| 195 | Figures Don't Lie! | 2010-02-26 |
On Tuesday in a Senate hearing on the EPA’s budget, Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, was questioned on the validity of the data acquired by the IPCC supporting global warming due to greenhouse gases. She responded:
But Ms. Jackson responded bluntly, citing the findings of many respected US agencies and scientific bodies that echo her agency’s own finding that climate change is a danger.
"Let me begin by being direct: The science behind climate change is settled and human activity is responsible for global warming," she said. "Not only have America’s top scientific institutions come to that conclusion, but so have numerous other industrialized countries."
That conclusion is "not a partisan one," she added, citing more than one Senate resolution approved by members of both parties that characterized climate change as a threat. Her agency's budget, she said, "reflects the science – and positions the EPA to address this issue in a way that will not cause an adverse impact to the economy."
Of course there were many nay sayers who disputed her response. But, why? (see Climate Change?)
It is interesting to watch the Senate hearing. The debaters are politicians. They are not scientist. They are reading what someone else has written for them. They accept one set of data and reject another. They believe in science as long as it agrees with their opinions. They use bits of science to substantiate their beliefs, rather than relying on science to lead them to a conclusion.
It reminds me of what my dear old friend Captain Poe used to tell me, "figures don’t lie, but liars figure." The scientific data is true. It is in the interpretations of the data where there are problems. How can one side say the world is cooling and the other that it is warming? The politicians are using science, instead of believing in it.
But back to the why question?
How would those who believe in Global Warming benefit from it being true? Yes there is a blooming green economy that hopefully will someday power all of the world with sustainable energy. Our air will be cleaner. There will be less pollution. There is and will be money to be made in the technologies. There will be changes to the world order. Those who own the fuel resources will no longer rule the world. So, I am unsure just which part of the changes would be bad for America.
And for those that do not believe in Global Warming how do they benefit from doubt or denial? They are able to maintain the status quo. They do not want change. They like the world’s balance of power the way it is. They do not see the benefits of a green economy. For some reason they are not worried about the cause and effects of the changing climate. They probably would have told Columbus that the world was flat!
Then why should we believe one way or the other... Look at the figures not the figurers. Read the reports not the pundits. Ask the important questions, for example - Who would benefit? Don't be afraid of change.
Land Ho! The new world has already been discovered, and it’s green.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0223/Senate-battles-EPA-in-greenhouse-gas-showdown