Senate hearing today: John Christy, Judy Curry, Will Happer, and Mark Steyn

Roy Spencer passed on a note about this, and I figured I should post here before the event because there will be live video. And Mark Steyn.

Roy understates:

Ted Cruz’s climate change hearing (today at 3 pm EST) should be interesting. Witnesses on our side include my sidekick John Christy, Judy Curry, Will Happer, and (drum roll) Mark Steyn. I expect a few zingers.

He also notes live video will be available, see for details, I don’t see them yet.


Excerpts from

Cruz tees up panel on warming after taunting Obama

Hannah Northey, E&E reporter

Published: Monday, December 7, 2015

After poking fun at President Obama’s call for action at climate talks in Paris last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a GOP presidential candidate, is scheduled to convene a hearing on the effect of money and politics on climate research.

The senator last week accused Obama of mistakenly focusing on the threat of emissions over terrorism (ClimateWire, Dec. 2). “Instead of focusing on the perceived threat to national security of the SUV in your driveway, President Obama should be standing up and leading to defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” Cruz said during an interview in the Capitol. “But he refuses to confront the very real threats facing America today.”

The hearing will feature a number of climate doubters, including John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who disputes the consensus on human-induced climate change; Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology; and William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University.

Also testifying will be Mark Steyn, the Canadian National Review writer and author of “Climate Change: The Facts” who told attendees at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change this summer that his claim to fame is calling fraudulent the well-known “hockey stick” theory that Michael Mann — a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University — has developed.

The lone call for action to thwart the effects of climate change will likely come from the Democratic minority’s witness, Rear Adm. David Titley, formerly of the Naval Oceanography Operations Command, who recently joined Sherri Goodman, President Clinton’s deputy undersecretary of Defense, in calling on politicians to stop politicking on the issue of global warming (Greenwire, June 10).

Titley has predicted that as more Arctic ice melts, nations may want to revise the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, especially with regard to fish stocks moving north due to rising ocean temperatures. If that happens, he has said, nations like China could potentially file claims on Arctic resources while the United States would be left out of the negotiation process (E&E Daily, Oct. 1).

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg Woods
December 8, 2015 6:25 am

‘Climate doubter’? Does anyone doubt the existence of climate?

Reply to  Greg Woods
December 8, 2015 6:53 am

Well, that would still a more reasonable position to take than to flat out deny its existence. /sarc

Reply to  Greg Woods
December 8, 2015 7:24 am

That’s the term recommended in the new AP style guide.

Reply to  Greg Woods
December 8, 2015 8:24 am

I doubt the existence of a well defined concept “climate”.

Richard G.
Reply to  simple-touriste
December 10, 2015 6:35 pm

Will you accept for starters the U.S. Government as a source for information on the ‘concept’?
Please note the ‘concept’ of climate ZONES or regions. There is no single global climate.
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Guide to Determining
Climate Regions by County
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
August 2015
Additional information on international climatic zones can be found in
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 Normative Appendix B – Building Envelope
Climate Criteria.

Reply to  Greg Woods
December 8, 2015 8:34 am

Too funny for words…

The hearing will feature a number of climate doubters, including John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who disputes the consensus on human-induced climate change; Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology…

A “climate scientist” and a “climatologist” who supposedly doubt the climate… LOL!

Reply to  Greg Woods
December 8, 2015 9:32 am

Exactly Greg. That’s a terrible choice of words which plays right into the alarmists’ hands.
Climate doubter? What could the author be thinking?

Reply to  spock2009
December 8, 2015 11:28 am

Hannah Northey, E&E reporter uses ‘climate’ as a truncated version of ‘climate change’™, a term formally defined by the UN….
This UN confabulated political term is deliberate in both its confusion and misdirection. It was designed to be, rather like the UN’s use of ‘civil society’™ implying civilized society, which of course it is not or either.
It may not be too far away when the necessity for pretense ceases and they simply drop ‘climate’ and ‘change’ from any discussion and state, ‘UN’ in their place. It works very well and rarely interferes in any way with the meaning. Actually, I find it usually clarifying matters quite nicely.

Janice Moore
Reply to  spock2009
December 8, 2015 5:27 pm

One small but important correction to your fine post, mighty Manfred:
… ‘climate’ as a truncated version of ‘{human caused} climate change’™, … .”

george e. smith
Reply to  Greg Woods
December 8, 2015 10:02 am

It explains why Saratoga is colder now, than Sunnyvale was 150 years ago, and they are maybe ten miles apart. (Si Valley geography).

