Tables turned: Scientist Judith Curry and Author Mark Steyn question, school Sen Markey on climate

Hearing: Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate
US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Dr. Curry ask to respond to “denier” charge from Sen. Markey, and cites IPCC in her testimony. Steyn spars with Sen. Markey while Markey acts like he’s an authoritarian on the issue.

More video to follow.

Advertisements

279 thoughts on “Tables turned: Scientist Judith Curry and Author Mark Steyn question, school Sen Markey on climate

  1. “Steyn spars with Sen. Markey while Markey acts like he’s an authoritarian on the issue.”

    Oh, Markey is definitely an authoritarian, just not an authority. Typo or truth? :)

      • Markey was there to school Judith Curry in science? And then he uses 97% of scientists and calls her a denier!!! Markey has no idea that majority rule is not part of the scientific method and his warmest year on record is only 135 year record and the difference between the warmest year and the 10 th warmest year is just over one tenth of a degree. . I especially thought his scolding his grandparents for coming late to America was the sign of nasty arrogance by a person who really didn’t know what he was talking about but instead was using talking points.

  2. Unbelievable: foaming at the mouth Senator denies science.

    At 3:33 of this video, watch the spittle foam on Markey’s lips as he babbles about ocean warming intensifying the amount of water in the air.

      • The biggest thing it shows is that ocean heat accumulated at 0.5W/m^2, but direct forcing from CO2 was 1.9W/m^2. So 74% of the direct forcing was rejected to space. Sensitivity is 0.26x, not 3x.

    • That was the most telling moment of the entire exchange when he was visibly foaming while spitting out his careless lies.

    • Well you don’t actually need ocean warming to get more water in the atmosphere.

      And that is a key point that ” skeptics ” need to keep in their mind.

      Remember that the amount of water vapor (H2O) that the atmosphere (air) can hold, depends on the Temperature of that ATMOSPHERE. It does not directly depend on the Temperature of the water (ocean).

      The Temperature of the water (ocean) does affect the ability of the ocean to supply more water to the atmosphere, but so long as the relative humidity is below 100%, then the air is capable of holding more water if it can get it.

      Now we all (most of us) do believe that the CO2 and other GHG absorption of outgoing LWIR radiant energy does ultimately result in ATMOSPHERIC warming, and therefore can lead to more water in the atmosphere.

      Where a mental block can occur, is that it is not at all apparent just how a warmer ATMOSPHERE (at least to me), can lead to a warmer ocean.

      Conduction and convection in the atmosphere, would seem to be barred by the second law from the net transfer of HEAT (noun) energy to the ocean which is often at a higher Temperature than the air.
      Downward LWIR radiation would all be captured in the top 5-50 microns of water surface, and lead to higher evaporation, which would actually cool the surface thin layer. So it is not at all clear that a warmer atmosphere can warm the ocean, by transferring atmospheric energy in any form to the ocean water. But increased evaporation is possible without warmer water, when the atmosphere is unsaturated as to relative humidity.

      Now I am NOT claiming that a warmer ATMOSPHERE can NOT warm the ocean.

      It is just not clear to me how that might work except in some special sort of circumstances.

      Now if the ocean does warm up by whatever means, then that of course should lead to greater atmospheric water. But it doesn’t have to warm up. to create cloud feedback cooling on the surface.

      G

      • My point being, that a warming atmosphere is not indicative of Kevin Trenberth’s mysterious missing heat hiding in the ocean. It ain’t there at all, if the ocean doesn’t in fact warm in response to atmospheric warming.

        g

      • Finally! Someone other than myself points out that CO2 emitted LWIR CANNOT influence anything but INCREASED evaporation rates which, as you said, actually cools the body of water.

      • Exactly George. The ocean is where AGW drowns in the first few microns. Every combined SST & land temp chart “proving” AGW is meaningless because LWIR/CO2 can’t heat water. Karl’s study levers SST to erase the pause, but this only disproves AGW and affirms the sun and natural climate variability.

