Posted on 02/18/2011 11:09:51 AM PST by jazusamo
(CNSNews.com) President Obamas top science advisor, Dr. John Holdren, told a congressman asking about climate change skeptics that climate change is accepted science and that there are always heretics in the scientific community.
This is not the view of a few isolated scientists, this is the overwhelming view of scientists who study this matter around the world, Holdren said, adding, There are always skeptics, there are always heretics. Thats in the nature of science.
VIDEO 2:57 minutes
Holdren, who heads the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, appeared before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology to discuss the presidents Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for research and development.
Holdren's comments were to Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas), the committee chairman who, referring to the spending levels for climate-change research, asked Holdren why the American taxpayer should put much stock in Holdrens predictions of climate-related catastrophe, considering that he has been incorrect in the past.
The top scientist responded that the administrations position on global climate change is in the mainstream."
Every major national academy of sciences in the world, and virtually all of the major professional societies that deal with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying that the evidence for climate change outside the realm of natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong reason to believe that human activity is responsible for a large part of this change, that harm is already occurring from these changes and that the harm will grow unless and until we stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions, Holdren said.
But Holdren also compared global warming skeptics to those who disparage the link between smoking and lung cancer.
You will be able to produce on the witness stand a few who will say they dont believe it, but they are very much in the minority, Holdren said. You could also produce people on this witness stand who will say, with PhDs attached to their names, that they dont believe cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.
He added: But public policy, in my judgment, should be based on the mainstream view because to base it otherwise is to risk the well-being of the public against very long odds.
Congressman Hall was referring to a 2006 BBC television interview that Holdren gave as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in which he suggested that there could be a catastrophic rise in seal level of up to 4 meters (or 13 feet) by roughly 2100.
A BBC article accompanying the interview reads: (Holdren) added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts.
Since then, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that sea level rise this century would be more like seven inches to 23 inches.
With that in mind, Hall asked Holdren why Americans should believe his positions and spend tax dollars to do further research on climate change.
Your projection of potential sea rise level was over 11 feet higher than even the worst scenario case projected by your colleagues less than a year ago, so this is more than just a few of us Republicans that need to be educated on the issue, Hall said.
Given the disparity of these projections, why should the American taxpayer have confidence in the administrations assurance of global calamities to come or trust your climate change education campaign? Hall asked.
In response, Holdren said: Every major national academy of sciences in the world, and virtually all of the major professional societies that deal with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying that the evidence for climate change outside the realm of natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong reason to believe that human activity is responsible for a large part of this change, that harm is already occurring from these changes and that the harm will grow unless and until we stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions."
This is not the view of a few isolated scientists, this is the overwhelming view of scientists who study this matter around the world," said Holdren.
There are always skeptics, there are always heretics; thats in the nature of science," he said.
Another committee member, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), scolded the science advisor for using the term deniers a term usually used to describe those who deny that the Holocaust occurred to refer to global warming skeptics.
Rohrabacher asked: Doctor, in the past youve made public statements referring to those who question your assessment on man-made climate change as and you have labeled them as deniers. The term deniers is only commonly used in one other context and that is to question whether or not the Holocaust actually took place. Do you believe that this is an appropriate term, and what purpose does it serve except to stifle debate rather than to have an honest discussion?
Holdren said he regretted using the term.
Congressman Rohrabacher, when I used the term, I only intended to use it in its most straightforward interpretation, Holdren responded. These are folks who are denying the reality of a particular thing, namely climate change. It was not my intention to compare them to Holocaust deniers and to the extent that thats the impression given, I regret it, and for that reason I will doubtless choose to use other words in the future.
Holdren came to the committee to defend a budget request from President Obama that asks for a 20 percent increase in funding for global change research.
In his written testimony, Holdren stated, Specifically, the 2012 Budget provides $2.6 billion for the multi-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)an increase of 20.3 percent or $446 million over the 2010 enacted levelto continue its important work of improving our ability to understand, predict, project, mitigate, and adapt to climate change.