Reply to  george e. smith
December 8, 2015 10:17 am

But then again, Saratoga and Los Gatos often have the warmest temperatures in the South Bay. The micro-climates here gives one an appreciation for how naturally variable the climate can be.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
December 8, 2015 11:54 am

I could have sworn that I didn’t say anything about temperature.
I think I said Saratoga is colder than Sunnyvale. And likely still was 150 years ago.
Nothing to do with temperature.
Anomalies are anomalous.

Just an enngineer
Reply to  george e. smith
December 9, 2015 3:16 pm

“Anomalies are anomalous”
except in meteorology where it is defined as
Anomalies denote the departure of an element from its long-period average value for the location concerned, and since the temperature is rarely exactly the average value it’s almost always an anomaly!

Reply to  teapartygeezer
December 9, 2015 1:23 pm

Thanks, that is the correct link.

December 8, 2015 6:27 am

“The hearing will feature a number of climate doubters…”
I doubt that they doubt that the planet has a climate.
Titley sounds a little tipsy, but at least he didn’t claim that the Ocean’s would boil over.
Well, he hasn’t yet, anyway.

Reply to  JohnWho
December 8, 2015 7:36 am

Titley is at least a century premature with his concerns, given the paleoclimatic evidence of a coming cooling period. If the globe ever actually warms enough to open up the arctic ocean to exploitation, the bigger question is, what will have become of what was once the greatest nation on the planet?

george e. smith
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 8, 2015 10:05 am

The way that Obummer is handling National Defence, there might not be any USA left, to have any interest in Arctic fish stocks.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 8, 2015 10:09 am

More likely, will human beings have been eliminated by robots, courtesy of emotionally stunted engineering idiots who actually thought they could create intelligent robots without them taking over??

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 8, 2015 11:33 am

I don’t think you mean the U.S.S.R. – at over 8,000,000 square miles, far bigger than any two other great nations – do you?
Mods –
– note the /sarc tag I now deploy, to avoid doubt, any doubt.
Any doubt whatsoever.

December 8, 2015 6:31 am

So, it will be a few folks talking actual science and common sense versus one person promoting gloom and doom fear mongering.
Wonder which one the MSM will proclaim “won” the debate?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  JohnWho
December 8, 2015 7:48 am

Do you suppose that this affair will even merit a mention in the MSM? How about NPR or PBS?

December 8, 2015 6:34 am

“Also testifying will be Mark Steyn, the Canadian National Review writer and author of “Climate Change: The Facts”…”
Gee, I wonder if Steyn knew he wrote that along with “A Disgrace to the Profession”?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  JohnWho
December 8, 2015 6:59 am

JohnWho (exactly). When one is trying to save the Nile Crocodile, naturally it’ll be ignorantly trying to bite your leg off. A big surprise would be in store for the 40,000 useful fools, er..I mean delegates, pushing to foreclose on civilization and put in charge the elitist marxbrothers, if they were to be successful. Johnny, the Kumbaya forever result you and the 40k designer-brained nice but disillusioned facilitators are trying to achieve would be a worse nightmare for ordinary folk than in the USSR. I’m assuming you won’t be one of the elites.

Reply to  JohnWho
December 8, 2015 7:26 am

The journalist who composed that garbled the facts; Steyn is a contributor to that anthology, not its author or editor.

Phil R
Reply to  rogerknights
December 8, 2015 9:21 am

Yes, but facts and accuracy don’t matter. That appears to be about the accepted level of quality in journalism these days, at least in “climate science” and environmental journalism.

December 8, 2015 6:38 am

Let’s see if the scientists can find a way to clearly communicate to this A.D.D. society.

Reply to  Chipmonk
December 8, 2015 1:22 pm

No problem, Chipm… Look! Squirrel!

Don Perry
Reply to  H.R.
December 8, 2015 6:50 pm

Just read the .pdf file of his presentation. He holds no punches back and there is not a bit of comedy in it. It’s one of the most scathing indictments of everyone involved in the climate scam, including the committee to whom he is testifying. He’s covered all the bases.

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2015 6:46 am

I predict Titley will be like a fish out of water.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2015 4:25 pm

It would be great if this warmist got the proper response to his concern that “politicians stop politicking on the issue of global warming”.
The right response is that if politicians stop politicking there will BE no issue. Global warming is PURE politics, top to bottom.

