This morning, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, will release a staff report on the scientific issues that tend to discredit the EPA’s endangerment finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The report’s release coincides with the opening of a committee hearing entitled “The Foundation of Climate Science.” During the hearing the committee will hear testimony from five experts — four defending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports against the criticisms raised since the release of the Climategate files last November, and one, Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a noted skeptic (as well as a Pajamas Media contributor).
The report summarizes a number of revelations that, according to Rep Sensenbrenner’s staff, combine to call into question the scientific validity of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Many of these have been reported in Pajamas Media since our original report on the Climategate files.
The IPCC report might seem to be a secondary issue, however flawed it may be, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to base endangerment findings on well-accepted, peer-reviewed science. However, in the EPA’s regulatory announcement (released on April 24, 2009), the EPA itself noted that it “relies most heavily on the major assessment reports of both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). EPA took this approach rather than conducting a new assessment of the scientific literature.” [emphasis added]
read the complete article here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The English speaking world is, perhaps due to the language, so very naive. We tend to love heroic, romantic, sensational historic fairy tales…. ‘Once upon a time, in a world far, far away, scientists were pure and noble people….’ Well, it’s just not really, technically, factually, actually true; not ever 70% true. I guess that’s why so many still refuse to believe, and so many others took so long to recognize, that it is possible to purchase accredited scientists for about a dime a dozen in some sections of the planet and give them a beer and/or tickle their chin and get them to sign on to anything.
More and more, I hate to say, scientists are becoming so very much like ambulance chasing lawyers; or worse, lifelong, professional politicians. No! Not All! But enough are so that the profession of science is becoming a rather smelly, sordid, raunchy affair; rather like a sewer of sorts. Perhaps one day, let us hope and dream, the good scientists will do a little house cleaning and disinfect their own abode; especially the latrine. Perhaps this will preclude another IPCC from forming in future with the aid of so many carpetbagger “scientists” who’ll say or do anything for a beer or tickle of their chin.
New major report by the National Academy of Sciences supporting the science behind climate change:
http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html
But of course, dear Lord Monckton knows better than the two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates who are behind this report, because he what degree in physics or science from where?
Sad…truly sad.
mikael pihlström says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:57 am
No credible alternative has been presented…
You are correct: no credible alternative to naturally-occurring climate change (the null hypothesis) has been presented, despite the best efforts of the climate bedwetters to pin the blame on C02.
Keep up the good work.
R. Gates says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm [ … ]
If it weren’t for his ad hominem attacks taking the place of scientific facts, R. Gates wouldn’t have a thing to say.
Smokey
Gates has nothing to say, period.
Smokey says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:33 pm
R. Gates says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm [ … ]
If it weren’t for his ad hominem attacks taking the place of scientific facts, R. Gates wouldn’t have a thing to say.
You forgot his appeal to authority too!!!
R. Gates, 255 whole scientists? You ever hear of the Oregon petition? I’ll see your 255 and raise you 31,000.
4 against 1? That’s not really fair . . . for the 4.
Lord Monckton is an excellent choice. As R. Pielke Jr. says, this debate has moved from the scientific arena to the political one. Lord Monckton understands the science very well but just as importantly, understands the politics even better. He knows that just putting facts in front the congressional hearing, no matter how right he is, it isn’t enough. The only climate scientist I’ve seen that has the political and oral savvy to get in front of them and perform well is Dr. Ball. John Christie isn’t bad, but the others are scientists through and through. That’s not meant to be an insult, but how one delivers a message matters.
75% plus of congressional members don’t have a clue about the science behind it. But most of them realize the idea of catastrophic AGW/Cap ‘N Trade is load of horse bleep but see it as a tool to move the USA from a path of foreign oil dependence to one of independence. (Sane environmental laws would probably accomplish much of that too)
Lord Monckton needs to show them how supporting Cap ‘N Trade is detrimental to their political life. Tough to do considering campaign contributors such as GE, Kleiner/Perkins and envirowackos have created this mythical evil beast, invested billions in alternative energy and the pressure they are mounting on the administration is immense.
Layne:
I of course read your comment about 4:1 not being fair right after I hit the submit button!!
From what I remember the IPCC can include in its assessments non-peer reviewed grey literature. To me this would partly call into question:
I have nothing against Lord Moncton, but some variety in the skeptic voices that end up at these things would be nice. I doubt it will ever be Steve or Anthony, but there are several PhDs that would be quite suitable. The more variety, the less able the other side is to attack individuals as if smearing a given individual will retire the argument.
R. Gates says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm
New major report by the National Academy of Sciences supporting the science behind climate change:
http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html
But of course, dear Lord Monckton knows better than the two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates who are behind this report, because he what degree in physics or science from where?
Sad…truly sad.
==========================
Excerpt from the link you provided:
“It specifically reaffirms the “compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend,” and highlights that there is nothing identified in recent events that has changed the fundamental conclusions about climate change.”
It is sad, that this Press Release so excites you.
Let’s wait for:
“Their statement, “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” will be published in the journal Science on May 7, 2010 as the Lead Letter, along with a supporting editorial.”
I assume it will be more “consensus” science.
R. Gates says: at 12:25 pm
New major report …. It’s a statement, not a report and why you would deem it to be “major” is – – well, dramatic, at best.
R. Gates says:
“New major report by the National Academy of Sciences”
That is so funny. It was a loyalty oath.
STEPHEN PARKERuk says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:59 am
4 verses one. we like those odds, makes us brits fight a bit harder
Thanks Stephen. That really helps perk up my ancestral English in these incredible times (:-)). Monckton did quite well actually, while being mercilessly mocked. The Dems proved themselves, once again – exceptionally crass ideologues.