Hall, meanwhile, was skeptical about such spending in light out the United States $14 trillion national debt.
This level of spending is simply not sustainable, Hall said in his opening remarks, later adding, (T)he administrations FY12 research and development budget, at least as it pertains to a majority of the agencies within this committees jurisdiction, continues a heavily weighted focus on climate change, oftentimes taking money from other worthy investments.
From 2006 to now, we have spent $36 billion on climate change and what do we have to show for it? A lot of programs and pamphlets. We need to change that.
The following is a partial transcript of the exchange between Rep. Hall and Dr. Holdren:
REP. RALPH HALL (R-Texas), chairman, House Science, Space and Technology Committee: "Your projection of potential sea rise level was over eleven feet higher than even the worst scenario case projected by your colleagues less than a year ago, so this is more than just a few of us Republicans that need to be educated on the issue. Given the disparity of these projections, why should the American taxpayer have confidence in the administrations assurance of global calamities to come or trust your climate change education campaign?"
JOHN HOLDREN, director, Office of Science and Technology Policy: "Well let me say first of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify that in the interview you mentioned, I was not asked about Republicans as a whole; I was asked, what do you plan to do in relation to those members of Congress who believe that climate change is not a factis not real. And I said in relation to that particular question that I thought this was a matter of education because the scientific facts on the reality of climate change are very robust indeed."
DR. HOLDREN: "Every major national academy of sciences in the world, and virtually all of the major professional societies that deal with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying that the evidence for climate change outside the realm of natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong reason to believe that human activity is responsible for a large part of this change, that harm is already occurring from these changes and that the harm will grow unless and until we stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions. This is not the view of a few isolated scientists, this is the overwhelming view of scientists who study this matter around the world. You will be able to produce on the witness stand a few who will say they dont believe it, but they are cery much in the minority. You could also produce people on this witness stand, who will say, with PhDs attached to their names, that they dont believe cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. There are always skeptics, there are always heretics; thats in the nature of science. But public policy, in my judgment, should be based on the mainstream view because to base it otherwise is to risk the well-being of the public against very long odds."
I’d like to see evidence where the global temperature has fallen before I will entertain the thought that it has risen.
I thinks the facts on Global Warming are that nearly all scientists that are given grants to prove global warming is real agree that global warming is real. Global Warming is real all right, real lucrative that is!
Funny thing about the scientific process. “Heretics” if we must use that word for a moment, are critical to the process and even can be right. Gasp.
HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY [8.8.07]
By Freeman Dyson
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
I thinks the facts on Global Warming are that nearly all scientists that are given grants to prove global warming is real agree that global warming is real. Global Warming is real all right, real lucrative that is!
Funny that he uses the term heretic since that was used in this video, The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
Exactly...With Holdren and his ilk it's all about grants.
He sounds a lot like his boss.
He sounds like all of the big Zero’s regime - Chicago thug trash. Holdren is typical liberal idiot saying believe in what I am telling you or you are a heretic. LOL - Please show him to his cell next to Al Gore’s please.
Well, at least we’re back to using the word “heretic” as an insult instead of a badge of honor.
Tell me he didn’t actually say that. Wow. That’s not just loony, that’s Applewhite loony.
Beats being a communist that wants people to die.
Nobody is denying “global climate change” because the climate of the globe has been changing every day since the beginning of time.
They stopped using the term “man made global warming” because the fact of the matter is that they simply cannot document that the globe is warming.
But the climate is changing and they can blame that on the evil corporations and tax the crap out of them as punishment. So whether the climate gets warmer or colder or just stays the same, it is a bad thing and it is the obvious result of evil corporate greed and the wasteful ecological activities of Republicans and their ilk.
The Champion of Forced Abortions is lecturing America about what a “scientific heretic” is?
LOL.
Yep, your right...Notice this turkey is now calling “man made global warming” change outside the realm of natural variability. They won’t even use the name “man made” any longer.
Any climate change we experience is not “man made” and hundreds of scientists agree.
Love that...LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.