December 8, 2015 6:47 am

I hope Steyn tones it down and gives a serious explanation of the legal intimidation that’s going on rather than putting on a comedy show. This isn’t a podcast or a radio talk show; it’s supposed to be a venue for serious examinations of fact.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary
December 8, 2015 7:02 am

Stein doesn’t need much advice about anything. He is magic on his feet. He won’t disappoint.

Jim G1
December 8, 2015 6:50 am

I wonder why they only have one pro-agw idiot on the program.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Jim G1
December 8, 2015 6:55 am

Dems know better than to expose their racket to an interrogator as brilliant as Cruz. By fielding an admiral, they hope to win some sympathy, if not mercy from the GOP-dominated panel.

Michael Darby
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
December 8, 2015 7:03 am

(Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
December 8, 2015 7:50 am

No. Why would any sane person ask such an absurd question?
Don’t take my word for Cruz’ brilliance. Ask his Harvard Law professors. Dershowitz said he was the most brilliant student he had ever met there. Or look at how brilliant his campaign strategy and execution have been. He’ll have a hard time overcoming the Liberal Eastern Establishment RINOs, but so far it’s hard to fault his performance on the trail from a strategic or tactical standpoint.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
December 8, 2015 8:39 am

No better example then the CNBC debate kickback by Cruz:

Michael Darby
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
December 8, 2015 9:10 am

(Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
December 8, 2015 10:27 am

I am a fan of Ted Cruz. But I too think he choose poorly by reading “Green Eggs” in the filibuster. A much better choice in Presidential power struggles would be “Yertle, the Turtle”.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
December 8, 2015 1:37 pm

His filibuster didn’t fail.
It achieved his strategic goal of becoming the leader of senators opposed to the business as usual, go along to get along RINO leadership in Congress.

Reply to  Jim G1
December 8, 2015 6:57 am

The rest are all in Paris!

Jim G1
Reply to  Ron
December 8, 2015 7:08 am

I forgot.

Reply to  Ron
December 8, 2015 7:51 am

Is there any info available on what this Paris venued grab for global control and wealth redistribution is costing the taxpayers?

Reply to  Jim G1
December 8, 2015 12:08 pm

The pro (wrong prefix or word) CAGW folks declined to speak or ignored the requests.
Odd, they couldn’t wait to ‘testify’ when Boxer, Mikulski or Waxman held climate hearings.
But I don’t think any of the CAGW faithful are anxious to repeat the Sierra Club’s President’s ‘Aaron Mair’ testimony.
Apparently they are disgusted that Representative Cruz refused appeals to authority or emotion and instead demanded hard proof.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  ATheoK
December 8, 2015 1:35 pm

Cruz is a senator, not a representative.
He could have been even more devastating in that exchange, but ought to be better prepared now.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
December 8, 2015 3:24 pm

You are correct. I obviously wasn’t paying attention while typing.
For my part, “The Teahouse of the August Moon” was coming on and I was distracted. Still my bad.

December 8, 2015 7:00 am

The USA’s military budget is laced with billions for climate change thingies and green gee gaws.
To get budget votes lots of log rolling and back scratching in the form of pet projects is slipped into the Pentagon budget. Meanwhile the Generals shriek that they
need more money for operations. An old game.
When you hear that the US spends fantastic sums on it’s military it helps to know where big chunks of that money go.

December 8, 2015 7:12 am

This should be fun to watch.

Rich L
December 8, 2015 7:12 am

WHY CAN’T I make comments with my WordPress Account??????????????????????
[The mods do not know. Your question ended up in the queue for review, and therefore was not immediately printed publicly. .mod]

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Rich L
December 8, 2015 8:31 am

Mis- typed email adrs have been known to cause delay issues… might want to check that.

Richard Lentz
December 8, 2015 7:15 am

Why cant I make comments with my Word Press account?

December 8, 2015 7:19 am

“Tuesday Afternoon Live” could be more interesting than SNL.

Samuel C. Cogar
December 8, 2015 7:24 am

a hearing on the effect of money and politics on climate research.

Hopefully, ….. the testimonies presented at this Congressional hearing will “trigger” additional hearings with subpoenas being issued to Directors, Managers, etc., of NASA, NOAA, NSA, DoD, DOE, etc. to give testimony on their expenditures, awarding of Grant monies and their politically biased science preferences …… and especially their highly questionable claims of scientific facts n’ figures.

