New House Energy Chair: Global Warming Not Man-Made
Michigan's Fred Upton, who became the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in January, is depicted in a video that went viral Tuesday rejecting the argument that climate change is caused by humans. (He also co-authored a January Wall Street Journal op-ed opposing action on climate change.)
© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. At first blush, that's not a radically different position from one held by many fellow Republican members of Congress. However, it does contradict what Upton told his home town paper, the River Country Journal, in 1999.
"Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions. Everything must be on the table - particularly renewable sources of energy like wind and solar, nuclear power and clean coal technologies," Upton was quoted by the paper. (Hat tip to Chris Mooney for pointing this out.
During his interview at a public forum with journalist Ron Brownstein, Upton was pressed to explain why a bill he introduced with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) challenging an Environmental Protection Agency finding portrays climate change as .possible."
"I have said many times, and there was a report a couple of weeks ago that in fact you look at this last year, it was the warmest year in the last decade, I think was the number that came out. I don't -- I accept that. I do not say that it is man-made and i know from the hearings that we had that even if cap and trade had been enacted, it would not have changed the temperature by a tenth of a degree, virtually anywhere in the world," he says.
Popular in SciTech
- iPhone 5S and low-cost iPhone said to be multicolored
- Android 4.3 pops up in the wild after skipping Google I/O
- Weird pirate ant comes with an "eye patch"
- Apple's next iPhone may be coming in June
- Delta 4 rocket boosts military comsat into orbit
- Ashton Kutcher on Twitter: "Media kind of f***ed it up"
- New Flickr comes with 1 terabyte free storage
- Can a floating robot save a polluted canal?
Ask one of our ranchers here in Arizona if their cattle need them more than they need their cattle and you will understand the folly of the right wing position. A cattle Barron is just another John Doe without his cattle (in the case of the wealthy that would be US). If we need cap and trade to force the wealthy out of oil and into green energy (to force them to act in the best interests of the nation), then the same law must set price controls which do not permit the cost to be passed on to consumers. A republican administration once froze all prices and wages to prevent hyperinflation. If you want a free market solution then you will need to spend about 20 years lobbying congress to create a free market first. If you believe that what we have now is a free market I have some magic beans for sale (great price)! This myth of a free market is killing us and must be discarded. If climate change poses a threat to the existence of the human race this non-existent free market will do absolutely nothing to change that.
The second great myth is that natural is necessarily good or if it isn't it can't be changed anyway. If I thought that there was compelling evidence that the wales posed a threat to the survival of the human race I would be shopping for harpoons. Human survival trumps every other concern. G*D gave us minds capable of dealing with any problem we are confronted with. If you expect HIM to take care of the problem HE already did, he gave us minds capable of dealing with the problem. If we chose to commit suicide HE won't stop us, because HE also gave us free will.
As for the "you can't change a natural cycle" myth, if we have the power to render this planet lifeless right down to the viruses, then we have the power to change natural cycles. The question is can we figure out ways to do this that are conducive to human survival. This "the Earth is too big and vast for mere humans to have any real effect" notion is extremely dangerous 18th century thinking which we can no longer afford. There are now measurable quantities of prescription drugs in all our streams, rivers, and lakes. Not to mention heavy metals and other industrial toxins. There isn't much wildlife, in the pacific at least, which isn't contaminated with particle plastic. Welcome to the anthropocine. If humans don't start managing the planet much better we will go the way of the dinosaurs. We can argue until it's too late or we can start taking the steps necessary to prevent our extinction.
Mars and Venus are excellent examples of what happens to planets without planetary climate management. Run-away greenhouse or eternal ice age. Take your pick. If we don't grow up we will certainly grow dead. A wait and see approach only leads to human extinction (with the prosperity of the middle class turned into mid-evil squalor long before).
Regardless, none of this matters, what matters is where the research money is spent. And, of that, there is no doubt, the vast majority, including all government funds, go to AGW believers.
The climate change argument is full of BS on all sides. Mr. Upton's statements were not outlandish, anti-science or even controversial. His hostile treatment by the interviewer and the CBS story are clearly out-on-line gotcha journalism.
Since Obama didn't say climate change in his union speech, WHERE are your scientists you faded doomers? Why are these countless thousands of scientists you bow to like goose-stepping Greenzis not marching in the streets in concern for Obama dropping climate change off the map? Why? Why is this not treated by the scientists for what it is? A CO2 death threat. Shouldn't this be our biggest priority? Why are the saintly scientists not on Oprha and Larry King and CNN every hour, every day, every minute?
What's not to agree with when what they agree on is this: The effects will be from virtually nothing to unstoppable warming. Any fool can see this just a Disco science of a free pass for lab coat consultants and lazy journalists. We fools bowed to a fat politician promising to lower the seas with taxes. WAKE UP and get up to date.
History is seeing you modern day witch burners of climate change ignoring the truth for 25 years of needless panic. I'd say stop scaring my kids but even they are laughing.
If you still think the lost majority support from former believers will now vote YES to taxes to make the weather like the inside of a shopping mall or for "cooler" weather, WELL, YOU are the new denier.
It's over. Be a real planet lover and back off the CO2 mistake because this was progressivism's Iraq War of lies and fear. Let's be real liberals again who question, doubt and challenge authority.
