Secretary Chu On Global Boiling: ‘Wake Up’
Secretary Chu On Global Boiling: ‘Wake Up’
In his first interview as Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu “offered some of the starkest comments yet on how seriously President Obama’s cabinet views the threat of climate change, along with a detailed assessment of the administration’s plans to combat it.” Secretary Chu told the Los Angeles Times that the nation is like “a family buying an old house and being told by an inspector that it must pay a hefty sum to rewire it or risk an electrical fire that could burn everything down”:
I’m hoping that the American people will wake up.
Chu also worried the nation doesn’t yet recognize how great a threat global warming represents:
I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen.
One danger Chu highlighted in the interview was rising drought throughout the West, with major declines in the snowpack that waters California. In the worst case, Chu said:
We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California. I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.
Chu described “public education as a key part of the administration’s strategy to fight global warming” — in addition to clean energy research, infrastructure, a national renewable electricity standard, and a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system.
Perhaps proving his point that Americans have yet to “wake up,” right-wing climate-denial bloggers retort that the Nobel Prize-winning quantum physicist and energy expert can’t be believed because he “isn’t a climate scientist.”
I am hopeful Secretary Chu will take note of the real-world data, new studies and the growing chorus of international scientists that question his climate claims.Grandia asks: "I'm interested in whether the American public is okay with their taxpayer money going into this claptrap."
23 Responses to “Secretary Chu On Global Boiling: ‘Wake Up’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
I made no such “retort.” I did point out that Chu isn’t a climate scientist because the LA Times did. Nowhere did I suggest he shouldn’t be believed because of that. Instead, I pointed to the lack of any scientific basis for his claims as the reason his fear-mongering should be dismissed.
I eagerly await your correction.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pmMichael, is there a scientific basis for the rising cost of flood insurance, which is mandatory at the 100-year level for federally insured mortgages? Is there anyone in the insurance business who agrees?
February 4th, 2009 at 7:40 pmjps:
I have no idea about the scientific basis for any insurance coverage (despite the industry’s claims to such for things like actuarial tables). They tend to rely on statistics as far as I know.
None of which has anything to do with the fact that I’ve been accused of making a claim that I did not actually make, and that the argument I did set forth remains unaddressed and unacknowledged.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:44 pmSteven Chu is a true American hero speaking truth to power. I hope he knows the oil and coal interests will beat him up now, for being honest and telling the scientific truth. But Dr. Chu is right and the American people are ready for real change and we want a new clean energy policy. So go Secretary Chu! You are a great example for our children. And for all of us.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:32 pmMichael, it seems abundantly clear from your reply that you do, in fact, have no idea about the scientific basis involved. Your attempt to split hairs is almost laughable, but not quite.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:30 pmjps:
Your powers of perception are really quite remarkable seeing as how my answer to your non sequitur was:
Shall we do a round of “There’s A Hole In The Bucket, Dear Liza”?
More on point, I see that (a) you have no answer to the evidence I produced refuting Chu’s audacious claims, and (b) that no correction is apparently forthcoming from Mr. Johnson (which has nothing to do with you specifically, jps).
I patiently await Mr. Johnson’s correction.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:08 pmSecretary Chu is fastening his position and work. His sample of buying an old house is a threat.
There will be a earth disaster in the next few years. Climate might change to colder. For example, this winter climate change to colder in KY, AR. and other states.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:18 amMichael: Dr. Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming is a good place to start, to learn about the “any scientific basis for his claims.”
I also recommend the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate” report, published by the Bush administration (and linked to by the above blog entry).
Both provide fine summaries of the scientific corpus on the subject.
Of course, it’s possible that there’s a worldwide scientific conspiracy to falsify data, alter weather patterns, and prop up the solar panel industry.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:07 amBrad:
Thanks for the info. You still have unfairly, and quite falsely, misstated my argument. Please correct.
As for the info itself, please note that the first, Dr. Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming, is merely an historical study of various scientific claims out there about climate change. None of those scientific claims supports Mr. Chu’s dire predictions.