Chris Carleton
December 8, 2015 7:44 am

Cruz, Christy, Curry, Steyn . . . all at once! Don’t want to miss this.
Wish I could attend live but I can’t. Assuming these sessions are recorded, does anyone know the link to view recorded sessions?

December 8, 2015 7:44 am

I can foresee lots of hard drive crashes coming in the not too distant future of NASA, NOAA..etc…..And I didn’t even need a ” mode l” or to make any corrupt ” adjustments ” to my data !!!

Reply to  Marcuso8
December 8, 2015 7:45 am


Reply to  Marcuso8
December 8, 2015 8:01 am

kewl, but what is your mode l ?

Reply to  TonyL
December 8, 2015 8:38 am

Better than mode k !!!

Joe Bastardi
December 8, 2015 7:56 am

Titley went to school with me. As for more of the arctic melting, the amo flip coming in the decadol sense will end that little charade.

Gras Albert
December 8, 2015 7:57 am

A big surprise would be in store for the 40,000 useful fools, er..I mean delegates

I wonder how many of those 40,000 walked, or better still, swam to Paris?

Reply to  Gras Albert
December 8, 2015 8:40 am

Paris ites don’t walk , they squirm !!!

Bob Burban
Reply to  Marcuso8
December 8, 2015 10:20 am

Like sea men?

December 8, 2015 8:05 am

Rear Adm. David Titley … who recently joined Sherri Goodman … in calling on politicians to stop politicking on the issue of global warming.

That is unless the politicians are Democrats.

December 8, 2015 8:12 am

Assuming the obvious, that global warming will cause direct melting of polar ice caps, let’s look at the RATE of sea level increase since the mid-1800s. Google this search: Battery NOAA Sea Level. The NOAA chart will show a strict linear trend of sea level increase, quite obviously not the least bit influenced by the world population increase from 1 billion to 7 billion since the beginning of that data measurement. (This is likely a trend that began with the last melting of glaciers 12,000 years ago.) Given that burning of hydrocarbons MUST have increased by orders of magnitude in that time, the data completely mitigate against any conclusion that there has been influence of man on sea level rise and thus global warming.

December 8, 2015 8:21 am

Ted’s appearance on this show was truly shocking:

Reply to  vuurklip
December 8, 2015 8:48 am

Any president that doesn’t get on his knees everyday…
May be that this prez does, just to the East & 5 times a day…..

Reply to  BFL
December 8, 2015 12:14 pm

What does this have to do with Cruz at this ghastly event?

Bob Weber
December 8, 2015 9:07 am

Wondering why it’s a ‘record’ temperature year? It was high TSI in 2015.
In order, from high to low,
2015, 1361.4512
2014, 1361.3966
2013, 1361.3587
2012, 1361.2413
2011, 1361.0752
2003, 1361.0262
2004, 1360.9192
2010, 1360.8027
2005, 1360.7518
2006, 1360.6735
2007, 1360.5710
2009, 1360.5565
2008, 1360.5382
Sep, 1361.1063
Oct, 1361.3139
Nov, 1361.3688
TSI was also higher for most of October and November, compared to September, driving Nov/Dec temps upward: image
2016 will NOT be a record year as there will be no long outstanding solar cycle TSI peak like Feb 2015. Enjoy it while lasts, solar minimum is on the way… It took 6-7 years for TSI to drop to it’s lowest levels in 2008, and UAH temps followed. SSTs had a similar dip for 2008, also tracking TSI. Easy to see the temp drop here into 2008:
Every bit of the increase in temps since 2008 is from the rise in TSI during SC24. Even though it’s the lowest SSN cycle in 100 years, SC24 was (and is) still potent.
It’s TSI. It’s the Sun! 😉

Reply to  Bob Weber
December 8, 2015 11:52 am

Sorry to be – perhaps – a micro-tad cynical, but your emboldened statement, above – 2016 will NOT be a record year – refers, I presume, to UN-ADJUSTED ‘data’.
I have no idea what the adjusted data looks like . . . . unless, say, as a blind guess, a hockey stick.
Mods – please note the metaphysical /SARC as added anyway.

