Ignoring for the moment the question of why America's chief diplomat is wasting the taxpayer's money dabbling in non-diplomatic urban mythology like so-called "global" warming, let's look at what the Secretary really said.
Yes, John, we all agree that gravity exists. In fact, as an engineer I can tell you with scientific accuracy that the apple will fall at a velocity equal to the integral of the acceleration due to gravity, or 10 meters per second per second. And I can tell you with scientific accuracy that the distance it will travel is equal to the second integral of acceleration, or five time the square of the time it falls, and that therefore the time it will take it to hit the ground is equal to the square root of the distance it falls divided by five. And I can tell you with scientific accuracy that it will hit the ground with an energy equal to the integral of its momentum, or one-half its mass times the square of its velocity.
Where is the comparable scientific accuracy in the "science" of "climate change?" If that accuracy is demonstrated by the non-occurrence of warming predicted by your hypothetical computer models, methinks you guys have some work to do.
Furthermore, your statement seems to imply that the hypothesis of so-called "global" warming is based on – to use Al Gore's inaccuranym – "settled science." Science, John, is an open ended system, constantly evolving to accommodate new information. The phrase "settled science" is an oxymoron – a nonsense phrase – and its use is a blatant admission of a dismally inadequate understanding of what science is.
Nor is science the standard bearer of truth. Over 800 years ago, a Norwegian engineer built a boat with a keel, and enabled his countrymen to sail against the wind and colonize Greenland –which was, incidentally, green at the time – and even mainland North America. It would be another 500 years before a Swiss mathematician named Bernouli came along to explain what that Norwegian engineer had done.
Bernluli's principle – the fact that as a moving fluid flows faster its pressure drops – is used today to design aircraft. But the engineer who first noticed that a sail set to just billow is pulled sideways by the wind did not need science to tell him that he could use that fact to sail into the wind. And the Roman engineer who first decided to replace a lintel with an arch did not need to be aware of the difference between a material's compressive strength and its sheer strength. He just did what worked.
It is the job of science to follow up behind the engineers and explain what they did. It is not – and never has been – the legitimate function of science to predict the future. Its job is only to provide a framework of knowledge in which engineers can create the future.
Science deals only with what has already been demonstrated, not with speculating what might or might not be. Prognostication is the province of necromancy – and politics. Anyone, therefore, who makes predictions in the name of science either does not understand what science is, or he is lying.
In the final analysis, Mr. Secretary, we believe in gravity because it's demonstrable. So-called "global' warming, whether anthropogenic or not, has never been demonstrated, and hence has no place in science – or in the belief system of cognizant and intelligent human beings.