Pathetic press release from House Democrats disappears the testimony of Christy and Pielke

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

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

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to Pathetic press release from House Democrats disappears the testimony of Christy and Pielke

  1. dp says:

    The US is the world’s newest Banana Republic. Maybe Blazing Saddles would be a better metaphor.

  2. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Talk about fools. Taking climate advice from the Reinsurance Industry is like asking your barber if you need a haircut …

    w.

  3. gopal panicker says:

    crazy

  4. ivor ward says:

    Even when they listen to the truth they are determined not to hear it.

  5. ronald says:

    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.

  6. pat says:

    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/

  7. 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!

  8. wayne says:

    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.

  9. David, UK says:

    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.

  10. Steve C says:

    “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.

  11. mwhite says:

    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!

  12. Peter Miller says:

    A classic case of: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”

  13. Dodgy Geezer says:

    … “One of the main definitions of ‘extreme’ is ‘away from the center.’ …

    GREAT! Someone knows where the centre is…

  14. Oldseadog says:

    Suzanne Bonamici says “Scientific projections from the IPCC ….. .”
    A touch of the oxymorons there I think.

  15. tango says:

    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/

  16. Doubting Rich says:

    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.”

  17. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    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.

  18. Alan the Brit says:

    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?

  19. RichardLH says:

    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.

  20. Mike Ozanne says:

    ““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….

  21. Alan the Brit says:

    Dr Burns, don’t you just love that movie?

  22. johnmarshall says:

    Warming world??? How about a cooling world!!!!!!!
    Extreme weather is part of the chaotic weather mix, GET USED TO IT.

  23. Lew Skannen says:

    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.

  24. Rob says:

    I don`t even have words for this.

  25. H.R. says:

    Yeah, but… keep in mind that the USA has the finest Congress money can buy. What you see here is someone getting their money’s worth.

  26. klem says:

    More evidence that climate alarmists have been the true science deniers all along.

  27. rogerknights says:

    2.5 years ago (it seems like yesterday), in a guest thread, Steve Goddard rebutted the coin flip analogy thusly:

    “The coin flip analogy assumes that each iteration is independent of the others, which is not the case with climate.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/10/response-to-dr-meiers-answer-9-the-coin-flip-in-the-context-of-climate-modeling/

  28. Felflames says:

    Alan the Brit says:
    December 13, 2013 at 1:54 am

    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?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “Why doesn’t that man have clothes on?” asked the child.

    I encouraged all my nieces and nephews to be skeptics in all things when they were growing up.
    That is nine adults who know how to smell BS from miles away.

  29. Alfred Deakin of the Commonwealth of Australia says:

    What this is analogous to is as follows:

    Let’s say a revered political leader dies. They organise a big state memorial for this person. Then just as everyone is about to go on, the head honcho notices that the sign-language person looks politically incorrect (shall we say). So they tell him to get lost and if he ever speaks about it or if his employer, the disability services agency, does, it will go very bad for them and everyone they know, including family. Very bad, let us not be mistaken about that. Now. Problem. No sign-language person. So at the last minute a politically correct government party hack is organised to get up on stage and pretend he can do the job.

    Just saying…but hey do a selfie.

  30. John Frguson says:

    Is there somewhere we can write to castigate them for their deception?

  31. rogerknights says:

    Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said in her opening statement, “. . . 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.

    Chicken Little says “IPOCC, POCC, POCC . . . .”

    (IPOCC = Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change)

  32. John Frguson says:

    Ok, it gets worse. At http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-environment-hearing-factual-look-relationship-between-climate-and-weather, it has the testimonies of:

    Dr. John R. Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville

    Dr. David Titley, Director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, Pennsylvania State University

    Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor and Director, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado

    What is Suzanne Bonamici up to?

  33. RichardLH says:

    I think the most surprising thing in this press release is that it favours the views of Suzanne Bonamici (a ‘Ranking member’) over that of the Chairman, given that he gave a much more sceptic opening view that she did. Spin indeed!

  34. philjourdan says:

    Mann and his ilk can be understood why they perpetuate the myth. Their income relies on it. But the democrats? They are not getting paid to lie. So why do they?

    “Never let a crises go to waste”. They are still trying to milk the non-crises.

  35. Doug S says:

    If any of you would like to see the real world, on the ground effects of democrat governance, search the Internet for details of Vallejo, California. This area of California is arguably the very best land and climate in North America. It has tremendous natural resources and great proximity to high paying jobs in the silicon valley.

    Despite all of the advantages that should make the management of a small town (Vallejo) a relatively easy task, the democrats here have driven the town into bankruptcy. Their management ability and their public policy making is so foolish and so corrupt that the town will very likely enter into a second bankruptcy within the same decade.

