Yesterday, I posted on the March 8 2011 House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing “Climate Science and EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation”;
Today, I want to present a few comments on the process. First, as has been written elsewhere (e.g. see) the Hearing was political theater, including props (such as the stack of books presented by Congressman Inslee) .
There were only a few questions/comments directed to the witnesses of the opposing sides and these were usually confrontational, and not designed to effectively explore the areas of disagreements and, of equal or even more importance, of agreement. The introduction of DDT by one of the Republican witnesses and of tobacco smoke effects by Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington was completely irrelevant to the science issues of climate.
There were some exceptions. For example, Morgan Griffith of Virginia asked a series of excellent science questions which he said will be sent to us for answers. Pete Olson of Texas, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Jay Inslee of Washington, Henry Waxman of California and Bobby Rush of Illinois were clearly passionate about the subject, and a number of their questions were very good (but generally also directed to their invitees).
I have a recommendation to the Chair of the Committee Congressman Ed Whitfield of Kentucky for future Hearings of this type. Rather than adopt the standard Hearing format, it would be more informative for him to invite 6 scientists (3 witnesses each selected by the Republicans and Democrats) and pose a set of several questions, such as
1. Is CO2 the dominant human climate forcing?
2. What observational evidence is available to bolster or refute the predictions of the climate model multi-decadal predictions of climate change and of extreme weather?
3. What certainty is there in the skill of regional and local predictions of societally and environmentally important climate for the coming decades?
Then permit each witness, in sequence, 5 minutes to answer one of the questions followed on by 5 minutes of further comment by each witness. Then the second question can be addressed.
In this format, the House members would listen and would wait until the witnesses have cycled through each question before asking their questions on the science. The Members might be quite surprised regarding the degree of agreement among the climate scientists, as well as see major areas of disagreement (as well as how these disagreements can be resolved).
I recognize that this is not the way formal Hearings are conducted and my request is unrealistic. However, until there is a venue to properly discuss and assess the diversity of perspectives regarding climate science issues (and the National Research Council has not properly done this in the last few years), we are going to continue in the same polarized framework where scientifically unsubstantiated claims (on both sides) are being make.
An NRC panel, which is inclusive of climate scientists of all viewpoints, that is convened to report on areas of agreement and disagreement, would be very valuable to everyone.
Read Dr. Pielke’s presentation here:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think some better questions would be,
Why were there three Ice Ages with more atmospheric CO2 than today, one had ten times more, one five times more?
How is it possible that the dinosaur period supported such a diversity of life when atmospheric CO2 levels were 20 times greater than today?
Why is it that atmospheric CO2 levels are today, among the lowest in the last 50 million years, and life was not adversely impacted in the past when CO2 levels were much higher?
Why is it that Antarctica had the most sea ice ever recorded in 2008, yet temperatures are supposed to be getting warmer? Ice can only grow in volume if temperatures are getting colder.
What made global temperatures warmer than today in the Roman and Medieval periods and several other times during the Holocene (last 10,000 years).
Why are we so concerned with global warming (we are in an interglacial warming period) when 85% of the last 450,000 years, the Earth has been in an ice age?
“the Hearing was political theater, including props (such as the stack of books presented by Congressman Inslee) .”
So, you define peer reviewed scientific literature as a “prop?” I would like to see the climate scientists who disagree with the findings in those stacks of studies sit down and write their own peer-reviewed scientific papers which refute the findings in them. The documents are not props because the scientific community has not done that. Inslee was pointing out that there is no “balance” in presenting the scientific findings because the vast majority of published scientific literature points in one direction.
I agree with Dr. Pielke about the DDT and tobacco smoke comments as I have no idea why they are always injected into the climate debate.
As for stacks of books, reports and papers, that is an easy task for Skeptics to do,
Climate Change Reconsidered (868 pgs) (NIPCC Report)
850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
I would like to apologize in advance for my Rep. Jay Inslee. I have never voted for him and will not do so when he runs for WA governor in 2012.
Dr. Pielke, you can’t have Political Theatre that way! Where would they get their drama? How do you get the soundbites with that format?
Another question:
How do the climate models account for changes in cloud cover; i.e., how do changes in cloud cover affect climate?
Noelle,
Read The Hockey Stick Illusion, available on the right sidebar. And the “Climategate” tab on the top menu bar. You will see how corrupt the climate peer review system really is. It is controlled by a relatively small clique that has discussed re-defining peer review if a skeptical scientist’s submission was accepted by the cowering climate journals.
So yes, many if not most climate papers are props intended to keep the publicly funded grants flowing. It’s a crooked system that is bilking taxpayers.
