Mark Steyn rebukes democrats in climate hearing: 'You're effectively enforcing a state ideology'

This is a must watch, share it widely. Mark Steyn demolishes the “science is settled” meme in the Senate hearing yesterday. His ability to argue effectively on the fly is very impressive.

Advertisements

134 thoughts on “Mark Steyn rebukes democrats in climate hearing: 'You're effectively enforcing a state ideology'

  1. I’m confused. We have this video and we have a story (21 hours ago) about a different presentation that Mark did. Did he present twice?

    • It is customary for witnesses to submit a written statement which is then entered into the record. The time available for verbal testimony is much too limited for such long presentations. He did what he could in the time available, including referring to the prior witness and Senators’ behavior.

  2. I watched the hearing live and was disappointed that the Democrats on the committee mostly testified with no formal opportunity to rebuke the dogma they spewed. I would liked to have seen a more interactive session where the witnesses could interrupt Senators and challenge their assumptions in real time. Some of the best exchanges came as a result of the few unrequested rebuttals at the end of a Senators testimony (i.e. not the cross examination it should have been). I’m quite sure any of the skeptical witnesses would have shined under cross examination of their testimony and by cross examining any of the Senators testimonies.

  3. The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves at what the Dems are doing in the name of “science” and of “saving the planet”. It is a monstrous, and dangerous abuse of power.

    • Basically, what you are seeing in government today is because government intends to no longer be subjected to the power of the people. Not sure the voting machines actually allow people to select the representatives anymore anyway. But all of this is coming out so completely obvious, as if there is no longer any reason to disguise anything, that the only logical conclusion is that this nation and the world will no longer be lead by representatives of the people – that we will merely be little cogs in the human machinery that supports the upper class, whomsoever that may be. And if you really stop and REALLY think about it, you will end up thinking something very similar if not the same.

      • agreed. it never fails to amaze me how the masses put up with the same old shit dressed in a different outfit century after century. sure the crumbs have gotten bigger ,but the majority of people seem to actually need to be told how to live .

      • Tom, not just Today.
        “I read where they are going to limit debate in the Senate. It used to be that a man could talk all day, but now, as soon as he tells all he knows, he has to sit down. Most of these birds will just be getting up and nodding now. Why, some of them won’t be able to answer roll call.”
        “Now these fellows in Washington wouldn’t be so serious and particular if they only had to vote on what they thought was good for the majority of the people in the U.S. That would be a cinch. But what makes it hard for them is every time a bill comes up they have things to decide that have nothing to do with the merit of the bill. The principal thing is of course: What will this do for me personally back home?”
        “Congress is so strange; a man gets up to speak and says nothing, nobody listens, and then everybody disagrees.”

        Will Rogers on Politics all in the 1930’s.

  4. Anthony Watts, would you agree that the science is settled on the dangers of smoking and passive smoking? Or do you think the debate should continue, and that we should relax restrictions on smoking to the detriment of our health?
    Steyn demolishes nothing, but presents a 2 minute hypocritical and untrue ad-hom. If this is the man you respect, what a fool you are.

    • Kit Carruthers. You are trying to compare apples and oranges! The epidemiological, toxicological, pharmacological and molecular biological evidence for the link between smoking and health is clear. The gaps in the understanding of the science behind climate change are clear eg what is the quantitative contribution of cloud cover? How is this level of uncertainty incorporated into a non-linear chaotic modelling scenario.
      If you think smoking and climate change have similar levels of scientific understanding then what a fool you are.

    • How do feel about pot smoking. Any settled science there. Sticking a lit weed in your face and puffing away probably has side effects. How does any of that relate in anyway to climate science. It doesn’t. You are a tool to raise such a weak argument against views you don’t agree with.

      • Actually, many of the studies that show pot smoke isn’t as bad as tobacco smoke hinge on the idea that a) there is something in pot that counteracts the bad stuff and b) people don’t smoke as much pot as they do tobacco.
        a) is definitely up in the air, much more study is needed.
        b) is rather provably wrong if you’ve even been around a crowd of under 30s. The term “wake and bake” certainly wasn’t around when I was partaking regularly in my 20s. And there seem to be a very large cohort of 18 year olds with enough anxiety to get a prescription for medical pot.
        BTW, here in Ontario, Canada, we of course banned smoking tobacco inside years ago. We’re now banning hookahs (although there are some who protest this as “racism”…yeah, MLK is rolling over in his grave), AND e-cigarettes. This is all to save not only the smoker, but the staff at restaurants and bars.
        Hypocrisy alert: pot cafes are exempt…
        Oh, and my sainted mother is dying, slowing and painfully, from COPD and emphazema. Lung cancer would probably be a blessing.
        Any idea that I would support any sort of analogy to being a global warming denier would be a punch in the fact if this were RL, Kit Carruthers.

