This morning, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, will release a staff report on the scientific issues that tend to discredit the EPA’s endangerment finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The report’s release coincides with the opening of a committee hearing entitled “The Foundation of Climate Science.” During the hearing the committee will hear testimony from five experts — four defending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports against the criticisms raised since the release of the Climategate files last November, and one, Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a noted skeptic (as well as a Pajamas Media contributor).
The report summarizes a number of revelations that, according to Rep Sensenbrenner’s staff, combine to call into question the scientific validity of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Many of these have been reported in Pajamas Media since our original report on the Climategate files.
The IPCC report might seem to be a secondary issue, however flawed it may be, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to base endangerment findings on well-accepted, peer-reviewed science. However, in the EPA’s regulatory announcement (released on April 24, 2009), the EPA itself noted that it “relies most heavily on the major assessment reports of both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). EPA took this approach rather than conducting a new assessment of the scientific literature.” [emphasis added]
read the complete article here
mikael pihlström says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:04 am
Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
Not definite ‘truth’, but over 2500 pages of text that is actually
readable and there is some flavor …. intellectual curiosity?
Try it.
PLM – That piece of crap (excuse me, please) is constantly being trashed! When you get past the Greenpeace and WWF contrivances, the self-reviewed “scientific” citations, the hacked-up beyond recognition authoritative research – what do you have left? A horribly written compilation of CAGW (etc.) agenda driven cast of self-serving Pachauri characters.
Mikael, if you don’t know that how did you find this blog? You certainly couldn’t have seriously reviewed anything here.
Three levels of hearsay evidence?
The EPA doesn’t do science research but relies on the IPCC.
The IPCC doesn’t do research but they do take the word from their friends who do.
The IPCC relies on the WWF and Greenpeace.
The WWF and Greenpeace don’t do research but rely on Algore and friends that do.
Algore relies on the IPCC which brings us full circle. Circular reasoning.
Somewhere they insert Gazprom drills near trees in Siberia which Briffa saw and sawed. The trees spoke out and told Briffa to tell Mann that it is getting hot. Very hot.
Mann says the heat is hidden but won’t tell us where.
Have I left anything out? Oh yeah. Where is the scientific proof from the laboratory?
We found “models” but we have no verified observation.
George E. Smith says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:06 am
Well how is that a fair hearing; a 4:1 bias in the data input. Don’t count on anything beneficial to humans coming out of such a farce.
– Not only that, but the CAGWers control the gavel and essentially have a 9-6 Committeeman advantage over the Hearing.
toby says:
May 6, 2010 at 8:44 am
My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with?
_______________________________________________________________________
Well it is better than the UK parliament where the skeptics had NO representation at all but it is still three for and one against and that one not a scientist. You think they could have at least included Lindzen.
toby says:
May 6, 2010 at 8:44 am
My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with?
========================================================
Toby, do you remember getting a vote in who appears at the hearing? No? Me either. The reason for that is there was none. The anti-industrialists are in the majority, they get to pick the agenda. While Monckton is a bright and articulate fellow, I’m certain his arguments will fall on deaf ears. BTW, you need to brush up on the traditions and rules of G.B., you’re showing your ignorance.
call me a cynic but…
it’s all just part of the puppet show.
cap and trade will pass, just like every other bill the vast majority of americans of all persuasion opposed being passed
as long as folks continue voting for republicrats, we will see only the continuing creep toward totalitarianism in this country
mikael pihlström says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:04 am
“Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
Not definite ‘truth’, but over 2500 pages of text that is actually
readable and there is some flavor …. intellectual curiosity?
Try it.”
========================================================
No, it is a summation of a point of view. It was suppose to be a review of science regarding climate change, not a verbose opinion article sprinkled with faux science and misrepresented by the chair of the panel.
We have not yet understood that IPCC reports are like the psalms of the bible, they are intended not for reading but for praying.
Why don’t the alarmist hoaxers try and find Al Gore’s swaddling blanket of CO2. The fact that it’s missing, despite all the AGW flawed climate models predict it should be there, it’s still missing.
In a world based on sound science that alone would be enough to falsify the whole idiotic theory that a trace gas can do anything of significance.
Hey at least it’s now down to 4:1, it could be worse.
James Sexton;
Monckton is a bright and articulate fellow, I’m certain his arguments will fall on deaf ears.
Unfortunately it will be so. As the spanish proverb says: “There is not a most deaf one as the one who does not want to hear”
” mikael pihlström says:
Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
Not definite ‘truth’, but over 2500 pages of text that is actually
readable and there is some flavor …. intellectual curiosity?
Try it. ”
I liked the page where they say which himalayan glacier retreats by how many meters in a year in a table, on the same page they said the glaciers might be gone by 2035. I thought, hey, that’s some short glaciers, retreating 25m per year and gone in 25 years, but when i looked them up in the wikipedia, they turned out to be up to 60 km long. It was a good laugh.
Only 4 to 1? Monckton will wonder why they didn’t bring enough to make it a fair fight.
I heard only the last 45 miniutes of Rep. Markey’s U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing, testimony and CAGW model cheerleading was concluded, before Anthony’s Sensenbrenner post was up.
Among the outcomes was the inflating of the egos of the CAGWers’ and their exploiting another opportunity to spew one-sided CAGW propaganda – at the expense of scientific debate and public perception (political near-reality). The CAGWers will be able to use this exercise as another propaganda tool. What a loss for all.
I still don’t know why Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Ranking Member didn’t seek to subject an experienced, respected, lettered non-CAGW scientist to this public dissection? Did all of them decline invitations? My hat’s off to Monckton for taking the hit, he does serve non-CAGW well in appropriate situations, but I believe this was a very bad outcome for the climate science “debate”. The truth denying continues.
