Senate EPW hearing on global warming tomorrow

On Wednesday at 10AM ET (7AM PT) the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will conduct a hearing on (take your pick) global warming climate change climate disruption. Dr. John Christy will be there, but it is confirmed that Dr. Richard Muller of BEST will NOT be testifying.  From what I hear it will be webcast, details below.

It is called: “Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures.”

You can watch the webcast at http://www.epw.senate.gov

Full Committee hearing:

Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 10:00 AM EDT EPW Hearing Room – 406 Dirksen

Witnesses

Opening Remarks

Panel 1

Dr. Christopher B. Field

Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science; Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth Science

Stanford University

Dr. John R. Christy

Distinguished Professor, Director of Earth System Science Center, Department of Atmospheric Science

University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. James J. McCarthy

Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, Museum of Comparative Zoology

Harvard University

Panel 2

Secretary John R. Griffin

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Dr. Margo Thorning

Senior Vice President and Chief Economist

American Council for Capital Formation

Dr. Jonathan Fielding

Director, Los Angeles County Department of Health

National Association of County & City Health Officials

About these ads

75 thoughts on “Senate EPW hearing on global warming tomorrow

  1. So are they continuing the recent practice of allowing the minority one witness? And sometimes exercising veto power over the minority’s decision (eg when they forced the GOP to swap out Monckton for Gingrich)? When I realized that the Senate majority was stripping away at the rights of the minority party in such a manner I felt physically ill. It would be nice if this practice were not ongoing. I also wonder, given the presence of, it appears, a single skeptic among a group of believer witnesses, why the House can’t or won’t hold any hearings to counteract the blatant political bias present.

  2. Andrew says:
    July 31, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    …When I realized that the Senate majority was stripping away at the rights of the minority party in such a manner I felt physically ill. It would be nice if this practice were not ongoing.

    Dunno why it matters, they will still have that ‘for other purposes’ clause in whatever they pass. I firmly believe the entire lot of them are morally corrupt and do not represent us in any way, shape, form or fashion. It’s just Two Card Monty. Liberal Republicans and Socialist Democrats.

  3. Talking about Muller, I think it says a lot when a (supposed) sceptic turns into a believer – and it makes the news…

  4. ‘Update on the Latest Climate Change Science ‘ suggests that the physical causes of climate frequencies and their phases are a part of the work. Because it is well known that astronomical frequencies of the solar system have a timeless part on the climate frequencies measured on Earth it seems suitable that astronomers are included in the science of climate change.

    Are there astronomers present?

    Update: The climate frequencies can be related to solar tide functions and simulated:

    How long people will brain washed by false prophets?

    V.

  5. Make no mistake about the influence of the greens and their strangulation of a nation with green tape.
    In Australia, an army base was attacked by a terrorist(s) with the admitted intention of killing as many troops as possible.
    3years after the event green tape has stopped all but one base revising and upgrading their surveillance.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-bases-wait-for-terror-upgrades/story-e6frg8yo-1226438132568

    The greens won 12% of the vote at the last election but control 90% of the left wing government actions. The carbon tax was categorically voted against, yet now it is legislation.
    So 1 skeptic getting a hearing is actually very good going.

  6. vukcevic says:
    July 31, 2012 at 11:43 pm
    In UK politics month of August comes under heading ‘silly season’. What about US?

    In the US, “silly season” officially runs from the beginning of July through mid-September. But in an election year, it runs from 1 January until Election Day…

  7. vukcevic says: July 31, 2012 at 11:43 pm
    In UK politics month of August comes under heading ‘silly season’. What about US?

    I am both proud and sad to see that exists on your side of the pond as well as ours. Good and bad will come from it. May you and your leaders take the lead, as well as ours. We’ve had good happenings as well as bad here. Scientifically, Anthony et al. Politically, Ted Cruz or Tom Coburn. Thanks to the inner strength of the above, one holds hope. Daniel Hammond and James Delingpole on your side. The hunt is on.

