 |
| Being Sworn in as Chairman |
Stewart cautious on climate change
By chris stewart
As the newly appointed chairman on the House Sub-Committee on the Environment, I have been given oversight over scientific issues regarding environmental policy. None of the issues before my committee is more controversial than global warming, more recently referred to as climate change.
Though this short space will not allow a detailed discussion, it may be helpful to review some of what we know.
First, there is no doubt that climate change is real. But it has always been real. The earth’s climate is always in flux, with long-standing patterns of warming and cooling. There is no ideal temperature the earth is trying to achieve.
Second, the science regarding climate change is anything but settled. This is not true. The science regarding climate change IS settled. It is a phenomena that has been either triggered or massively impacted by man-made actions.. Indeed, there is wide recognition among climate scientists that none of the 20 primary models used to forecast climate change have proven to be reliable. True, but the fact we cannot completely model it, doesn't mean the science of why it is occurring "unsettled". What this really means is that the complex interaction of cloud creation, sea temperature changes and ice melts are more complex than we understand. As recently as last week, The Economist had a feature article examining the uncertainty of the modeling behind global warming, noting that global temperatures had not risen in the past 15 years and calling this fact "among the biggest puzzles in climate science."LIAR! The Economist article said that global temperatures had not risen as fast as predicted in the past 15 years. Bad clause to leave out. The Economist also pointed out in big letters that this was a reprieve for people, not a reason to ignore science.
In addition, the emotion behind climate change has led to other scientifically questionable claims, some even asserting that events such as "drought, wildfires and storms like Sandy" are the direct result of climate change. LIAR! Officials and scientists have gone out of their way, repeatedly and loudly, to say that you cannot blame any one specific drought, storm or anything other single point of weather on Climate Change. But Climate Change creates the conditions that increase the frequency and intensity of such events. Officials at NOAA, NASA and other agencies that are tasked to further our understanding of climate change have repeatedly rejected such outlandish connections.True. See, lies and reasonable comments mingle.
There is also uncertainty regarding to what degree man is to blame for global warming. True However, the claim that 98 percent of scientists agree that humans are the singular driver of climate change has been repeatedly discounted. This oft-cited statistic is based on an online survey with a sample size of only 77 people, and the survey didn’t even ask to what degree humans contribute to climate change. Misleading... scientists don't say humans are the "singular" driver of climate change. Also reputing one bad study is fine, but the massive majority of scientists believe that climate change is being driven by primarily by human actions.
We must also consider the economic cost of suggested remedies. For example, China and India are planning to build a large number of power plants to produce the electrical power that is necessary to lift millions of people out of poverty. Would it be right to deny these people the health benefits and quality of life that would come from having access to affordable power?Absolutely true and correct.
Here at home, were we to implement the proposals of radical environmentalists, trillions of dollars of additional costs would be placed upon the backs of hard-working families and retirees living on fixed incomes. And even these extraordinarily expensive measures would have very little impact on global climate change. True but misleading. We could implement many proposals of reasonable people that would mitigate the effects, help our economy and not cost trillions of dollars. Depending on which "radical environmentalists" he is referring to, he is talking about the wacky fringe and we shouldn't implement those.
Finally, let’s consider this political fact. In 2009, despite having control of the entire elected government, President Obama and the Democrats in Washington chose not to pass climate change legislation. And why not? Because even the majority of Democrats recognize that the science regarding climate change is uncertain,LIAR! the majority of Democrats do recognize the science the suggested remedies would likely not work, and would be devastating to working families. Not true, but not far off the mark. We are faced with a giant problem and no reasonable answer. I am fine admitting we don't know what to do and the costs may not be worth a minimal investment. But be fucking honest.
As a leader on these important issues, I will work to ensure that we have conducted a thorough scientific review, then use that information to advocate for reasonable policy decisions. My Aunt Fanny.