living down his decision to start an unjust war in Iraq under false pretenses, to be giving instruction in moral theology to the Pope, who, by the way, opposed said war. The really puzzling thing is how in the world did he get admitted to the Roman Catholic Church without repenting of his public sins in the first place? If must be easier to get into in Britain than in most places.