  8. Is Dr Christy just the token sceptic in the mix? It is of course jolly good form to show “fairness” despite here in the UK t(& IPCC) the conclusion is drawn long before the review is made. You Colonials ought to watch a few episodes of “Yes Minister” from the 70s & 80s about how the UK Civil Service works, & runs the country. When a Minister makes a decision it is alway a “courageous” one! AND one never ever holds a public enquiry unless one knows the outcome beforehand, that way the guilty are promoted out of harms way in due course!

  9. Jack says:
    August 1, 2012 at 12:22 am
    Make no mistake about the influence of the greens and their strangulation of a nation with green tape. In Australia, an army base was attacked by a terrorist(s) with the admitted intention of killing as many troops as possible. The greens won 12% of the vote at the last election but control 90% of the left wing government actions. The carbon tax was categorically voted against, yet now it is legislation. So 1 skeptic getting a hearing is actually very good going.

    There are different levels of sight. In Germany we have a fundamental law politicians have to take an oath on, to recognize the articles in the law. It says ‘Art, science, research and teaching are free. The freedom of teaching is bonded to the fundamental law. All Germans have the privilege for the resistance to anybody, who remove this order, if other remedy is not possible.’

    I think it has become a problem, since politicians violate the law by constrain science in bondage with the help of corrupt people, who may authorities in special disciplines, but not necessary in climate science.

    One level of sight is the way of sight of science.

    400 years ago Jacob Handl has written a song:
    “Ecce, quomodo moritur justus.”
    “Behold how the righteous man dies
    And no one understands.
    Righteous men are taken away
    And no one considers:
    The righteous man has been taken away from present iniquity
    And his memory shall be in peace.
    In peace is his place
    And in Sion is his homestead.
    And his memory shall be in peace.”

    The way of science is a lonesome way because there are no friends or fellows.

    It may possible that the king comes to the scientist to learn from him, but it is impossible that a scientist comes to a king or his servant to tell science, like to serve a soup from China.

    V.

  10. “Sen. James Inhofe is ranking member on this committee so expect some awkward questions.”

    No one in Congress has kicked AGW butt longer, more thoroughly, more enthusiastically, and with greater result than Sen. James Inhofe.

  11. At 12:20 AM on 1 August, Volker Doormann had asked of the hearing:

    Are there astronomers present?

    No, that would be inconceivable. There is absolutely no possibility of a ginormous mass of fusing hydrogen 93 million miles away having any influence on the earths climate at all.

    Or of the elected thugs making up our federal government acknowledging such a possibility.

    No, it’s got to be the little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge,” and it’s something of a miracle that Dr. Christy is being allowed to present.

    I expect him to have microphone trouble.

    Unless, of course, they manage to slip him a Mickey Finn beforehand.

  12. Wake me when they actually change a law.
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………….

  13. I wonder if one of those experts could answer how global warming causes weather synchronicity with religious mythology or why Wikipedia is considered a trusted source of objective information.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Rosa_storm

    Climate data show that the storm is one of the first to form at the end of Southern winter, some 10 days before August 20 and September 20.

    In popular belief, the Santa Rosa storm is one of the most violent of the year. However, reality is different. For the City of Buenos Aires (according to the Villa Ortúzar SMN Observatory), the storm has only appeared five days before or after the 30 August on sixteen occasions since 1861. However, showers are frequent in this period, which helps keep the myth alive.

    Of the sixteen storms, seven have occurred since 1992, probably owing to global warming.

  14. Dr. Margo Thorning is not only a skeptic, but also an excellent debater and public speaker. She can and has opposed laws and regulations based on AGW theory for some time.

  15. The most amazing thing is that there will be some there who do not have the courage to admit it’s all political.

    “Not so fast. Science is not a democracy. The head count fallacy has been recognized as irrational since Aristotle. Even if science were a democracy, for every scientist who supports the notion of human-caused global warming, there are more than ten who consider that notion pure vanity, and they have made their names public…

    “That is not science, but it has been the official line ever since. No science, just bureaucratic conclusions contrary to science, an excuse for a brand new tax…
    Both Galileo and Einstein were famous deniers of centuries-old theories. They were right. The consensus was wrong…

    “As Dr. John Christy told us just last week, having lived among the world’s poor, their lives there are brutal and short. Those who kick the poor in the teeth while pretending to soak the rich do not merit the votes from either.”