Great set of questions, Geoff. Especially the last question. I’d love to hear their answer to that one…
Noelle let me edit your post slightly, to see if you get the point yet…
Inslee was pointing out that there is no “balance” in presenting the scientific findings because the vast majority of pal reviewed published scientific literature points in one direction.
The lack of balance coming from the refusal to publish any paper that does not fit with the teams view, and the refusal of the team to release data and methods used to establish their conclusions
As always Noelle will hit and run. There will be no responses to legitimate questions or points.
The game has its own rules and its own rhythms. Those involved already have a good feel for where they stand, but the weakness of the warmist view is not so well known as its vehemence. The determination of certainty of forward view and the certainty of evidence today of warming from 1980 linked to AGW is what will determine the politicians stance on moving now vs moving when the certainty is higher (or not).
The politicians would like to have a good position to recommend, in light of the 2011 economy and coming economic challenge from China and India, to wait until at least 2016 (election) until hammering on the subject (either way).
“Is CO2 the dominant human climate forcing?” is a useless question. The most truthful answer would be “it might”. It all begs the question of whether human originated CO2 has a measureable effect on climate.
The question should really be about the actual experimental record of carbon dioxide forcing temperature change, of which there is none.
‘Washingtion’?
Nature will eventually answer all the questions. It has already shown that man is incapable of stopping a rainstorm let alone an earthquake. If we spent the time and effort in learning to live with nature rather than futile attempts to control it we would be much better off; so would the worlds poor.
There are only two questions that must be answered to enable government to make a risk based assessment on whether to allocate funds to mitigate, adapt or do nothing.
They are:
How much will it cost and how much will it reduce the world temperature by?
Anything else just muddies the waters.
I know that i keep on about the precautionary principle, but i am convinced that it is this concept which is continuing to underpin support for AGW by the none scientific, rather than the science.
I have been in selling over fifty years and i know that PP is such an easy concept to sell.
It is sold without accurate cost/benefit analysis which enables the sellers to use false analogies like house or car insurance to make it attractive.
Until the precautionary principle is legitimately discredited, this upward struggle will continue.
Please let me know if you think i am talking out of my rectum.
The evidence that really counts is almost totally absent one way or another: the actual impact of CO2 on the biosphere. There are thousands of studies on plants, which of course show that the main input of photosynthesis yields more growth (duh).
But how do animals fare? We only know that more primary production means more animals and more biodiversity. We have almost no evidence on direct effects on terrestrial vertebrates except that they can certainly tolerate at least 50 times atmospheric concentrations of CO2 without adverse effects. There are hints that the optimum is at least twice today’s concentrations–just hints.
And I have taken a look at grants available from NAS–very heavy on AGW stuff, indicating profound bias. The flimsiest nonsense–practically astrology–can be published in biology now if some excuse for panicking about AGW is thunk up–no matter how untested or imaginary the actual evidence.
If I am right that both warming (within 10 degrees C) and increased CO2 (possibly up to 100 times ambient) are beneficial to life, then this overwhelming bias is deadly dangerous.
And it definitely has killed tens of thousand of Arabs this year, as they are rioting for food, not freedom. Cropland has been diverted to ethanol production over the AGW claptrap, and the major industrial coutnries are investing in wind farms and other boondoggles that are horrifically expensive–meaning a tough time creating jobs, and worldwide crashed economies.
This stuff KILLS. Let not our enemies think their lies are harmless.
His spoken words below represent Inslee’s understanding of Sciences
Inslee, one of Congress’ loudest voices in the fight against global warming, arrived at the hearing with a two-foot-high stack of books and scientific reports. He allegedly used his time to call out Republicans, saying they have an “allergy to science and scientists,” the Times reports.
“If Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein were testifying today,” Inslee said, “the Republicans would not accept their views until all the Arctic ice has melted and hell has frozen over, whichever comes first.”
Inslee also accused those involved in the energy industry with fueling a campaign to provide false information about global warming.
Geoff,
The ancient CO2 history is very pertinent, IMHO. I would like to have good references I can use on the “five and ten times CO2”. All good questions.
It is clear that the hearings were designed as a show. Anthropogenic Global Warming positions among non scientists correlate with political parties very strongly. People who accept the principle that governmental action for the common good is OK, are able to accept the scientific consensus relating to AGW, because they don’t object to the actions that are implied. In the US, most of these people are Democrats. The current Republican Party wants to do away with the Federal Government and specifically eliminate governmental regulatory power as much as possible. This ideological bias generally prevents them from accepting the scientific consensus.