DD More
Reply to  Bob Weber
December 8, 2015 3:06 pm

Bob, you do know that the TSI levels shown are not what is really hitting the earth. Check this statement on the offered website.
The available Level 3 TSI data products produced by the SORCE program consist of daily and 6-hourly average irradiances reported at a mean solar distance of 1 astronomical unit (AU) and zero relative line-of-sight velocity with respect to the Sun. At-Earth values are also included for climate researchers to use as inputs to models.
Unless your a ‘climate researcher’, they have taken away the actual distance and daily affect.

george e. smith
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2015 11:42 am

3pm where ??

December 8, 2015 9:21 am

Thanks, Ric Werme. I will be watching.

george e. smith
December 8, 2015 9:55 am

Well Dr. Roy, I have always thought not so much of a ” side kick ” relationship; but more of you, and your wing man; or verse vicea.
That way the two of you can do the Thatch Weave, while running down the greemlins.
Sounds like Mark Steyn, and Will Happer, will also make a nice duo.
Dr Curry, can just pick off the stragglers.
Sounds to me, like sanity will be well represented , and I hope that Senator Cruz understands that.

December 8, 2015 10:10 am

Prof Tim Noakes Gives a scientific presentation that what the UN World Health Org and the US FDA continue to push. You will see how we climate skeptics can use this in his address for our battle for truth:
P.S. Its taken 45 years for the truth to begin to come out.

December 8, 2015 10:39 am
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
December 8, 2015 10:51 am

Good choice of characters. I am surprised someone from the AG side of life was willing to turn up. I hope everyone is polite and sets an example of how to present a scientific argument,

December 8, 2015 11:35 am

I don’t see any links anywhere for the live broadcast of this event? I do see the Senate Live on C-span 2 via cable TV, but don’t see anything on their schedule for the event referenced on this blog? WUWT?

Reply to  ossqss
December 8, 2015 11:50 am
Reply to  ossqss
December 8, 2015 11:53 am
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 8, 2015 11:59 am

Perfect! Thanks Bob

December 8, 2015 11:54 am

Got my Pepsi and a big ol bowl of popcorn….gonna watch me some Ted Cruz and Co.!

Alan Robertson
December 8, 2015 12:05 pm

I hope that they’re just late getting started and that the feed hasn’t been cancelled.

Alan Robertson
December 8, 2015 12:29 pm

Pardon, is anyone receiving the video feed from this Senate hearing?

December 8, 2015 12:30 pm

The Admiral now works at State Pen, I mean Penn. State.

Reply to  peyelut
December 8, 2015 1:24 pm

You found that quite a coincidence as well? After all that time working in the Navy, in 2009 he gets a command to work on climate change from his superior whom received the command from ?, and then he gets a job at Penn. St. Do I see smoke?

December 8, 2015 12:31 pm
Alan Robertson
Reply to  peyelut
December 8, 2015 12:37 pm

All I get is: “Error: No valid source could be found”
Maybe it requires that abysmal Adobe Flash Player.

Neil Mahony
December 8, 2015 12:40 pm

I will quote Dr. Evans :”The World has spent 100 billion dollars
on global warming research since 1990 and
we have not found any actual empirical
evidence that carbon dioxide has caused
most of the recent global warming.
If there really was any evidence that
rising carbon dioxide caused the warming
don’t you think we would have heard about it?
Instead we hear a deafening silence about
the non-warming of the last 18 years.”
~Dr. David Evans~

December 8, 2015 1:03 pm

Steyn didn’t disappoint.

December 8, 2015 1:10 pm

I LOVED Steyn’s testimony! HEY….I’m a human on this planet and I COUNT. The rigors of science SHOULD BY DEFAULT invite opposition to ANY and EVERY theory…if the goal of that science is to discover unbiased facts that is. The only theory that needs to be protected from criticism and refutation is a WEAK ONE. So obviously politicians and their “science community” informers are trying to prevent open, honest, critical discussion because they KNOW their position is WEAK.

December 8, 2015 1:11 pm

Dr. Titley was contacted in 2009 (one year into current POTUS) by a 4-star general to assess Arctic climate change’s impact on the Navy. I’m sure an exact transcript of that conversation would be much more interesting.

Reply to  RWturner
December 8, 2015 1:18 pm

Dr Titley – “Let’s talk about orbital decay adjustments, stratospheric contamination, …” Waiting……….Oh, moving on?

December 8, 2015 1:11 pm

Oh my…LOL…Cruz teases that the bias of the models is keeping the chart from staying on the easel for all to see….:)

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2015 1:17 pm

Titley moronically, and in robot fashion follows the script of the IPCC and the Obama administration. Really? That’s the best they could do? This is a romp. Climatism is such a complete joke that it is bizarre that it hasn’t been laughed off the planet.

