House climate science showdown set
A House Energy and Commerce Committee panel will wade into climate science Tuesday against the backdrop of accelerating GOP efforts to scuttle Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases.
The committee released details Friday of the March 8 Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing on climate science and EPA rules, a session that committee Democrats requested.
Witnesses invited by the Democrats include Richard Somerville, who is an emeritus professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California-San Diego.
…
More recently, he published an essay in the journal Climatic Change late last year that called for scientists to offer the public “guidelines” on climate.
Among them: “The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause,” he writes.
Witnesses invited by committee Republicans include researchers who have criticized mainstream scientific views on climate change and proposals to require carbon emissions cuts.
One is the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, Sr. He agrees that humans are having a significant effect on the climate, but claims there’s an overemphasis on the role carbon emissions among the various human “climate forcings.”
Also testifying is John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. He told the House Ways and Means Committee in 2009 that models and data showing warming are off-base.
“We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming,” he said in testimony submitted to that panel.
The names are familiar in climate policy circles. “Climate change deniers have a short bench, so we were not surprised at their witnesses,” said a Democratic aide.
Full story here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/147729-climate-science-showdown-set
=============================================================
I should mention that our own Willis Eschenbach had been considered to testify, but he choice ultimately went to Dr. John Christy. Willis would have been an excellent choice, and I could see him picking apart Waxman, who wouldn’t know what hit him.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’d LOVE to see the fast-thinking and uncompromising Willis in that situation. Too often the scientific side has been represented by cautious “gentlemen” who were unwilling to use every available weapon against the apocalyptic and genocidal Carbon Cult.
People who are experts at winning popularity contests trying to make a world changing decision based on popularity? I have my doubts.
GPlant
Hmmm, what I’d like to know is why couldn’t it have been both John Christy and Willis. The Dimocrats seem to think that we skeptics have a short bench, which if it was ever true is certainly not so now.
I fail to see why the enquiry should not be lengthy. After all, a lot is at stake.
Then we could have our cake (The Drs) and eat it (Willis).
Bring it on.
Willis would have been an excellent choice, and I could see him picking apart Waxman, who wouldn’t know what hit him.
================================================
I agree. While the views of Christy and Pielke, Sr. being included in the hearings are a welcomed occurrence, sometimes their explanations are a bit too cerebral for laymen. Given the audience they will have, Willis would have been the better choice. Willis has a unique ability to explain rather complex thoughts and ideas in a rather clear fashion. If he speaks anything like he writes, he should be at the forefront.
Back in the 1990’s when we were having some problems with some uppity democrats here in NH trying to pass some really crazy gun control laws, the state legislative committee dealing with their bills would allow a lot of public testimony, anybody could come and sign up to testify for or against a given bill. The dems were always trying to get military veterans, cops and scientific “experts” to testify on their side to build their credibility. A friend of mine, the late Colonel Robert “Bob” Barker (USAF ret), former head of the USAF shooting team, former intelligence officer, etc, showed up one time and volunteered to testify for the Dems, telling them who he was.
So eventually his turn to testify comes up and he sits at the microphone and starts talking first about when he was stationed in Korea, where he found that it was common for Korean criminals to sneak into peoples homes at night to burgle them, since most people there were unarmed, and how one burglar tried to burgle his home when he was asleep, but being a combat veteran, he was a light sleeper and kept a knife by his pillow, with which he was able to stick in the face of the burglar, who jumped out of his sandals and high-tailed it out of there. Bob got those Korean sandals bronzed and kept them on his desk for many years.
This obviously got the dems sweating with worry, and they had reason to worry, the next thing he talked about was a bombshell: He had been an intelligence officer, and after retiring, worked for the South Korean CIA, one time questioned a North Korean Commissar who had been caught sneaking across the border. He asked the Commissar if people in the North were allowed to own guns to protect themselves. The Commissar replied, “No, we found that once we took away peoples guns, taking their money was REAL easy.”
This caused a huge ruckus in the Committee hearing room, the Dems were really upset claiming the Republicans snuck him into the hearing, etc. when in fact he had just shown up of his own accord and hadn’t talked to anybody about being there or what he was going to say.
Thus, I am not surprised that there are very strict limitations on who gets to testify before this congressional committee, what we see in Congress really isn’t real democracy in action, its a duopoly that runs a fake democracy as a PR exercise but has election laws rigged to prevent any third choices for voters from getting on ballots or getting any fair public exposure.
What is equally, if not more so, important is how well prepared the anti-AGW politicians will be when question the Dem’s “experts.” If the they show up with “weak kung-fu” then this will be an embarrasment. The witnesses will do fine for the anti-AGW forces as they are well versed in the arguments and counter-arguments, I just don’t have faith in the politicians being equally versed, overall.
No offense, but Willis is not the right choice for a hearing. Remember that when going against lawyers or judges, you simply have your prepared answers to every question. This is a job for someone knowledgable but not prone to any ad hoc statements.
““Climate change deniers have a short bench, so we were not surprised at their witnesses,” said a Democratic aide.”