      • C.Jones:
        Unlike “pot” tobacco was never regulated until 2009. As a result high radiation fertilizers, heavy metals such as arsenic & cadmium/nickle (anti-corrosion coating on drying racks ??), weed killers and fungicides in addition to additives in the final product were used without any regulation at all (perfect Republican no rules product). One tobacco CEO estimated most cancers were caused by radiation products. Even after the FDA took over they don’t really seem to care about ingredients as they still allow hundreds of compounds to be added to the final product; their attitude is more like: if you smoke it’s your problem since you should know better. I’ve always wondered what the health results of an “organic” reduced additive tobacco would be like, but with the FDA’s present attitude, don’t expect to see any studies for comparison.

    • Kit Carruthers:
      I make no comment on American politics because I am not an American. I write to refute your factually incorrect assertions saying.

      Anthony Watts, would you agree that the science is settled on the dangers of smoking and passive smoking? Or do you think the debate should continue, and that we should relax restrictions on smoking to the detriment of our health?
      Steyn demolishes nothing, but presents a 2 minute hypocritical and untrue ad-hom. If this is the man you respect, what a fool you are.

      The smoking issue is a ‘red herring’: the hearing was about climate science and not smoking (although the passive smoking issue is similar in that there is no empirical evidence that it is medically harmful).
      Steyn demolished the nonsense from the Senators Peters and Morton.
      And he made no ad hominem. His statements about “people falsely claiming to be Nobel Laureates” were true, accurate and pertinent.
      Later, Judith Curry completely demolished the personal slurs from another Senator b y listing scientific information.
      Richard

    • Kit Carruthers: “[decries hypocrisy and ad-hominems] [calls AW a fool]”
      Self-parody at its finest, folks.

      • Actually, many of the studies that show pot smoke isn’t as bad as tobacco smoke hinge on the idea that:
        a) there is something in pot that counteracts the bad stuff and b) people don’t smoke as much pot as they do tobacco.
        a) is definitely up in the air, much more study is needed.
        b) is rather provably wrong if you’ve even been around a crowd of under 30s. The term “wake and bake” certainly wasn’t around when I was partaking regularly in my 20s. And there seem to be a very large cohort of 18 year olds with enough anxiety to get a prescription for medical pot.
        BTW, here in Ontario, Canada, we of course banned smoking tobacco inside years ago. We’re now banning hookahs (although there are some who protest this as “racism”…yeah, MLK is rolling over in his grave), AND e-cigarettes. This is all to save not only the smoker, but the staff at restaurants and bars.
        Hypocrisy alert: pot cafes are exempt…
        Oh, and my sainted mother is dying, slowing and painfully, from COPD and emphazema. Lung cancer would probably be a blessing.
        Any idea that I would support any sort of analogy to being a global warming denier would be a punch in the fact if this were RL, Kit Carruthers.

      • I thought that the line
        “My blog is not a democracy: comments may be edited, deleted or moved as I see fit, although this will rarely happen (I hope)”
        shows a breath-taking disregard for the truth. Deleting a post for, say, being abusive is fine but editing or moving it? Surely the only reason to do that is make the person appear to say something that they did not.

      • Caligulajones 1:36 pm
        My mother was a smoker and died of lung cancer. Dad quit at age 40 and died of other causes at 86. Oldest brother died younger, also other, but also smoked. Now three of us – 83, 75, 72 – all going strong or ailments are not lung related.

    • To even say, “the science is settled” about anything is inherently ‘ascientific’, it is an ideological phrase. To say, “Steyn demolished nothing” is a straw man, the heading is: “Mark Steyn rebukes democrats in climate hearing: ‘You’re effectively enforcing a state ideology’”, which is demonstrably true.