    (Mr. Linder, Hearing On Protecting Lower-Income Families While Fighting Global Warming, hursday, March 12, 2009, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Washington, D.C.)

  16. It is painful to watch our elected officials regurgitate some of the debunked talking points. Chairwoman Boxer (D-CA) just insisted on putting in the record that 97-98% of climate scientists agree that on AGW. Now Sen. Cardin (D-MD) is blaming the drought and derecho’s on AGW.

    It is rather sad…

  17. Watching it now. Gotta like cherries. The Democrats are picking them at an astonishing rate, all out of context and making the giant leap to cause without proof.

  18. Someone should inform Madame Chairperson Senator Boxer where the “98% of climate scientists agree with …” comes from.

  19. You’ve seen the witness list and if you know anything about the party controlling the Senate, you already know what the results of this hearing will be.

    You also know what will be reported by the press, as well.

    The elections can’t come soon enough this year. Let’s hope for a change in leadership as well as getting some new members elected.

  20. Field claims NOAA stations are accurate – peer reviewed. Boxer skeptical since Watts et al not yet peer reviewed.

  21. Andrew Newberg says:
    August 1, 2012 at 7:40 am

    It is painful to watch our elected officials regurgitate some of the debunked talking points. Chairwoman Boxer (D-CA) just insisted on putting in the record that 97-98% of climate scientists agree that on AGW. Now Sen. Cardin (D-MD) is blaming the drought and derecho’s on AGW.

    It is rather sad…
    ****************************************************************

    It is their right to speak, however that does not impose an obligation on me (or anyone else) to listen, much less agree.

  22. From what I saw and heard during the first hour of the hearing,
    Dr. Richard Muller might as well have been sitting there bloviating
    about his newfound/recently disavowed skepticism during each
    Senator’s opening, closing, and after each witness. Barb Boxer is making
    sure his write ups are spread across the record like mustard on a hot dog.

    Nobody seems willing to challenge the “97% of scientists agree” that orginally
    came from that flawed master’s thesis of couple years ago.

    Barb had to have the hearing NOW before IPCC submission deadlines kick in.

  23. With regards to these type of meetings where only one “token” skeptic is presented, there is only one truth and it only needs to be spoken once. On the other hand propaganda needs to be pitched six ways to Sunday.

  24. Tucci78 says:
    August 1, 2012 at 5:05 am
    At 12:20 AM on 1 August, Volker Doormann had asked of the hearing:
    Are there astronomers present?

    No, that would be inconceivable. There is absolutely no possibility of a ginormous mass of fusing hydrogen 93 million miles away having any influence on the earths climate at all.Or of the elected thugs making up our federal government acknowledging such a possibility.
    No, it’s got to be the “little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge,” and it’s something of a miracle that Dr. Christy is being allowed to present.
    I expect him to have microphone trouble. Unless, of course, they manage to slip him a Mickey Finn beforehand.

    Nothing is inconceivable. Looking to the solar neutrino capture rate vs the hadcrut3(2) temperatures over 5 years there is weak correlation between. Moreover the astronomical heliocentric functions of 11 solar tide functions have a positive correlation with the hadrut3 temeperatures.

    or

    We can see that the 11 solar tide functions agree with a lot of global temperature anomalies what is in contradiction to the CO2 prognostic heard by the governments. In a broader scope there is no increasing of the global temperature since ten years.

    Don’t care on Jukebox Joes in the scene of climate and their Hollywood speech; you can learn to discriminate true arguments from false argument.

    V.

  25. Christy’s testimony refers to the new Watts et al study (not surprising since he is an author).

    “Watts et al. demonstrate that when humans alter the immediate landscape around the thermometer stations, there is a clear warming signal due simply to those alterations, especially at night. An even more worrisome result is that the adjustment procedure for one of the popular surface temperature datasets actually increases the temperature of the rural (i.e. best) stations to match and even exceed the more urbanized (i.e. poor) stations. This is a case where it appears the adjustment process took the spurious warming of the poorer stations and spread it throughout the entire set of stations and even magnified it.”

    See curryja’s comment for the link to Christy’s testimony.