        Climate science makes the Myan rituals look like empirical studies. It truly is mind boggling how 30,000 people can spend the people’s money hunting unicorns and drinking expensive wine while cheered on by millions of useful idiots.

      • george e. smith,

        Downward LWIR radiation would all be captured in the top 5-50 microns of water surface, and lead to higher evaporation, which would actually cool the surface thin layer.

        What happened to the temperature of the water when it first absorbed the IR?

        Now I am NOT claiming that a warmer ATMOSPHERE can NOT warm the ocean.

        Since you’ve ruled out DWIR from the atmosphere as an ocean heating mechanism due to limited penetration distance, one wonders why kinetic energy transfers from atmospheric gas molecules bouncing off the surface are not similarly limited.

        tomcourt,

        Has anyone done a desktop experiment on this?

        Yes:

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

      • Thank you for pointing out that the air temperature hasn’t risen AND that you failed to read a proofed, double verified and peer reviewed paper about how evaporation actually works…

      • FTOP_T writes: “LWIR/CO2 can’t heat water”

        That’s not true, even sort of. CO2 doesn’t heat water, but IR does. Water absorbs IR very efficiently. Any IR that makes it though the troposphere will be absorbed by the ocean and also by any other water on the planet’s surface exposed to it. Water absorbs infrared radiation.

        What you’ve written is a mistake.

      • I realize that there are more immediate things to be worried about.
        Unfortunately, the undercover erosion of the values that most people are used to is taking place with many of these social justice groups. Here’s a link, not meant to scare you but to give you a sense of gravity as to their organization, affiliations and desires.

        Consider ISIS acute and these guys a chronic illness.

        http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/

      • @Brandon,

        That link is propaganda. The experiment measured clouds (which hold latent heat from evaporation) as a proxy for CO2 heating. Didn’t measure temperature change, but “forcing” and then claimed they “proved” that since cloud cover holds heat, CO2 can heat the ocean.

        Typical climastrology, big on conjecture with little to no empirical evidence

      • @bartleby

        No IR is absorbed in the first few microns and can only enhance evaporation. Look at a graph of evaporation and skin temperature profile. The only way to heat the ocean is by SW which can penetrate at depth.

        LWIR “heating” the ocean is pseudo-science. Physics won’t allow it.

        Fill a thimble with water (representing 5 micron layer of water) heat it to any temperature you like, put a thermometer 1 meter deep in your pool. Now pour the thimble in your pool and record the temperature change. Do this every day for a year under all different weather conditions. Let me know the day when it causes a 1C temp change. Show your work and write back when you are done.

      • George,
        Conduction, convection, radiation, evapotransportion, and even back radiation, do NOT add net energy to the ocean (heat transfer is up if the air is cooler). However, the effect of the back radiation is to act as a partial radiation insulation, and slow loss of radiation net energy transfer up, resulting in the absorbed sunlight heating the ocean to a slightly higher temperature to restore balance of input sunlight to net energy transport up. It is actually more complicated than just that, as the lapse rate and location of radiation to space also enter the balance equation.

      • FTOP_T,

        The experiment measured clouds (which hold latent heat from evaporation) as a proxy for CO2 heating.

        Clouds are better LW absorbers than clear atmosphere, as such they are also better LW emitters. Sounds like a good proxy and an elegant experimental protocol to me.

        Didn’t measure temperature change, but “forcing” and then claimed they “proved” that since cloud cover holds heat, CO2 can heat the ocean.

        Vertical axis of that plot is in units of K, which is temperature.

        Typical climastrology, big on conjecture with little to no empirical evidence

        Where’s your empirical evidence in support of your conjecture?

        Oh, and I’d really been enjoying this subthread for the lack of name calling on both sides.

      • George says: “Conduction and convection in the atmosphere, would seem to be barred by the second law from the net transfer of HEAT (noun) energy to the ocean which is often at a higher Temperature than the air.”