    The good people of Vallejo both democrats and republicans have endured this kind of abysmal management for decades. Hard working democrat families 50 years ago would be equally stunned by the poor decision making that modern progressive and far left liberal democrats are making in today’s political world.

    As you all watch the dealings of the progressive democrats at the national level just remember, what you see is incompetence today but I’m afraid to tell you that it can become much worse. These people are capable of destroying economies on a massive scale and it looks like that is what they are trying to do to the United States and other countries around the world.

  36. If you don’t like your testimony, you can delete your testimony.

  37. aaron says:

    [cut that kind of language out. Mod]

  38. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    Interesting to note that the ranking minority Rep, Bonamici, gives an opening statement that essentially states that the meeting’s outcome cannot be different from the predetermined agenda. She states that the meeting is to prove the world is getting worse because of global warming, and the outcome cannot be to conclude that we don’t need to do anything about it. Quoting, “The lesson of this hearing cannot be that a potential link between climate change and severe weather is too difficult to determine or understand…”

    It is sad that so many politicians are bowing down at the alter of scientism and progressivism. It is sad that they refuse to acknowledge that their proposed cure is far more damaging and costly than their feared purported disease.

  39. Ric Werme says:

    Mission accomplished

  40. Ric Werme says:

    > Downloads

    > Nutter Letter on Weather and Climate to Congresswoman Bonamici.pdf »

    Oh, a letter from Frank Nutter. I was thinking it was a letter from some nutter. (Frank is from the Reinsurance Association of America and benefits from the perception that storms are more severe.)

  41. RomanM says:

    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.

    Pathetic doesn’t even begin to describe this chestnut in Rear Admiral Tetley’s testimony. He should know that global temperatures being annually above or below a specific starting point does not behave like a sequence of independent coin tosses since the starting point of next year’s temperatures is the end point of the previous year’s. A more apt analogy would be to compare the temperatures to the cumulative total of heads in a sequence of tosses. In an unchanging climate, the coin tosses are then represented by whether the changes in temperature move up or down from year to year.

    Using the latest 37 years of GISS temperatures, there were 21 increases (Heads) and 15 decreases (Tails). A simple calculation using a binomial distribution shows the the probability of getting 21 or more heads in 36 tosses is a not so impressive 0.203 or a 1 in 5 chance, a far cry from the specious “1 in 68 billion” touted by the admiral. But unfortunately his numbers are now out there to to be bandied about by this group of clueless politicians, small children and AGW activists whose sole scientific training is limited to public relations.

  42. Jimbo says:

    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.

    1) The lesson of the hearing IS “that a potential link between climate change and severe weather is too difficult to determine or understand, and therefore we should” keep trying.

    2) We are on the whole living longer than our grandparents. On the whole we have a better standard of living than our grandparents.

    3) Why shouldn’t global warming mean fewer stronger storms? The peer reviewed lessons can be found HERE.

  43. Jimbo says:

    Here are some lessons the hearing should have heard about.

    ….From a meteorological point of view, this troublesome development in the late medieval time was the result of global cooling. When the planet cools, the cooling is especially pronounced near the poles and smaller near the equator. Along with planetary cooling, this therefore produces an enhanched thermal contrast between equatorial regions and the poles. In the northern hemisphere, this thermal contrast tend to develop especially in latitudes between about 50 and 65oN, in the zone of westerlies. This strengthened thermal gradient is the basis for development of more cyclonic storms over oceans in this zone, leading to increasing flood frequency and damage for adjoining coasts and land areas……..
    Climate4you.com
    ———————-
    The Guardian – 20 January 2011
    Weatherwatch: The Grote Mandrenke
    Few great weather events in British history were as devastating as the “Grote Mandrenke”, the great drowning of men, which took place in mid January 1362. A huge south-westerly gale originating in the Atlantic Ocean swept across Ireland, Britain, the Low Countries, and northern Germany, causing at least 25,000 deaths……As the storm reached the North Sea, it combined with high tides to produce the phenomenon most feared by coastal communities, a storm surge….
    ———————-
    Among other things, the three researchers report that (1) “the content of marine-source ssNa aerosols in the GISP2 ice core record, a proxy for storminess over the adjacent ocean through the advection of salt spray [ss], is high during the LIA with a marked transition from reduced levels during the MCA [hereafter MWP] (Meeker and Mayewski, 2002; Dawson et al., 2007),” (2) “the onset of the LIA in NW Europe is notably marked by coastal dune development across western European coastlines linked to very strong winds during storms (Clarke and Rendell, 2009; Hansom and Hall,
    http://nipccreport.com/articles/2012/sep/11sep2012a4.html

  44. theBuckWheat says:

    I am still waiting for research on what, exactly, the ideal climate is. Before we go off and spend trillions of borrowed dollars and destroy personal liberty, we should know if our climate is presently below the ideal or above it.