    His other points include that the models overestimate the warming, and that most of the US heat records were set in the 1930s.

  26. Volker Doormann says:
    August 1, 2012 at 3:37 am
    In Germany we have a fundamental law politicians have to take an oath on, to recognize the articles in the law.

    Our pols in the US take an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution — unfortunately, many of them do not feel any compelling obligation to adhere to it.

  27. Just finished watching the circus. Anthony Watts is now a part of the official congressional record.

    Also it was really wonderful watching Barbara Boxer attempt to discredit Christy on an mistake within the margin of error, that was corrected, in a way to defame the UAH reports. It is simply amazing CA elected such a low quality person to the Senate.

  28. Tsk. Having earlier asked “Are there astronomers present?” at this Democrat-dominated U.S. Senate pseudoscientific political Warmerfest and gotten from me the response that such would be inconceivable, at 8:38 AM on 1 August, Volker Doormann comes back with:

    Nothing is inconceivable.

    It’s not “inconceivable” that there should ever be the employment of sound scientific method – or even the faintest intimation of intellectual honesty – among modern American “Liberals”?

    Professional career “Liberals”?

    Mr. Doormann, surely you jest!

  29. We have a ‘science problem’ because we have a political problem, which creates the Faux Science funding for fraud. We have a political problem because we have a monopolist owned, Faux Monetary system in control of not just goverment, but media and education. AGW is a symptom, the disease is monopolism, see “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality” and support universal freedom.

  30. Data trumps opinion every time, they should use more. Shameful display of dancing semantics and political wrestling.

  31. At about 11:45am EDT, Christy answered a question from Sen. Lautenberg with a claim that I have heard before and that I think is not correct. The question was in regards to the Spencer and Christy satellite record of the warming and how their trend estimate has changed over time as errors have been corrected. Christy claimed that the errors found were within their original error bars.

    The facts are these:

    (1) In their 1998 paper they said, “The combination of these changes causes the 18+ year trend of T2LT to be warmer by +0.03C / decade (-0.076 to -0.046 C /decade for January 1979–April 1997). We estimate the precision of the overall trend as +/- .05 C / decade.”

    (2) As of Jan 2009 when I did the analysis (and I don’t think changes in the UAH dataset have significantly changed trends since then), the trend in the UAH data set through December 2008 was +0.127 C / decade.

    (3) Clearly, +0.127 C / decade is well outside of error bars of +/- .05 C / decade around central estimates of -0.076 or -0.046 C / decade.

    (4) Admittedly, the difference in trend is due only partly to corrections to their analysis. The rest is due to the longer data record. It is unclear from Spencer and Christy’s wording whether the uncertainty estimate in their trend included uncertainties due to the short length of the data record or only uncertainties in their analysis over the period in question. To consider the extent to which each effect contributes to the change in trend from -0.076 C / decade to +0.127 C / decade, one can look simply at the January 1979-April 1997 trend in the “current” (again, as of Jan 2009) version of the analysis. This gives a trend of +0.029 C / decade.

    (5) Hence, we can see that corrections to the data set alone changed the trend from -0.076 C / decade to +0.029 C / decade, a change of +0.105 C / decade, which is larger than the error bars, at least as quoted in their 1998 paper. The availability of a longer temperature record produced an additional change from +0.029 C / decade to +0.127 C / decade, a change of +0.098 C / decade.

    In light of these dramatic changes, it seems that Spencer and Christy claim that the change in their trend estimates are within error bars is incorrect no matter how you interpret it.

    Perhaps Anthony can prevail on either Roy Spencer or John Christy to directly respond to my calculation and analysis, which are easily done with their data set?

  32. I find myself having no patience to watch that insanity. Do those politicians really believe what they are saying?

  33. Ed Barbar says:

    Also it was really wonderful watching Barbara Boxer attempt to discredit Christy on an mistake within the margin of error, that was corrected, in a way to defame the UAH reports.

    …Except that it wasn’t within the margin of error, no matter how you slice it, as I have explained in my last comment.

  34. Andrew says:

    So are they continuing the recent practice of allowing the minority one witness?