    • I’m not Anthony, but I’m going to answer you anyway.
      Second question first – smoking restrictions: If you are truly free, you are free to do stupid things. Should we continue the nanny state to the detriment of our natural liberty?
      First question: The harmfulness of smoking is pretty obvious. The long-term harmfulness of second hand smoke is very uncertain and hard to measure, when done honestly. This is a question that has parallel to nearly every environmental question. The real question is not if, but how much. I suspect that there is a 97% consensus among readers of this site that raising CO2 will raise temperatures, if infinitesimally.
      The question is always a balancing of cost versus benefit, be it dollars, freedom, health, or something else. In that regard, neither global warming, nor the effects of smoking are settled. Frankly, they can never be completely settled, but some things are definitely more clear cut than others. Global warming is not at all clear cut.

    • “Steyn demolishes nothing”…
      Sure, if by “demolishes nothing” you mean “strikes a dagger to the heart of cAGW ideology”.

    • It is absolutely wrong to talk about a personal choice like smoking and compare it to the huge human losses caused by immature mitigation to said global warming ( CC / GW / AGW / DAGW / CAGW).

    • I surely wouldn’t be using smoking as your example as many states, Canada and likely soon the entire USA are legalizing smoking marijuana without the slightest concern for the science against a product that contains all the same toxic chemicals as cigarettes except nicotine. Yeah, that debate can’t remain open fast enough. Again, politics trumps science.

      • Arbeegee
        December 9, 2015 at 12:38 pm
        – – – – –
        Arbeegee,
        That is a poignant observation.
        Let me try to encapsulate it: Smoking something is bad except when smoking the right stuff.
        John

      • Arbeegee, you make a cogently powerful point about the hypocrisy of potheads (who often oppose regular cigarette smoking).
        Just FYI: Carruthers (who usually appears on WUWT to dance a little highland jig to the tune of how neat windmills are) knew exactly what he was doing when he used smoking for his example. He was aiming a low blow at Anthony who has shared several times on this site the devastating effects second-hand smoke ended up having on his hearing.
        Shame on you, Carruthers. Until today, I thought what was wrong about you was your mistaken beliefs about technology and science. Now, you have demonstrated conclusively that what is wrong is simply –> you.
        It was the cheapest of cheap shots (and not only shameful, but as Arbeegee showed, foolish, to boot).

      • Tobacco has at least 69 cancer causing chemicals to MJ’s 33. Studies have shown no link between MJ an increased risk of lung cancer (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.29036/abstract), even in long-term MJ smokers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html).
        The science is not settled. And in this case, I’d say it’s the will of the people trumps politics. Politicians didn’t make this happen, the people did. Of course, some politicians may jump on the bandwagon when they realize how much tax money there is to be made.

      • There are attempts in states with legal “pot” to regulate for a safer product. However tobacco was never regulated until 2009. As a result high radiation fertilizers, heavy metals such as cadmium/nickle (anti-corrosion coating on drying racks ??), weed killers and fungicides and arsenic pesticides in addition to additives in the final product were used without any regulation at all (perfect Republican no rules product). One tobacco CEO estimated most cancers were caused by radiation products. Even after the FDA took over they don’t really seem to care about ingredients as they still allow hundreds of compounds to be added to the final product; their attitude is more like: if you smoke it’s your problem since you should know better. I’ve always wondered what the health results of an “organic” reduced additive tobacco would be like, but with the FDA’s present attitude, don’t expect to see any studies for comparison.

      • Interesting. So despite accepting the consensus science on smoking, and no doubt accept the consensus on other scientific ideas such as gravity and our place in the Universe, you reject that there can be such as thing as a consensus on climate science? Sounds bizarre and irrational to me.

      • “accepting the consensus science on smoking”
        No we don’t. Nobody does.
        “consensus science” is word salad.

      • @Kit
        Consensus on Gravity….. Sorry but you really don’t know what you are talking about, first science is not and never was conducted by consensus. That’s not how it works at all. With regards to gravity, there are certain theories that are continually being tested, with new ones being proposed all the time, that’s how the rest of us do science don’t you know? We started the whole gravity ball rolling with Galileo and Newton, we’ve modified that with Einstein, but there’s also Quantum Loop Gravity and MOND, plus a myriad of other thoughts and theories on the matter. You really aren’t bright enough to bother having a conversation with.

      • Kit Carruthers:
        You rudely and without evidence say to our host

        Interesting. So despite accepting the consensus science on smoking, and no doubt accept the consensus on other scientific ideas such as gravity and our place in the Universe, you reject that there can be such as thing as a consensus on climate science? Sounds bizarre and irrational to me.

        Our host did NOT say he is “accepting the consensus science on smoking”: he took the trouble to say he considers your assertions

        Not even worth a response.

