Ah, politics, the stench of spin is strong here. Note the picture below. Left to right are Dr. John Christy, Dr. David Titley, and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr..
In the text, Christy and Pielke don’t even exist, because, well, this was “A Factual Look at the Relationship between Climate and Weather.” and we can’t have factual testimony we don’t like in the press release, can we?
Really, if you are going to disappear people in your press releases, at least be savvy enough to use a photo only showing your man giving testimony. Idiots.
From the House Committee on Science Space, and Technology
Subcommittee Discusses Climate Change Impacts on Severe Weather
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing entitled “A Factual Look at the Relationship between Climate and Weather.” The stated purpose of the hearing was to examine the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events.
Members emphasized the prevailing scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real, and discussed the need to better understand the relationship between severe weather events and climate to better manage the risks associated with a changing climate.
Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said in her opening statement, “The lesson of this hearing cannot be that a potential link between climate change and severe weather is too difficult to determine or understand, and therefore we should stop trying. It should not be controversial to examine if the weather will change as a consequence of global warming. Scientific projections from the IPCC make it apparent that we will live in a hotter world–we already have a warmer world than that of our grandparents. In many of our districts, residents will experience drier environments with more drought. Those of us who represent particularly wet areas may find that precipitation arriving in more intense storms. The oceans will be warmer and that may well produce stronger or more frequent tropical storms. To focus only on the question of whether there will be more extreme events misses the point that by the end of this century much of the world as we know it, in our districts and states, will be considerably altered by the weather effects of climate change.”
Minority witness Dr. David Titley (USN Rear Admiral, retired) said in his testimony, “Our country is dealing with a significant change in the world’s climate; it is a large challenge. Saying we don’t know today the impact of climate change on [weather] phenomena is very different than stating that climate change has no impact on typhoons and hurricanes. What we do know is that these storms are forming in a warmer, moister environment and above a warmer ocean. We also know that current research indicates our future may include more intense, and possibly more frequent, storms. That is a risk not to be summarily discounted.”
Earlier this week, the Reinsurance Association of America sent a letter to the committee stating their support for close examination of the critical issues of extreme weather and climate. “As the scientific community’s knowledge of changes in our climate and the resulting weather continue to develop, it is important for our communities to incorporate that information into the exposure and risk assessment process, and that it be conveyed to stakeholders, policyholders, the public and public officials that can, or should, address adaptation and mitigation alternatives. Developing an understanding about climate and its impacts on droughts, heat waves, the frequency and intensity of tropical hurricanes, thunderstorms and convective events, rising sea levels and storm surge, more extreme precipitation events and flooding is critical to our role in translating the interdependencies of weather, climate risk assessment and pricing.” The full letter can be found here.
In Response to a question by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) regarding the claims made that incidents of extreme weather are not increasing, Dr. Titley responded, “One of the main definitions of ‘extreme’ is ‘away from the center.’ Again, just take the basic data. We have had for the last 36 years above normal temperatures, that is away from the center, and they are getting further and further away. A record like that is equivalent to flipping a coin and getting ‘heads’ 36 consecutive times. The chances of that happening with an un-weighted coin: 1 in 68 billion. Put another way, you are almost 400 times more likely to win the Powerball jackpot than you are to see this temperature record if the climate was not changing. I would say that is extreme. And the ice in the Arctic, that is extreme. We have seen geologic changes in less than 10 years.”
Dr. Titley’s presentation slides can be seen here.
Downloads
==============================================================
Source: http://democrats.science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-discusses-climate-change-impacts-severe-weather
You can read Pielke’s take on the event here and you can be sure he doesn’t leave out anybody. His written testimony can be downloaded here
Video of the hearing is here:
http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/sst2013/EV121113.wvx
The US is the world’s newest Banana Republic. Maybe Blazing Saddles would be a better metaphor.
Talk about fools. Taking climate advice from the Reinsurance Industry is like asking your barber if you need a haircut …
w.
crazy
Even when they listen to the truth they are determined not to hear it.
Isendt that what they alway do in the AGW curch? If you cant use it dump it. We now cane only hope that someone coms out and says what going wrong.
pathetic press!
poor Morano, stuck with 3 people who insist on saying “climate change”, who refuse to say AGW, & a CNN host who doesn’t have a clue. how the MSM can still get away with stating someone doesn’t believe in “climate change” is beyond me. we must reclaim the language. nonetheless, Morano holds his own!
