The Global Warming hearing today on C-SPAN included Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr Judth Curry, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Ben Santer, and Dr. Heidi Cullen, among others. Many didn’t get a chance to watch (to see if Ben Santer “beat the crap out of Pat Michaels“) but we have the video here.
C-SPAN: House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment heard from a dozen witnesses about how the public and private sectors are approaching climate change. Washington, DC : 3 hr. 47 min.
It is now online and can be watched in full at this link:
h/t to WUWT reader Rational Debate
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
RADM Titley’s testimony was quite disappointing. He seems to be in the camp forecasting the imminent loss of the polar icecap. He also insists the polar ice volume has decreased in an extent to support his conclusion the polar ice cap will soon melt and leave open water for navigation.
This indicates the reason for the change in the U.S. Congress: click
Hmm.. was paying more attention to …
HR 6416: The American Traveler Dignity Act
http://dailypaul.com/node/149693
Senate Bill S 510 Food Safety Modernization Act
http://naturalnews.com/030418_Food_Safety_Modernization_Act_seeds.html
Hum…. I can’t tell when Anthony posted this one, but I’d submitted it to tips & notes at 7:11 pm pacific and first comment here showing as 8:25. Do I get my first h/t, or should I be embarrassed that you’d found and posted it before I’d submitted and I didn’t realize it? :0)
REPLY: Most definitely you are the first to post it in Tips and Notes, so certainly you deserve a h/t – Anthony
Congreessman Baird has expressed his disdain for the blogosphere and its comments. Let’s review the testimonies line by line and record our evaluations.
This is this Congress’ last hurrah, you can bet the tone will be different next session.
And mostly to the better.
I watched much of it. [Santer, unlike the others, seemed very much on-edge; something to do with being seated next to Michaels?]
I thought the token critics got short shrift. Their was too much grandstanding by some committee members rather than an honest attempt to ‘debate’ the science.
The talk of ‘mitigation’ needs to be held up to the light with questions like, “If the US shut down completely, what effect would that have on climate change?”
[I would not take the admiral’s comments as ‘forecasting the imminent loss of the polar icecap.’ His remarks were to the probablility, in his view, of navigable waters during the summers.]
re:
Ah, the little pleasures in life! My first WUWT h/t. Thanks Anthony! :0)
Welcome to political hype.
This is the last chance that this House Subcommittee can trot out its favorite AGW promoters to create a new record on AGW scares and to congratulate each other lame duck Congressmen, for their great achievements during their rein. This format allows only one in four of the presenters to be independent and thus, in sum, appear unstable and over ruled by more knowledgeable scientists. Once again judged by the volume of debate versus its scientific value. Their cumulative ignorance is overwhelming, as is their hubris.
This is politics, not science.
Waste of f–kin’ time.
It saddens me to find that in order to get news about AGW and the alarmist agenda one has to wade through comments by people who think Ron Paul is sane, Sarah Palin is smart and the Tea Party represents “conservative thinking”.
Oh, well. No blog is perfect.
Inglis can’t even count What a [/snip]!
[Less spice on our words OK? Thanks… bl57~mod]
Dr Lindzen is the real life Dr Spock absolutely Logical without bias, emotion and alternative agenda A real scientist!.
Did Dr Cicerone say that the increase in atmo CO2 was 85% FF and 15% deforestation?
Not too scientific.
Dr Meehl WHAT ! so the Neanderthals are responsible for the Global Warming,
CO2 is everywhere YEAH right Parts PER MILLION What a Shill!.
Mark Twang says:
November 17, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Perhaps Climate Audit will work better for you.
RADM Tetley was saying the probability of open waters in the Arctic lasting weeks by 2030 and months by 2100 is “likely.”
Twang –
Ron Paul is 50% brilliant and 50% bat-guano crazy. Palin is brighter than 80% of those in government but – most importantly – she is not of the urban-ivy-league cognoscenti that drives so much of the disastrous policy agenda under which this country’s been suffocating. And the Tea Party folks represent a lot of things, some good, some bad, but if they at least kneecap the spenders of both parties in DC they’ll have done this country a great service.
But, of course, none of that’s really germane to this discussion. What is relevant is to note, relative to these hearings and the impending change of makeup of the Congress, is that one party is now for the most part a hostile place for a politician to be a warmist, while the other has become largely the party of those large urban pockets that still embrace warmism and still elect things like Henry Waxman.
It would be nice to be able to discuss the science, but an honest discussion would mean starting from square one and talking about data quality, which is something for which the AGW boosters have little enthusiasm.
Turned it off when Heidi Cullen (seriously?) said we should start taking global warming seriously because Warren Buffet says we should. Really?
Admittedly I only watched a half hour or so but when the pro-AGW guys stressed that that we’ve warmed in the past couple hundred years and that was somehow significant (Little Ice Age anyone?) as showing proof of manmade climate change I decided to go to bed.
@ur momisugly Mark Twang. Ron Paul is sane and the best politician in the US. Palin is a clown but has a better grasp of climate than Gore. The tea party was first hijacked by democrats before the republicans moved in, being corrupted by two evil entities no less.
Although, I agree with you on WUWT. It is one of the best climate sites on the internet.
The basic science shows that phlogiston** is real and anyone who denies the reality of phlogiston just because there are a few anomalous results is flying in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus.
**Phlogiston was the theory that burning involved the giving out of a substance called phlogiston rather than the absorption of oxygen and it was the prevalent scientific theory before careful experimentation showed the accepted science to be wrong.
re: post by: Mark Twang says: November 17, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Hum… well, let’s see, since no one on this comment thread even mentioned Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, the Tea Party, or conservative thinking, it would appear that what we’re all having to wade thru is your utterly off topic post. And now my reply to it.
“98 doctors agree on the way to treat the patient is this and 2 disagree” …
OK … I admit it, the doctors must be right … they are always right.
Like on the way to treat the swine flu pandemic, or the need to treat the common cold by paying them to tell us to go away and stop moaning or the way to treat childbirth is to let the doctors be in charge because midwives are rubbish, the way to treat the world economy is to put doctors in charge because most doctors think they could do a better job.
Let’s hand everything to the doctors because doctors believe everything is an illness needing treating by them!
I thought UK politicians were bad, but at least they don’t treat people like children like your politicians do!
Go on Twang – take up JEM’s little challenge:
Square 1: Data Quality –
Unimpeachable? Farcical?
What?
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/17/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-big-table-part-iv/