December 8, 2015 1:20 pm

Oh YEAh!! The Democrats go for the “97% consensus” as defense!! Which only proves that the Democrat representative either doesn’t understand the actual “evidence” or likes slogans and “DOGMA instead of Data”! Nothing like using sloppy, inaccurate, published drivel to support one’s argument!

Reply to  Aphan
December 8, 2015 3:42 pm

I wish that every time they bring up the 97% that there is a response that it is actually simple – that the survey was conducted by a cartoonist, and that 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. It is based on only 75 or 76 scientists…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
December 9, 2015 8:59 am

That’s why the counter has to be simplified. I can never find the basis for the 97% when I do a search. Too confusing.

December 8, 2015 1:22 pm

I look forward to updates on climate focus science related summaries from John Christy, Judy Curry, Will Happer, and Mark Steen.
And also look forward to any other witnesses, whether they be consensus CAGW proponents or independent critical thinking proponents (aka skeptics).
The assessment of which set of proponents has the better science and more integrated approach will be fun to do.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 8, 2015 2:59 pm

The hearing is over.
Cruz was impressive, Curry was effective, Steyn went on one political seeming rant but otherwise contributed.
Titley was the representative for Cook’s false 97% consensus.
Those democratic committee members amplified Titley’s statements and tried to damn the heretics.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 8, 2015 3:52 pm

Happer was low key and quietly reasonable.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 8, 2015 4:44 pm

I was late to listen live to the hearing, I did not see Christy.

December 8, 2015 1:30 pm

Titley’s 4 “facts” or “things we know” all turned out to be nothing but climate memes. The “debate” will be stalled as long as the cult of global warming refuses to stop confusing facts with conjecture.

Reply to  RWturner
December 8, 2015 1:39 pm

And here comes Senator Schultz to demonstrate his ignorance and more tired climate memes. He is certainly full of beliefs but devoid of well constructed thought.
I especially love his logic that, he will believe non-cognitive entities, i.e. AGU, but not these climate scientists that just so happen to be members of the AGU. The takeaway, believe the political administrators posting a message statement but not the scientists.

December 8, 2015 1:37 pm

OMG…and they are BACK to Cook et al! I love it! This is how well these idiots understand it! Appeal to authority established by opinion!!!! It’s like a logical fallacy on top of another logical fallacy! I hope, it is my personal, vindictive, human, horrible, corrupted desire that if/when the world collapses due to the economic choices based on NON science (and not due to climate changes) that the entire world calls it the “Cook Effect”. May John and his buddies live in INFAMY as they so desire and deserve.

Reply to  Aphan
December 8, 2015 1:50 pm

Climate “science” is fallacies lasagna.

Reply to  Aphan
December 8, 2015 1:53 pm

OMG “OMG…and they are BACK to Cook et al! I love it!” – and no one called them on it!!
The 97% consensus scam was deflected to the opinion of 97% of the public that AGW isn’t a crisis. The good guys AGREED to write off the majority of the world’s scientists by their silence, and let the most important fraud in marketing the AGW scam persist.
I don’t think ignoring the lies and merely presenting the truth is a robust policy; it’s not a policy of being as clever as serpents and as gentle as doves.

December 8, 2015 1:41 pm

This broadcast is a good example of why these congressional hearings end up accomplishing nothing: You have two sides with witnesses for each and advocates for each, but no judge running the hearing. And with no the rules of evidence in play you get nothing but a bunch of speeches and sloganeering with no meaningful cross examination (and senate committee rules are NOT rules of evidence). This hearing is not going to change anyone’s mind about anything; it’s just a bunch of “Hooray for our side and boo to yours!”

Reply to  Carl
December 8, 2015 6:52 pm

It will however mark in history that Ted Cruz and others tried to expose the lies, that he saw another side to the argument, and that ALL the AGW side had is a phony consensus study and the tactics of bullies on their side. Whatever happens in the future, history will show that not everyone were sheep, and that no matter how smart we think we are, we still need Gallileos in this world. (And no idiot Democrat Senators…it’s the underdogs opposing the consensus that are Gallileos….not poor stupid Dr. Titley who agrees with it.)

December 8, 2015 1:46 pm

And now, The Happy Tune Ice Cream Man, Ed Malar . . . er, Markey.