    I rather doubt the majority invited either John Christy or Dr. Margo Thorning (American Council for Capital Formation, see http://accf.org/publications#second ). I imagine both of these were invited by the minority.

  35. I got to the hearing late, but the questions and testimony by Senators Sessions and Inhofe have been great, especially when questioning Dr. Margo Thorning. I think the “consensus” is falling apart.

  36. GeoLurking
    July 31, 2012 at 10:38 pm
    ###

    It has been a stated goal of Marxist, to take over BOTH parties. They only have enough difference to keep the rope taught as they move in the same direction, dragging the unaware with it along a path to slavery.

  37. By the way, the error bars in Christy et al 1995 are even smaller. There, they say:

    We report with high confidence that the global tropospheric temperature has experienced a decline of -0.07 degC +/- 0.02 degC per decade.

    Here, the error bars clearly reflect the trend over that specific time period and thus should be compared to the value for the trend over the time period with the current algorithm of about +0.03 degC per decade. Still, the current analysis results are far outside those error bars. (I’m taking the time period to be through April 1997 because I couldn’t find the end date for the data in 1995 paper…and the -0.07 degC /decade is very close to the quoted -0.076 degC / decade in the 1998 paper for the algorithm before the 1998 correction over the period through April 1997.)

    I just don’t see any justification whatsoever for Christy’s claim that the errors found were within the error bars.

  38. Volker;
    You’ve made many interesting observations; I just wish your English were better so I could understand more of them! The one I’d especially like you to reword and try again is “All Germans have the privilege for the resistance to anybody, who remove this order, if other remedy is not possible.” If possible, give the original German, too. That translation is almost incoherent.

  39. That first link should be . . .


    EPA Official: EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of US energy producers

    sorry bout that . . .

  40. Laurie Bowen says:

    EPA Official: EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of US energy producers

    sorry bout that . . .

    While his word choice might not have been totally appropriate, his point was simply that the EPA does not have enough manpower to find all the violators of the law but his hope was that those violators who are found and penalized for not complying will serve as enough of an example to prevent others from violating the law.

    I suppose you and Inhofe are in favor of having enforcement so lax that even violators of the laws that are caught go unpunished and there is no incentive whatsoever for companies to comply with the law?

  41. joelshore says to Laurie Bowen:

    “I suppose you and Inhofe are in favor of having enforcement so lax that even violators of the laws that are caught go unpunished and there is no incentive whatsoever for companies to comply with the law?”

    So joel shore wants to “punish” companies for emitting CO2, because he agrees with the EPA which wrongly claims that CO2 is a “pollutant”. And now, that’s the law. To paraphrase: That law is an ass.

    CO2 is no more a pollutant than H2O. The EPA should be completely disbanded as a Cabinet agency and Lisa Jackson should be indicted for terminal stupidity. States are perfectly capable of policing their own state, without the pseudoscience-based EPA meddling in areas they are completely ignorant about.

    CO2 is entirely beneficial at current and projected concentrations. There is no downside; more CO2 is better for the biosphere, and it causes zero global harm. There is zero scientific evidence that CO2 causes global warming. None. The EPA’s decision demonizing this natural, earth-based fertilizer was all politics, with a thin veneer of pseudoscience as a cover. The EPA is completely anti-science, anti-consumer, anti-American and anti-Constitutional. Its goal is to ram a “carbon” tax down the throats of citizens – big emphasis on “tax”.

    Laurie Bowen, +1
    Joel D. Shore, -1. As usual.

  42. Just read the whole presentation by Dr. Christy. He has dealt well with the problem of meshing technically defensible scientific terminology and the politic-speak necessary to communicate concerns and conclusions to the authoritative lay audience.

    I doubt any now are unaware that it is very likely, in fact almost certain, that nothing and no one will be helped by slashing away at the US’ or world’s ability to make best use of carbon-based energy.

  43. Tucci78 says:
    August 1, 2012 at 9:09 am
    Tsk. Having earlier asked “Are there astronomers present?” at this Democrat-dominated U.S. Senate pseudoscientific political Warmerfest and gotten from me the response that such would be inconceivable, at 8:38 AM on 1 August, Volker Doormann comes back with:
    Nothing is inconceivable.
    It’s not “inconceivable” that there should ever be the employment of sound scientific method – or even the faintest intimation of intellectual honesty – among modern American “Liberals”?
    Professional career “Liberals”?
    Mr. Doormann, surely you jest!

