Friday, March 28, 2008
Tim Walberg on Global Climate Change
It's the moment we've all been waiting for... Congressman Tim Walberg, self-proclaimed environmentalist, share's his thoughts on global warming and climate change. At a town hall in Hillsdale on Monday, Congressman Walberg got a question on what the federal government should do to combat global climate change. This was reported first by Eric B. at Michigan Liberal, and audio is available here.
I've tried to transcribe it from the very low quality audio file, with some assistance from the transcription Eric already had. My version and his version differ slightly, and both of them are probably slightly different from what was actually said. That's just what happens when you have a low-quality recording.
Still, I'm confident that both of us have captured the essence of what Congressman Walberg is trying to say.
Question: What do you think is the role of the federal government in combating global climate change?
Where do I begin? Let's start by figuring out what Walberg is actually saying, without his obviously hilarious jokes about cold weather in Michigan.
Unfortunately, all of Walberg's evidence against global warming comes from, well, a political figure. And if you think Al Gore is biased, wait until you learn more about Václav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic.
For starters, the anecdote Walberg shares about Klaus's trip to Nigeria is, quite simply, stupid. We're talking about climate change, not the impact of a warm day versus a cold day on the body. Klaus was fine after his trip to Nigeria, and that's not surprising. Now, if the average temperature of the Czech Republic were to rise 30 degrees Celsius, that would be something else entirely. That kind of a change, which Klaus as an individual can withstand with no trouble, would give Prague an average temperature of 40 degrees Celsius, or about 104 degrees Farenheit. Since the average temperature of Death Valley in July is only 46 degrees Celsius, I feel that such a climate change would be significant.
But, as Klaus correctly points out, he can stand it just fine. Any agriculture in his country might not survive, but that's an entirely different problem.
Obviously, even the most pessimistic predictions of global warming don't come close to a world-wide increase of 30 degrees Celsius, and Prague isn't going to turn into Death Valley. But it's Václav Klaus and Tim Walberg that suggested such a change wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Václav Klaus has been very vocal in denouncing global warming. In a piece for the Financial Times in London, Klaus writes:
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.(Emphasis added.)
I don't know about you, but I'm a little worried when I see that my congressman is getting his scientific data from a man that says environmentalism is worse than communism.
Where does Klaus get this kind of expertise when it comes to scientific data? Why, he used to be a free market economist! Obviously, he's qualified to make this kind of judgment, and it won't be clouded at all by other interests!
I'll make a deal with you, Congressman Walberg. I'll never cite former Vice President Al Gore, if you promise to never again cite Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. Let's stick to actual scientists, who we can agree aren't nearly as biased.
Let's recall also that Congressman Walberg is against funding actual scientific research, saying "I’m not sure the taxpayers ought to pay significantly for things like that." Never mind that science is so important, and has been for the entire history of the country, that Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution specifically lists one power of Congress as:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;That primarily addresses patent law, but there is nonetheless a precedent for funding scientific research.
Still, I'm willing to let that slide as a difference of politics. We all agree that it's the scientists that should be making judgments about the science of global warming. So what do the scientists actually say? Here's Congressman Walberg's claim:
What I'm saying is, when I read science, I read scientists, editors, who police equal on both sides that say there’s a cycle that significant warming that’s produced by human involvement and not just simple matter of fact natural currents that take place in the cycle then I read on the other side an equal number at the very least that say just the very opposite that this something that’s gone on for eons, that we go through these cycles.In other words, Walberg says that he's seen an equal number of scientists at the very least who say that global warming is just a natural phenomenon, not the result of human activity.
I had no idea that Congressman Walberg reads peer-reviewed scientific journals so regularly, nor did I realize that the minister was qualified to interpret the data presented. I, a mere math major, freely admit that I don't read those sorts of scientific journals, nor would I be able to interpret them if I did. Obviously, Walberg is much more in-touch with the scientific community than I am.
Either that, or he's full of crap.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been releasing reports every now and then on the issue. The IPCC describes itself as:
a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :When they released a report last year, this is what the New York Times reported:
The report is the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century.But, of course, the New York Times is a biased, liberal media source, and the IPCC is made up of a bunch of America-hating countries, so they can't be trusted. So instead, let's look and see what the actual scientists say. These, by the way, are the real scientists whose work Tim Walberg claims to be reading.