        FTOP_T says “LWIR/CO2 can’t heat water. ”

        The laws of physics seem to say that IR cannot heat the ocean directly.

        brandon posts a link that seems to explain this connundrum.
        The hypothesis is that the IR heats the very thin surface layer, which reduces the temperature gradient accross this thin layer. The layer acts as an insulator, slowing the transfer of heat from the deeper layers to the atmosphere. It is simple to understand that if this occurs, then all else being equal, the ocean will be warmer than it would have been if it lost more heat to the atmosphere. The IR does not heat the ocean dorectly, but it affects the heat flux resulting in more heat staying in the ocean, and therefore a warmer ocean.

        Is this mechanism plausible? Yes indeed. They did an experiment showing more IR led to lower temperature gradients and therefore reduced heat flux.

        Does this prove that increased CO2 heats the ocean? Indeed not. What it does prove is that warmer oceans as a result of increased CO2 are consistent with the laws of physics. The objections about IR only penetrating the surface few microns is not proof that CO2 cannot result in warmer oceans.

        FTOP_T then says “The experiment measured clouds (which hold latent heat from evaporation) as a proxy for CO2 heating. Didn’t measure temperature change, but “forcing” and then claimed they “proved” that since cloud cover holds heat, CO2 can heat the ocean.”

        This is wrong. the experiment doid not “measure” clouds (whatever that would mean). They measured incident IR (or IR in). The clouds simply provide a variation in the IR. Since the experiment was intended to study the effects of IR, it does not matter if the source is clouds or CO2. They measure temperature of the surface, and temperatur below the surface. From the surface temperture the calculated IR out. the difference between IR in and IR out is the IR forcing. The question is, is there a relationship between IR forcing and temperarture gradient? If there is, then this is evidence supporting the hypothesis that IR forcing can reduce the heat flux from the deeper ocean. Hence anything that increases IR forcing, such as CO2, may lead to warmer oceans.

        The measurements revealed there was indeed suchg a relationship, and thus the mechanism is plausible.

        I do not know what FTOP_T thinks they measured, but it was actually something different, and has nothing to do with latent heat. They very much did not find just that the surface was warmer when there were clouds.

      • seaice1,

        The hypothesis is that the IR heats the very thin surface layer, which reduces the temperature gradient across this thin layer. The layer acts as an insulator, slowing the transfer of heat from the deeper layers to the atmosphere. It is simple to understand that if this occurs, then all else being equal, the ocean will be warmer than it would have been if it lost more heat to the atmosphere. The IR does not heat the ocean directly, but it affects the heat flux resulting in more heat staying in the ocean, and therefore a warmer ocean.

        That is my exact understanding of the mechanism.

        Does this prove that increased CO2 heats the ocean? Indeed not.

        It really should not be controversial for all parties here to accept that DWSR from the sun is the primary energy input for the entire planet, including the oceans.

        The objections about IR only penetrating the surface few microns is not proof that CO2 cannot result in warmer oceans.

        Especially when one considers another implication of limited LW penetration in water relative to SW : it precludes radiative energy loss at depth but not radiative energy gain at depth. That means ocean temps are very sensitive to change in net energy fluxes (radiative, sensible and latent) at the surface.

        The clouds [in the experiment] simply provide a variation in the IR. Since the experiment was intended to study the effects of IR, it does not matter if the source is clouds or CO2. […] From the surface temperature the calculated IR out. the difference between IR in and IR out is the IR forcing.

        Bingo.

        The question is, is there a relationship between IR forcing and temperature gradient?

        That’s what the positive slope of the regression line in the plot is suggesting.

        I’ve been waiting for someone to point out that the absolute y values of the data points on the plot are overwhelmingly negative, indicating net cooling across the skin layer.

        If there is, then this is evidence supporting the hypothesis that IR forcing can reduce the heat flux from the deeper ocean. Hence anything that increases IR forcing, such as CO2, may lead to warmer oceans.

        I do not know what FTOP_T thinks they measured, but it was actually something different, and has nothing to do with latent heat. They very much did not find just that the surface was warmer when there were clouds.