One look at what’s happening in Greece today should convince Congress that pushing forward with the Climate Change legislation is a “going down the wrong track” path.
Gail Combs says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:51 am
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.
– Thrilled to hear about Snowe. I do hope somebody here does get through to her!
There will not be an IPCC in 2020.
See, here’s what’s wrong with the entire scenario as it exists today. Sure, there’s been some steady, monotonous warming over the last century, at least the record appears to show that (although, the record is highly contaminated and therefore suspect). So, why aren’t the climate scientists trying to figure out why?
CO2 has been demonstrated to NOT be the driver. Instead of actually attempting to identify the driver, they’ve all gone off the rails on this CO2 tangent. Millions of people believe it’s CO2, but it isn’t. It’s a travesty.
Monkton is great, but the testifiers should be 4:1 against the EPA endangerment finding. I don’t know what Sen. Senseless is trying to prove, but if this is the best he can do, then boot him out. I hate this “throw the proles a bone” type of governance. This issue is VERY BIG. Sen. Senseless appears to be playing footsie games. Not satisfactory, not by a long shot.
R. Gates keeps confusing team playing yes-men for real scientists. Remember Galileo Galilei??? Science does not care what a million people believe. The only thing that matters is if the hypothesis, a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon, is verified or refuted by the experimental data. A computer model is NOT experimental data.
Remember Dr. Trenberth, said in one of the CRU emails:
” The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
And this guy want us to wreck western civilization by limiting access to energy???
Monckton. Excuse me.
Mike from Canmore says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:18 pm
“Lord Monckton needs to show them how supporting Cap ‘N Trade is detrimental to their political life.”
Yup. Politicians in a nutshell. Nail? – meet head of hammer.
Being a 25% skeptic, I’ve repeatedly asked for the skeptical viewpoint for why one of the major predictions of AGWT is happening, namely: the cooling of the stratosphere. I’ve never received one credible response to this. AGWT states quite plainly that it should occur, as LW radiation is held up by the increasing CO2 in the troposphere, and this is quite easy to understand from a pure physics standpoint. So what do AGW skeptics attribute stratospheric cooling too, if not the trapping of LW radiation in the troposphere by increasing amounts of CO2?
Al Gore’s Weather (AGW): Mah father knew Joe. Daddy said Joe was a good Catholic boy.
“‘McCarthy-Like Threats'”.
Joe Who?
…-
“Images show Iceland volcano intensifying”
“The UK Met Office has released a vivid series of images that show the Eyjafjallajokull volcano intensifying.
In the satellite pictures, which use infrared wavelengths, the ash plume appears bright orange and grows larger over time.
The plume gradually increased in size over a period of approximately six hours on Thursday morning.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8665482.stm
…-
“Climate change science sound: researchers
CBC.ca – 1 hour ago
The journal Science has published a letter defending the integrity of climate science, signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences.”
“Stop politicizing climate change, urges letter from top scientists Montreal Gazette”
“Scientists Lash at ‘McCarthy-Like Threats’ New York Times (blog)”
(googlenews)
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013938.html#comments
rbateman says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:54 pm
One look at what’s happening in Greece today should convince Congress that pushing forward with the Climate Change legislation is a “going down the wrong track” path.
________________________________________________________________________
It is the correct track if the real objective is to allow China to become the next super power. Note where Maurice Strong, father of this environmental movement is now living… in Beijing China of course. Note the contempt with which Obama was treated by the Chinese at Copenhagen. They sent an errand boy to deal with him. The sun is setting on the USA as a super power. The changes in our banking laws and the ratifying of the World Trade Organization were the key pieces in recent times, Cap and Trade is just the final nail in our coffin.
Leveraged buyouts in the 1980’s transferred the wealth of our industries to the bankers and then the WTO exported what were left. In 1990, before WTO was ratified, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP click
The USA just does not have the industrial base needed to be a super power anymore and neither does the UK.
“”” R. Gates says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm
New major report by the National Academy of Sciences supporting the science behind climate change:
http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html
But of course, dear Lord Monckton knows better than the two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates who are behind this report, because he what degree in physics or science from where? “””
Well just where did you get the idea that those 255 members (a) all agree with the Academy majority report; and (b) are scientists competent in the applicable fields of science.
For a start; most of them are not climate scientists; and probably mostly not Physicists either. Secondly the Academy doesn’t issue any minority report. They may listen to arguments from dissenters; but if the majority disagree; it is left out of ther majority report; and it never sees the light of day, or the desk of the president or the Congress.
The of course the prerequisites for being a menber of the National Academy of Sciences, is that you have to be sponsored by somebody else who is already a member; that is a pretty good definition of “The Old Boys Club.” Teh Academy self selcts its members; not based on them reaching some recognised level of scientific achievement; but simply being invited to join by somebody else who is a member; and thinks oyu will toe the party line.
If you think the Academy is going to invite somebody to membership; who is already known to have contrarian beliefs to the membership; then you are liklely smoking something illegal.
You know what they say; why would I want to join an organisation of people who would have me as a member. The Academy’s biggest failure in their supposed purpose of advising the President, and the Congress on matters of Scientific importance; is the cronyism that is rampant in that outfit.
Yes there are credible members of the academy who disagree with the AGW mantra; but absent a minority report to advise the Government on the contrarian opinions; that body is next to useless; it’s like a great echo chamber; with the members listening to the reverberation of their own biasses.