  45. DCA says:

    “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

    Isn’t that like asking someone to prove a negative?

  46. Jimbo says:

    Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said in her opening statement, “…….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…..”

    What do we see since 1950?

    May 21, 2012 – Science Direct
    Dry Lands Getting Drier, Wet Getting Wetter: Earth’s Water Cycle Intensifying With Atmospheric Warming
    In a paper just published in the journal Science, Australian scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, reported changing patterns of salinity in the global ocean during the past 50 years, marking a clear fingerprint of climate change.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm

    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.”

    But we just came out of the “hottest decade on the record!” and yet the good solder says “our future may include more intense, and possibly more frequent, storms.” Did you see that? You have to ask why we don’t see the extremes (caused by man-made global warming) now?

  47. Coach Springer says:

    Using a picture of people you “disappeared” isn’t idiocy. It’s saying “expletive you.” Same as parading around amongst limited government types with the Affordable Care Act that the only parts they were aware of were the purposely punitive parts for their ideological opponents such as Catholics and pro-lifers.

  48. GH05T says:

    The word is out that the “warming” we were all worried about amounted to 70 degree days turning into 73 degree days over the course of 100 years. Add that to growing ice fields, record-low cyclone land-falls, and slow moving sea-level rise and the scramble is on to find something for people to be scared of.

  49. _Jim says:

    re: pat says December 13, 2013 at 12:10 am

    Total smack-down by Morano … the usual idiocy “The science is settled right now … the cleanest way and the cheapest way is solar and wind … We have solutions right now to climate change that are cheaper than gas, cheaper than coal, cheaper than oil” by the suit-wearing Sierra Club (Brune) guy!

    .

  50. Alvin says:

    Hate to go all political, but here goes; Imagine what would happen if the DNC gets control of the House again? What is more concerning is that few republicans understand the science or accurately debate the real issues. They get their floor wiped by democrats who are indoctrinated by the religion of environmentalists, but buy in completely by that religion. The people in congress who we have on our “side” of this debate are poorly equipped to defend the points.

  51. Clovis Marcus says:

    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.

    Surely you have a hearing and listen to evidence and come to a conclusion. Ruling out an outcome (that the drivers are too complex and we should just adapt to whatever happens) before the talking starts is crazy.

    It’s almost like saying we know what outcome we want so any other evidence will be ignored…oh, wait…

  52. starzmom says:

    Just a comment on the coin flip analogy. The probability of any given sequence is precisely the same as the probability of any other given sequence. That said, here the analogy fails as coin flips are independent of each other, and temperatures from one year to the next are not.

  53. Steamboat Jon says:

    Another reason congress often has a single digit approval rating.

    “Pro and con are opposites, that fact is clearly seen. If progress means to move forward, then what does congress mean?”
    ― Nipsey Russell

  54. Alvin says:

    The “Reinsurance Association of America” is another non-profit trade organization like the “National Green Buildings Council” that masquerades as a government entity. From their site, “The RAA is a nonprofit trade association of reinsurers established in 1968. The association is headquartered in Washington, D.C. The primary purpose of the RAA is to advance the interests of the U.S. property and casualty reinsurance industry through effective government relations with state and federal lawmakers and regulatory agencies and representation before judicial bodies.”

    So, they are a lobbying firm that is pushing global warming policy.

  55. Rob Ricket says:

    Roger is a class act and he went out of his way to thank congress for allowing him to testify. Apparently, some animals are more equal than others. A very sad state of affairs!

  56. Tom In Indy says:

    Flip a coin 36 times… They forgot to metion how the determination of that probability changes given a natural uptrend in temperature during the 36 coin flips.

    Then there’s this…
    Cairo (AFP) – A regional cold snap spread to Egypt on Friday, with some Cairo suburbs seeing snowfall for the first time in years, a weather official said.
    http://weather.yahoo.com/cairo-sees-first-snow-years-cold-snap-hits-142519974.html

  57. R2Dtoo says:

    I hate politics mixed with science, but this is solely a political thread and posting. I don’t think Americans are connecting the dots on a number of issues. Looking at things from the Great White North the following add up. The top military person in the U.S. has declared climate change the number one “national security” threat to the U.S. Your President has great personal (office) power regarding national security, and can bypass Congress with executive privilege. The Senate has passed the “nuclear option” and is stacking the only court that can over-rule your President. The President has made it clear that he will pursue a radical climate change agenda. The U.S. climate agenda is therefore set- rules will be set by the administration and enforced by the bureaucratic structure. It won’t matter what happens in the next election because these moves are coming soon to a country near you. I’m not much for conspiracy theories, and don’t see this as a conspiracy. It is too “overt”, and your elected officials are simply using the system to force an agenda. I’m glad I live in Canada, but we will be impacted by what happens.