    There are in general two distinguishable dimensions here on Earth, independent of the own viewpoint. The first one is that what people call evolution and the other one is science. The rules of evolution have realized in governments, concerns, colourful authorities in movies, religions, universities or peer reviewers. There is no difference to the rules in nature that one has to eat flesh (food), or he will be eaten from a stronger creature or power people in the government. Intellectual honesty is not part of evolution.

    Science is independent from the rules of evolution and because no one really needs money to recognize truth, there is no valid argument that the evolutionary world should employ eating people because they are involved in the idea of science.

    Scientific argumentation is possible in this world between two or more living individuals who are connected with the reference of truth, which is timeless present in their consciousness. It is not a thing that evolution, including governments, can grasp.

    Liberalism is a philosophical fallacy. A fulfil of freedom contradicts with the reality of evolution represented by governments, and a consciousness, which is bonded to an enemy is not free.

    Each job which is part of economy can preserve the physical life, milkman, farmer, prostitute, policeman, algebra teacher, poet, philosopher or taxi driver. The evolutionary world does not need science and science does not need the evolutionary world. Someone has said that one cannot serve two lords, because one ever must be neglect.

    Well him who is not bonded in governments, he can be in science.

    V.

    • Really, like your site . . . Copernicus & Einstein would agree with you and so did Ltd Commander David Williams . . . Although I believe current climatoligists, and meteorologists would not . . . It just can’t be that simple . . . You are a man after my own mind . . .

    • At 11:00 AM on 1 August, Volker Doormann posts in response to my earlier comment:

      There are in general two distinguishable dimensions here on Earth, independent of the own viewpoint. The first one is that what people call evolution and the other one is science. The rules of evolution have realized in governments, concerns, colourful authorities in movies, religions, universities or peer reviewers. There is no difference to the rules in nature that one has to eat flesh (food), or he will be eaten from a stronger creature or power people in the government. Intellectual honesty is not part of evolution.

      [Etc.]

      To which my response must be limited to the canonical three-letter acronym “WTF?”

      Sorry about that, moderators, but jeez!

  44. Brian H says:
    August 1, 2012 at 10:08 am
    Volker;
    The one I’d especially like you to reword and try again is “All Germans have the privilege for the resistance to anybody, who remove this order, if other remedy is not possible.” If possible, give the original German, too. That translation is almost incoherent.

    OK.

    http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_20.html

    (4) Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht möglich ist.

    “Against anyone who undertakes to eliminate this order, all Germans have the right to resist, if another workaround is not possible.”

    Better?

    V.

  45. Volker Doormann says:
    August 1, 2012 at 11:12 am

    OK.

    http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_20.html

    (4) Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht möglich ist.

    “Against anyone who undertakes to eliminate this order, all Germans have the right to resist, if another workaround is not possible.”

    Better?

    V.

    Yes, but better yet (using English sentence structure);
    All Germans have the right to resist anyone who undertakes to eliminate this order, failing any other work-around.

    Does ‘Widerstand’ also convey a sense of “reject, oppose, defy”? “Resist” is a very general, unfocussed word in English, and doesn’t give much sense of what sort of defiance is “allowed”!

  46. V.;
    I also wonder if “beseitigen” wouldn’t better be rendered by “set aside”, rather than “eliminate”. In English, “set aside” gives a sense of ignore, disregard, fail to respect, disallow, in one particular instance. “Eliminate” is a permanent and general action.

  47. V.;
    Re Tucci’s response above:
    The more abstract and high-flown the prose, the worse a literal word-for-word translation gets. Reading that evolution vs. science posting is like running into concrete blocks in the dark with unpadded shins.

  48. In response to Laurie Bowen’s earlier post of a justifiably infamous Obama Administration thug’s confession that the “EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of US energy producers,” we have at 10:40 AM on 1 August we have joeldshore responding:

    While his word choice might not have been totally appropriate, his point was simply that the EPA does not have enough manpower to find all the violators of the law but his hope was that those violators who are found and penalized for not complying will serve as enough of an example to prevent others from violating the law.

