His fresh statements to AFP make it clear that he is no lukewarmer.
Climate has been changing for four billion years. Sahara has become a desert, it isn’t because of industry. You need to be as arrogant as men are to believe we changed the climate.Yup, if you are as non-arrogant as women are :-), except for Catherine Hayhoe or the Latin American female crackpot on top of the UNFCCC whose name I have forgotten (update: something like Figueres), you know that global warming is a pile of šit.
He seems to be as skeptical as you or me. The climate has been changing for quite some time. And desertification of Sahara – which, by the way, I also consider a vastly bigger issue than the change of the global temperature by a degree – wasn't caused by men.
In other parts of the statements, Sarkozy suggests that other topics – such as terrorism or, more controversially, high population growth – are far more important problems than the climate change.
It sounds great except we can't resist to ask: Why didn't mess-yeah ;-) Sarkozy tell us about his skepticism earlier? He became a president in 2007 when the climate hysteria probably reached the peak. For example, the IPCC and Al Gore were awarded for being some of the nastiest crooks in the world's history and received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, 2007 was a year right before the relatively cold years 2008 and 2009 which helped to calm the hysteria, along with the ClimateGate scandal in late 2009.
Nevertheless, Sarkozy used to be at most ambiguous. And in 2007, Sarkozy actually said
We have to have the courage to define our policies while recognizing that we cannot ignore the climate challenge, unless we want to destroy the very conditions upon which human survival depends.It looks like quite some change. And Sarkozy was also preparing a continental carbon tax along with George Papandreou. (See a dozen of blog posts containing the words "Sarkozy" and "climate".)
But there were some hints of Sarkozy's skepticism. For example, skeptic Allégre was close enough to Sarkozy's government. Also, I believe that folks like Václav Klaus must have known that Sarkozy was "actually" a climate skeptic. He kept confidentiality but I think that at some moments, Klaus implicitly suggested that some very important politicians actually but privately appreciate him – Klaus – for his courage on those issues but they are afraid to come out of the closet.
Just try to see how brutally the freedom of speech has been ruined if even some of the most powerful people in Western Europe had to be afraid of expressing their opinion, even on some seemingly irrelevant technical topic linking science and policy.
Sarkozy's silence has contributed to a bad outcome. Despite the cooling hysteria after 2007, the work on the policies and suppression of the civilized society justified by the climate panic has continued. Ironically enough, the successor of the Kyoto treaty carries the name of Paris. It's nominally an agreement without clear global commitments and consequences. But indirectly, due to the change of the political equilibrium that the treaty brings, and because of the effective cooperation between climate alarmist fanatics in different countries that this treaty enables, it will probably cost the world trillions of dollars.
These are trillions of dollars you could have saved, mess-yeah Sarkozy, or dollars you have helped to waste. Sometimes it's costly to be a stunning coward. Well, yes, I realize that it wasn't costly for you, mess-yeah Sarkozy.
Did he change his mind recently? And if he didn't, why was he silent for such a long time? Was it pure cowardliness? Or some political strategy? Are the November 2016 primaries the greatest point in his career to expose his skepticism? Did he believe that it was suicidal to support causes such as Brexit or Clexit – and did the empirical data convince him that those attitudes aren't as suicidal as he used to think and may actually be victorious?
In early 2009 when Czechia was taking over the EU presidency, Sarkozy tried to keep the French presidency for a little while. The video above shows how Sarkozy worked hard to make his Czech counterpart – whose first name and country name Sarkozy mispronounced (Tatslaff, Bulgaria) – look like a moron, with the help of a glass of champagne, a cake, and the shoes, and finally almost burned him with a candle before he saved him with water, just like he was claiming to save Europe and the world, too. Once Klaus was socially destroyed, Silvio Berlusconi asked Sarkozy: Do you think that it's a good idea to put Europe in their hands? Sarkozy answered: Of course, he wasn't so bad for a gypsy.
OK, it was a rubber Sarkozy but the real one behaved almost identically. Why didn't he support Klaus as a hero of the climate skepticism back in 2009? ;-)
I am always amused by the idea of the creators of those gummi political shows that Sarkozy was a "real self-confident and potentially powerful guy" who knows how to do politics and beat others while Klaus was just some invisible victim from an anonymous country. I assure you that Czechs would have largely viewed these two men in the opposite way.