Similarly, the second link uses models to make predictions about outcomes. The problem for these models is that they are based on incomplete and often erroneous information. Moreover, many of them are “tweaked” to show particular outcomes. That is not science. As Drs. Armstrong and Green show:
In any case, we can argue back and forth about AGW, but it wouldn’t change the fact that I never made the argument that Chu should not be believed because he’s not a climate scientist. Your accusation is false and needs to be retracted. It’s what an intellectually honest person would do.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:18 amI won’t get into the dispute of drastic climate change or lack thereof, but instead I would like to put something else in the ring here:
Sure – oil, coal, and natural gas (natural gas to a lesser degree, but a degree nonetheless) pollute, but it is important to note that they also run out. What we extract and use for energy is not renewable. You may say we aren’t running out of coal and that there is plenty of it, but eventually, that’s gone as well.
A significant part of what Dr. Chu (and the Obama Administration) suggests to combat climate change would replace over-dependence on these types of energy sources and therefore reduce CO2 output AND begin to stabilize the price of energy.
Perhaps it would behoove Dr. Chu to make his arguments in terms to which Americans can immediately relate. The price of energy last year is still fresh in American’s minds, even with climate change non-believers.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:25 amMan made Global warming is a hoax perpetrated on the naive by environmentalists with the ultimate goal of stunting the progression of the human race on this planet because they consider it to be a plague on the eco system.
If you research the facts you would know that the temp of the planet has actually dropped .5 degrees C in the past decade not risen. CO/2 levels have also dropped. Global warming is caused by Sun Spot activity and is not man made. Now if any of you geniuses can tell me how to control the sun then I’m all ears.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:12 amSo you tell me professorj, how do you explain the huge chunks of ice breaking off Antarctica and the melting ice caps in the Arctic? Your going to take such a huge risk with the planet by denying the scientific evidence out there showing that this warming is man-made?? Why would you take such a risk with this planet?? The reality is that we won’t have fossil fuels for long to run our economy, so why not reduce our use right now? Why not hit 2 birds with one stone? If we are proved to be wrong about global warming then at least we will have made the effort to be more energy independent.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:58 amMichael: It is possible that a federal panel of scientists from NOAA, the Department of Energy, USDA, Defense, Transportation, NASA, Health and Human Services, National Science Foundation, and other agencies are part of a conspiracy to engage in the spread of false and misleading information, as the marketers Armstrong and Green allege.
It is possible that the marketers Armstrong and Green, long funded by right-wing think tanks and the fossil industry, are correct that their version of forecasting and modeling is correct and the versions used by physical scientists are irretrievably flawed.
Perhaps it is a vast conspiracy that prevents Armstrong and Green from getting published in scientific journals other than the ones Armstrong started.
Perhaps, as professorj alleges, global warming is a “hoax perpetrated on the naive by environmentalists with the ultimate goal of stunting the progression of the human race on this planet.”
But that version of reality just doesn’t seem likely.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pmSecretary Chu is really pushing for more public indoctrination so the American people do not realize we are entering another ice age. http://blogs.lubbockonline.com/conservative/category/global-cooling/
It is sad that the Left has politicized science. Such actions greatly endanger our health, wealth, welfare, and national security.
“Mr. Conservative”
February 5th, 2009 at 7:00 pmThe planet will enter another Ice Age in the next 10000 years and the human race, as we know it, will be wiped out. This is a scientific fact backed up by the very ice core sample Al Gore tried to use to prove global warming. Go look at the ice core samples yourself. CO2 levels have risen in the past, with no human participation, and the earth has plunged into ice ages many times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Now if you want to make an arguement for energy independence, you have my support.
February 5th, 2009 at 7:57 pmThe Antarctic polar ice cap hasn’t changed in size. Chunks of ice routinely break off. That’s no earth shattering statement. Satellite photos show no reduction in the ice cap in Antarctica. That’s how I explain that Gitrdone. You obviously have bought into the hype. My info comes from unbiased scientist (there are hundreds of them) who do not rely on hype or political pressure to reach a conclusion.
Brad. Much of this Global Warming hype is fostered by scientist who are applying for Federal grants for research funds from the Government. If you think I’m lying then just look at the 1.3 trillion dollar stim. bill now before the Senate. It’s all about the money Brad and environmentalists are looking for the pork to keep their jobs and so far it has become less about the planet but all about the money. Research more than the Political nonsense put forward by people like Al Gore who has profited by over 100 million dollars spouting these bias and fake scientific reports. His premise is so full of nonsense the British Government has banned his movie because of the lies it spouts to children.