  58. RockyRoad says:

    theBuckWheat says:
    December 13, 2013 at 5:43 am

    I am still waiting for research on what, exactly, the ideal climate is. Before we go off and spend trillions of borrowed dollars and destroy personal liberty, we should know if our climate is presently below the ideal or above it.

    Especially when those $Trillions are borrowed from a private institution, the Fed, that has no collateral whatsoever so turns pure Monopoly Money into real Dollars–for which taxpayers are on the hook for the principle AND the interest.

    Talk about a scam…

    It’s unprecedented in world history!

    (And it’s the main reason why the income gap continues to expand. Everything the government does pushes this monetary theft–even “climate science”.)

  59. Alvin says:

    Also with the coin flip, why do they get to choose which coin flips to choose? 36 flips out of 5.4 billion?

  60. Rod Everson says:

    mwhite says:
    December 13, 2013 at 12:44 am
    In Britain if a committee produces a report that is disputed, the minority sometimes produce a report of their own.

    Okay, I scanned all of the comments so far and didn’t notice anyone making the following point, so I will: This is the minority for gosh sakes. The House majority is Republican.

    Two points: First: What would you expect a Democrat press release to say? Global warming has gone by the wayside? Get real.

    Second Point: Where’s the GOP press release, one issued not by the ranking member of the minority, but by the Chairman appointed by the majority.

    This is an overreaction to the obvious. Instead of all the effort being put into dissecting this report, someone should be contacting the committee in search of the majority report. Then give that some publicity, not this tripe.

  61. Resourceguy says:

    This air brush truth fits well with air brush politicized science. And we have always been at war with Oceana.

  62. Richard M says:

    I see Dr. Titley had no problem telling flat out lies. Many of them. His comment about the Arctic sea ice being more important was a perfect example and it was nice to see Dr. Christy correct him. When you see people like this telling porkers before Congress with absolutely no fear of being held accountable it really demonstrates the current state of affairs.

  63. ferd berple says:

    vor ward says:
    December 12, 2013 at 11:53 pm
    Even when they listen to the truth they are determined not to hear it.
    =============
    people only hear what they want to hear.

  64. Bob Mount says:

    What on Earth has tossing coins got to do with climate data/statistics? This is now purely a political issue, where the facts must not get in the way of a scary, vote-winning story.

  65. ferd berple says:

    theBuckWheat says:
    December 13, 2013 at 5:43 am
    I am still waiting for research on what, exactly, the ideal climate is.
    ============
    Environmentalism would have us believe that if temperatures get colder, more plants and animals will die, and on the flip side, if temperatures get warmer, more plants and animals will die.

    So, wherever you are, no matter what temperature, any change up or down is bad. Unless of course you take a look at the real world. In which case you will find that many lifeforms have adapted to take advantage of change.

    For example, forest fires in Pacific Northwest. Smokey tells us they are bad. But, if you are a Douglas Fir, they are good. In mature, old growth forests, you find mostly hemlocks. Brittle, full of knots, and subject to rot, these are an inferior tree for construction. However, they grow well in established low-light forests. Douglas fir on the other hand do not grow well in low light. They need open spaces to grow. As a result they are adapted to survive and germinate after forest fires. The end result of fire is a stand of new growth Douglas firs, with their superior qualities for construction.

  66. Bob Greene says:

    If you allow the warmists to control the language, you certainly add to the difficulty of refuting their arguments in public. This press release was never intended to be about an inquiry into the science, it is nothing more than propaganda, despite Dr. Pielke’s nice comments about congressional hearings.
    The press release is about “climate change” and “extreme” weather. Who doesn’t believe the climate has changed, is changing and will change in the future? But they really mean “global warming.” Someone ought to ask these learned leaders if they have a consensus of thousands of scientists that will sign on to the climate ought to be unchanging and constant or that they can control the climate.
    Extreme weather seems to mean “not normal.” What the heck is normal? The first couple years I lived in Michigan I kept hearing “this is not a normal….” I finally decided that the normal weather was “not normal” because we never had any normal weather. Thunderstorms and tornados seem to me to be normal weather events. We seem to have them every year, some years worse than others. Hurricanes are normal weather events including more some years and none some years.

