This morning, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, will release a staff report on the scientific issues that tend to discredit the EPA’s endangerment finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The report’s release coincides with the opening of a committee hearing entitled “The Foundation of Climate Science.” During the hearing the committee will hear testimony from five experts — four defending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports against the criticisms raised since the release of the Climategate files last November, and one, Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a noted skeptic (as well as a Pajamas Media contributor).
The report summarizes a number of revelations that, according to Rep Sensenbrenner’s staff, combine to call into question the scientific validity of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Many of these have been reported in Pajamas Media since our original report on the Climategate files.
The IPCC report might seem to be a secondary issue, however flawed it may be, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to base endangerment findings on well-accepted, peer-reviewed science. However, in the EPA’s regulatory announcement (released on April 24, 2009), the EPA itself noted that it “relies most heavily on the major assessment reports of both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). EPA took this approach rather than conducting a new assessment of the scientific literature.” [emphasis added]
read the complete article here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yesterday Obey runs from the field, and today Sensenbrenner swings for the fences!
On Wisconsin!!!
He will be villified.
I am waiting for the report on the dangers and death rates of accidents from driving fuel sipping small cars.
My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with?
REPLY: My God, is the fake scientist Al Gore still talking to people as if he knows something?
Yep and we know how much Beer reviewed science made it into the IPCC findings, now don’t we? Somehow 4 vs 1 even if the 1 is Monckton seems to be stacking the deck in favor of the IPCC.
“EPA took this approach rather than conducting a new assessment of the scientific literature.”
Just as well…since they would have rung up another 5 million dollars of tax payer money to perform a new assessment, and probably just agreed with the IPCC anyway. When they are predisposed to a conclusion already, it’s unlikely the facts would sway the outcome.
On Steve McIntyre’s blog, ClimateAudit.com, he posted Judith Curry’s criticism and corruption of the IPCC and RealClimate’s defense of the IPCC.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/23/curry-on-the-inquiries/
The EPA’s finding, and therefore AGW Climate Science, rests on very thin air.
As thin as 140 ppm.
Imagine waking up one day on the wrong side of an equation.
Browner and company are fanatical, ignorant, loons. It is all about power with the EPA. The power to destroy industry gives them power over all of us.
This is the most fantastic blog.
Anthony had us read the memo 1 year ago that is an internal lawyer clam that the EPA is full of hot air.
Nice thing about the web is cross reference of stories. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/leaked-omb-co2-memo-no-demonstrated-direct-health-effects/
But here is the real kicker.
There’s language in the memo that says there may be beneficial effects to increased CO2 rather than negative effects, and that man, as always, can quickly adapt:
“To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages,” the memo reads. “The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.] … It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons,” the authors note.
Internal secret lawyer memos call out Lisa Jackson’s idiocy.
The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.
“In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…’harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects,” the memo says, adding that the “scientific data that purports to conclusively establish” that link was from outside EPA.
We need hearings and we can call their own people to explain the sweet internal reports.
A bit unfair I would have thought, four against one.
The alarmists will need many more than four to contend with Moncktons intellect and grasp of climate science.
I would be interested in knowing who the four IPCC supporters Monckton will be facing are.
There is no need to wait to know what the results will be! We do not even need to know who is defending the IPCC! If the testimony was balanced to include equal testimony from both sides maybe!
EPA has recently published a report “Climate Change Indicators in the United States”.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf
It is clear from this that their whole case for man being responsible for ‘dangerous climate change’ is based on the IPCC assessment reports. So their proposed regulation of CO2 is based on these ‘dodgy dossiers’, and surely stands or falls with them.
The EPA report states “Warming of the climate system is well documented, evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. The buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is very likely the cause of most of the recent observed increase in average temperatures, and contributes to other climate changes.” The reference in the endnote is given as “IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis (Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.”
