The Volokh Conspiracy - Climate Change and Natural Cycles:

The other moment in the debate that struck me as quite strange was Biden's comment that he is certain that all global warming is manmade and that manmade global warming is what is melting the polar icecap:

BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden — Gov. Palin and Joe Biden.

If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

Here's a summary of the IPCC conclusion on this point:

A UN panel of 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations said it was "very likely" — or more than 90% probable — that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.

It goes without saying that "90% probable" that "most warming" is caused by human activities, that is not the same as "we know" that "the cause" of all warming is manmade.

Palin's answer was much more nuanced and consistent with science (not to mention being absolutely correct about what to do it about it as a policy matter, focus on the impacts and the mix of policies to respond to climate change):

I'm not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.

But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

It is obvious that there are cyclical temperature changes on the planet (in addition to other natural variances, such as sun spots, cloud cover, etc.). We have had ice ages and tropical periods. I have tried to find some nuance or qualification in Biden's statement that he understands the difference between "all" and "most" or the possible role of natural causes, but I don't see it. He seems to just be wrong about his understanding of what the science actually says on this point. And again, his strident confidence and patronizing attitude seems completely unfounded (as with this assertions about the legislative role of the vice president).

	[Todd Zywicki, October 3, 2008 at 2:20pm] Trackbacks Climate Change and Natural Cycles: The other moment in the debate that struck me as quite strange was Biden's comment that he is certain that all global warming is manmade and that manmade global warming is what is melting the polar icecap: BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden — Gov. Palin and Joe Biden. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting. Here's a summary of the IPCC conclusion on this point: A UN panel of 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations said it was "very likely" — or more than 90% probable — that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years. It goes without saying that "90% probable" that "most warming" is caused by human activities, that is not the same as "we know" that "the cause" of all warming is manmade. Palin's answer was much more nuanced and consistent with science (not to mention being absolutely correct about what to do it about it as a policy matter, focus on the impacts and the mix of policies to respond to climate change): I'm not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts? It is obvious that there are cyclical temperature changes on the planet (in addition to other natural variances, such as sun spots, cloud cover, etc.). We have had ice ages and tropical periods. I have tried to find some nuance or qualification in Biden's statement that he understands the difference between "all" and "most" or the possible role of natural causes, but I don't see it. He seems to just be wrong about his understanding of what the science actually says on this point. And again, his strident confidence and patronizing attitude seems completely unfounded (as with this assertions about the legislative role of the vice president).