    Someone ought to liken their squawking about man creating bad weather to primitive beliefs in the gods punishing us for our sins and we should atone. We’d probably get as much climate control with roving bands of flagelants as with their hocus pocus.

    And, to the comment about recent colder periods. How about a response called winter?

  67. herkimer says:

    Rep. Mark Takano(D-CA] said “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. ”

    This is dumb . The center shifts as the climate seasons shift and they shift again as we move through a 60 year climate cycle . We just came through a 30 year warm phase of the climate cycle and are heading for the 30 year cool phase . Each climate phase has a different center and spread .The problem is that they think the we are further away from the center during last 30 years is an indication of extreme weather . This is nonsense . You cannot just look at the last 30 years only .

  68. TalentKeyHole Mole says:

    Ahh the D.C. I knew so well a decade ago.

    Still smells like ‘Teen Spirit’ is ridding the bus.

  69. Mike Maguire says:

    pat,
    Regarding the CNN debate with Marc Morano and the other 3 guys making spewing the false rhetoric and lies: There is nobody better than Marc in communicating the authentic science and facts well but when 3 other guys state lies and make completely misleading statements, the viewer doesn’t hear the truth…………as CNN intended.

    Here’s one of dozens of misleading quotes:

    “A great example, $18 billion a year is spent dealing with the impacts of asthma in this country, largely from outdoor air pollution”

    CO2 is colorless, odorless and up to more than triple the current level, has no effect on animal respiration.

    In the last 100 years, as CO2 increased there have been 0(zero) humans adversely effected from breathing ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide. If we weren’t flushing so much money down the toilet chasing this beneficial gas, we would have more resources to fight all the real pollution in our water, soils and air.

    CO2 is like the guy that has been helping old ladies across the street his entire life, being falsely accused of beating and robbing them. A high paid team of corrupt prosecutors using paid off people to falsely testify, with a handpicked jury told to disregard anything the defense attorney says because he is in denial of his clients many crimes.

  70. Jim G says:

    rogerknights says:
    December 13, 2013 at 2:47 am
    2.5 years ago (it seems like yesterday), in a guest thread, Steve Goddard rebutted the coin flip analogy thusly:

    ““The coin flip analogy assumes that each iteration is independent of the others, which is not the case with climate.””

    And how many politicians, or the public for that matter, do you suppose understand the concept of independent events in the probabilistic context? The strategy of telling a lie over and over, which is a mainstay of the left, works quite well, particularly with issues requiring more than a room temperature IQ.

  71. Steve Oregon says:

    It’s long past time in this country to aggressively pin the AGW tail on the Democrat donkeys who own it and shame them with everything they deserve.
    In Oregon they are imposing layers of ridiculous nonsense upon every aspect of our lives.
    Bonamici is as daft a rep as there is . Her entire grasp of all issues is limited to the party input.
    She just reproduces it like an old mimeograph machine.
    Their emissions reduction mission is a festering sore of dysfunction with everyone in sight just following orders.

    Google this “climate smart communities scenarios project”
    to see what the parasite looks like.

  72. TomRude says:

    That is reminiscent of the best USSR photo crops… Big Green is getting desperate to enforce their totalitarism.

  73. Mike Maguire says:

    “CO2 is colorless, odorless and up to more than triple the current level, has no effect on animal respiration”

    I should have stated “no significant negative consequences on animal respiration.”

  74. George Steiner says:

    Remember that the wise and good people of the United States have elected these equally wise and good people.

  75. John Greenfraud says:

    They are simply lying, cheating, and stealing for their ’cause’, like any good progressive. The ’cause’ has never been about the climate, it’s always been about the socialist movement and obtaining political power. The fact that more and more people are becoming aware of this inconvenient truth (useful idiots, journalists, scientists, environmentalists, politicos) is irrelevant to the progressives, the ’cause’ must continue. It’s truly a shame that so many good and dedicated people, who believed they were doing the right thing, diminished their reputations and the reputations of their organizations and institutions, only to find out the truth after the damage was done. The political hacks embedded in these organisations have set the environmental movement back 20 years.

  76. Teddi says:

    Dr. Titley sat there and lied to the panel. One bold faced lie after the next – what a disgrace !

    [Buy, you can't say this over at Climate, Etc.]

  77. pat says:

    These people are out and out crazy.

  78. Mike H says:

    Pielke said this 1 or 2 years ago and he is exactly right. I paraphrase: ”

    The Climate Debate moved from the science arena to the Politial Science arena a long time ago”.

    This only helps confirm.