        And, not content with your providing that falsehood about what our host is “accepting”, you assert without evidence that “no doubt” our host accepts your assertion of “consensus on other scientific ideas”. We will never know if your lack of doubt is correct because our host rightly considers your offensive and personal remarks to be “Not even worth a response”.
        What is truly beyond any possibility of doubt is that “consensus” is a political objective which is positively NOT part of the scientific method.
        Importantly, the only “consensus on climate science” is that
        (a) climates exist,
        (b) climates change, and
        (c) climates always have changed and always will change.
        In short, in addition to being untrue, your post is very bizarre and is completely irrational.
        Richard

    • Second Dave below. Also, the mechanisms by which smoking damages the lungs are well understood and the models validated. You can autopsy a smoker and see the damage quite plainly.
      On the other hand, the science regarding AGW is most definitely not settled, although the evidence tends to point away from any human-caused effects. The evidence has been well chronicled on this site and elsewhere so I won’t go into it again, but the main problem is that the whole concept of “human-caused climate change” rests on a number of computer simulations that not only have never been validated, they have been shown to be deliberately corrupted in order to obtain the desired results!

    • The evidence for passive second hand smoke is very dodgy and politically motivated.
      A history of this tendentious campaign is similar to the ozone hole and global warming.
      The data for smoking causing cancer and deaths is over whelming.

    • Kit Carruthers would you agree that the science is settled on the dangers of cooking over and open fire because you are denied access to affordable energy? You are a great deal worse than a fool.

    • Be clear that Steyn wasn’t attempting to demolish climate science, he was demolishing the atrocious behavior of climate so-called “scientists” for the manner in which they have been participating in the debate.

    • “Anthony Watts, would you agree”….how incredibly lame
      …and you don’t even seem to be embarrassed

    • Kit. Come back when you can explain the scientific method and explain the difference between qualitative and quantitative differences between experiments using double-blind testing involving control subjects, as has repeatedly done in medical testing of tobacco products, and only coding very poor quality computer models of a hypothesis, whilst murdering data to force it to fit that invalid hypothesis and threatening to change the law to enforce that hypothesis to be accepted as true, in lieu of actual verified, raw, unadjusted data, as is routinely done in climate alarmist version of science.
      You cannot rationally compare the two and still consider the fraudulently adjusted data and computerised rubbish which passes as climate science to be considered valid scientific practice.
      And as for your own ad-hominem laced attack, well, irony is not lost on you, is it?

      • I’m not so sure that I like gravity. The other day I stumbled and twisted my ankle quite badly. I’m thinking of starting a petition to repeal the law of gravity. I don’t know what God will do when he finally gets the request, but I know it would take much less fuel to get from point A to point B.

    • How ironic, start your post by using ad hominem and then claim that’s what your opponent did instead. The climate must be a scary thing within the Twilight Zone.

    • Steyn did not say he was going to talk about the science, since there were scientists there. So attacking him fro not talking about the science is misplaced. What he talked about was the attempt to use laws to shut up the other side. Let’s say someone did think that smoking doesn’t cause cancer, do you KIt agree or disagree that the law should be used to shut them up?

    • “Steyn demolishes nothing, but presents a 2 minute hypocritical and untrue ad-hom.”
      What is the evidence showing AGW?
      Does the evidence consists of:
      the 97% of (toilet?) papers?
      the 97% of (gov paid) “climate” scienti(vi?)sts?
      Where is the science?
      “Trust us, we are scientists” (or “trust us, we are experts”, or “trust us, we have a Nobel prize”) counts as science?
      How do you fail to see that we have a bunch of substandard or plainly ignorant “scientists” who are politicized, manipulative, who use dirty methods to suppress dissent and then claim a consensus is reached?

    • Are you suggesting, Carruthers, that no further discussion should take place on smoking? Suggesting, perhaps, that anyone who questions the science surrounding smoking and its effects should face criminal charges? Suggesting, maybe, that anyone who inhales tobacco smoke, anyone who produces tobacco leaf, anyone who manufactures, distributes or markets tobacco products should be sanctioned by the state?
      Because that is the path down which your thinking is heading.

    • Kit-“If the science settled..then do you think we should relax restrictions on smoking..” If the science is settled on smoking, then why didn’t the government ban it, as they seem to want to do with fossil fuels? “Steyn presents a 2 minute hypocritical and untrue ad-hom….if you respect the man, you’re a fool.” Typical- doesn’t say what’s untrue and calls people names. How very scientific.