Watch Video Now: CNN Hosts Rare Live Contentious Global Warming Debate – Marc Morano vs. Club’s Michael Brune & Philippe Cousteau Jr. – Full Transcript – Morano: ‘So record cold is now evidence of man-made global warming?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/11/cnn-hosts-rare-live-contentious-global-warming-debate-marc-morano-vs-sierra-clubs-michael-brune-philippe-cousteau-jr-full-transcript-video-coming-soon-morano-so-record-cold-is-now-evi/
There’s a scene in some movie where a prince leads his army in a charge toward the enemy only to show him stopping to look back and see his men looking with utter disapproval at the stupidity of charging heavy infantry (a definite no no) and walking off the field.
They’ll look back soon enough and notice no one is taking them seriously.
Try and get an original copy – it will soon be worth a lot just for the novelty value!
The adjustments alone guaranteed the 36 times. To be above a manufactured too low average means nothing… but they will tax because of anything… evidently even nothing.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 12, 2013 at 11:47 pm
Talk about fools. Taking climate advice from the Reinsurance Industry is like asking your barber if you need a haircut …
w.
Oh come on. They’re not fools. That was the point. It is us they want to have the haircuts, so naturally they brought in some barbers.
d.
“A record like that is equivalent to flipping a coin and getting ‘heads’ 36 consecutive times.” Which, after the “tails” we got so often during the LIA (not to mention the thousands of times we got it during glaciations), really isn’t so very surprising, is it, Mr. Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)?
If these people didn’t exist, nobody would bother inventing them.
In Britain if a committee produces a report that is disputed, the minority sometimes produce a report of their own.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/images/dynamicImages/file/Campaigns/Lords/House%20of%20Lords%20-%20Joint%20Committee%20report%20briefing.pdf
“Despite the Joint Committee’s report specifically stating that no minority reports can be published, 12 members of the 26-strong committee (nine peers, 3 MPs) who disagree with the report have produced one. The report recommends establishing yet another committee to discuss Lords Reform”
Not that the minority report is necessarily of any use!
A classic case of: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”
… “One of the main definitions of ‘extreme’ is ‘away from the center.’ …
GREAT! Someone knows where the centre is…
Suzanne Bonamici says “Scientific projections from the IPCC ….. .”
A touch of the oxymorons there I think.
this add to cancel Christmas is beyond belief please watch it as it attacks everything we dearly love and that is our young children how dare they do this i will spend a lot of my time telling everyone.http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/20309919/christmas-cancelled/
Wow, no concept of a random walk! It is hard not to laugh at the idea that the climate refers back to a time period over which the science of meteorology was developing rapidly, just before computers developed sufficiently to make crude climate modelling possible, to decide what temperature to be.
Is there some weather god up there thinking “ah, yes, I’ll use the 1961-1980 mean as a reference; lets flip this coin to see whether this year’s base temperature will be higher or lower. Of course man-made CO2 will then influence the temperature from that point.”
In North Korea these three would a) have been erased from all pictures taken, and b) summarily be executed. As long as that doesn’t happen here, the good fight continues.
The madness starts when the lies are believed, & the lies are perpetuated to the point of religious fervour, when the “Emperor’s new clothes” become the norm. Truly we live in an insane mad world! Maybe Man is destined to “die-off” sooner rather than later?
I think that a simple examination of Dr. Titley’s presentation slides as referenced above gives a large set of clues as to the reliability of the evidence/viewpoint he gave.
Most of it appears to be non-science related.
““The lesson of this hearing cannot be that a potential link between climate change and severe weather is too difficult to determine or understand, and therefore we should stop trying.”
If you already know the answer you want, why bother with a hearing….If in reality we don’t have the computing power or sufficient understanding of the processes, or we can’t reduce uncertainty to the point where useful prediction is possible , then absolutely we should stop spending money on it until theory and technology advances.And if in the meantime we statistically determine that there is no link, then of course we should stop trying, Oh hang on a minute….
Dr Burns, don’t you just love that movie?
Warming world??? How about a cooling world!!!!!!!
Extreme weather is part of the chaotic weather mix, GET USED TO IT.
These guys know how to do it properly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25346496
May as well accept some guidance from the pro’s.
I don`t even have words for this.