    I suppose you and Inhofe are in favor of having enforcement so lax that even violators of the laws that are caught go unpunished and there is no incentive whatsoever for companies to comply with the law?

    There is so goddam much wrong with your attitude toward civil comity, good public order, and the rule of law, joeldshore, that it’s difficult to find a point at which to start.

    Let me begin by putting you in touch with the concept of individual rights, and by extension with the subject of civil rights, those specific rights engaged in the relationship between the individual human being and the officers of civil government in our republic, which aspect of the relationship between the private person and the officers of government is in law devised to define acts of criminal malfeasance in public office and thence to protect the former – the individual human being – against these criminal actions (or derelictions of duty) on the part of government employees, whether elected or appointed.

    What this particular government thug is articulating is an explicit policy to conspicuously punish certain people who are alleged to represent a broad category of “offenders” for the purpose of terrorizing the other people in this ill-defined category of what we might call “status offenders” to abate their atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide.

    This action is not being undertaken, I might add, to protect the rights or even the arguable well-being of innocent bystanders, for the emission of anthropogenic CO2 has not been proven to work injury against other parties, but in order to achieve a political objective of the regime for which this goon works.

    The people whom this administrator has directed his underlings to “crucify” are specifically being made conspicuously to suffer not so much because they are in any particular sense exceptionally guilty of any breach of the public peace but because this cheap-suited apparatchik admits that he simply doesn’t have enough chekists on his payroll to pursue all the CO2-producing enemies of the state, and must be conspicuously brutal in his dealings with those upon whom he can get his hands.

    Much as (by this guy’s own admission) conquering Roman legionaries would nail up random Turkish villagers to die in slow agony to better “pacify” the villages through which they passed.

    So, joeldshore, are you really saying that it’s proper for a civil servant – an officer of our own government – to treat with U.S. citizens in the manner prescribed for Roman legions assimilating a conquered territory into the Empire just so our Marxist Messiah can terrorize other “companies to comply with the law?”

    Frankly, I have to wonder how that arrogant little government thug got out of that conference room without winding up tarred, feathered, and flung into a ditch just beyond the city limits.

    We Americans have definitely been losing touch with our roots.

  49. Tucci78: There is so much wrong with what you say that I don’t know where to start:

    (1) It has nothing to do with CO2 emissions since the EPA does not yet have regulations on the book for CO2 emissions.

    (2) He made an analogy. Yes, it was a poor choice of analogy. However, that does not mean he was talking about terrorizing citizens or “terrorizing companies”. He was explaining that even though the EPA does not have enough personnel to find all lawbreakers, he hoped that by punishing the lawbreakers that are found to the full extent of the law (which as far as I know was still civil law and not criminal law, i.e., nobody is even going to jail…Companies are just going to pay fines…The horror!), one is able to create a sufficient deterrent. I thought that conservatives, who claim to be tough on crime, would be in favor of such an approach, but apparently they are not when the lawbreakers involved are companies who are political friends of folks like Sen. Inhofe. I guess the concept of deterrence only applies to certain people in the eyes of folks like Inhofe.

  50. …Oh yeah…and, on top of all that, the guy involved apologized and then resigned anyway. So apparently people care more around here about the fact that a some former EPA official made a poor analogy when talking about deterring law-breakers than the fact that John Christy is saying things at odds with the actual data in regards to how their satellite analysis evolved over time from showing a spurious decreasing temperature trend due in large part to analysis errors to a significant positive trend (although still somewhat less positive than the RSS analysis).

  51. Tucci78; Not to be picky but it was not “infamous “Obama” Administration thug’s” it’s the “infamous EPA’s Administration thug’s” We have GOT to stop scapegoating others for the actions of the VERY ones that are the responsible parties . . .

    Where I come from there are some in the EPS that gave the whole place a bad name, we can say the same for the ATF or any other agency that participates in the “arrogant little government thug”.

    Otherwise, you pretty much speak my mind!