So consider that among self-identified Republicans, getting more education makes you less informed about global warming. But that’s not because Republicans with BAs are ignorant compared to Republicans without them. On the contrary. Republicans with BAs are better informed about what the Republican view is and therefore worse informed about the underlying issue because the Republican position is mistaken.
Helen Armstrong says pretty much what I was going to say.
That is the only question that matters and when we see the answer (with appropriate error bars) we can decide whether to spend all that money trying to steer a planets climate.
We might also skip temperature and just ask for some relation (again with error bars) to indicate how much the temperature difference will make to our comfort on the planet. It is by no means clear that a temperature rise will inevitably lead to a degradation.
(My gut feeling is that we will not be getting very good value for money.)
will1be says:
“The ancient CO2 history is very pertinent, IMHO. I would like to have good references I can use on the ‘five and ten times CO2’.”
I don’t know how good these references are, but they’re interesting:
click1 [click in image to embiggen]
click2 [from AR-4]
click3 [Bill Illis’ chart]
click4 [NOAA chart]
click5 [CO2 follows temperature by about 800 years]
Noelle says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:22 pm
“the Hearing was political theater, including props (such as the stack of books presented by Congressman Inslee) .”
So, you define peer reviewed scientific literature as a “prop?” I would like to see the climate scientists who disagree with the findings in those stacks of studies sit down and write their own peer-reviewed scientific papers which refute the findings in them. The documents are not props because the scientific community has not done that. Inslee was pointing out that there is no “balance” in presenting the scientific findings because the vast majority of published scientific literature points in one direction.
Reminds me of the old ‘Jewish tailor’ saying from the East end of London….
“Never mind the quality – feel the width!”
As a scientist, and published many times in peer reviewed journals in the 80s and 90s, I can say without a doubt that “peer review” today is different with regard to “climate science”. I would prefer the term “pal review” for those journals, especially Nature and Science. The old gray mare just ain’t what she used to be.
Why are we so concerned with global warming (we are in an interglacial warming period) when 85% of the last 450,000 years, the Earth has been in an ice age?
The standard answer would be:
Because the current rate of warming is such that if continued unabated or if the rate increases, the temperature shifts are increasingly likely to cause significant alteration of Earth’s major ecosystem regimes, as has happened at many other times of rapid global temperature change. I.e. most ecosystems and biomes have a finite capacity to adapt to altered climate factors. Once the adaptation threshold is surpassed, the primary result, as seen in other times of rapid global temperature change, is population changes in both floral and faunal species accustomed to the prevailing conditions, and in many cases, local, regional, and possibly global extinctions.
Wonderful current example: the die-0ff of whitebark pine trees in the American West, caused by infestations of pinebark beetles enabled by warmer winter temperatures.
That’s why biomarkers are used to mark epoch and era boundaries in the geological timescale. This goes all the way back to the worldview-changing work of William Smith.
(Well, I figured since someone asked, the question deserved an adequate answer).
pesadia says: March 14, 2011 at 3:05 pm
[I know that i keep on about the precautionary principle, but i am convinced that it is this concept which is continuing to underpin support for AGW by the none scientific, rather than the science.———
Until the precautionary principle is legitimately discredited, this upward struggle will continue.
Please let me know if you think i am talking out of my rectum.]
——————————————————————-
Pesadia. I’m glad you keep on about this because I too am convinced that it is used shamelessly by agenda driven entities, against all govt., local govt., and NGOs to pressurize them to meet their various objectives. They use the responsibility that these bodies have, the endless tax sources available to them, as well as their fear of litigation and public opprobrium to effectively ‘blackmail’ then into submission. As a result, costs of service provision explode while service levels and benefits frequently decline. It happens at all levels of society.
Taken to its logical (and patently absurd conclusion), people might never leave their beds as a precaution against the fear of some adverse event happening to them.
The precautionary principle is a two edged sword IMO that can be both sensible and dangerous. In the case of nuclear power plants, it is plainly sensible to take all appropriate precautions against any possible disaster imaginable and within in their power, as the Japanese have evidently done. But there are many examples where the benefits of adopting the principle are far and away outweighed by losses to individuals and communities.
A critical factor in adopting the principle must be a measurable and known outcome should it not be adopted or not.
In the case of the effect of co2 emissions I believe the outcome is not known nor is it measured. If it is adopted it is certain that the cost of providing alternative energy sources will cripple national economies or if no alternative energy sources not found or used, people will ultimate starve or perish.
The trick is how to deal with it if you are the one upon whose head the opprobrium is heaped.
So no, I do not think that you are talking out of you own rectum.
Douglas