I wish the GOP would call a large number of scorcher-scoffers as witnesses. This would show that it’s not just a few cranks who are opposed to the scorcher scam, but lots of responsible and informed scientists.
Kevin,
Some politicians, like Inhofe, are pretty well versed, and their staffers are definitely well versed, these are youngsters who were debating stars at Harvard, Yale, etc. so they study up on their stuff. What matters is that the important facts and evidence get into the proper hands to do the best damage with.
Getting any of the Hockey Team members to testify for the Dems will be a golden opportunity to grill them under oath about a number of topics.
About the supposed short bench:
While the number of people willing to assume that CO2 has a big effect on the climate is huge, the number of people doing work that tries to prove or disprove that assumption is not quite so imbalanced. From http://www.co2science.org , we have the following:
The warmistas claims are based on proving:
1 – Modern warming is unprecedented
2 – We are approaching a tipping point caused by positive feedback
3 – The climate is non-linear and crossing the tipping point will cause a sudden and irreversible warming by about six degrees.
Of course, the existence of a Medieval Warm period with temperatures higher than today’s gives us serious reason to doubt that we are approaching any kind of tipping point. My impression is that the number of scientists doing work to prove or disprove positive feedback is actually quite small. In other words, both sides have a short bench.
I don’t think the Democratic aide was lying I just think he/she had no clue about what he/she was talking about.
Don’t forget that the opinions of congress are driven by each member’s staff. Members don’t have time or the expertise to select their staff. Many members of congress have no clue at all about science/economics/ etc. Yet we trust them to make policy for our society. The true policy makers are the special interests who pay senior members on both sides of the aisle to recommend/provide staff for junior members of congress. In this way, special interests maintain control over their flock. Control the thoughts, control the debate, control the policy.
The Republican should have called in a whole lot of talent, not just the egg heads with PhD’s.
This ceased to be a scientific debate in 1988, when Gore announced the debate was over.
willis has lots of cred with us but would be eaten up by the “peer review” clan.
Congressional hearings are stage-managed theatre. No more, no less. The real work goes on behind closed doors. Contacts with staff make a difference. Dancing with the stars not so much.
Shouldn’t there be proof? Like where is Al Gore’s warm swaddling blanket of CO2 when you need it.
That’s proof enough.
This makes me think fondly of Frankie Pentangeli. It’s a shame that elected officials in our country are allowed to never look the fool.
For maximum credibility I would like to have Prof Richard Lindzen testify. I’ve always liked his quote:
The head of MIT’s atmospheric sciences department speaks with unassailable authority.
The short bench extends all the way out into most of the public. The catastrophic manmade global warming claims just don’t hold water. The simplest counter-argument, that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, man contributes a miniscule amount of it, and doing anything about it is pointless and actually economically self-destructive is the best one. KISS off the enviro-left by boiling everything down to brass tacks. Make them explain their “nuance” in public as the impact of green policies start to hit people in the pocketbook. People won’t be so quick and lazy-minded to defer to scientist-activists.
“Mike Lorrey says:
March 7, 2011 at 6:41 am
Kevin,
Some politicians, like Inhofe, are pretty well versed, and their staffers are definitely well versed, these are youngsters who were debating stars at Harvard, Yale, etc. so they study up on their stuff. What matters is that the important facts and evidence get into the proper hands to do the best damage with.
Getting any of the Hockey Team members to testify for the Dems will be a golden opportunity to grill them under oath about a number of topics.”
In the end they are politicians and if they begin to believe any of the doctored polls then they will pull their punches and not push futher and harder, add to that the false call of civility after that idiot in Tuscon and it does not bode well since Republicans in general have shown a willingness to “castrate” themselves. Should the hearings show that Inhofe and others like him are on their game and aren’t afraid then I will proudly be wrong, but I am not holding my breath.
I would have thought that Willis would have been an ideal person to present ‘our’ side of the case as he has a gift for clear and unequivocal presentation of complex concepts. While ‘our’ selected reps are well known and respected and will no doubt do a good job, Willis’ gift for communication could win the day dealing with politicians, who are not always impressed with very cerebral expositions.
As to ‘the Deniers having a short bench’, the turkey who made that comment obviously believes that there are only a few ‘deniers’, no doubt propped up by Big Oil.
Where do they find such numbskulls?
Some signs of hope from the Eastern side of the Atlantic:
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2591-helmut-schmidt-calls-for-ipcc-inquiry.html
It is appropriate to submit written statements to the committee amicus legis lator. (no Latin lessons, please) I hope every scientist who posts here will do so. CC your local press.
@Mike Lorrey: You are one cynical son-of-a-gun. Good on yer, mate. The Barker testimony is indicative of the ease with which the Dems can be penetrated.
On a related note, the 3 children of the head of the OISM Petition project are being threatened with expulsion, organized by Democrat Party officials: click
At least the skeptics now have a voice. I would be interested in the list of other witnesses though. The public opinion is turning and this is all good. Slowly catchee monkey.