Chuck Grassley Does Not Believe in the Threat of Anthropogenic Climate Change
In a Tuesday conference call with Iowa agricultural reporters, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered some state-of-the-art Republican doubletalk on climate change (maybe he read it in Glenn Beck's book). This is worth reading in full, in part to admire the blithely inconsistent muddle of it all, but also in part to marvel at just how second-nature this line of dissembling has become. These talking points are echoed almost verbatim up and down the conservative food chain, all the way from bottom-feeders like Marc Morano to U.S. Senators. No conservative has to think on his feet about it, or craft his own careful line on it.
Senator ... are you convinced greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change and are a threat to human health?
GRASSLEY: Well, I'd be foolish if I didn't give -- I'd be foolish if I didn't give it some consideration because there's a massive amount of scientists that feel that it does. But there's also an increasing number of scientists that have doubt about it.
And so, not being a scientist, I don't know exactly where to say only those things that are really quantifiable, and temperature has risen. But the scientific aspect that I still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it's manmade or natural.
And it's reasonable, considering that there's at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we've had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there's been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you've got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we've got to single out what's natural and what's manmade before you can make policy.
Now, a lot of members of Congress and most environmentalists are -- are absolutely convinced manmade is the -- is the factor -- chief factor here. But I -- I want to, before I vote on it, be more conclusive in my judgment, and I haven't reached that conclusion at this point.
But it's enough to know that I think that even if it is manmade entirely, and so there's justification for the legislation, you still have to deal with the reality factors that domestically there's a very unlevel playing field between California and New York that benefit financially from it, and the Midwest and the Southeast United States that's going to be hurt; and then the unlevel playing field if you don't include India and China, an unlevel playing field with the United States versus those countries.
And so -- so we don't want to lose all of our manufacturing to China. We've already lost a lot.
We -- it's better to have an international agreement and include China and India in it.
It's a greatest hits parade!
- I'm a reasonable guy, just not yet convinced.
- The science is mixed and confusing and we need more time to get it nailed down.
- It's liberals and environmentalists, not scientists, who argue the climate is changing.
- Climate legislation is a scheme by coastal liberals to take your money.
- China India China India China India boogabooga!
Individually each point is utterly bankrupt, but note how if you're not paying attention, the answer just kind of slides in a haze of aw-shucks blather and faux-erudition. What the average Iowan hears is "blah blah blah don't let 'em take yer money!!! blah blah."
This is why, as I've written before, I really think conservative legislators and pundits should be nailed down on this question. Do you believe there's a threat or don't you? And if you don't, why don't you trust the National Academy of Sciences or the multi-agency climate science review begun under Bush?
This "golly I just ain't convinced!" shtick was intellectually tired a decade ago. It's hard to believe they're still getting away with it.
Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drgrist
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the orientation of Earth's magnetic field such that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south become interchanged. These events often involve an extended decline in field strength followed by a rapid recovery after the new orientation has been established.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly
The South Atlantic Anomaly (or SAA) is the region where Earth's inner Van Allen radiation belt makes its closest approach to the planet's surface. For a given altitude, the radiation intensity is greater within this region than elsewhere. The Van Allen radiation belts are symmetric with the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's rotational axis by an angle of ~11 degrees. Because of this tilt, the inner Van Allen belt is closest to the Earth's surface over the south Atlantic ocean, and farthest from the Earth's surface over the north Pacific ocean.[2] this is an example of magnetosphere degradation. where the field is weakest it allows more solar radiation to penetrate to the surface of the earth thus creating more heat. simple.
Why doesn't Grassley believe in the threat of anthropogenic global climate change?
Why not?
Of course there is such a thing as climate change. Just go to the Adirondacks to see where the glaciers carved up the earth and dropped huge boulders as they retreated. The key point is: So what?
It's all quite natural. We have no more power to affect climate change than we do putting a giant cork in a volcano and think we have actually solved a problem!
How can climate change deniers still exist? I think the trouble is the science involved is just too big and complicated for slower and undereducated folks to follow so they just throw up their hands and say "I don’t believe it" because that's a far easier way of dealing with it.