Also: “Before the industrial era began around 1780, carbon dioxide concentrations measured approximately 270–290 ppm. Concentrations have risen steadily since then, reaching 387 ppm in 2009—a 38 percent increase. Almost all of this increase is due to human activities.” The reference in the endnote is given as “IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis (Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.”
Also: “Since 1905, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has roughly doubled. It is very likely that this increase is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use.” The reference in the endnote is given as “IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report (Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.”
For the persistence of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, EPA uses the 50-200 year figure from the SAR. They state:
“Data source: EPA uses atmospheric lifetimes and global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Second Assessment Report, as countries have agreed to do under current international treaties within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).” Endnote gives “IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. Climate change 1995: The science of climate change (Second Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.”
Very telling, however, is that there is NO reference given for the alleged ‘heat trapping’ effect of the ‘greenhouse gasses’, just bald assertions.
Fantastic, Anthony. Thanks for the update on this.
I wish I could have heard the intro to this mornings hearing – even though what I did hear (toward the end) could have been argued as a complete waste of valuable time. What I heard did a lot to infuriate me, not so much about what some politicians will sacrifice (if ever had any amount of honest curiousity), but about the careless ignorance and/or whatever could be the objective of (fill in for yourself) some “Big Gov. “scientists'” agenda in maliciously and disdainfully sacrificing whatever integrity reputable science, in this open climate science strives to maintain.
I have always stated my support and relative empathys’ for Dr. Alan Carlin and hold him as one of those who have dared to honorably risk the his career and reputation for the objective principles of science and public service. He must be highly recognized!
As I’ve other-where essentially stated today – Markey’s hearings today were a farce. Nothing but a disservice to the Country, the People and science.
Heh, the moderator’s watching the hearing.
================
“During the hearing the committee will hear testimony from five experts — four defending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports against the criticisms raised since the release of the Climategate files last November, and one, Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a noted skeptic.”
I like Monckton, I hope he articulates his views well, however, this is simply another predetermined outcome hearing. Another farcical event in a long line of farcical events. Power hungry and tax happy dolts hell bent on destroying any remnants of our free society.
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.—John F. Kennedy
See presentations to the Committee:
The Foundation of Climate Science
IPCC Report Chairs, Member of Exculpatory Panel on Email Scandal Re-establish Climate Science’s Broad Knowledge, Urgency to Act
Even after months of personal attacks against climate scientists stemming from a manufactured scandal over stolen emails, the underlying science behind the need to stem the tide of heat-trapping emissions remains solid. To explain what we know about climate change, and why and how we know it, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hosted top-level American climate scientists at a congressional hearing on Thursday, May 6, 2010.
The scientists addressed the claims of deniers head-on. Thursday’s panel featured a member of the investigative panel convened by the University of East Anglia and led by Lord Ron Oxburgh to review the stolen emails from that school’s Climactic Research Unit. The “Oxburgh Inquiry” exonerated the scientists who were attacked following the emails, saying they “saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work.”
The hearing also included three scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, which have also been attacked by climate science deniers.
The Republican witness on the panel was Lord Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
WHAT: Select Committee hearing, “The Foundation of Climate Science”
WHEN: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 9:30 AM
WHERE: U.S. Capitol Complex, Washington, DC.
OPENING STATEMENT: Chairman Edward J. Markey
WITNESSES:
Dr. Lisa Graumlich, Director, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, and member of the “Oxburgh Inquiry” panel
Dr. Chris Field, Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, and co-chair of “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” portion of new IPCC report due in 2014
Dr. James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University, past President and Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, co-chair of “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” portion of IPCC report published in 2001
Dr. James Hurrell, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, contributor to IPCC reports
Lord Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Adviser, Science and Public Policy Institute
If I didn’t mention my appreciation for Rep. Sensenbrenner’s work and this Report let me do so here. This is another of the essential steps that must be continually made to halt the CAGWer rush to catastrophically wasting money, time, resources, minds and our future in “correcting a problem” that most likely doesn’t exist and which we could likely aggravate through relative ignorant intervention.