  52. Watts’s statement about “global warming in the USA” doesn’t make much sense

    They tried to cram too much, awkwardly, into too short a headline so I’d concede that, but it’s such a minor point and you know it. You’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Ally E. in the original Press Release thread came up with what I thought was a better headline, for what it’s worth.

    If you have substantive criticisms to make, you should do that instead. As Skeptical Science has attempted to do, even Climate Audit. By all those air those but to claim the compressed wording of a blog headline was a central claim of the study seems a stretch.

  53. Wouldn’t it be nice if those presenting provided WUWT with a pre-publication version of their remarks for crowd source review? Now, that would be entertaining.

    Perhaps Senator Inhofe would appreciate if WUWT would provide such a review after the hearing. As a public service.

  54. @Tucci78 says:
    August 2, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    You confuse the President with the Congress!
    Nuff said! I am not your sounding board!

    • At 2:53 PM on 2 August, in response to my correct observation that the President of these United States (the lawful eligibility of the present occupant notwithstanding) commands the Executive Branch of the federal government – of which the Environmental Protection Agency is a cabinet-level component – we have Laurie Bowen without lucid argument asserting that I

      …confuse the President with the Congress!

      Er, no, Ms. Bowen. Your beloved Community-Organizer-in-Chief has indeed arrogantly usurped the lawful powers of the Congress in exceeding the authority accorded the Executive in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, but with regard to the conduct of his E.P.A. in punishing people for releasing CO2 (gaseous plant food) into the atmosphere, it’s merely your personified Left Hand of Marx violating the individual human rights of inoffensive and innocent American citizens to not even the remotest possibility of a benefit for anyone or anything except the cause of Watermelon authoritarianism.

      Out of that alleged “sounding board” I seem to be getting nothing but a dull thud! Too many termites in there, I suspect.

  55. joeldshore says, August 1, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Christy claimed that the errors found were within their original error bars.

    Christy said “Our dataset changed by less that the error margin we had published already”. Nothing about estimated error bars on trends.

    I’m a Brit and wouldn’t know the bias one senator entitles himself to over another but I can easily recognise a salesman who buys his shirts one collar size too small and asks irrelevant questions only to conjure up baseless assertions from hearsay. In the UK they’re known as croaking bull frogs devoid of a lily pad. Starts at about 165:15 here:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=c0293eca-802a-23ad-4706-02abdbf7f7c3

    Nearly as transparent as your inventive diatribe; shirt collars need to be sized carefully. They’re a dead giveaway when necks are flexed.

  56. @Tucci78 says:
    August 2, 2012 at 3:14 pm
    There is a big difference between “commands” and controls! Again, you confuse! And again, you ultimately Scapegoat one for the actions of others . . . In my opinion, Al Gore is more responsible for the GIGO activities that led to the entire attempted Cap-N-Trade scheme!

    You intend to blame the whole for the actions of a few!

    You confuse the President with the Congress! Congress passed the rule of law, and individuals within agency is responsible for enforcing it’s intent. Our President is not a micro-manager and is fallible which is why our system is set up the way it is! We have probable cause laws, and you may not accuse without some semblance of proof!

    The person responsible for his words was ultimately removed which is how it is supposed to work in this country although it doesn’t always happen! The cliche is like this: that it is better to let many guilty to go free, before we condemn one innocent!

    How can one know, until one finds out? I will admit I am not a most articulate person, and many times have difficulty communicating, not an excuse . . but a mitigating reality of my existence!

    The picture I get from you is that you intensely dislike this President and well as many others that were duly elected . . . a frustration many share! And not relevant to the subject matter at hand in this forum!

  57. AJB says:

    Christy said “Our dataset changed by less that the error margin we had published already”. Nothing about estimated error bars on trends.

    So, you are saying that the data set changed by less than the error margin but the error in the trends changed by much more? I suppose that is a conceivable interpretation although the only error margins that I ever saw quoted in the papers were ones on the trends. Furthermore, if the data set could change by an amount within the error margin and the trend could change by something well outside of that, it implies to me that the error bars they gave for the trends were too small.

    At best, you would also be rescuing Christy from having said something technically incorrect to something that is technically correct but misleading, since it is the trends that everybody was actually interested in.

Comments are closed.