Alright, let's take this problem to the "conservative" level. It took from Adam and Eve until the year 1804 for us to reach a world population of 1 billion people. Then it took less than 200 years (until 1999) to get to 6 billion. These facts are indisputable. Now we're on track for a world population of 9B by 2040 and some 12 to 14 billion by 2100.
How are we going to support that kind of population? If you think we can go on soiling the nest at our current rate, do you honestly think we still can at double or triple (or quadruple) this rate? Or do we just throw up our hands and say "God will provide"?
because we read!
The Maunder Minimum is the name used for the period roughly spanning 1645 to 1715 The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate (e.g., see Global Warming). and this, A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the orientation of Earth's magnetic field such that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south become interchanged. These events often involve an extended decline in field strength followed by a rapid recovery after the new orientation has been established.
ScienceDaily (Aug. 28, 2009) — Subtle connections between the 11-year solar cycle, the stratosphere, and the tropical Pacific Ocean work in sync to generate periodic weather patterns that affect much of the globe, according to research appearing this week in the journal Science. if the total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the approximately 11-year solar cycle, how can such a small variation drive major changes in weather patterns on Earth? the answer; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm
It actually goes from citizen Morano to bottom feeding Senators. Then again, its a dirty job and someone's gotta do it.
He's a moroon for saying there's confusion on the EXISTENCE of warming & that it's harmful.
But if it's caused by us...or how much...or, most importantly, what can and/or should be done about it...saying there's debate on THAT is quite truthful & sound.
Al Gore says if we don't achieve mind-boggling reductions in the next 5 years (that 'tipping point' is creeping up on us!), we're utterly doomed. Well, that ain't gonna happen...by a longshot...so why even bother to try (GREAT sales pitch, Al!!)
His mentor...and that of many environmentalists...Jim Lovelock, says it's ALREADY way too late, that we've tipped. BUT, he says immediate conversion to nuclear power on a massive scale MIGHT save us, or at least buy us time. But his Padawan Al, and many other disciples, disagree strongly..."nukes are BAD".
There's a lot of evidence/charts showing a direct correlation between temperature ups & downs in th last 50 years and levels of solar activity. Yet the environmental wing of climate change just pretends it doesn't exist...they don't bother to consider if it's even a FACTOR, much less a cause.
The 'old' canard (last 5 years) that "the science is all in, we're 100% to blame, ALL scientists agree, if you don't, you're a dangerous eediot" is CLEARLY WRONG. The EXISTENCE is pretty well proven, but the causes & solutions sure aren't!!
Do I believe in climate change? In a word - no.
President Obama doesn't believe in climate change either since his favorite water is FIJI water which is shipped thousands of miles to his door. At least, he does not believe in it enough to change his personal behavior, but he is more than happy to tell you to change yours.
Apparently, the Aussies don't believe in it either since they recently failed to pass a "Cap and Tax" bill of their own. This from a country that has been at the vanguard of "green" thinking. Go figure!
* I'm a reasonable guy, just not yet convinced.
Am I to sneer at him for this opinion?
* The science is mixed and confusing and we need more time to get it nailed down.
True. I believe increased CO2 does not raise temps, but slows down nighttime cooling. And to a minor point. I have analysed the science and believe the "positive feedbacks" that are deployed to make temp rises seem significant is scientific witchcraft, stirred up by people would get no more money if they said any thing else. Should I sneer at him?
* It's liberals and environmentalists, not scientists, who argue the climate is changing.
He did not use the word "liberals" but Congress, and plenty of people like McCain support cap and trade. Climate always changes, by the way.
* Climate legislation is a scheme by coastal liberals to take your money.
He said New York and California. Indeed for New York it would be a huge gain. Taxes from carbon credit exchange revenues, Wall Street. California?
* China India China India China India boogabooga!
This scares you the most. What is not logical about the idea increased costs on American manufacturing without the same on China and India will cause China and India's manufacturing to benefit relatively?
Excellent response.
The issue of positive feedbacks is one that doesn't get hammered enough. Alarmists tend to make predictions of future temperature based on feedbacks in the 67-83% range (enhancing initial CO2 warming by a factor of 3-6).
