Ah, politics, the stench of spin is strong here. Note the picture below. Left to right are Dr. John Christy, Dr. David Titley, and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr..
In the text, Christy and Pielke don’t even exist, because, well, this was “A Factual Look at the Relationship between Climate and Weather.” and we can’t have factual testimony we don’t like in the press release, can we?
Really, if you are going to disappear people in your press releases, at least be savvy enough to use a photo only showing your man giving testimony. Idiots.
From the House Committee on Science Space, and Technology
Subcommittee Discusses Climate Change Impacts on Severe Weather
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing entitled “A Factual Look at the Relationship between Climate and Weather.” The stated purpose of the hearing was to examine the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events.
Members emphasized the prevailing scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real, and discussed the need to better understand the relationship between severe weather events and climate to better manage the risks associated with a changing climate.
Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said in her opening statement, “The lesson of this hearing cannot be that a potential link between climate change and severe weather is too difficult to determine or understand, and therefore we should stop trying. It should not be controversial to examine if the weather will change as a consequence of global warming. Scientific projections from the IPCC make it apparent that we will live in a hotter world–we already have a warmer world than that of our grandparents. In many of our districts, residents will experience drier environments with more drought. Those of us who represent particularly wet areas may find that precipitation arriving in more intense storms. The oceans will be warmer and that may well produce stronger or more frequent tropical storms. To focus only on the question of whether there will be more extreme events misses the point that by the end of this century much of the world as we know it, in our districts and states, will be considerably altered by the weather effects of climate change.”
Minority witness Dr. David Titley (USN Rear Admiral, retired) said in his testimony, “Our country is dealing with a significant change in the world’s climate; it is a large challenge. Saying we don’t know today the impact of climate change on [weather] phenomena is very different than stating that climate change has no impact on typhoons and hurricanes. What we do know is that these storms are forming in a warmer, moister environment and above a warmer ocean. We also know that current research indicates our future may include more intense, and possibly more frequent, storms. That is a risk not to be summarily discounted.”
Earlier this week, the Reinsurance Association of America sent a letter to the committee stating their support for close examination of the critical issues of extreme weather and climate. “As the scientific community’s knowledge of changes in our climate and the resulting weather continue to develop, it is important for our communities to incorporate that information into the exposure and risk assessment process, and that it be conveyed to stakeholders, policyholders, the public and public officials that can, or should, address adaptation and mitigation alternatives. Developing an understanding about climate and its impacts on droughts, heat waves, the frequency and intensity of tropical hurricanes, thunderstorms and convective events, rising sea levels and storm surge, more extreme precipitation events and flooding is critical to our role in translating the interdependencies of weather, climate risk assessment and pricing.” The full letter can be found here.
In Response to a question by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) regarding the claims made that incidents of extreme weather are not increasing, Dr. Titley responded, “One of the main definitions of ‘extreme’ is ‘away from the center.’ Again, just take the basic data. We have had for the last 36 years above normal temperatures, that is away from the center, and they are getting further and further away. A record like that is equivalent to flipping a coin and getting ‘heads’ 36 consecutive times. The chances of that happening with an un-weighted coin: 1 in 68 billion. Put another way, you are almost 400 times more likely to win the Powerball jackpot than you are to see this temperature record if the climate was not changing. I would say that is extreme. And the ice in the Arctic, that is extreme. We have seen geologic changes in less than 10 years.”
Dr. Titley’s presentation slides can be seen here.
Downloads
==============================================================
Source: http://democrats.science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-discusses-climate-change-impacts-severe-weather
You can read Pielke’s take on the event here and you can be sure he doesn’t leave out anybody. His written testimony can be downloaded here
Video of the hearing is here:
http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/sst2013/EV121113.wvx
They are simply lying, cheating, and stealing for their ’cause’, like any good progressive. The ’cause’ has never been about the climate, it’s always been about the socialist movement and obtaining political power. The fact that more and more people are becoming aware of this inconvenient truth (useful idiots, journalists, scientists, environmentalists, politicos) is irrelevant to the progressives, the ’cause’ must continue. It’s truly a shame that so many good and dedicated people, who believed they were doing the right thing, diminished their reputations and the reputations of their organizations and institutions, only to find out the truth after the damage was done. The political hacks embedded in these organisations have set the environmental movement back 20 years.
Dr. Titley sat there and lied to the panel. One bold faced lie after the next – what a disgrace !
[Buy, you can’t say this over at Climate, Etc.]
These people are out and out crazy.
Pielke said this 1 or 2 years ago and he is exactly right. I paraphrase: ”
The Climate Debate moved from the science arena to the Politial Science arena a long time ago”.
This only helps confirm.
Dr. David Titley states: “Saying we don’t know today the impact of climate change on [weather] phenomena is very different than stating that climate change has no impact on typhoons and hurricanes.”