  79. Bruce Cobb says:

    Dr. David Titley states: “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.”
    And: “current research indicates our future may include more intense, and possibly more frequent, storms. That is a risk not to be summarily discounted.”
    So, he’s saying that we don’t really know what’s going to happen, but possibly we might get more frequent, stronger storms. That is the idiotic, anti-scientific and anti-democratic Precautionary Principle. These people are beyond hope.

  80. Werner Brozek says:

    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.

    Exactly that same statement could have been made in 1966! The average anomaly on HadCRUT4 from 1850 to 1930 was -0.326. The lowest anomaly between 1930 and 1966 on HadCRUT4 was in 1933 when it was -0.273 which is still above -0.326.

    Exactly that same statement could have been made in 1976! The average anomaly on HadCRUT4 from 1850 to 1940 was -0.303. The lowest anomaly between 1940 and 1976 on HadCRUT4 was in 1956 when it was -0.262 which is still above -0.303.

    Exactly that same statement could have been made in 1986! The average anomaly on HadCRUT4 from 1850 to 1950 was -0.273. The lowest anomaly between 1950 and 1986 on HadCRUT4 was in 1956 when it was -0.262 which is still above -0.273.

    And like others who have asked: Where is the center? Should we have started being concerned in 1966 or 1976 or 1986 or even now? How often have we beaten odds of 1 in 68 billion in the last century?

  81. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Titley’s got cojones the size of beach balls to molest data this badly. Check out slide #4 of his presentation (a comparison of climate models to actual temperatures). Somehow he’s shifted real temperatures upward several degrees to make it appear reality agrees with the models. He’s obviously channeling Mythbuster Adam Savage:

    “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

    Does anyone know who concocted this slide or what it’s based on?

  82. Louis says:

    “One of the main definitions of ‘extreme’ is ‘away from the center.’”

    I had no idea we were experiencing “extreme” weather every summer when temperatures go up from the center and every winter when temperatures go down from the center.

    If we have natural cycles that affect the weather, like day and night and summer and winter, why can’t there be longer natural cycles that also affect the weather? Doesn’t this idea seem obvious to everyone except climate scientists?

  83. OssQss says:

    Ah yes, follow the Obama way!

    1- Ignore the facts

    2- state a half truth spun by radical ideology

    3- Repeat

    Away from center is an accurate statement.

    Far left would be exact!

  84. rogerknights says:

    R2Dtoo says:
    December 13, 2013 at 7:05 am

    I hate politics mixed with science, but this is solely a political thread and posting. I don’t think Americans are connecting the dots on a number of issues. Looking at things from the Great White North the following add up. The top military person in the U.S. has declared climate change the number one “national security” threat to the U.S. Your President has great personal (office) power regarding national security, and can bypass Congress with executive privilege. The Senate has passed the “nuclear option” and is stacking the only court that can over-rule your President. The President has made it clear that he will pursue a radical climate change agenda. The U.S. climate agenda is therefore set- rules will be set by the administration and enforced by the bureaucratic structure. It won’t matter what happens in the next election because these moves are coming soon to a country near you.

    Obama’s headstrong hubris will come a cropper, as it has with Obamacare, if the warm turns sharply in 2014 (and continues cooling thereafter), as my buddies among the Pranksters on Olympus whisper to me that it will.

  85. RB says:

    I watched the whole thing – Titley was unimpressive – terrified by the precautionary principle.

  86. Brian H says:

    Weather is extreme because it’s warmer than it was 36 years ago? Do tell …

  87. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Whoa!
    I expected the “Nutter Letter on Weather and Climate to Congresswoman Bonamici”, to be a rant from another Climate-Nutter to his/her Congress-Nutter. The letter is actually quite good and just coincidentally was written by Frank Nutter, the President of Reinsurance Association of America (who doesn’t appear to be another Nutter at all).

  88. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Brian H says:
    “Weather is extreme because it’s warmer than it was 36 years ago? Do tell …”

    Brian H, welcome to WUWT. As ‘Moshpit’ (Steve Mosher) can attest, flippant comments from drive by trolls are not well received here. It’s time to put up or shut up. Explain you comment and show us the reproducible empirical data that supports it.

  89. george e. smith says:

    Well I’ve heard about how to lie with statistics; but this Dr. David Titley takes it to a whole new parallel universe of vocal fenestration.

    I’m old enough to remember the draft lotteries of the Vietnam War era. Well specifically I remember the very first one.

    In essence, the days of the year received numbers from 1 to 366; not necessarily in calendar order; but it makes not a jot of difference if they were. The point is, each day of the year has a unique identifying title. Those unique identifiers can be translated into any or all of the world’s languages; or any numerical counting discipline, whether Arabic or Roman or otherwise; they still are just labels that uniquely specify one day per year.

