Global Warming – or, Climate Change

By | December 1, 2009

Update: I came across this book review by Freeman Dyson which you may find interesting.  It reviews two “global warming” books and points out some things they’re ignoring.

It seems politicians are abandoning the phrase “global warming” in favor of the more ambiguous “climate change”.  Here’s a two-minute clip of a White House press conference, and a transcript of it:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

Reporter 1:  Climate change.  Why is it a good idea for the President to arrive near the beginning of the climate talk negotiations, as opposed to the end, when the ultimate deal is going to be struck?  And secondarily…

Gibbs: Well…

Reporter 1: Does the White House have any evaluation, uh, or comment on this controversy of the hacked e-mails that suggest that some of the underlying science, through some of the propositions before by climateologists, may be an error, or may have been altered in some way?

Gibbs: On the second part, I think Carol Branner addressed that last week, uh, on the order of several *thousand* scientists have come, uh, to the conclusion that, uh, climate change is happening. Uh, I don’t think that’s, uh, anything that is quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.  Uh, in terms of when the President goes, obviously, uh, we believe that, uh, progress has been made with developing nations prima – the US has made some progress with the Chinese and the Indians over the past couple of weeks.  Uh, the President will travel to Oslo on the tenth, and believed it was important to, uh, use, uh, this visit to help get us to the point of a deal.  Uh, something that, uh, can take the type of action that scientists say need to be taken to, uh, to stop and reverse climate change. I think the President believes that, uh, uh, that, a visit happening at the beginning, uh, is just as important as it would be at any point, uh, to getting that deal going, uh, quicker.

Reporter 2: Are you aware of a list, a published list, of thirty-one thousand scientists who oppose this idea of global warming?

Gibbs: I don’t doubt that there are…

Reporter 2: And there’s… and then twenty… uh… uh… six thousand of are PhDs.

Gibbs: I don’t doubt that uh, uh, that there is such a list, less, I think there’s, uh, no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.

(Emphasis mine.)

So Gibbs has the following position:

– “Several thousand scientists” agree that it is happening.  (Do they agree it’s caused by man?)

– The goal of these talks is to “stop and reverse climate change”.

– The thirty-one thousand scientists who publicly oppose the idea that man causes global warming are crackpots with no scientific basis for their claims.

Why, exactly, should I be listening to Gibbs?  Who is he to tell 31,000 scientists that their claims have no scientific basis?  Has he studied climatology?  According to Wikipedia, his education is in political science, so I doubt he’s qualified to comment on the scientific accuracy of anyone else’s claims.

Now, I won’t claim the climate isn’t changing.  That much is obvious.  But I have yet to see anyone show that we’re causing it.  What’s more, I have yet to see anyone show that the climate would stop changing if we (magically) completely eliminated pollution tomorrow – and there’s certainly practically no evidence that we can actually reverse it.

It’s all based on suppositions and “educated” guesses – disputed guesses, at that.

Why are we letting our leaders base far-reaching decisions on this pseudo-religion we call “global warming”?  They should be throwing research grants at anyone willing to study the issue, even if they think they can disprove it.  (If a scientist is denied funding because he disagrees with a popular idea, we’re doing it wrong.)

If there’s one thing everyone should know by now, it’s that “correlation does not show causation”.  It seems that the whole “man is causing global warming” movement is based on nothing more than a handful of correlations and some ice cores.  (Which, by the way, present their own set of problems.)

I want Obama to stop wasting time on “climate change” talks, and spend more time fixing our broken welfare system, our broken health care system, and so on and so forth.

3 thoughts on “Global Warming – or, Climate Change

  1. Pierce

    You know the “climate change” was coined by Republican lobbyists? It sounds so less ominous than “global warming.” I don’t know the science behind global warming, so I cannot say anything on that, but isn’t lowering pollution and developing cleaner energy sources and more efficient technologies worthy of researching?

    Obama is spending like a day there. It’s merely symbolic. The Cap and Trade bill isn’t out of the Senate and won’t be for a while and that is what will lower our emissions, so Obama will say stuff, but there is no way for him to carry out what he says until that bill is out and it can change shape or die altogether before that happens.

  2. Dan

    I’m not complaining about the trip (except in the sense that the whole “climate change” topic is a waste of time), nor am I really complaining about the terminology, and I think both political parties are being idiotic about the whole thing.

    Pollution reduction is a worthy goal in and of itself; we don’t need to pursue it as a side effect of some nebulous and perhaps impossible “reverse global warming” fantasy.

  3. marshzd

    Also, in context these comments were in reference to the many scientists who were fabricating information and forcing other reputable scientists out of peer review journals (the journals that used to give scientists the “moral upper hand”, until we just found out that they are manipulated as well).

    Research Climategate. It’s clear that global warming was being presented in a false context and that the U.N. and other nations have been acting under false information.

    Thank you hackers!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *