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.
Tony says:
March 7, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“As usual, Republicans are going to put on a bit of a show for their base, but, afraid of being called “mean” by the MSM, are going to back down from their position. Nothing will change.”
That’s my bet too. Too many of them still fear the media and try to suck up to them for favorable press. The simply have not learned that the media will never give them a decent shot as they are all liberals deep down. When the econazis try to turn the lights on or turn the heat up, or start their cars and nothing happens, then things might change.
Tony says:
March 7, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“As usual, Republicans are going to put on a bit of a show for their base, but, afraid of being called “mean” by the MSM, are going to back down from their position. Nothing will change.”
That’s my bet too. Too many of them still fear the media and try to suck up to them for favorable press. They simply have not learned that the media will never give them a decent shot as they are all liberals deep down. When the econazis try to turn the lights on or turn the heat up, or start their cars and nothing happens, then things might change.
Jack Greer says:
March 7, 2011 at 7:46 am
(see this detailed sham-revealing evisceration of Monckton’s May 2010 testimony by climate scientists => http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf BTW, this is a “must read” as I’m convinced that some here at WUWT do not understand the position of climate scientists on individual climate issues)
Jack, suppose you instead first try to get the CO2=CAGW Climate Science Propaganda Operation, to operate according to the principles of real science instead of intentionally avoiding them? First things first, Jack.
rbateman says:
March 7, 2011 at 10:35 am
There’s nothing to deny. No warming the last 10 years,
1} no massive sea level rise,
2} no extraordinary temperature rises,
3} no catastrophic melting of sea ice or glaciers.
The Arctic and the Antarctic are still as uninhabitably cold as they ever were. Greenland is popsickleland. The Northern Hemisphere had a very cold & rough winter, as S. Hemisphere had an Antarctic blast get loose up S. America. Hurricanes are conspicuously thin. Nothing to deny. So, what is this big shindig all about?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What are you saying? If you don’t see “catastrophic” melt within five or ten years you won’t believe it?
Don’t these documented trends mean anything to you?
1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
2} http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
3} http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
3} http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121144011.htm
Where in that information indicating a moderating of the observed increasing global temperatures trend… and proxy indicators? (heck even UAH’s graph shows a steady uphill trudge)
~ ~ ~
As for “Hurricanes are conspicuously thin.”
Actually it was an active hurricane season in the Atlantic, check it out at: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2010atlan.shtml. We just got lucky with the landfalls. Yes the Pacific was calmer, but the La Nina has plenty to do with that. And there seems to be some decent action around Austrailia http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/
Roger Knights says ~ March 7, 2011 at 10:55 am:
Since the warmist cult is rather ingrown and hasn’t engaged in debates or discussion with the other side, it’s possible that some of them haven’t heard of some of these criticisms and would be baffled for an answer, or could provide only a feeble response.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
RK, Could you give a list of these criticisms, the ones backed up with science?
Robert says:
March 7, 2011 at 12:51 pm
How hard is it to check one’s data for a simple sign error?
Any math is pretty damn hard according to ipcc CO2=CAGW Climate Science, whose no doubt “unprecedented” peer-review process producing the SPM4 was still unable to result in correctly adding up each of two columns having only 4 numbers each in its Table involving alleged contributions to recent sea level increases, getting it wrong in both cases in a way which favored its CO2=CAGW “science”.
It’s apparently amost impossibly tough out there for ipcc CO2=CAGW Climate Science to get anything right, especially its predictions, judging by the fact that it hasn’t.
But, fortuneately, the UN ipcc Climate Science process, enc., did allow countries containing about 5 billion of the Earth’s 6.5+ billion people to not have to adhere to their stringent Kyoto Protocols alleged cure to their alleged disease, thus earning them at least some cred for being “precautionary”.
Perhaps they could subpoena Al Gore and have him testify under oath!
citizenschallenge says:
March 7, 2011 at 2:04 pm
What are you saying? If you don’t see “catastrophic” melt within five or ten years you won’t believe it?
Strawman fail, citizen = no cred. [Or are you actually “hearing voices”?]
citizenschallenge says:
March 7, 2011 at 2:09 pm
RK, Could you give a list of these criticisms, the ones backed up with science?
What seems more important, citizen, why don’t you instead try giving one successful CO2=CAGW Climate Science prediction uniquely attached to that “science”, backed up with real science, but not counting what “the voices” might be telling you?
And, btw, since Anthropogenic Climate Disruption is now postulated by CO2=CAGW Climate Science to be whatever it chooses as allegedly “unprecedented” weather events, but which in each case so far have subsequently been shown to have not been proven to have occurred as unprecedented, regardless, is the “climate” apparently pertaining to ACD and thus CAGW now “weather” according to CO2=CAGW Climate Science?