I wish my Rep. were of the ilk of Rep. Sensenbrenner. However, Marcia Fudge (Cleveland, OH) is a CAGW drone. Of my Senators Sherrod Brown, also is a CAGW drone, whereas Senator Voinovich (on the EPW Committee) is, pretty much, a non-CAGWer, but one is never quite certain how certain.
With so many serious sceptical scientists to choose from – Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Loehle, Soon, Douglass etc., – I too am wondering why a layman is giving evidence? Still, Lord Monckton has a good handle on all the key points and is an excellent communicator. It is often the case that the greatest experts do not make the best teachers. Monckton should do a fine job.
Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
Not definite ‘truth’, but over 2500 pages of text that is actually
readable and there is some flavor …. intellectual curiosity?
Try it.
Well how is that a fair hearing; a 4:1 bias in the data input. Don’t count on anything beneficial to humans coming out of such a farce.
I think Viscount Monckton is an excellent spokesman for the case against the AGW thesis; but he is always subjected to one criticism; which is hard for him to dispel; that being the lack of formal academic credentials in the appropriate Sciences. His history going back to Science Advisor to The Margaret Thatcher Government, is an important part of his resume; but it has to be difficult for The Congress, to place his efforts alongside people who do have relevent Science academic credentials.
If Senator Sensenbrenner is serious; he should get some Physics power to support Lord Monckton. That Lisa Jackson dingbat is on safe ground with her finding of harm for CO2; since she has the National Academies of Science to throw down as a starting position.
I would like to see somebody with the stature of say Professor Will Happer of Princeton University, to call in on something like this. Prof Richard Lindzen of course is another; but to ask Viscount Monckton to carry the whole load against four Warmistas, is just stacking the deck.
Why the hell are the Republicans such wimps, when it comes to addressing these important issues. They got snookered into that “health nocare” monstrosity by their ineptness; and I can see the ship going down again with this climate fiasco.
Christopher needs some acknowledged Physics muscle to accompany his admirable oratory.
Hey toby (May 6, 2010 at 8:44 am) Didn’t Little Lulu tell you not to play with the bad guys?
Senate cap-and-trade bill coming out next week — Boxer
You can find Sen. Inhofe’s Blog E&E full piece on this at:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=6a60b36d-802a-23ad-4e05-7a18dc57bd71&Issue_id=
“E&E News
Senate cap-and-trade bill coming out next week — Boxer
(05/05/2010)
Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Voorhees, E&E reporters
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are planning to release their climate and energy bill as soon as next week even if they cannot win back their longtime GOP partner, according to a top Senate Democrat.
Kerry revealed the tentative schedule for the unveiling of his long-awaited measure during the Democrats’ weekly meeting of committee leaders. “He said it’s looking good, and he hopes to have a press conference next week,” said Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
Both Kerry and Lieberman sidestepped questions about the timing of their bill. “It’s coming soon,” Lieberman said. ………”
Here we go again! I cannot suggest strongly enough that we all connect with our Senators to attempt to keep them from wasting efforts, money and the future by shutting down dependable, proven and large variably available energy sources while subsidizing wasteful, exorbitantly expensive, insufficient solar and windmills based upon a non – supportable. strongly unlikely CAGW conjecture!
Hope Lord Monckton of Brenchley has taken with him a sufficient quantity of diapers as he is going to provoke a flood of peeing among bedwetters
“”” toby says:
May 6, 2010 at 8:44 am
My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with? “””
toby, is evidently an ignoramus; Viscount Monckton, is not, and has not been a member of the British House of Lords.
That comment is in the class of “are you smarter than a fifth grader ?”, because any ten year old; and a lot of six year old first graders know how to Google, and read up on Lord Monckton’s history; and that of his ancesters from whom, his title stems.
And I’m not aware of him ever having claimed to be a Member of the House of Lords; well you are the first I have heard or seen, actually claim that he is; when you branded him as a fake.
You’ll need better arguments than that toby to continue foisting this AGW silliness on a still lagely uninformed public.