    So 4H-Club probability theory, tells us that those 366 numbers can be drawn in sequence in a total of 366! ways (Factorial 366). I’ll let you calculate that from the well known formula. It’s near enough to infinity for most purposes.

    So the very first draft lottery was held, and some early forerunner of Dr Titley then pronounced, that the drawing was unfair, and not random, in that early calendar dates appeared in the draft sooner than later calendar dates.

    So based on a single drawing, out of 366 possible different drawings, this hero decided the numbers were not random.

    One of those 366! drawings, would be : Jan1, jan2, jan3, jan4,……dec27, dec28, dec29, dec30, dec31. That unlikely result has exactly the same probability as did the result of the first draft lottery. Those 366 unique labels, can be replaced by a new set with no sequential relationship, and the outcome is unaltered..

    Statistics is a purely mathematical discipline, based on certain axioms, and algorithms, and those rules can be applied to ANY set of numbers whatsoever, whether obtained as records of past events, or simply dreamed up in some ad hoc fashion. You could count the number of animals larger than an ant on each square meter of the earth surface, and apply the rules to those numbers; or the valid telephone numbers listed in the Manhattan Phone Directory.

    The results are equally valid for any case, for numbers from any source. They are a formal statement, about any set of numbers already known.

    And the result is the same regardless of the source of the numbers. The next number of the set cannot be determined with certainty, by any known process.

    But once the next number in the set is known, the level of surprise at its value might be influenced by the result of any statistics performed on the set prior to the next selection. However; the next number itself, is in no way affected, by that process.

    Statistics conveys certain information about the past. It conveys zero information about any future event.

    I think I should buy a powerball ticket, based on Dr Titley’s recommendation.

  90. john robertson says:

    But the good Democrat is speaking the truth as she sees it.
    While she saw the two scientists at the hearing, she never heard a word they uttered.
    Picture fingers in ears and the socialist chant.
    LA la la…..democrats good…. doubter evil stupid … I am so smart… everyone who calls me stupid is evil…i am ….me .me.,me.

  91. tom0mason says:

    Can I take it that they started with a definition of climate and of weather, and defined how to differentiate between the two?

  92. TonyG says:

    ferd berple says:
    Environmentalism would have us believe that if temperatures get colder, more plants and animals will die, and on the flip side, if temperatures get warmer, more plants and animals will die.

    What’s funny is that I had that EXACT conversation right here a few years ago.

  93. pat says:

    Mike Maguire –

    Morano is a great communicator, but i have some advice for CAGW sceptics who do appear on MSM (it’s so rare, the opportunity must not be missed to reclaim the language).

    EVERY TIME the term “climate change” is used, interrupt/ask –

    what are we/you talking about – manmade global warming or climate change?

    ALWAYS use the term “manmade global warming” when responding.

    do not let anyone get away with using CC instead of AGW, because it turns the debate into gibberish.

  94. Steve Keohane says:

    george e. smith says:December 13, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    I remember that first drawing well having been number 26, yet contrary to Dr. Titley’s belief, my Dec 14 birthday, though late in the year, was early in the drawing.

  95. Randy says:

    starzmom says:
    December 13, 2013 at 6:40 am

    Just a comment on the coin flip analogy. The probability of any given sequence is precisely the same as the probability of any other given sequence. That said, here the analogy fails as coin flips are independent of each other, and temperatures from one year to the next are not.

    Yep, if the congressmen disagrees perhaps hed like to go bet his fortune running a martingale system on the roulette wheel betting between odds and evens, or red and black. I once saw several people in a row decide 15 blacks in a row was a sure bet red is next! by the 25th or so black several had lost a hefty sum.

  96. Madam Bonamici, there is not one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to the climate – not one.

    The only “proof” for climate change from the church of anthropogenic global warming are based on anecdotes, computer projections, Hockey Sticks, and consensus. Anecdotes are short, obscure historical or biographical accounts. Anecdotes are not traceable or connectable to anything. Anecdotes, like a Polar Bear carcass found on Svalbard, are not proof. Computer projections are nothing more than mental gymnastics. Computer projections as they unfold over time have proved to be dismal failures, simply because their only input is green house gases. Computer projections are not proof. Hockey Sticks are the cobbling together of two unrelated proxy data sets. These FrankenGraphs, which would have received an “F” in Junior High School 50 years ago, are incredibly embraced by many adult scientists today. Hockey Sticks are not proof. Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. In 1500 the consensus said the Earth was the center of the Solar System. Consensus is the intellectual lethary that forms after the pioneering work of a single individual, like Copernicus, or Wegener. Consensus is not proof.

