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.
Ah, I think I know what your problem is. You must be starting at the bottom of the thread and proceeding backwards from the Comments to the Article! Start at the top next time! 😉
TEA Parties. Taxed Enough Already. Note the plural because ‘it’ is not ‘a’ party at all.
What term did you have in mind then? Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communist? I recommend ditching the relative term Conservative and sticking with something like Constitutionalist, but if some comfortable familiar term is required I would say that Jeffersonian is the nearest descriptor that covers the folks I have dealt with and follow online (although personally I have long thought that resurrecting the Democratic-Republican party would solve many of the issues associated with current party politics, and as a bonus it would cause massive exploding head syndrome to the current faithful worshippers of either existing party).
P.S. Are you not Taxed Enough Already? 40 to 50% is not enough? You can pay more. Move to NY or CA for example. You can even write a check to the IRS and give them all your money.
[You did not start this track, but, for everyone. The TOPIC is: The House Hearing on Global Warming today. Lets try to stick with that and avoid the off-topic political spit-ball contests… K? .. bl57~mod]
OK. Done here.
Thank you, Dr Lindzen, for being the true scientist who answers loaded questions with straight answers. I would find it hard to maintain composure after an opening that invites the audience to feel that 98% of doctors are on side and 2% represent the minority. That opening was plain crooked.
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.
I am an urban ivy leaguer. NYC, M.A., Columbia University.
If they spent a tenth the effort trying to make their students smart as they spend trying to make their students think everyone else is dumb . . .
(Well, I got better.)
Well that was some marathon to listen to 3 hours and 47 minutes, and at some time I made a note “god help America” if that is the the quality of those that make decisions on your behalf. You had a chairman that from the outset made it well understood what side he was on rather than exercise impartiality, and the treatment of Lindzen was quite different to the establishment. There was little attempt at balance and the ocean acidification expert could make huge generalised “its fact statements” continually well knowing that there was no other opinion but his coming before the committee.
I felt Pat Michaels did well to contain himself maintaining his dignity, in the face of the way the questioning was conducted, hardly a scientific process, no wonder Ben Santer was nervous but gained confidence with the progress of the proceeding.
Judith Curry spoke well, but let down a bit with the company and the end of debate attitude of the chairman. I know that HUD comes in for some criticism, but James Lopez seemed the most practical organisation in embracing adaptive planning for climate, events that may be in the future, much better than the biologist Mr Gear who was enthusiastic and attracted the attention of the chairman with his embracing of the actual effects of climate change, but loses something as you know his lobby is wanting -send more money with 1 to 3 billion needed for us hunters and fishers etc.
Not a very scientific event – not much interest in purity of science, guesswork and rhetoric will do.
Sorry guys, you might have got more joy out of that fest!! I felt the establishment science (AGW consensus) were pretty smug in the way others were treated.
Only one bright light was the oblique reference to getting better and more open data and a single data reference point, but not if the records are skewed by manipulation.
More Ron Paul Info;
Ron Paul: A New Hope
[/snip]
[Link removed. Stop with the OFF-TOPIC spamming with videos. … bl57~mod]
Better link to RP.
[/snip]
[Link removed. Stop with the OFF-TOPIC spamming with videos. … bl57~mod]
That would almost make you Obama’s classmate…???
I watched every minute of this “hearing”. None of my questions were addressed. The hearing was fully choreographed by the warmists. It was damage control due to public distrust of climate scientists since Climategate and their revealed information for policy makers . There was a strong shift from AGW to “we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels, whether climate science is accurate or not.” Curry discussed briefly the need to make data available to citizen scientists.
The biologist mentioned that hunters and fishers were a good source of information in the field. He was inaccurate about the tolerance of rainbow trout to water temperatures. Having fished for over 50 years and lived on a river for 20, I know the temperature range trout tolerate well is between the low 50s and high 60s. Contrary to what he said, a one degree change will not decimate them or cause spawning problems. Brook trout and browns tolerate water temperatures to the low 70s. Planted fish in trucks with water that is several degrees warmer or cooler than that of a river or lake, will die in minutes. In California, our DFG found that out one summer after killing thousands of plants. Why they didn’t know that would happen is a mystery to me. Oxygen and nitrogen levels in the water also have a huge impact, which he did not discuss.
I just couldn’t get over the whole tipping point analogy, with the baby pushing the car over the precipice. If you’re *really* at a tipping point, then frankly, nothing you possibly do will stop it, since there’s enough small change in the system that even if the baby started *pulling* the car, the baby would be overwhelmed by some other force that just decided to push the car over the cliff.
The constant drivel about how there are plenty of good reasons to advocate the same anti-CO2 policies without actually having the science settled also rang hollow -> reducing dependence on foreign oil by making our own energy more expensive only moves industry to the countries that continue to use the cheap energy, draining our economy at the expense of other countries that will continue to grow. The whole peak *whatever* problem solves itself in the most efficient way, all by itself – things finally get too expensive all on their own. Imagining that simple agreement on the problems means we must also all agree on the solutions is pure political grandstanding.
This hearing surely proves that the debate was not even close from beeing over.
Before startig the presentation, every person has to be asked the following questions:
– to the warmers:
If the problem of global warming would would be proven to be an absolute non problem, would you or your employer, university etc. or yourself lose any grants, payments, subsidies etc.?
– to the sceptics:
If the problem of global warming would would be proven to be absolute catastrophic, would you or your employer, university etc. or yourself lose any grants, payments, subsidies etc.? Do you get payment from any oil or oil relatet company??