And: “current research indicates our future may include more intense, and possibly more frequent, storms. That is a risk not to be summarily discounted.”
So, he’s saying that we don’t really know what’s going to happen, but possibly we might get more frequent, stronger storms. That is the idiotic, anti-scientific and anti-democratic Precautionary Principle. These people are beyond hope.
We have had for the last 36 years above normal temperatures, that is away from the center, and they are getting further and further away. A record like that is equivalent to flipping a coin and getting ‘heads’ 36 consecutive times. The chances of that happening with an un-weighted coin: 1 in 68 billion.
Exactly that same statement could have been made in 1966! The average anomaly on HadCRUT4 from 1850 to 1930 was -0.326. The lowest anomaly between 1930 and 1966 on HadCRUT4 was in 1933 when it was -0.273 which is still above -0.326.
Exactly that same statement could have been made in 1976! The average anomaly on HadCRUT4 from 1850 to 1940 was -0.303. The lowest anomaly between 1940 and 1976 on HadCRUT4 was in 1956 when it was -0.262 which is still above -0.303.
Exactly that same statement could have been made in 1986! The average anomaly on HadCRUT4 from 1850 to 1950 was -0.273. The lowest anomaly between 1950 and 1986 on HadCRUT4 was in 1956 when it was -0.262 which is still above -0.273.
And like others who have asked: Where is the center? Should we have started being concerned in 1966 or 1976 or 1986 or even now? How often have we beaten odds of 1 in 68 billion in the last century?
Titley’s got cojones the size of beach balls to molest data this badly. Check out slide #4 of his presentation (a comparison of climate models to actual temperatures). Somehow he’s shifted real temperatures upward several degrees to make it appear reality agrees with the models. He’s obviously channeling Mythbuster Adam Savage:
“I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
Does anyone know who concocted this slide or what it’s based on?
“One of the main definitions of ‘extreme’ is ‘away from the center.’”
—
I had no idea we were experiencing “extreme” weather every summer when temperatures go up from the center and every winter when temperatures go down from the center.
If we have natural cycles that affect the weather, like day and night and summer and winter, why can’t there be longer natural cycles that also affect the weather? Doesn’t this idea seem obvious to everyone except climate scientists?
Ah yes, follow the Obama way!
1- Ignore the facts
2- state a half truth spun by radical ideology
3- Repeat
Away from center is an accurate statement.
Far left would be exact!
Obama’s headstrong hubris will come a cropper, as it has with Obamacare, if the warm turns sharply in 2014 (and continues cooling thereafter), as my buddies among the Pranksters on Olympus whisper to me that it will.
I watched the whole thing – Titley was unimpressive – terrified by the precautionary principle.
Weather is extreme because it’s warmer than it was 36 years ago? Do tell …
Whoa!
I expected the “Nutter Letter on Weather and Climate to Congresswoman Bonamici”, to be a rant from another Climate-Nutter to his/her Congress-Nutter. The letter is actually quite good and just coincidentally was written by Frank Nutter, the President of Reinsurance Association of America (who doesn’t appear to be another Nutter at all).
Brian H says:
“Weather is extreme because it’s warmer than it was 36 years ago? Do tell …”
Brian H, welcome to WUWT. As ‘Moshpit’ (Steve Mosher) can attest, flippant comments from drive by trolls are not well received here. It’s time to put up or shut up. Explain you comment and show us the reproducible empirical data that supports it.
Well I’ve heard about how to lie with statistics; but this Dr. David Titley takes it to a whole new parallel universe of vocal fenestration.
I’m old enough to remember the draft lotteries of the Vietnam War era. Well specifically I remember the very first one.
In essence, the days of the year received numbers from 1 to 366; not necessarily in calendar order; but it makes not a jot of difference if they were. The point is, each day of the year has a unique identifying title. Those unique identifiers can be translated into any or all of the world’s languages; or any numerical counting discipline, whether Arabic or Roman or otherwise; they still are just labels that uniquely specify one day per year.
So 4H-Club probability theory, tells us that those 366 numbers can be drawn in sequence in a total of 366! ways (Factorial 366). I’ll let you calculate that from the well known formula. It’s near enough to infinity for most purposes.
So the very first draft lottery was held, and some early forerunner of Dr Titley then pronounced, that the drawing was unfair, and not random, in that early calendar dates appeared in the draft sooner than later calendar dates.
So based on a single drawing, out of 366 possible different drawings, this hero decided the numbers were not random.
One of those 366! drawings, would be : Jan1, jan2, jan3, jan4,……dec27, dec28, dec29, dec30, dec31. That unlikely result has exactly the same probability as did the result of the first draft lottery. Those 366 unique labels, can be replaced by a new set with no sequential relationship, and the outcome is unaltered..