Why is it that we live in a country that has grown strong with the results of publicly funded research? Aerospace, agriculture, medicine, energy, transportation... have all come to exist based on fundamental research done in our public universities. Somehow, when these same scientific institutions tell us something that we do not like, it is viewed to be a scam. I just don't understand that.
But, getting back to the motivations for governments to fund only those supporting AGW, there were two major motivations:
1) It was a very handy excuse to raise taxes on the middle class (where the vast majority of us spend out lives). In addition, most of us wouldn't realize this was happening, the tax raise would be hidden in raising prices. When taxes (cap and trade) go up for those supplying gasoline, heating oil, etc., those companies are forced to pass that onto their customers; us poor souls in the middle class.
2) For those with a Socialist agenda (all progressives and most Democrats) it was a great way to redistribute the wealth. This is a major agenda for the UN; obviously why they are so excited by AGW.
The are other reasons as well, but these are the major ones.
By the way, most AGW research funded privately goes to those seeking the truth, of course there are some with economic agendas, but most of the work is being done privately by those who a convinced that the AGW scientists are leading us astray and that the final result will be much suffering throughout the world. In addition, of course, there are those determined (compelled) to discover the truth.
Finally, over 95 percent of monies spent on AGW research goes only to those who support the concept of humanity destroying the planet through the use of fossil fuels, while many trying to discover the truth are essentially self-funded. One scientist said, "If I say I want to discover the mating habits of the seagull, nobody will listen to me. But, if I say I want to discover how AGW is upsetting the mating habits of seagulls, I can get all the funding I want." He went on to state his sadness at this massive politicization of science.
You need to do more studying before shooting your mouth off.
I just think it's very hypocritical to be a Christian and ignore all the hard evidence in this world and only believe what a preacher tells you because you're afraid that if you don't, you will go to hell when you die. Scientists are acting like preachers right now! If you keep releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, there will be hell on Earth! It's pretty easy to believe! How are you so skeptical about science yet so gullible when it comes to religion???
"Hmmm so how is this related to man, in other words where is the link?"
Humans have doubled the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere which may have produced the warming we see in the Arctic and Antarctic. The cold polar air isn't quite cold enough to maintain the polar vortex in winter and spills into the lower latitudes giving those latitudes much colder winters. Contra-intuitively these colder winters are actually proof that the Earth as a whole is warming.
by louiville12 February 11, 2011 9:26 AM EST
"Without a link it's just natural."
As RedWings and others have pointed out, it could just be a product of the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles we see recorded in the geologic record. I believe doubling the greenhouse gasses must be at least speeding up this cycle, but I concede I could be wrong. It could be just natural.
by louiville12 February 11, 2011 9:26 AM EST
"Even the Royal Academy of Science says the science isn't settled and they can't tell if it's going to get warmer or colder over the next 100 years."
Yes but please notice that they don't offer the option of neither warmer nor colder. Right now the Earth is getting warmer. Again it's contra-intuitive but the warming we see as of today could at some point trigger the on-set of the next ice age. The Atlantic gulf stream insures that the northeastern USA and northwestern Europe are warmer by transferring ocean heat from the warm lower latitudes to the north Atlantic. If warming causes the Greenland ice to melt, that dumps truly huge quantities of fresh water into the north Atlantic. The temperature difference of this water and the reduction of salinity in the north Atlantic would almost certainly stop the flow of the gulf stream IF it happened fast enough. It might not, but if it did, the absence of the heat carried by the gulf stream in the north Atlantic would make the Arctic, America and Europe much colder, triggering a rapid onset ice age. If we slow global warming enough, we prevent this from happening. To bottom line it, if the world warms too quickly we get a killer ice age with similar effects in the Antarctic. If the world warms a little slower melting all the ice on Greenland will rise the sea level by 30 feet or more and melting all the ice on Antarctica will cause an even greater rise in sea level. America will look like it did in the age of the dinosaurs with most of the east and west coast under water (no more Florida) and a large inland sea in the middle. Either way, warmer or colder, spells global disaster for humankind.
I believe removing man-made greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, or reducing them, will at least slow the warming, because most climatologists believe this, and it makes sense to me. Natural or man-made the warming must be stopped somehow. If we stop burning fossil fuels and it doesn't slow the warming we still get cleaner air and water, we preserve a wealth of organic compounds which make our modern way of life possible, and we make America more secure by breaking our dependence on foreign oil. Oil money also funded Al Quida. If abandoning fossil fuels only slows the warming we still get more time to find a true solution.
Natural does not always equal good or unchangeable. If we don't find a way to change this, then at some point, nobody can say exactly when, the human race is going to experience a massive die off of 90% or more. Those people not killed by the heat or the cold will die fighting over the few resources left. If nobody starts throwing nukes around enough people might survive to prevent human extinction, and then again, maybe not. Of course the past 200 years of warming might just be the geologic equivalent of a few days bad weather and things may clear up any day now, but can we afford to take that chance? Are you willing to bet your children's lives on it? How about your own life? It probably wont happen fast enough to get you, but it might.
I agree, the earth is warming. However, our specific temperature data only spans 200 years or so, and the rest is just estimates.
From my perspective, yes we do need to reduce our emmissions. However, it would only be to reduce the air pollution so that future generations will have clean air to breathe.
Remember: I never denied that it was warming, only that it was man-made.