Is the planet warming. Latest unbiased scientific studies say it is not. Those organizations you quote are Government sponsored organizations with a vested interested in the myth.
The fact that this planet is warming or cooling has nothing to do with Human interactions or CO/2. Follow your myth blindly or open your eyes and read more than the political propaganda espoused by people who have a vested interest in the myth. One Solar flare warms the planet more than the thousands of years of CO/2 from the human race.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ Read what other scientist say about Global warming. Open your eyes.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:40 pmMichael: It is possible that a federal panel of scientists from NOAA, the Department of Energy, USDA, Defense, Transportation, NASA, Health and Human Services, National Science Foundation, and other agencies are part of a conspiracy to engage in the spread of false and misleading information, as the marketers Armstrong and Green allege.
Yes. They are Government sponsored agencies that rely on the myth of Global Warming for funding. Look at their budgets and where the money comes from. Follow the money. That’s what unbiased people do when they want to get to the bottom of a problem. Unreliable computer projections from a biased scientist show the expected result that they are looking for. That’s not science, that’s hype to promote a cause.
Anyone can write a program that will show a desired result. It’s so easy. When you read the Global Warming propaganda take note of how many times they use the words “Projected” or “Future expectations” in the statements. Conclusions have to be proven not “Projected” or other terms that can’t be proven.
That’s why Scientists are still working on Einsteins equations and theories because it ain’t true until it’s proven to be true, not Projected.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pmMust be all that money from Big Solar and Big Wind bashing the poor defenseless, and blameless coal and oil industries.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:33 pmBrad:
You still have not corrected your misstatements regarding my post. At this point, it’s painfully clear that you are dishonest and little more than a propagandist. You could have tried to take apart my post on the facts and arguments, but instead you attributed an argument to me that I did not make, and falsely mischaracterized what I did write. If your position is so incontrovertibly correct, then you shouldn’t have to resort to this sort of tactic to make your points. That you do so says a lot about your position.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pmAnother doofus like the delusional so-called scientists who as recently as the 1970s were predicting the Second Ice Age (how quickly we forget). Chu is no doubt a charter member of the Global Warming Industry (GWI), which is set to line its pockets with millions of taxpayer dollars while not doing anything to change the natural cycles of nature.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:01 pmCO2 levels have risen in prehistory (and recovered after glacial periods), but what was the rate of that change, and how does it compare to the potential disruption of holocene ecology and large human populations? The reality remains that we’re in a long interglacial period that’s likely to last millennia, giving humanity time to advance and become less vulnerable to natural change. That is, despite recent predictions of an impending ice age that have far less grounding than those of warming.
Anyone looking at actual science, and not spin from political think tanks can see that yes, there has been a significant net loss of ice mass from Greenland and Antarctica. Along with that, we have the well-established physics of the greenhouse effect, oceanic temperature profiles, radiosonde data, the satellite record corrected for stratospheric cooling (a model-predicted effect), the surface datasets, worldwide mountain glacial retreat (the majority), borehole analysis, annual MINIMUM sea ice extent, thawing permafrost…
Even most “skeptics” no longer claim that a rise in global mean temperature is occurring. Although some still use the 1998 cherry pick to pretend the long term trend is coolng. Now they’re down to “it’s natural” (yet don’t provide any evidence of a forcing sufficient to explain the trend). Or claim with confidence that it won’t accelerate, that it’s no big deal, and/or it’s too late to do anything. All convenient but all strike me as very weak arguments.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:04 pmReally, Gary, is that 1970’s global cooling nonsense still being used? Not looking into the REST of the story is being a doofus in my book. See section 7, paragraph 3 here.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pmSo we will be able to control the global climate…good luck with that.
We barely understand gravity, the human brain, the universe, and our own oceans are largely unexplored. And you believe the huge money spin machine that is force feeding you global warming.
One question…what ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was going to destroy all of us. Oh yeah and by the way the global output of CFC’s has increased.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:50 am