December 8, 2015 1:49 pm

According to Titley, the climate models are great at showing boundary conditions and don’t depend on boundary conditions. So apparently, he thinks that starting the climate model average temperature below or above equilibrium has no baring on what it will project. Amazing!

Reply to  RWturner
December 8, 2015 1:50 pm

*don’t depend on initial conditions…

Reply to  RWturner
December 8, 2015 6:56 pm

I wanted so badly to extend Dr Titleys little graph a LOT more to the left and shrink that HUGE trend (which showed mere 100ths of a degree) down to size and then smack him over the head with it! How idiotic did he look making a TINY increase in temps look like a skyscraper? And NOT citing his sources? And NOT putting his own chart into geological perspective? Shame on him and everyone who falls for his stupid.

December 8, 2015 1:51 pm

Wow…Senator Markey missed the entire point that the SKEPTICS are being called heretics, NOT Dr Tittley! That the apology will be directed at the OTHER panelists, NOT to him. He can’t even follow the conversation taking place in front of him today!

December 8, 2015 1:53 pm

If Sen. Markey is there then who is running hell?

Reply to  RWturner
December 8, 2015 6:33 pm

Pepsi spewage! Has anyone seen John Kerry today? or Al Gore?

December 8, 2015 1:54 pm


Reply to  peyelut
December 8, 2015 2:06 pm

Awesome – Judy Curry has the skills to deal with political policy marketing shills; it sure was wonderful watching her getup on her hind legs and call them out.

December 8, 2015 1:56 pm

Funny thing is, none of the “deniers” sitting at that desk DENY that as the planet warms, the seas will rise, temperatures will change, ice will melt etc. No one with a brain would deny that the planet has ALWAYS DONE THOSE THINGS, and will, most likely do it again. Markey seems to think that they do….which is odd.

Reply to  Aphan
December 8, 2015 2:03 pm

He needs to read the title of the hearing very very closely and then think about that with all his might.

December 8, 2015 2:06 pm

Thank you Yertle the Turtle for your questions.

Reply to  RWturner
December 8, 2015 6:34 pm

You’re killing me here…LOL

Peter Sable
December 8, 2015 2:58 pm

The satellite record was impugned with “constant updates”. that had me groaning… as if the entire land and sea record isn’t constantly updated.
I wish someone would have said “sure, but at least the satellite folks keep the old versions around that you can check against”, unlike, say GISS…

Warren Latham
December 8, 2015 3:06 pm

Dear Ric,
“Climate Doubter(s)” is a nonsensical expression.
A more suitable expression in the context of your paragraph would be “global warming” doubter(s).
Please re-write your sentence. Thank you.

Gregg C.
Reply to  Warren Latham
December 9, 2015 11:20 am

There actually is something possibly revealing about this misuse of English: ‘Climate doubter’ or ‘Climate denier’. The CAGW crazies firmly believe that the ONLY thing that controls climate is man-made CO2 and if we can only control that we can create perfect weather from now till eternity. So when they say ‘Climate denier’ they mean ‘CO2 Does Everything denier’, because they having this idiotic CO2 idea about what causes climate.

December 8, 2015 3:07 pm

It reminded me of an extended scene from “The Twilight Zone”.
The call to authority and consensus was nauseating.
The attempts at reversal of reality were laughable.
No progress appears to have been made toward reconciliation that man might affect climate but nature might effect it more.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 8, 2015 3:11 pm

I had to LOL at Titley’s attempt to “shell game” all the calculations needed to derive temps by satellite, after Happer pointed out that satellites are calibrated to balloon observations.

December 8, 2015 3:17 pm

Everyone, please take the time to read Mark Steyn’s testimony in total.
His wickedly sharp humor is exactly what is needed to defuse the Alarmist bafflegab.
The Big Climate goons are laughably incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial (to borrow an old “Perry Mason” line)
Don’t bother arguing facts with Alarmists – just laugh at them, over and over again.
They are on the wrong side of reality.