    Meanwhile, right on schedule, the Sun has entered a Grand Solar Minimum. Prepare for decades of bone chilling winters, fuel scarcity, crop failures, food shortages and famines, in which millions of lives will be lost preparing for the warming which will not come for another century. And no amount of pithy CO2 increases are going to save us.

  97. Brian H says:

    Morano, as a communicator, would do well to look up and contemplate the definition of “dynamic range”. He must have grown up on “wall of sound” rock.

    If everything is loudly emphasized, nothing is emphasized.

  98. Brian H says:

    Hoofstetter;
    If you’d read the post, you would recognize this cite: “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.”
    His foolish comparison sums to “its warmer now so it must be extreme”, as I said.

    Get it?

  99. Jon says:

    This action gives great support to those claiming that the CAGW, UNFCCC, IPCC and etc is more policy driven and less scientific based?
    What we see is a bunch of people that, based on policy based science(a great idea based on a lie), wants to make the World better?
    When did lies and tricks make the World better?

  100. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Brian H says:
    Hoofstetter;
    “Dr. Titley’s…foolish comparison sums to “its warmer now so it must be extreme, as I said.
    Get it?”

    Got it. Thanks. My apologies.

  101. IPCC admits that its estimate “should ideally be based” on objective standards, and for its predictions (insidiously called “projections”), its assessments “ideally would have strong connections” to measured patterns. AR4, 8.6.4 How to Assess Our Relative Confidence in Feedbacks Simulated by Different Models?, p. 639. Even lacking those attributes, its experts felt the chances of climate sensitivity being less than 1.5ºC was “very unlikely”, meaning less than 10%. In fact, that estimate is supported by IPCC’s report on seven ostensibly objective studies (computer climate models) that produced probability density functions (pdfs) for climate sensitivity. AR4, Figure 9.20, p. 720. The average of the corresponding cumulative distribution functions (call them PDFs) puts the probability that ECS ≤ 1.5ºC at exactly 10.01%. This is not much of a margin for a scientist to accept the null hypothesis that the GCMs fail to predict global climate.

    However, investigators are now providing estimates of ECS from satellite and MLO data which run between 0.5 and 0.7, and sometimes as high as 1.0ºC. The PDFs permit quantifying these results objectively, and the latest estimates have probabilities of 0.07%, 0.15%, and 1.6%, respectively. If the GCMs were valid, the 1ºC would be “exceptionally unlikely”, the least likely category in IPCC’s terminology. AR4, Technical Summary, Box TS.1, p. 23. For an ECS of 0.5 to 0.7, the probability would be an order of magnitude less. Exploiting the other end of IPCC’s touchy-feely probability scale, its climate models are no less than “virtually certain” (>99% probability) to be invalid for an ECS as small as 0.7, and worse for ECS = 0.5.

    These estimates stress the meaning of the parameter ECS, which is

    >>In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature [i.e, GAST] following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. AR4, Glossary, p. 943..

    Ignoring the problem of the existence of any kind of equilibrium, the definition of ECS implies that CO2 is a cause of GAST. When CO2 lags GAST, as it does in the Vostok record and still does in the modern era, assuming CO2 causes GAST is an error in causality. But whichever the cause, GAST has a slope and CO2 has a slope, and the ratio of the slopes provides a prediction. So the current estimates of ECS invalidate the GCMs under the assumption that CO2 is the cause and GAST the effect. In fact, the assumption is false, the relationship is the reverse, and the GCMs are invalid irrespective of the magnitude of ECS estimates.

  102. Brian H says:

    Jeff;
    Shirley you don’t mean they’re just making scheisse up? The thought!

  103. Ed Mertin says:

    Round up the Neocons here; Mars One is serious about this one-way trip to space

    http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/mars_one_is_serious_about_this_one_way_trip_to_space/

    Good conservatives might eventually gain the intellectual and moral high ground.

  104. Ed Mertin says:

    Every Republican attack on Obamacare is against the policies Republicans championed. ACA is, after all, the conservative alternative to single payer healthcare. Look it up!

    Healthcare costs are already beginning to decline as more people get care in a timely manner instead of waiting until it’s too late and having a trip to the emergency room.

    ACA was supposed to be this big jobs killer, but the pace of job creation hasn’t slowed at all. Wrong again, conservatives. :-)

    If you’d rather watch a neighbor starve, die from untreated health problems and disease—- or getting blown to pieces in some Islamic sectarian struggle that dates back 1400 years and because some Israeli leaders wants violent regime change, you’re a conservative.

Comments are closed.