        They didn’t find at all that the surface was warmer when there were clouds, they found that the temperature gradient across the skin layer was lower as net DWLR increased. I should have been more clear about that in my previous post, you did a much better job of it.

        In sum, the lower the temperature gradient across the skin layer, the lower the rate of heat loss — exactly as written in your opening paragraph.

      • @Brandon

        I understand the experiment focused on isolating DWLIR and using clouds (water vapor) as the variable GHG to measure.

        The study also concedes that CO2 at 2w/m has 1/50 the potential DWLIR of the actual GHG “measured” (water vapor) at 100 w/m

        The experiment derived a .002 slope change between skin surface temp and 5cm. Let’s assume the experiment could actually uncover this trace signal, which I doubt.

        First, why didn’t they calculate the impact out for CO2 based on this proxy? To calculate CO2 as the variable, we would divide by 50 and derive a slope of .00004.

        Since the most significant cooling mechanism of the ocean is evaporation, what would have more impact, a .05% change in relative humidity or CO2?

        It is funny how CO2 warms the ocean always devolves into “it slows cooling”

        I also enjoy discussions withou ad hominem as well. Although when it comes to the blatant falsehoods of Mann and others, no quarter is given.

      • Thanks, George. A couple of points. First, you say:

        george e. smith December 9, 2015 at 1:59 pm

        Now we all (most of us) do believe that the CO2 and other GHG absorption of outgoing LWIR radiant energy does ultimately result in ATMOSPHERIC warming, and therefore can lead to more water in the atmosphere.

        While you are free to speak for yourself, you are not authorized to speak for all of us or even “most of us”. I see no EVIDENCE that increased levels of CO2 “does ultimately result in ATMOSPHERIC warming” as you claim, and if there were such evidence, the climate debate would be very, very different.

        Now I am NOT claiming that a warmer ATMOSPHERE can NOT warm the ocean.

        It is just not clear to me how that might work except in some special sort of circumstances.

        Easy. The transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere is a function inter alia of the ocean-air temperature difference ∆T. If ∆T goes down, say because of a warmer atmosphere, then heat loss from the ocean to the atmosphere will also drop.

        And in turn, this will leave the ocean warmer than it would be with a cooler atmosphere.

        Now, I’m not making any claims about the likelihood of any of this. I’m just saying that a warmer atmosphere can also lead directly to a warmer ocean, despite the fact that the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean.

        w.

      • Correction.

        The experiment is calculating a slope in w/m2 of .002.

        Thus CO2 could theoretically reduce the .1 difference in skin layer to 5cm by .008 with .004 being attributed to AGW. I am suspect that this signal could be derived on a perfectly flat ocean surface, let alone a turbulent one.

        The title of the article is “Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean” That is not defensible from this experiment

      • FTOP_T,

        First, why didn’t they calculate the impact out for CO2 based on this proxy?

        I can only guess, and my first one is that extending the results of one in situ experiment to the entire globe across all local weather conditions wouldn’t yield very robust results.

        The study also concedes that CO2 at 2w/m has 1/50 the potential DWLIR of the actual GHG “measured” (water vapor) at 100 w/m

        FWIW, that’s 4 W/m^2 for the change in CO2 from pre-industrial times, so 1/25.

        Since the most significant cooling mechanism of the ocean is evaporation, what would have more impact, a .05% change in relative humidity or CO2?

        Pretty sure the answer is that the percent change in relative humidity wins that one. What’s the relevance to the topic of whether DWLR affects ocean temperature?

        It is funny how CO2 warms the ocean always devolves into “it slows cooling”.

        Perhaps you could point out where I wrote “CO2 warms the ocean” or “it slows cooling” because I’m not finding either.

      • Willis,

        I see no EVIDENCE that increased levels of CO2 “does ultimately result in ATMOSPHERIC warming” …

        What sort of evidence would you need to see?