December 8, 2015 3:17 pm

That is one reason I am supporting Ted Cruz for POTUS. I think Trump is starting to self destruct. Saw the whole hearing, and hope there will be more debates such as that…

December 8, 2015 3:24 pm

1. All climate sceptics should have a rebuttal for as many of the 97% figures as they can remember. The use of the 97% figure was a classic example of dogma that should have been highlighted – particularly as it was quite central to many arguments.
2. It needed to be pointed out that the thermometer datasets also had a pause until earlier this year when the pause was “corrected” out of the record.
I have to say that those present did a good job under what are quite difficult circumstances. The inquisitors know all the rules and use them to their advantage.
I thought Judith Curry got a difficult question somewhat outside her sphere of interest but she coped well – and can’t she “let rip” when riled?

Reply to  graphicconception
December 8, 2015 6:41 pm

They don’t have to remember figures at all. Just remember the title to a new book called “Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Consensus”.
or this link-

December 8, 2015 3:49 pm

That committee needs to view this:
The Greening of Planet Earth

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2015 4:09 pm

The arguments made by the Climate Liars were, as usual, stunningly weak and idiotic, falling back on the same, tired logical fallacies. Tittles trotted out the stupid “Risk Management” idea, that since we can never be 100% certain of anything, we can’t wait any longer to act, and mentioned “climate events” like Katrina and Sandy as examples of results of not acting. What we are up against isn’t just wrong; it is in fact evil.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2015 6:42 pm

As usual, indeed, Mr. Cobb. LOL, poor old Titley trots out the old Precautionary Fallacy under a businessy sounding name. “Risk management” (in the real world) attempts to prevent or to ameliorate known, risks. For instance, requiring workers to wear goggles when working with acid or to back up their data to an external hard drive.
Human CO2 has never been shown, not one measurement, only wild speculation, to cause any change (much less harmful change) in the climate of the earth.
But, a little thing like lack of data doesn’t stop a Titley…
Announcer: Welcome to…… Climate Hour! (with host, Dave Titley)
{blah, blah, blah for about 50 minutes straight (with 2 rush-to-the-fridge-for-a-snack breaks for: 2 electric car ads, one solar panel ad, and an ad for men’s underwear made out of bamboo)}
Announcer: And now, this final word from our host…
Titley: Everyone! STOP EATING BEEF, NOW! It makes the weather fairies very angry and we CAN’T HAVE THAT NOW, CAN WE!
Announcer: And now, a word from our sponsor.
Titley’s Cousin, Eddie P. Roffiter: Hey! Guys! Come on down to Slick Eddie’s Supersubsidized Market! Buy our flavored puffed rice gelee! Tastes like beef! And saaaaaave your receipt! You’ll get a nice tax credit, too!
Skeptic Viewer 1 to SV 2: (mirthless laugh) Better buy a lot of it, suckers, , BECAUSE IT ONLY PROVIDES ABOUT 1% of the nutrition of beef…. whydidwewatchthatanyway……..

December 8, 2015 6:10 pm

I got ‘angrified’: (Re: Data or Dogma) Dear Senator Markey,
A thoroughly cowardly, deceitful, partisan, uninformed, talking-point-tirade chock-full of mindless incantations of “the 97%” FRAUD, as well as the mindless repetition of the word “Republican”.
You should be ashamed, calling Judith Curry a Liar and denying her the opportunity to rebut! As at least one other has observed, you are: A RUMPSWAB, BUM-KSSING, COAT-HOLDING MOONBAT. HACK!, HACK! HACK!
Do The Republic a favor – take your gold-plated retirement and GO AWAY. Please God.
Peter H. xxxx
Major, US Army (ret.)

December 8, 2015 6:18 pm

Titley: Alluded more than once to his duty to carry out the higher ups directives. It’s a shamew no one founfd a way to highlight the fact that he had received his order to ‘Put to sea’, so to speak. I GIVE HIM CREDIT for somewhat ostentatiously refusing to back O’bumble’s ‘Paris Climate Conference = “Strong Rebuke” (crippled by uncontrollable laughter) to ISIS’. What a friggin limp-dick Ivory Tower, Intellectually Vacuous, REALITY DENYING Narcissist he is.

Joseph Bowers
December 9, 2015 6:53 am

Why did no one point out to Sn. Nelson that the high tide flooding in Miami happens when the sun, moon and earth get into the right alignment and it happens twice a year every year and has been happening for untold eons? It has nothing to do with global warming, CO2 or sea level rise.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Joseph Bowers
December 9, 2015 4:43 pm

It would be hard to imagine that the Senator from Florida is unaware of the facts of high tide flooding in Miami Beach, as you have stated them. The Senator from Florida is interested in taking money from people in Kansas to give to people in Florida.

%d bloggers like this: