Monday, January 09, 2012

Wow: In email 3423 (year 2001), UEA warmist Mike Hulme said that the evidence was NOT sufficiently strong to start reducing emissions

Email 3423
1: Do you believe human activities are at least in part responsible for driving global climate change? [Hulme] YES
2: Do you feel the evidence for this is sufficiently strong to start reducing emissions?
[Hulme] NO - to reduce emissions requires more evidence than that humans are altering climate. We need to know something about the potential risks associated with future climate change, whether these risks can be minimised through adaptive action and then have some socially negotiated basis for deciding about the necessity and extent of desirable emissions reductions. On none of these issues do we have a good basis to work from. The precautionary principle, if chosen, would imply start reducing emissions now - but I am not convinced a blind application of the precautionary principle in this case is the most appropriate instrument.
Mike Hulme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1988, after four years lecturing in geography at the University of Salford, he became for 12 years a senior researcher in the Climatic Research Unit, part of the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. In October 2000 he founded the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, a distributed virtual network organisation headquartered at UEA, which he directed until July 2007

1 comment:

mbabbitt said...

The Precautionary Principle should be to keep all doomsday scenarios out of public policy decisions unless we are pretty darn sure a disaster is coming - and that the cure is not worst than the disease.
It would hurt most everyone on the planet to curtail our technologically based civilization, which lifts us out of poverty and brings the medicines and other scientific advances that prosper everyone in the long run.