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:
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…
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.
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.