    • Kit Carruthers, the science is definitely not settled as evidenced by the senate hearings. The only consensus that really matters is that the American people simply don’t believe your tribe’s hysterical predictions regarding CO2; hence, no binding agreement/treaty by the USA.

    • I have in my possession, an email from the NCI stating that they cannot name one person known to have died from SHS. Not…one.

    • Kit, I agree that the science behind the dangers of additional CO2 in the atmosphere has been settled–I’ve read where world-wide foodstuff production is worth roughly $10 Trillion and that 15% of that is due to additional CO2.
      So that makes the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 worth about $1.5 Trillion PER YEAR! Couple that with the fact that planet Earth has been warming since the LIA in a regular fashion and three’s no down-side to the burning of fossil fuels. The null hypothesis has been falsified.
      That you can’t grasp the obvious shows what a fool YOU are, Kit. And Steyn speaks the truth, which you deny because of personal problems, apparently.
      But I challenge your side to a true contest–write this Michael Mann of yours and encourage him to settle his court case with Mr. Steyn in a timely fashion and with full disclosure. Let the world see clearly which side has been distorting the truth for nefarious reasons and we’ll settle the argument once and for all.
      Without a doubt I’ll be celebrating your loss because the longer Mann waits, the more obvious he’s not interested in the truth. Indeed, Mann has already delayed this for three years!
      Wouldn’t you expect Mann to wrap it up if he were right?
      Ah, yes.
      But he isn’t.

      • Moreover, Mark has countersued which means Mikey can’t back out without forking over 20+ million. He can only delay hoping for an asteroid to end it all. Underestimating Mark has been an industry globally. Clearly freshmen like Kit never heard of him before, his mind not venturing outside of core subjects.

    • Kit
      Anthony also acknowledges the toxic nature of cyanide (although a bit in cherry jam is likely ok). Climate science hasn’t established anything definitive about the dangers of CO2 or even the small amount of warming. There is compelling evidence that so far, it has been beneficial with large increases in crop harvests and greening of the planet. You are not a scientist (unless of the oxymoronic variety social or political). That is evident from your argument style and logical content.
      You aren’t equipped to appreciate what a giant intellect Mark Steyn is. He battles for freedom of speech internationally at his own peril literally, and like those trying to save the Nile crocodile, ignorant crocs like you are busy trying bite his a$$ off.

    • There is indeed much unsettled science regarding second-hand smoke. Well, it looks as if it is basically a non factor.

  5. Impressive. One of our very best speakers. His sense of irony beautifully fillets the opposition arguments revealing their feet of clay.
    Readers here will know that Miami Beach was built on land fill and has always been a did get place to build on. Nothing what so ever to do with climate change or anthropogenic sea level rise.
    Leaves you gobsmacked that it is trotted out at a Congressional hearing.

    • I was in North Palm Beach FL about 25 years ago, so when Miami Beach was used as an example North Palm Beach jogged my memory. There was about 11in of rain fell in 3hrs. There were people in boats on the news TV ect water skiing in the middle of Palm Beach Gardens much worse then Miami.

    • I’ll have to see if I can find the old photos. I seem to recall streets in that same area being flooded back in the 50’s or 60’s as well. (I wasn’t there but saw photographs in a relatives photo album – it was before I was born or right after.) When high tide occurs at lunar perigee, tides are much higher than normal. Also I thought South Florida was actually sinking relative to the land elevation as well do to water extraction from the everglades. I think people need to realize something I was told a long time ago about land on a coastline – you don’t really own coastal property, you just rent it from mother nature.

  6. O/T Iwas looking at finding out about the old “green Stamps” that some of the service station use to give out, to make a pun about EXXON and kick-backs. Then I found this a nice article about service stations from the past.
    So if you need a moment to relax or heavens a Safe Place this might be it.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=NDtMw5GDCS8C&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=green+stamps+exxon&source=bl&ots=GnwfMoG0r1&sig=uBS2bPTF7fSTobJa58jirOkIAM8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP-63CyM_JAhUF5SYKHSJXAMAQ6AEIUjAH#v=onepage&q=green%20stamps%20exxon&f=false
    Michael Duhancik

  7. When you are prepared and know your stuff, you are able to do this. He basically is chain wrestling cause he is so prepared ( you can feel your opponent and always turn the right way) A true treasure.

    • Absolutely, and it helps prepare when your opponent uses the same logical fallacies over and over again.

      • But Styne isn’t just a writer about climate fraud, he writes about many other things, and is substitute host on the most listened to radio talk show. His opponents on other subjects don’t use the same logical fallacies, yet he still comes across a brilliant.

    • Good job Joe, spoken like a true wrestler. If you haven’t learned to chain wrestle, you aren’t going to win very many matches. Same goes concerning wrestling with ideas. I like it!

    • Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist with a varsity wrestling letter. And a treasure, also.
      [I’m not a wrestler but went to both Clarion and U. of Iowa.]

  8. Quote: “Cartoon Climatology….” I like that one.
    Since they are all in Paris at present, does this mean that offices will be raided by terrrorists anytime soon?
    R

    • Oldseadog December 9, 2015 at 1:51 pm
      ralfellis:
      Not relevant, not funny and not useful to the current debate.
      Agree
      michael

  9. Once again, a complete transcript, in RTF format would really, really be desirable. Anyone know of a link to get such ?

    • Hi, Steve (in Seattle — sorry about that, heh),
      I just transcribed the above video only (Steyn). I don’t know what RTF format is, so, (shrug), FWIW… here ya go!
      Hope this is helpful to you. I (grr) started my little typing project before Mr. Robertson posted his link. Sure hope this wasn’t a COMPLETE waste of time.
      ***************************************************************
      Transcription by Janice Moore of Mark Steyn’s Remarks
      in youtube video: “Mark Steyn Rebukes Democrats in Climate Hearing”
      {emphases are mirroring Steyn’s inflection and also one particularly powerful phrase about “state ideology”}
      START STEYN
      “Thank you, Senator Cruz, I’m not a scientist. I’m an author. And I’m also one of the 7 billion people on this planet that the governments assembled in Paris currently are presuming to determine the future of. So, I have an interest in that as much as anybody else.
      I listened to the examples that Senator Peters and Senator Nelson gave of toxic infestation in Michigan water and tidal flooding in the streets of Miami Beach. Nothing agreed at Paris is going to do anything for that. If you expect the agreement at Paris to end the tidal flooding in Miami Beach, you’re going to be waiting a long time. If you want to do something about the tidal flooding in the streets of Miami Beach, the Mayor of Miami Beach and the Governor of Florida are the guys who should get together and do it.
      This body is called, I believe the full name is, The Sub-committee on Science, Space, and Competitiveness, and the most important competitiveness in any healthy society is competitiveness in ideas. That is how ideas are tested and that is how good ideas win out over bad. And only a very weak idea demands that it must be protected from any criticism. Professor Ivar Giaever {pronounced: “Jay-ver”}, the Nobel Prize winner, —
      — and by the way when I say that he was a “Nobel Prize winner,” he was a real one; he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973. Not a fraudulent Nobel Prize winner like, unfortunately, large members of Rear Admiral Titley’s faculty: Michael Mann, Richard Alley (sp?), William Easterly (sp?). All of whom have falsely claimed to be Nobel Prize winners on an industrial scale, as have many other climate scientists. There has never been a misrepresentation of credentials on this scale. It used to be a very serious business, but, apparently it’s not, when your cause is “saving the planet.” But, it is a revealing, it is, this misrepresentation of credentials by people falsely claiming to be Nobel laureates is revealing because it gets to the heart of the problem, here: that they are attempting to cloak the science in an authority that it does not in fact possess. –
      — At any rate, Professor Giaever has compared the global warming orthodoxy to a hypothesis that you’re not allowed to question. And it’s gone beyond that in recent years, it’s not only that you’re not allowed to falsify the hypothesis, the hypothesis is not in fact falsifiable, that if you do, you suffer serious consequences. Professor Christy and Professor Curry are very brave individuals and they were very mild in their remarks about what Congressman Rialva (sp?) did when he sent out a disgraceful letter that no citizen representative in a parliament of a free society should be sending out to free individuals, demanding things like: hotel expenses and e mail communication going back a decade. It was an absolutely disgraceful letter and it represents the next stage of Big Climate enforcement.
      Your colleague, Senator Whitehouse, has called for the RICO laws, laws about racketeering, to be used against those who disagree with him on climate science. When you need that, you’re not dealing with science, you’re effectively enforcing a state ideology. The attorney general of New York is currently using securities law to do an end-run around the First Amendment to chastise enemies of his who do not agree with him on the climate science. This, to take a milder example, Rear Admiral Titley has said that it is time, when it comes to global warming, that “it’s time for the politicking to stop.” Well, when you’re calling for “the politicking to stop,” that is itself “politicking.” Such as the Democrats on this committee who appeared at a press conference a couple of hours ago under a sign saying, “the debate is ended.”
      I learned from Canada in the battle I fought over free speech that Senator Cruz mentioned, I learned to always listen very carefully when someone is telling you to “shut-up.” And although Rear Admiral Titley and the Democrat senators are doing it far more politely than Senator Whitehouse and Congressman Rialvo (sp?) and the attorney general of New York, what they’re telling you is: that this idea is so weak that it cannot be subjected to the normal vigorous debate of free society.
      So, I thank this sub-committee for allowing {us to} at least, to recognize that there is a divergence of opinion, that the science is not settled, and the climate system of this planet is too complex for the slogans of cartoon climatology we’re currently seeing in Paris.
      Thank you, very much.
      End.

