WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama on Saturday named a Harvard physicist and a marine biologist to science posts, signaling a change from Bush administration policies on global warming that were criticized for putting politics over science.
Both John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco are leading experts on climate change who have advocated forceful government response. Holdren will become Obama's science adviser as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Lubchenco will lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees ocean and atmospheric studies and does much of the government's research on global warming...
"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way," Obama said in announcing his selections in his weekly radio address. "Leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process."
"Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources — it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology," he said. "I could not have a better team to guide me in this work."
But what if Global Warmism is itself an ideology and not science? As Hudson Institute senior Fellow Dennis Avery points out,
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it - except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds and humans have quietly adapted."Back to the AP:
In their posts, the four scientists will confront challenges in global warming after years of inaction by the Bush administration, which opposed mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution. Last year, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona testified to Congress that top Bush administration officials often dismissed global warming as a "liberal cause" and sought to play down public health reports out of political considerations.
Unless Bush is right, and global warming is a "liberal cause" and then it is the left that is putting ideology over science. Consider this "fact" from the AP article:
Since 1993, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas, and global warming is accelerating. The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past the level some scientists say is safe.
But that is not the whole story. The University of Illinois Cryosphere Project reports:
We've been hearing the frightening predictions for a few years now that the Arctic was soon going to be "ice free". The past 18 months the media has been full of reports that the arctic was going to be "ice free in 2008 for the first time".
* "North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008" - This is the headline that ABC News ran back in April of this year.
* "North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer" - From The National Geographic
This didn't happen. Not only did it not happen but the Arctic actually gained up to 30% more ice in 2008 over the same period in 2007. Now that summer is over in the Arctic it is quite obvious that the North Pole won't be ice free this year.
Hat tip to Scott at Views from My Window.
In fact, follow this link, and look at the July 19 (an almost randomly chosen date) satallite photos from 1993 & 2008. See the dramatic drop in sea ice? Neither do I. There is more ice in some places, and less in others. That is the hallmark of a cycle!
One more point on this: There is this claim of consensus among the top scientists. Skeptics of Global Warmism are compared to Holocaust deniers and have their livelihoods threatened to try and silence them to create the notion of consensus.
The late Michael Crichton, medical doctor, author and film and television producer had this to say on the matter:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Let's face it: if Global Warming could be scientifically proven, somebody would be 1/2 Million Dollars richer.