Mikw Haseler, you owe me a keyboard clean! Your thinking that poltiticians here in the UK made burst out laughing with a mouthful of coffee, with predictable effects.
When I arrived here in the UK from NZ to spend my final years in the profession teaching in Comprehensive ( state high) schools a few years ago, my first discovery was that the politicians in charge of the Education portfolio at the time had no idea that half of all populations must be below average on any measure, and the other half must be above average. This led me to investigate the school examination system there and found that if the government of the day were raising livestock, they believed that weighing an animal every day makes it grow quicker.
I watched as much as I could of the first session of the enquiry without venting my frustration; American politicians seem pretty much like those from anywhere else and defintely don’t have a corner on stupidity, venality, self-interest or just plain old irritating, but they do have their share of all of the above. Dr Lindzen impressed, no-one else did and the chair made his astounding bias against CO2 quite clear from the outset. Did I miss something important?
Sorry about the typos, Mods – old, thick, clumsy fingers have done again!
Heidi Cullen seems to be the person in the debate class that talks a lot with no substance. She reminds me of Nancy Pelosi.
Sounds like a wasted four hours of my life, when I can guess the plot of the film and the out come I generally don’t bother watching it as sticking to script can be boring.
I thought the politics was summed up with the suggestion by the politician that the scientists should lie about the science and allow the three groups to link arms and drag the stupid public along with their energy suicide pact…. And then his colleague tried to save him by suggesting that is not what he meant… Please, your true colors couldn’t be clearer.
Dr. Richard Lindzen pure class.
So I’m already tired of watching. It’s turning out to be worse than I thought. In particular it was just great that when Richard Lindzen tried to explain something a politician said he wasn’t interested in hearing it.
The deck was stacked in this hearing. The most competent man in the room, Richard Lindzen, was marginalized. But that can be expected with the current crop of politicians. This hearing was probably a last ditch effort before politicians just elected are sworn in and the game is changed.
Mike Haseler 12:16
“I thought UK politicians were bad, but at least they don’t treat people like children like your politicians do.”
Try writing to your MP about about your concerns that the AGW theory might not be all it’s cracked up to be, and see what patronising twaddle you get back. Best wishes, Dave.
Laurie wrote: “There was a strong shift from AGW to “we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels, whether climate science is accurate or not.”
Did anyone else catch the Old NYTimes story on energy? “There Will Be Fuel”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/business/energy-environment/17FUEL.html?
It concludes wit the thoughts of an energy analyst at Credit Suisse: “When you add it up,” Mr. Morse noted, “you get something that very closely approximates energy independence [for the US].”
The politicians seem a little behind the learning curve – again.
Alexander K says:
November 18, 2010 at 2:52 am
“When I arrived here in the UK from NZ to spend my final years in the profession teaching in Comprehensive ( state high) schools a few years ago, my first discovery was that the politicians in charge of the Education portfolio at the time had no idea that half of all populations must be below average on any measure, and the other half must be above average. ”
Alexander,
It is rare in human behaviour that half the population is above average and half is below average. What you are describing is the median. Granted, sometimes the two are the same.
Congressman Baird and the others just blinked and handed you a huge opportunity to make a difference in this controversy. Heretofor, their policy was to deny skeptics of Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption or so forth any access to government or other opportunity to debate the existence of the phenomena in their own forums. Here and now they have inadvertently cracked the door open ever so slightly because of their confidence in their ability to stifle skeptical arguments. Cicerone, Santer, and others have gone on the Congressional with their testimonies. You now have a golden opportunity to demonstrate that the blogosphere, which they deem to be too vulgar and unworthy, is capable of rising to their challenge and contribute some worthy science and scientific debate in the form a public review of their testimonies in this Congressional Hearing.
The first step is to extract the key statements from the transcripts and undertake a collaborative public review of their validity or lack thereof.
Ref – D. Patterson says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm
“RADM Titley’s testimony was quite disappointing…”
____________________
Frankly, it was DOD tripe! (aka “Don’t Make Waves”.)
Ref – Policyguy says:
November 17, 2010 at 10:00 pm
“Welcome to political hype…. This is politics, not science.”
__________________
Some call it Political Science;-)
Ref – Mauibrad says:
November 17, 2010 at 10:26 pm
“Waste of f–kin’ time.”
___________________
Not to mention all that Chinese money for TDY and 1001 other things.
Ref – Freddie says:
November 18, 2010 at 2:49 am
“This hearing surely proves that the debate was not even close from beeing over….”
_________________
When the Chair put the gavel down at the end of the hearing the ‘debate’ was over. AGW is dead in the US Congress.
Dr Ciccerone stated, “The amounts of ice residing on land formations in Greenland and Antarctica are now being measured by independent instruments, vertical ranging devices on Earth-orbiting satellites, as well as instruments which measure the deviations of the Earth’s gravitational field from that of a perfect sphere and the rate at which those deviations are changing. In other words, the data from this instrument can be used to infer the rate of change of ice mass over those continents. Both kinds of data now show that over the last perhaps seven or eight years, that is the entire record of the measurements, that the masses of ice lodged on Greenland and Antarctica are both decreasing with time with a possibly accelerating rate.”
Your postings have shown that ice in Antarctica has been increasing. Is Dr. Ciccerone misrepresenting the issue or is he using selective data to show his point? Dr. Lindzen showed a chart showing ice in the southern hemisphere increasing, which. Who is correct?
The farcical presentation on ocean acidification contained so many half truhts and misconceptions that it was basically worthless.