      • Let me add a quote from Richard Feynman, from “The Meaning Of It All”:
        “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”

      • Dear Eyesonu,
        You are so very welcome. Please let me know (hopefully I’ll see it! — I don’t read EVERY thread) if you ever need that done again. Hey, I know what — you can ask a mod to give you my e mail — just let me know what you need transcribed. I would be happy to do that for you.
        And I am grateful that you let me know that my effort was not, after all, in vain.
        #(:))
        Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah!,
        Janice

  10. One point I would make is that Steyn misses a great chance to respond to the 97% claim midway through the hearing. The 97% claim is used over and over and over again. Yet no one says wait a minute let me tell you about how that number was derived. I listened to Cruz roast Sierra Club president Mair. Mair was so flustered his only response at least 6 times in a row was 97%, 97%, 97%, ad nauseam. In the last 5 or so minutes of the Mair roast that was the only response that Mair could muster. It reminded m,e of someone taking the 5th as a way to not answer a direct question in a hearing.This is an important point to counter when it is so consistently used by the alarmists. In a broadcast event like the Senate hearing you have a floor to make that point to many who have never heard the details before.

  11. How I would have loved to spar with those warmist Senators and that Admiral.
    All they have to offer is one logical fallacy after another, mixed in with a few facts, which give just tiny measure of the whole truth.

  12. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
    This congressional testimony from the brilliant Mark Steyn is indeed a-must-watch.

  13. Mr. Steyn did a great job and I commend him for that. I listenend to an interview with Senator Cruz on NPR by Inskeep and was very disturbed with the way he phrazed some of his questions in what appeared to be biased towards the alarmist cause. There are also programs on this same station that only give the alarmist view. As this station is government subsidized and is required to be neutral. I would vote to stop any subsidies for NPR going forward. I do not want my tax dollars used to mislead the people.

      • You would have to break that finance chat down further to know the truth. A few Corporations or individuals could fund 30% of the overall funding. Combine that with left wing university funding, left wing government funding, and you get an overall propaganda machine for a very narrow political view. Money talks. The 1.5 Trillion green machine buys voices. NPR is by no means neutral on global warming. But then, neither is the NYT etc.

  14. My own opinion on second-hand smoke being significantly harmful is this: If second-hand smoke were significantly harmful, there wouldn’t be any by virtue of there being almost no first-hand smokers – they having died within a year or two of taking up the practice.
    On the basis of logic a fair hypothesis.

    • Dear Peyelut,
      I have no idea of the health effects of second hand cigarette smoke.
      I do know that I think of it as similar to vomiting on someone else.
      And smokers [“first hand smokers”], while dying earlier than non-smokers [average life expectancy for smokers in the US is 64,] don’t die within a year or two of taking up the habit.
      So the logic is wrong and therefore it’s not a fair hypothesis.
      Kit Carruthers’ linking of smoking -health with the CO2- climate change/AGW/whatever the next term will be argument is now common with warmists.
      Because you dispute this you must dispute this other thing, and that shows you are a redneck in the pay of international pariahs !

  15. Steyn made an excellent presentation and is the topic of this discussion.
    Can we drop the OT smoking and second hand smoke topic. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt to divert the thread.

  16. After watching the last of the hearing just now, I would add that Mr Steyn although he does well early on, he makes an error with the position he takes at 2:04. That portion was too tangential to the overall topic, and could potentially be interpreted as being anti-Muslim. Mr Cruz at the end of Mr Steyn’;s remarks looks to me like he was wincing inside. He then says “..well we will leave that for now..” and then goes on to talk further about a graph to his right side. I suppose it must be hard when on the spot to always stick close to the track.
    Then as the hearing winds down once again the 97% of all scientists agree is used several more times to finish the alarmists argument. No one ever corrected them on that argument so it would appear to have validity to anyone watching. Mr Booker ends with “…well if we had 97 scientists to sit here with you 3 scientists then that would be appropriate to how the majority sees the global warming issue..”. Next time that needs to be refuted.

