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:
****
eadler says:
March 14, 2011 at 4:11 pm
verbal excrement
****
Couldn’t you have used the word “republican” any more in your verbal scat?
Smokey:
You wrote 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.
Smokey, you make the assumption that the author of the “The Hockey Stick Illusion” is not himself “corrupt,” or that his findings are not also controlled by “a relatively small clique.” Can you explain here why your trust is placed in that particular author’s document and not the collected works of the scientists’ who publish in the climate journals? Calling these individuals “corrupt” is a serious charge. I just think it’s fair to ask that you back that up with concrete evidence. (Note that I did not call the author of “The Hockey Stick Illusion” corrupt. I merely stated that, in the opinion of the scientific community — as demonstrated by their research — his scientific findings are not valid.)
Roy UK:
you write the vast majority of pal reviewed published scientific
Can you give me an objective definition of the difference between peer review and what you characterize as “pal” review?
You write: The lack of balance coming from the refusal to publish any paper that does not fit with the teams view …
Can you provide an objective explanation of how turning down papers for publication because other scientists reach the conclusion that they lack scientific merit is wrong? I would argue that there is no such thing as “balance” when what is presented is just plain wrong. Or, in your opinion, should wrong science be published?
You write: As always Noelle will hit and run. There will be no responses to legitimate questions or points.
1. I am here. 2. I don’t consider your questions and points legitimate because what I read here is nothing more than to characterize practically the entire scientific community as wrong without pointing specifically to the research they perform (that would be Inslee’s pile of documents). If the scientific research which Inslee presented at the hearings is so wrong, then, by all means, present the scientific evidence that it is wrong. I’ve yet to see that.
philincalifornia:
you wrote: Instead of your appeal to a big stack of books, why don’t you extract, from the big stack of books, the scientific data that you believe proves that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming, climate change, climate disruption, climate crisis, whatever….You have a strong opinion. Back it up with science.
That would be a reference to the IPCC reports, which I have read. Is there a particular page/reference number you would like to disagree with? (and, no, I’m not interested in the error about the Himalayan glaciers — that is an agreed upon error that has no impact on the central findings.)
Policyguy:
you wrote: Dr. Pielke knows what he’s talking about and commenter Noelle hasn’t a clue.
For the record, (I know you did not say that I said this, but I do not want to be misinterpreted here) I never claimed that Dr. Pielke does not know what he’s talking. However, I’d would like him to address (or anyone else here) the documents that Inslee presented and publicly report where they are wrong.
Noelle,
Impugning Bishop Hill requires evidence. Post your evidence or admit you’re trying to smear him.
I’ve provided you with enough facts to convince the average citizen that the climate peer review/journal system is corrupt. Here is an unrefuted account of corruption within the system:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
But it is much worse than that. The Climategate emails reveal scheming by climate scientists to game the system for their own personal aggrandizement. They are more crooked than Lombard Street.
Instead of attacking the messenger, look at the message.
Still puzzled as to why it’s ‘Washingtion’ and not ‘Washington’ in the title. It is because the suffix ‘-ion’ means ‘the act of’ or ‘the condition of’?
Jeremy said:
“So that article is basically inferring that the republicans want worldwide death and destruction simply to adhere to a political strategy.”
Jeremy, it is obvious to me that alarmists like eadler know they cannot put up a winning argument regarding the CO2 mitigation issues before Congress. Therefore, in order to appear credible, they must create a straw man with which to argue.
JaneDM;
I dunno, maybe there’s a joke in “Washingshun”? I doone git it.
It might be worth noting that the pile-of-documentation prop was also used by Joseph McCarthy in his maiden communists-in-the-government speech. In this case, someone tried to call him on one of his ‘facts’, but was bullied down. (Stewart Alsop wrote a memorable account of this in his book The Center).
Noelle,
Have you also read anything by H. H. Lamb, in particular, Climate, History and the Modern World (ed 2 1995) ? I’m reading it now, and I find it remarkably rich in detail concerning past periods of warmth and cold, the former being periods that were obviously much warmer than at present (especially a period ending about 1500 BC). In its richness of interlocking detail it reminds me a bit of a book in another field, Verne Grant’s The Origin of Adaptation. This is material that from what I am reading here and elsewhere has more or less been buried by more recent reports, including the IPCC volumes (not because it’s wrong, but because it’s inconsistent with the present hysterical claims). In particular, there is no way one can square the many results discussed by Lamb with the Hockey Stick curve.