Statistics is a purely mathematical discipline, based on certain axioms, and algorithms, and those rules can be applied to ANY set of numbers whatsoever, whether obtained as records of past events, or simply dreamed up in some ad hoc fashion. You could count the number of animals larger than an ant on each square meter of the earth surface, and apply the rules to those numbers; or the valid telephone numbers listed in the Manhattan Phone Directory.
The results are equally valid for any case, for numbers from any source. They are a formal statement, about any set of numbers already known.
And the result is the same regardless of the source of the numbers. The next number of the set cannot be determined with certainty, by any known process.
But once the next number in the set is known, the level of surprise at its value might be influenced by the result of any statistics performed on the set prior to the next selection. However; the next number itself, is in no way affected, by that process.
Statistics conveys certain information about the past. It conveys zero information about any future event.
I think I should buy a powerball ticket, based on Dr Titley’s recommendation.
But the good Democrat is speaking the truth as she sees it.
While she saw the two scientists at the hearing, she never heard a word they uttered.
Picture fingers in ears and the socialist chant.
LA la la…..democrats good…. doubter evil stupid … I am so smart… everyone who calls me stupid is evil…i am ….me .me.,me.
Can I take it that they started with a definition of climate and of weather, and defined how to differentiate between the two?
ferd berple says:
Environmentalism would have us believe that if temperatures get colder, more plants and animals will die, and on the flip side, if temperatures get warmer, more plants and animals will die.
What’s funny is that I had that EXACT conversation right here a few years ago.
Mike Maguire –
Morano is a great communicator, but i have some advice for CAGW sceptics who do appear on MSM (it’s so rare, the opportunity must not be missed to reclaim the language).
EVERY TIME the term “climate change” is used, interrupt/ask –
what are we/you talking about – manmade global warming or climate change?
ALWAYS use the term “manmade global warming” when responding.
do not let anyone get away with using CC instead of AGW, because it turns the debate into gibberish.
george e. smith says:December 13, 2013 at 12:39 pm
I remember that first drawing well having been number 26, yet contrary to Dr. Titley’s belief, my Dec 14 birthday, though late in the year, was early in the drawing.
starzmom says:
December 13, 2013 at 6:40 am
Just a comment on the coin flip analogy. The probability of any given sequence is precisely the same as the probability of any other given sequence. That said, here the analogy fails as coin flips are independent of each other, and temperatures from one year to the next are not.
Yep, if the congressmen disagrees perhaps hed like to go bet his fortune running a martingale system on the roulette wheel betting between odds and evens, or red and black. I once saw several people in a row decide 15 blacks in a row was a sure bet red is next! by the 25th or so black several had lost a hefty sum.
Madam Bonamici, there is not one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to the climate – not one.
The only “proof” for climate change from the church of anthropogenic global warming are based on anecdotes, computer projections, Hockey Sticks, and consensus. Anecdotes are short, obscure historical or biographical accounts. Anecdotes are not traceable or connectable to anything. Anecdotes, like a Polar Bear carcass found on Svalbard, are not proof. Computer projections are nothing more than mental gymnastics. Computer projections as they unfold over time have proved to be dismal failures, simply because their only input is green house gases. Computer projections are not proof. Hockey Sticks are the cobbling together of two unrelated proxy data sets. These FrankenGraphs, which would have received an “F” in Junior High School 50 years ago, are incredibly embraced by many adult scientists today. Hockey Sticks are not proof. Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. In 1500 the consensus said the Earth was the center of the Solar System. Consensus is the intellectual lethary that forms after the pioneering work of a single individual, like Copernicus, or Wegener. Consensus is not proof.
Meanwhile, right on schedule, the Sun has entered a Grand Solar Minimum. Prepare for decades of bone chilling winters, fuel scarcity, crop failures, food shortages and famines, in which millions of lives will be lost preparing for the warming which will not come for another century. And no amount of pithy CO2 increases are going to save us.
Morano, as a communicator, would do well to look up and contemplate the definition of “dynamic range”. He must have grown up on “wall of sound” rock.
If everything is loudly emphasized, nothing is emphasized.
Hoofstetter;
If you’d read the post, you would recognize this cite: “Dr. Titley responded, “One of the main definitions of ‘extreme’ is ‘away from the center.’ Again, just take the basic data. We have had for the last 36 years above normal temperatures, that is away from the center, and they are getting further and further away.”
His foolish comparison sums to “its warmer now so it must be extreme”, as I said.
Get it?
This action gives great support to those claiming that the CAGW, UNFCCC, IPCC and etc is more policy driven and less scientific based?
What we see is a bunch of people that, based on policy based science(a great idea based on a lie), wants to make the World better?
When did lies and tricks make the World better?