If that's true, and strong positive feedbacks are at work in the climate system, then you MUST attribute most of the .6C warming over the last 120 years to these same feedbacks (and not solely to direct CO2 forcings). If the climate is sensitive to forcings, that must be true in the future AND the past. It needs to be consistent.
I for one would appreciate a response from the author, re: feedbacks.
David RobertsStaff Writer, Grist Magazine
"Do you believe there's a threat or don't you? And if you don't, why don't you trust the National Academy of Sciences or the multi-agency climate science review begun under Bush?"
Dear David if global warming is a science, nobody need to believe. Problems starts when Al Gore tell: "DEBATE IS OVER", WHEN HIS IDEAS ABOUT GHG AS REASON FOR GW MUST BE DEBATED.
Kevin Grandia: "It's a scary thing that lawmakers won't listen to what the best science is telling them. When Grassely states that, "there's also an increasing number of scientists that have doubt about it," it either tells us that he is completely ignorant of the decades of robust scientific research by the world's best and brightest (i.e. NASA and the National Academy of Science) or that is willfully ignoring the evidence for other reasons. Two that come to mind are political gain and/or money from industry lobbyists."
Dear Kevin, what kind of sense of humor you have?
If anybody who disagree with Al Gore, NASA or National Academy of Science, you and author are industry lobbyists. What kind of industry are you lobyist?
Aristotel put Earth in center of Universe and only Copernicus after 2000 years disagree with him.
Galileo have problem with church for the same topic.
Free science from politic.
As I see, as Democrats as Republicans are wrong about GW.
Properties of water more important than GHG and actualy cool the air.
Let speak about properties of water, about tilling in the world and how it reduce reflection of direct sun radiation and evaporation of water at least during one month.
Let speak about soot and it influence on climate.
What you will tell about roads, which on long distances influent climate?
Why in USA the same as many countries in the world we have as flooding as drought?
What will give to nature wind, solar cells, nuclear, geothermal source of energy if GHG will be increased by others reasons?
What are these others reasons?
Please start to think before blaming others.
Yes, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is wrong, Inhofe also, but they have right for their mistakes the same as Al Gore.
Apparently Grassley is not alone. In a recent NPR poll, climate change finished DEAD LAST in order of people's concerns:
http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2009/07/28/pollreport.pdf
(see Q. 15 & 16)
This is NPR, so I'm pretty sure they did not limit their polling to Republicans...
it's just scary:
Human activity generates 24 billion tons of CO2 (150 times that of volcanoes per year)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/Vol...Gas/volgas.html http://volcanoes.usgs.gov//Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html)
and @ this pace one atmosphere should have weighed 15 psi or more by now..
and yet standard temperature and pressure have yet to increase..
and water still boils @ 212F @ STP..
and everest is still covered in snow!
It's a scary thing that lawmakers won't listen to what the best science is telling them. When Grassely states that, "there's also an increasing number of scientists that have doubt about it," it either tells us that he is completely ignorant of the decades of robust scientific research by the world's best and brightest (i.e. NASA and the National Academy of Science) or that is willfully ignoring the evidence for other reasons. Two that come to mind are political gain and/or money from industry lobbyists.
Ah yes! Appeal to authority!
You are the kind of person ALL governments love: sheep.
I am a person SOME governments love: a thinking and rational person.
Using your logic, all the best trained physicians will come up with the same diagnosis of a patient.
Reality tells a different story.
"Using your logic, all the best trained physicians will come up with the same diagnosis of a patient."
If you go to five doctors and get five significantly different diagnoses, I would be concerned, yes.
Let's follow your lead and blithely dismiss China and India. 2 Billion people trying to move from the 3rd world to the 1st world without adopting new world evironmental controls. Okay, so far.
What I don't get, is why Japan, Brazil,Australia, Canada and all of Europe haven't met their Kyoto goals. Help, please.
No one has told me yet why the climate today is the optimal climate. I personally would like it a little hotter.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.php
That link just says that rapid climate change "is not likely to be a good thing.'
Not Likely? Is that the type of science we should use to make decisions that will neccesarily slow down the global economy, throwing more people into poverty?
You can argue that global warming is bad for humans long term, but why is it bad for the planet? Wouldn't the planet be better off without humans? Or should we be so presumptuous as to say that the earth exists to serve the needs of human beings?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