In science, the only research you take seriously is research that has been peer reviewed. That is, it's been examined by other experts in the field, who look for flaws and check to make sure that your methodology is sound. If it all checks out, it gets published in a respected journal.
Is it perfect? No. Mistakes still get made. But this way, it keeps the crackpots who don't have any idea what they're talking about from getting mixed in with serious scientific thinkers. If it isn't peer-reviewed, don't trust it.
Naomi Oreskes, a professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, sought in 2004 to find out if there really was a scientific consensus on global warming by examining such peer-reviewed articles. She published her result in the journal Science. Here's what she found:
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [...] Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.(Emphasis added.)
Let us review.
Congressman Walberg does not believe we should rely on biased figures like Al Gore, yet has no problem relying on a man that says environmentalism is worse than communism.
Congressman Walberg does not believe that taxpayers should be funding scientific research like this, instead believing that private industry-- famous for their lack of bias in areas which could have an impact on their profits-- should take the lead on climate research.
Congressman Walberg claims to read the research of many scientists, and says that he finds many of them, if not a majority, reject the consensus view that human activities are causing a global warming and climate change. This, despite reports by organizations like the IPCC and a survey of peer-edited scientific articles which flatly contradicts Walberg's claim.
Congressman Walberg, what scientists are you relying on? Other than President Klaus, can you name a single reputable scientist whose peer-reviewed research contradicts the consensus on climate change?
Do you have any evidence to support your position?
I would welcome any response from Congressman Walberg, his staff, or his supporters. Until then, I offer these potential conclusions:
Congressman Walberg, this is a serious problem facing the planet. If you're not willing to take the time to make an informed judgment, don't pretend to know what you're talking about, and don't offer absolutely ridiculous anecdotes about trips from the Czech Republic to Nigeria.
I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to fully understand climate science. But I can spot someone who's just trying to fake his way through the issue and sound smart. Believe me, Congressman, you're not fooling anyone.
"Well, I think the federal government ought to give incentives to business, industry, and more importantly research institutions to do what's necessary to find out if warming is taking place."
Amazing, the incentives he's referring to are tax breaks and grant funding at tax payer expense for a problem we know exists.
He will do it for political expediency in an election year, however he is adamantly opposed providing any tax funds for life-affirming stem cell research or basic insurance for at risk children. Shameful.
His "environmental knowledge" and understanding of climate and outdoor science is limted to visiting rest areas along the highway.
It's simply shameful he was ever elected to Congress. He's just a puppet of Club for Growth Plutocrats.
Speaking of Club for Growth:
"Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy."
Can you be more brief? I like what you said, but to go on and on and on, destroys your point. I've trying to make a decision here, and it is obvious you have a personal issue with the congressman
No contest, there, anon #2. Fitz says it right up front on the header:
Covering and Opposing Congressman Tim Walberg, the Radical Conservative of Michigan's 7th District
In the Jackson CitPat:
"We are very disappointed in Tim Walberg ...'' said Veterans For Peace Chapter 93 coordinator Arnold Stieber, who was not at the protest. ``War is not the answer.''
FACT: Tim Walberg promised in his campaign to oppose all earmarks and promised to never support an earmark.
FACT: Citizens Against Government Waste just published their annual report. Tim Walberg is not even anywhere near the bottom of the list.
FACT: Walberg loves pork and he is actually good at getting it.
As far as I am concerned, Walberg is a horrible republican. He sells out to radical religious interests (hardly conservative) and he personally requested 16.6 million dollars of our money for his pet projects (fiscally liberal.)
Check it out for yourself:
Have any of you guys hear what the New Jersey Nets are doing to in the fight against global warming? Not only are there games now carbon-neutral, but they traded Jason Kidd to the Dallas Mavericks for the a “better environment” also. Julianne Waldron explained to the media that Kidd was giving off to much Carbon dioxide. “Jason Kidd always hustles when he is on the basketball court, and we all admire that greatly. But all of that running up and down the court, pushing the team out on fast breaks, expending extra energy just to make a few extra points and possibly win a game, caused all of the players to breathe a great deal more heavily and thereby expel extra amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and we all know that is bad for the environment. We made the difficult decision to trade Kidd in order to save the planet.” Check out this article I found on it Environmental Activism is the Key to the Current Success of the New Jersey Nets”Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008