Obama is just the facts on environment

December 16, 2008

Was that a dig at outgoing President George W. Bush? President-elect Barack Obama introduced his new environmental team and insisted his administration would focus on “the facts” as it put together policy.

“We understand the facts demand bold action,” he said.

In case listeners didn’t get the point that the new administration thinks it’s different from that of outgoing President Bush, Veep-to-be Joe Biden gave it a try.

“There is no doubt about the challenges in front of us, but there is no putting our heads in the sand, either, as in my view we have done for some time. Particularly when it comes to science — welcome doctor,” he said, looking at Energy Department Chief-to-be Dr. Steven Chu.

PHOTO: Reuters

11 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Just the facts? When you say just the facts, aren’t you really saying “just the consensus” or “just what the enviro-nazis have compelled us to believe?

Unfortunately for Obama and the rest of you enviroment worshippers, the facts are absolutely not on your side. Neither is consensus. 52 IPCC members support the idea of man-made global warming. Nearly an equal number do not. Of those 52, several have zero credentials in climatology.

The Petition Project of the OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) has over 30,000 signatures of American scientists with advanced degrees in climatology and geology, who state there is no link between humans and global warming. Unfortunately, this doesn’t fit your blind and idiotic support for yet another liberal idea that will lead to greater taxation and government control, so you continue not reporting it. As always, Reuters and their liberal buddies in government have no integrity.

Posted by Matt | Report as abusive

Your missing the point Matt, the IPCC has their political operatives on both sides of the argument. If you would like to examine hard data (facts), I would suggest you visit Scrips Institute of Oceanography website. Consider the Mass spectrometry and infrared data on atmospheric gases they have been collecting for the last half century. Their results have been duplicated by research universities around the world. There is rarely just one cause to a complex problem, and I suspect climate change is probably no different.
By the way, I don’t think you can find 30,000 scientists at all in Oregon let alone climatologists. You should learn to check your facts. Also the Nazi reference is way over the top.

Posted by Anubis | Report as abusive

[...] thinks it’s different from that of outgoing President Bush, Veep-to-be Joe Biden gave it a try. (link) This was written by rafael. Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2008, at 2:08 pm. Filed under Climate [...]

Sorry, Anubis, but Matt’s got it right…check for yourself. The current total of signers is 31,072. Check it out for yourself at http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas e/GWPP/Review_Article.html
and Matt’s point, and the one always overlooked in these discussions, is that there is no “direct proof” of global warming being caused by man-made sources. No one is arguing whether the earth has warmed over-all over the past few decades. What is argued is the cause.

Posted by darkblak | Report as abusive

Although the recent focus on the possible threats of global warming have become the world’s most recent media craze, shouldn’t we consider the greater issues? Yes, some type of climate change is occurring, but scientists still cannot delineate the causes. However, our race is grossly wasteful. If the current policy changes can lead our country to more sustainable practices while creating new jobs for our floundering economy, it seems that the issues are being solved. This could be a great step in bettering our environment as a whole, regardless of the reasons behind the policy changes.

Posted by Hilary | Report as abusive

In 2001, Scientific American reported:

β€œ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition β€”- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Peti tion

Here is something obvious: Earth sciences such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, mountain building, rock formation and plate tectonics can’t be put under a bell jar. Neither can general and special relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution.

The above are theories developed from facts. When a theory is proven it is known as a law. Like Newton’s law of gravity. You don’t need a theory to be proven in order to make use of it.

Posted by Open | Report as abusive

Darkblak and Matt… Did you even look at the link? The site states that there are 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS signatories… Last time I checked, my local veterinarian wasn’t a climatologist. I’m surprised that they didn’t have any dentists sign.

Look at all the pavement around you. Clearly humans can change the planet. Compelling evidence has shown that the city of Atlanta increased in temperature over 10 degrees in 10 years because of systematic degreening. Climate change can be local or global.

Posted by Sooo Weak | Report as abusive

Unortunately, with all new religious beliefs (and MMGW and the environment is the latest)you will have agreat many devotees who show various traits and fervour about their faith and beliefs!

We are at present being subjected to the fanatical wing of this new religion (as promoted by the ‘Goreites’)who consider themselves to be the shock troops of the movement who are also able to itimidate the media and politicians alike!

They are very reminiscent of other religious fanatics like the priests of the Spanish Inquisition,Herr Hitler’s Brown Shirts,and Macarthyism who will not tolerate any opposition or dissent of their beliefs and anyone who does will feel the wrath of their followers and who knows what else they have planned!

They are not capable of anything in moderation and any of their followers or opponents who dares to step out of line when trying to present a more rational view, are quickly overun by their cohorts and ridiculed and threatened with ex-cominication and other such punishments!

This is the brave new future that Obama is signing up to, and he will no doubt be kept in line by the enviro heavies he is surrounding himself with.

Posted by james | Report as abusive

I love it when they say “facts”. Here’s a “fact” for you all….. Global Warming is a scam for more regulation and taxation.

Posted by jason | Report as abusive

Sooo Weak,

Interesting how your name describes your argument. You’re mocking the signors of the petition, which by the way, you “free speech liberals” have done everything in your might to suppress. Let’s say your stats carry any water – you’re still giving credence to the opinions of 2,240 which is more than 43 times the number who actually created the BS report, while silencing their dissenting colleagues, that claimed global warming was being caused by humans. Not nearly the percentage of your so-weak 52 have anywhere near the credentials of those signing the Petition Project, so your arguement falls flat on its @ss.

If your evidence is so concrete, why has your movement so fervently silenced, derided and shunned anyone who dares bring up facts that refute your stance?

Furthermore, science is never subject to consensus, Al Gore’s favorite supporting argument. As a matter of fact, no fact is ever subject to consensus. I don’t care how many of you public-school educated libs tell me 2+2=5. It doesn’t. All this shrieking about your consensus (which is a lie in itself) on global warming has produced only opinions, not facts.

Posted by Matt | Report as abusive

I sincerely hope Obama looks at the facts and is not influenced by activists who job is to raise $$$ via scare tactics and knowing what values we should live by. Aboriginal people in Canada were negatively affected by religious residential schools based on religion and values being forced upon them.

Many environmental activists are practising environmental religion based on their values and influencing decision makers to force these on others with no regard for other values. Analogous to residential schools.

Old money and the priveledged are supporting and forcing these frequently non scientific values on society which will reduce the middle class and underprivedged social/economic position even further.

Royalty always look after their needs and retain the life style they so seldom don’t deserve.

Posted by buffalojump | Report as abusive

Global warming may reduce biodiversity as the distribution of species and their populations may shift towards the poles and higher altitudes, leaving those endemic to arctic and high mountain regions vulnerable. In addition, changes in the ranges of disease spreading species (aka vector species) may exacerbate the spread of disease among humans and other species such as malaria.
Global warming solutions are discussed and presented at http://www.onebiosphere.com

Actions to address the impacts of climate change may be beneficial or harmful to biodiversity. Carbon sequestration initiatives designed to mitigate impacts of greenhouse gases may lead to adverse impacts on biodiversity by creating monoculture forestry. Avoiding deforestation through forest conservation projects may be beneficial for climate change mitigation, forest biodiversity conservation, reducing desertification and improving economic functions. Climate change will also affect biodiversity conservation strategies.