Some excerpts from Dr. Lubchenco's statements:
"Today we know that it's [climate change] happening now."
"I emphasize that climate change is not a theory. It is a documented step of observations about the world."
"The NOAA data used in the IPCC report are open and available widely -- openly available."
"Global average surface temperature has risen by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900 and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5 degrees by 2100. The current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is estimated at about 385 parts per million, which is higher than the highest point in the last 800,000 years." [emphasis mine]
Rep. Inslee's opening question to Obama's science adviser Holdren is classic:
"It's interesting to me. And the only way that I've been able to understand it is that some people believe there's a massive global conspiracy that's intent on world domination associated with phonying up information about pteropods and the fact that the Arctic is melting. So I just want to ask you if you're part of that massive international conspiracy? Are either one of you members of the Trilateral Commission, SPECTRE or KAOS?"
Dr. Holdren, Obama's science adviser, on the e-mail controversy:
"And as to exactly what went on in the way of manipulation of data, I think that remains to be seen. To the extent that there was manipulation of data that was not scientifically legitimate, and I emphasize that scientists manipulate data all the time in order to make them comprehensible and consistent -- but if there was manipulation of data that was not scientifically legitimate, yes, I regard that as a problem, and I would denounce it." [emphasis mine]
Dr. Holdren on Dr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph:
"I think there is reason to believe that some of the statistical methods that Dr. Mann used were not the best for the purpose. The Academy [of Sciences] pointed that out and it nonetheless concluded that his -- that his basic finding that the last 50 years were the warmest half century in the last 1,000 to 2,000 years, was nonetheless robust.
"And again, I would point out that arguments about what the best statistical techniques to use are pervasive in the scientific community, and it's no surprise that one has a difference of opinion. It's no surprise that a scientist may have made a mistake in the
method chosen to analyze a particular dataset. Again, the key thing about science is not that scientists are always right. It's that they fix their mistakes over time."
Dr. Holdren on temperature fluctuations:
"If you look at the actual temperature data, and I have in front of me the NOAA dataset for the global average surface temperatures through 2008, what you see is that nine of the 10 warmest years in the 140-year thermometer record, the period of time since 1880 when we've had enough thermometer measurements around the land and the ocean to meaningfully define a global average surface temperature, nine of the 10 warmest years in that period occurred since 1998.
"1998 itself was the second-warmest year in the record, 2005 was the first-warmest, all 15 of the warmest years in the 140-year record occurred since 1990. You look at the numbers and you do see a bump as you see up there on the screen on the far right, where in the last few years there is no discernible upward trend. But this is completely consistent with having natural fluctuations, natural ups and downs super-imposed on a long-term warming trend associated with greenhouse gases."
Here is Rep. Insleee (D-Wash) talking to Holdren about scientific conspiracies:
"INSLEE: Dr. Holdren, you have testified several times listening to you that given the extensive review by the National Academy of Sciences and using information based from NOAA, NASA and a whole host of other -- of other datasets, that there is no reason to revise their fundamental conclusion that humans are contributing to change in climate and NOAA not to change a fundamental conclusion that the oceans are becoming more acidic.
Mr. Sensenbrenner suggested that there's some "scientific fascism," and that's a quote. Is there any evidence of fascism in the NASA organization, scientific fascism associated with this?
HOLDREN: I'm not even sure exactly what that term would mean, but I don't -- I don't -- I'm not aware of any cabals, conspiracies, misbehavior in the characterization and use of data in NASA or in NOAA.
INSLEE: Well, I'll tell you, it's troublesome to me that people who put the man on the moon, the people who discovered water on the moon, the people who are doing great research figuring out how the oceans are becoming acidic, some of whom are my constituents, it's disturbing to me that people would come to this chamber and call them fascists."
Of course, if the head of the NOAA is engaged in a global conspiracy, she's not going to admit it! But that just goes to show you the impenetrable rhetorical armor of the conspiracy theorists: absence of evidence of a conspiracy is not evidence of absence of a conspiracy.
So, if you persist in believing in this global conspiracy which must permeate all levels of gov't and academia, then you're placing yourself in the same yellow submarine with 9/11 Truthers and Birthers. I don't care how many people are joining "your side," since this issue is not a debate, it's science. There is only 1 right answer.
You're also dooming yourself to ignorance, since you don't trust anybody. (Well, you trust the debunkers, who don't do any original research, but really that amounts to the same thing: you don't trust scientists.)
No comments:
Post a Comment