Monckton tried to give an explanation as to why he was chosen to rep. the non-CAGWers as the Reps. didn’t want to subject a non-CAGW scientist to the anticipated haranguing that he is, in fact, experienced during the hearing. However, the Repubs have handed the Dems (generally the cagwers) a convenient opportunity to characterize non-CAGWers as a cause without credentialed authoritative representation.
The Dems were disgusting. They couldn’t even be patronizing.
Now attention must shift to the Senate. Check in at Sen. Inhofe’s EPW Minorty Blog at:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs for updates as Boxer is noted stating that the Kerry/Lieberman(Graham) Cap and Trade (Tax/Fraud) bill will be out next week.
In a posting at the blog E&E is excerpted, alarmingly, reporting:
“We are hopeful, given the short time frame left in the window for considering this legislation, that we’ll get some support,” Miller said. “Because if we don’t, the chances we’re going to be able to legislate on this in the next few years is going to decline significantly.”
Top GOP targets include Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, George LeMieux of Florida, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and George Voinovich of Ohio. But many of those senators say they are taking a wait-and-see approach until Kerry releases the legislation.
“I’m willing to work on it,” LeMieux said today. “I’d like to see it. I was about to see it, but then the whole process fell apart.”
Contact your Senators!
I have three words to say about the IPCC : CONFLICT OF INTEREST. It does not take a computer whiz to find the blatant corruption throughout the IPCC (just look at Pachauri’s portfolio, he stands to make a (snip)-load of moolah from his “investments”). Where are the damn gatekeepers? Who is supposed to be looking out for the people? Alas, it seems the golden rule still applies, …..
Is this hearing being televised? Any word on how it’s been going?
#
paullm says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:32 am
—-
PLM – That piece of crap (excuse me, please) is constantly being trashed! When you get past the Greenpeace and WWF contrivances, the self-reviewed “scientific” citations, the hacked-up beyond recognition authoritative research – what do you have left? A horribly written compilation of CAGW (etc.) agenda driven cast of self-serving Pachauri characters.
Mikael, if you don’t know that how did you find this blog? You certainly couldn’t have seriously reviewed anything here.
—–
Well, the war of blogs is not exactly secret and low-key anymore.
So this blog is easy to find and the IPCC reports (although downloadable)
will not be widely read – that is a problem.
A typical David vs. Goliath scenario.
A formidable underdog, for sure, but being a “furrener” to boot, they might just as well have bound and gagged him for the presentation.
When the models predict tomorrow’s and next week’s and next month’s weather to within 95% confidence limits, then and only then will I lend credence to their “predictions”. Recall that the IPCC et al indicated that their models were not able to “predict” anything.
paullm says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:32 am
mikael pihlström says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:04 am
Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available…
Try it.
PLM – That piece of crap (excuse me, please) is constantly being trashed! …
Mikael, if you don’t know that how did you find this blog? You certainly couldn’t have seriously reviewed anything here.
______________________________________________________________________
Thank you paullm, you beat me to it. From his comments mikael pihlström is a newbie who is not yet well enough educated to actually engage in the discussion yet. Unfortunately he is trying to sound like an expert.
mikael pihlström says:
“So this blog is easy to find and the IPCC reports (although downloadable)
will not be widely read – that is a problem.”
No, the fact that this site is easy to find is not a problem — except to someone who is worried that their climate alarmism isn’t getting traction.
And the fact that the UN/IPCC’s climate propaganda isn’t widely read is a good thing. Any committee of political appointees with marching orders to disseminate false climate alarmism in order to raise taxes and prices across the board should instead be shut down and disbanded for being contrary to good public policy.
You people keep mentioning the “corruption of the IPCC”.
Someday you will realize that that corruption is dwarfed and enabled by the corruption in the U.S. Government.
paullm says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:09 am
“…In a posting at the blog E&E is excerpted, alarmingly, reporting:
“We are hopeful, given the short time frame left in the window for considering this legislation, that we’ll get some support,” Miller said. “Because if we don’t, the chances we’re going to be able to legislate on this in the next few years is going to decline significantly.”
Top GOP targets include Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine,…”
_____________________________________________________________________
Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine proved to be a very reasonable person when my brother-in-law approached her on another bill she was co-sponsoring. Once she hear the true story behind the bill she withdrew her support and the bill has since faded.
Anyone from Maine want to try talking to her? My brother-in-law is not up on AGW nor is he a scientist who can get up to speed easily.
paullm:
Lord Monckton is the best qualified for this “environment” as he usually presses the most sensitive and presumptuous egos of these by mom and daddy spoiled post-normal-science kids.
#
DirkH says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:57 am
” mikael pihlström says:
Well, IPCC 2007 is the best overview of the situation available.
—–
I liked the page where they say which himalayan glacier retreats by how many meters in a year in a table, on the same page they said the glaciers might be gone by 2035. I thought, hey, that’s some short glaciers, retreating 25m per year and gone in 25 years, but when i looked them up in the wikipedia, they turned out to be up to 60 km long. It was a good laugh.
—–
That was the worst mistake found, a few more mistakes of little
importance – on 2500 pages. If you take 3 months off and read it
through and through, you might find 5 more. So what? It doesn’t
change the essence, neither does the fact that IPCC 2020 will
laugh at many things in IPCC 2007. No credible alternative has
been presented, Pielke Sr. talks about clouds – but how does it work,
could one see a graph of the mechanism?
4 verses one. we like those odds, makes us brits fight a bit harder
Since the whole debate has been so completely politicized the Senator’s, what ever it is, would seem to be appropriate. This however has noting to do with the issue. That is simply a red hearing. Nor does anything the EPA has done either. In the end it is science and its role in providing informed objective information to the whole debate that will suffer, as it has been thus far.