  17. At the very moment this hearing was taking place, scientists at Harvard were working on DNA extracted from mammoths recently uncovered from the frozen tundra in Siberia about 3,600 years ago. Since these mammoths eat prodigious amounts of vegetative matter, it implies a long-term climate that supports such flora. So a mere 3,600 years ago we had a climate that was far warmer than it currently is. And this November was a record warm year? Not in my record book.

  18. Freedom of speech is key to exposing corruption. The hearts and minds of the public fed only devised propaganda is an agenda, but will fail when those with clarification are able to speak.

  19. This video makes a lasting impression for anyone and everyone. Even for those it forces to try and get people to ignore it. And it naturally leads to anyone being able to step back and add perspective that alarmism cannot tolerate. (Also better than Steyn’s question to Markey in the other video as to whether Markey or his family were at Plymouth Rock in the other video. We know where Steyn was coming from only because we already knew where he was coming from. Debunking cherry picked weather from all over the place is difficult off the cuff and doing so in that manner didn’t exactly reach home. Actually, that kind of debunking is where this website comes in. Unfortunately, the misdirection is already achieved by then. Something to work on for the likes of Steyn.)

  20. Perhaps someone has done this already, but it should make sense to pull all the IPCC reports and publications over time to document how their story has changed. No need for counterargument, no need for opposing scientific papers. Simply document their predictions, conflicting alarmist warnings (temperatures will increase by 7 degrees, no 4 degrees, no 2 degrees, no wait, 1 degree, etc.).
    Document the flattening of historical data over time (there was at least one early IPCC report which still showed the Medieval Warming Period.
    Document the heating up of more recent historical data (which they’ll have to cool 5 years from now to show more warming.
    I know all of this has been done piecemeal here and there, but could be done in a very straightforward manner without a lot of the accompanying noise.
    At the end of the day, it should be possible to produce a product that shows that the IPCC simply doesn’t have a straight story, constantly revises history, and constantly modifies it’s projections toward the less drastic.

    • Sounds like a good idea Justin. I’m too lazy to even try it. I’m afraid that for some, no amount of evidence will convince them. For a good example look at this link to the history of the seventh day adventist http://www.eaec.org/cults/seventhdayadvent.htm . As a small child I was taken to a seventh day adventist church by my step grandmother. I don’t remember how many times I attended. I told my mother I didn’t want to go and that was the end of it. I always thought it was BS even at 9 or 10 years old.

  21. “John F. Hultquist December 9, 2015 at 5:09 pm
    Caligulajones 1:36 pm
    My mother was a smoker and died of lung cancer. Dad quit at age 40 and died of other causes at 86. Oldest brother died younger, also other, but also smoked. Now three of us – 83, 75, 72 – all going strong or ailments are not lung related.”
    And my brother hit a parked car on his snowmobile doing 60 mph and lived.
    Not sure, but I think the point is: some people are just lucky. Or have good genes.
    I personally don’t want to try smoking or hitting a car at that speed to find out.

  22. Thank god for the voices who dare question the so-called experts. Yes, Mark Steyn, this is still a free society thanks to those who stand up for freedom such as yourself.

  23. Wow! What a bunch of arrogant strutting peacocks.
    From Senator Peters whining about an unbalanced hearing to Senator Nelson’s idiotic statement that the pro climate change side was being censored, I had all I could do just to sit through it all. Not to mention the obsequiousness of Admiral Titley. “Thank you for the question, Senator.” “Thank you for the question, Senator.” “Thank you for the question, Senator.”
    And did you notice how Admiral Titley couldn’t answer the question about what percentage of warming is caused by humans? All he could say was, “a significant amount”. He couldn’t give a number. I don’t know why he didn’t just make one up like they usually do.
    Then towards the end, Senator Peters said so proudly that there was no censorship at this hearing. Yeah, well, there would have been if not for Senator Cruz. Both Senators Markey and Schatz tried to prevent Dr. Curry from responding to statements that she disagreed with.
    It doesn’t matter what the issue is, the left always tries to shut the other side up.

Comments are closed.