Lady Life Grows says:
March 7, 2011 at 12:37 pm
“Skeptics have always “gotten a seat”. The problem is the best they could offer are the likes of Christopher Monckton”
Roy Spencer’s “The Great Global Warming Blunder” has been out for well over a year and makes an excellent case that the Warmista do not have physical hypotheses which could explain or predict the forcings, as in cloud behavior, that must exist if CO2 is to cause a dangerous temperature rise. Not one Warmista has addressed Spencer’s main thesis. In fact, not one Warmista will address any question about physical hypotheses at all. Why is that? Because they have no reasonably confirmed physical hypotheses about the behavior of clouds or similar phenomena. They are not physical scientists. All they have are computer simulations. All they are willing to talk about is computer simulation. They are not just computer nerds but idiot savants. As with all idiot savants, their special expertise is worthless to them and to everyone.
Congress should lay down the law that computer simulations cannot be used as evidence in any form or fashion and that Congress will not consider computer simulations when making decisions about climate science. Congress should create legislation to force EPA to follow suit.
Will you address this matter of physical hypotheses, My Lady?
citizenschallenge says:
March 7, 2011 at 2:04 pm
“What are you saying? If you don’t see “catastrophic” melt within five or ten years you won’t believe it?
Don’t these documented trends mean anything to you?
1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
2} http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
3} http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
3} http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121144011.htm”
Who are you to assign homework? If you cannot explain the matter in your own words then you do not understand it.
I don’t buy the argument that nothing will change. It has already changed.
The number one issue for the electorate right now is the economy, jobs, deficit…
The electorate is slowly becoming aware of how much global warming policies are costing them. That’s the backdrop of this particular hearing which hasn’t been the case in the past. If the Republicans have any brains (and I’m not saying they do) they’ll spend more time on how mitigation policy affects jobs than on the science.
The warmists have abandoned science in favour of alarmism in the form of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. They are vulnerable to their own game.
How much will personal income tax rise to pay for program X?
How many people will lost their jobs if we implement program X?
Will we have to abandon health care initiatives in order to afford program X?
How many teachers will have to be laid off to pay for program X?
How many people on fixed income will fall under the poverty line because of program X?
How much will welfare benefits be cut to pay for program X?
If we run a deficit to pay for program X, what will China take as collatoral? Texas?
Ask the right questions and the MSM, defenders of the weak, the unemployed, the downtrodden masses, will have little choice but to at least think about it.
Maybe the heat should shut off and windows opened. LOL
davidmhoffer says:
March 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Very well said. In addition, they should hold up Britain as a royal example of the disaster that Warmista bring upon a nation. We are fortunate that Britain has gone over the edge of the cliff and is in free fall. The Brits never had much wealth and now Warmista policies have doomed them with a return to the Great Depression. That little object lesson should be held in the face of the Warmista daily.
Doug in Seattle, “The Republican should have called in a whole lot of talent, not just the egg heads with PhD’s.”
That is a very bad idea, anyone without credentials will easily get dismissed for this reason.
David S, “Why not Monckton?”
He does not have the credentials (No science degree, no publication history, no climate science position held ect…).
Hu McCulloch, “Steve McIntyre would also be a logical choice as a reasoned, published critic,”
Only if the issue is on one of the subjects he has explicitly published on. Otherwise on all other issues he will defer or not comment on. With the right questioning they might even get him to indirectly concede things that would not be helpful.
The best credentialed skeptic choices are still, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, Singer and S. Idso. They are the most versed on the science and have credentials that cannot be argued. Lindzen and Idso have extensive publications and are both ISI Highly Cited researchers, so is Pielke Sr.
There are others to choose from but those are still the best.
Theo Goodwin says:
March 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm
citizenschallenge says:
March 7, 2011 at 2:04 pm
“What are you saying? If you don’t see “catastrophic” melt within five or ten years you won’t believe it?
Don’t these documented trends mean anything to you?
1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
2} http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
3} http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
3} http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121144011.htm”
“Who are you to assign homework? If you cannot explain the matter in your own words then you do not understand it.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
TG, What is this misdirection all about?
Rbateman made the claim and I was disputing it with science, not opinion:
1} no massive sea level rise,
2} no extraordinary temperature rises,
3} no catastrophic melting of sea ice or glaciers.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And I presented factual evidence that all of his three items are indeed heading the wrong direction. What’s wrong with looking at evidence?
It seems to me ‘coolistas’ are the ones that constantly resorting to hyperbole. Emotionalizing the issue is a great tactic, but it does not honestly tell us what the scientific community is observing and reporting.
But, also let’s not forget Einstein’s observation that “the greatest force in the universe is accumulating interest”. A millimeters on top of millimeters become a meter, the same with melting of glaciers and rising of sea level.
Folks, oil closed at a two-year high of $106/barrel. I really don’t think many political actions to stem fossil fuel production will be popular up on Capital Hill for either party.
Between gasoline approaching $5.00 per gallon, and NASA blowing up $0.5 billion climate-change satellites, climate disruption doesn’t sound like a politically defensible position anymore. Just sayin’.
Poptech;
The best credentialed skeptic choices are still, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, Singer and S. Idso. They are the most versed on the science and have credentials that cannot be argued. Lindzen and Idso have extensive publications and are both ISI Highly Cited researchers, so is Pielke Sr.>>>
These are public hearings, reported on by media reporters who can’t differentiate the difference in expertise between a philosopher and a physicist. Its all just strings of letters behind a name. The best candidate is the one who can articulate the issues in sound bytes that reporters can understand, and understands that the dumbest question at just the right time scores more points than the most rock solid science.
“I’m sorry Mr Hansen, I’m confused. You said that global warming would cause massive crop failure, and then you said we should fight it by switching from oil to ethanol from corn, I really would like to understand this better, you’re saying we can stave off hunger by burning the food?”
“I’m sorry Mr Hansen, can you explain why your temperature record and the one from Britain don’t agree again, the part about you use land temperatures over the ocean and they use ocean temperatures over the ocean is where I’m sort of lost.”
etc etc
commieBob March 7, 2011 at 6:42 am says: “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.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
First off, can you define “Warmistas” I don’t understand what you mean?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Seems to me you got some straw men there. Shouldn’t the first order of business be getting a clearer picture of what is going on within our atmosphere… and how that relates to weather patterns, etc. which over the long term is categorized as climate?
Your above three points mischaracterize the basic understanding we must achieve.
I would suggest the following list of questions are more appropriate:
1 – Does CO2 (along with other GHGs) influence our atmosphere? 1a – Is there physical evidence to suggest CO2 has thermo properties… have those properties been quantified?
1b – Is there evidence that atmospheric CO2 (& GHG) levels are increasing due to human activity?
1c – Is there evidence to suggest real-time effects of CO2’s atmospheric thermo properties is being witnessed on the planet?
2 – Beyond that: Are our oceans drivers of warming/cooling or do they merely circulate warmth according to the atmosphere’s thermo condition and their interface?
3 – Is the sun, {or Earth’s orbital variations}, acting in a manner that is meaningfully increasing or decreasing current insolation (incoming sun’s energy)?
4 – Which temperature reconstructions can we trust?
5 – Where is the IPCC claiming tipping points, or imminent catastrophe?
I mentioned one, Spencer’s cloud-dynamics analysis, which has had threads here devoted to it, and is described in his book The Great Global Warming Blunder, listed on the sidebar here. That seems to me to be the strongest criticism. Most of the others can be found in the NIPCC report, and in books like Steve Gorham’s Climatology!, which contains lots of citations. (I think there have been a few other compilations of criticisms published recently too.) And of course there are lots of critical threads here that are science-based–i.e., not just arm-waving–such as Willis’s.
I dunno if they’re all peer-reviewed, but that stamp-of-approval is the mark-of-the-beast where climatology is concerned.
RockyRoad says:
March 7, 2011 at 7:46 am
As G. Beck says, Truth Has No Agenda.
Unfortunately, the Democrats, especially those at the EPA, do!
—————————-
Om a skeptic on CAGW. I still think Beck is the biggest moron of all… A moron with
A moron with an agenda.
davidmhoffer, “These are public hearings, reported on by media reporters who can’t differentiate the difference in expertise between a philosopher and a physicist. Its all just strings of letters behind a name. The best candidate is the one who can articulate the issues in sound bytes that reporters can understand, and understands that the dumbest question at just the right time scores more points than the most rock solid science.”
If your purpose is not to convince anyone in Congress or anyone who is unfamiliar with the debate then that sounds like a good strategy because as soon as they hear “he is not a scientist” they will ignore everything he has to say.
Poptech says:
March 8, 2011 at 9:51 am
davidmhoffer, “These are public hearings, reported on by media reporters who can’t differentiate the difference in expertise between a philosopher and a physicist. Its all just strings of letters behind a name. The best candidate is the one who can articulate the issues in sound bytes that reporters can understand, and understands that the dumbest question at just the right time scores more points than the most rock solid science.”
“If your purpose is not to convince anyone in Congress or anyone who is unfamiliar with the debate then that sounds like a good strategy because as soon as they hear “he is not a scientist” they will ignore everything he has to say.”
You are vastly over estimating the intellectual capacity of the members of congress. Just recently one of them in a conversation with a US Navy Admiral conjectured that if more troops were put on an island it might capsize!! And he was not kidding, either!
citizenschallenge says:
March 7, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“RK, Could you give a list of these criticisms, the ones backed up with science?”
You really do not have a clue about scientific method. It is by its very nature critical. Good critical work on a scientific theory stands on its own. To think that you must then supply a theory to replace the one criticized is to reveal a misunderstanding so basic that it could only be characteristic of a teenager.
Scientific method is not about choosing among lots of apples. It is about pruning the tree of science to remove the dead wood. That is criticism, and you have no clue what the word means.