    • Markey blamed the Boston snow on increased moisture due to global warming. This was totally debunked by empirical evidence (they melted the snow and determined precipitation was only slightly higher than normal). It was a massive snowfall in depth due to amplification from extreme cold which causes very dry and very deep snow like Boston saw.

      Mann and Trenberth supported this absurd theory ( Markey literally spewed) in the press and Joe Bastardi called them out on it. I guess if you can misrepresent Nobel credentials, spreading other falsehoods is chump change.

      Just like the 97% meme, these climate crackpots never have to admit their lies only repeat them.

      • FTOP_T writes: “Markey blamed the Boston snow on increased moisture due to global warming.”

        Taken out of context it’s difficult to really understand this comment, however assuming global warming actually existed, which according to our satellite instruments is not true, then it might actually be responsible for increased precipitation, both as rain and as snow.

        But you have to show warming first, which hasn’t been done.

      • http://weatherworksinc.com/Your-Guide-to-Snow-Ratio

        Snow has a ratio caused by temperature. The Boston snow had a 30:1 ratio. Scientists actually melted it. They also looked at total precipitation and it was only 20% higher than normal. It’s called empirical evidence. The colder it is the higher the ratio. Boston got a lot of snow because it was COLD!!!

        Trenberth and Mann claimed it was caused by warm air in the Atlantic in WaPo. They are either incompetent or purposely misleading the public. Markey regurgitated this falsehood.

        The leading IPCC scientists are anti-science. Sad.

      • The precipitation in Virginia has been somewhat below average this year. More some places and less others are a sign of natural variation. You can’t have it both ways and call both proof of global warming due to human activity.

  3. Judith Curry, you are my hero! Thank you for standing up to these idiot (putting it nicely) politicians. What I don’t understand is how Senator Markey does not understand how HE is the one denying science. Just unbelievable. Thanks to Scientist Curry for letting him show us how stupid he is.

    • Game. set. match Louise.

      A politician attempting to school a scientist on science. What is wrong in that picture.

      Come before our inquisition and dare to deny our religion.

    • Ed Markey has been Co-Chairman of the GLOBE International Commission on Climate & Energy Security. Globe has close links with the Club of Rome whose Co-President, Ashok Khosla, is a member of Globe International and President of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It has become a de facto unofficial world government, whose members agree measures on behalf of the UN and then take those measures back to their own countries and seek to enact legislation to implement them.

      Scroll down the page to see Ed Markey as Co-chair with his Chinese counterpart:

      http://globelegislators.org/about-globe/25-globe-international

      “Without the burden of formal governmental negotiating positions, legislators have the freedom to push the boundaries of what can be politically achieved. GLOBE’s vision is to create a critical mass of legislators within each of the parliaments of the major economies that can agree common legislative responses to the major global environmental challenges and demonstrate to leaders that there is cross-party support for more ambitious action. All major government policy decisions should be consistent with climate change goals.”

  4. Whatever the conduct of the senators, at least the US Senate still manages to hold openly controversial hearings like this. This would be unthinkable in the parliaments of most other countries.

    • @Michael Palmer:

      here in Canada there was none of that even with the Conservative Party in charge.

      Actually, there was (not sure if there still is, under the “new regime”, though) It was known as the Canadian Senate Committee on Energy,the Environment and Natural Resources. Back in 2011, I actually had a link to the full video on a Cdn gov. site via this post.

      Ross McKitrick was one of the presenters and, in my books he’s always worth a listen.

      Alas, sometime in the last four years, the Govt of Canada, in its infinite wisdom, decided to relocate the full video beyond the reach of anyone’s mouse, notwithstanding (ain’t that a Great Canadian word, eh?!) that which can be found via:

      http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&eventid=7941&Language=E#

      But all is not lost, thanks to the foresight of Tom Harris who had uploaded McKitrick’s (approx 10 minutes of) testimony to the ‘tube:

  5. If we could go back in history to be a fly on the wall during during the Spanish Inquisitions, I bet we would see the same spittle-flecked zealotry from the bishops as we now see from Sen Market et al.

    And both the religious zealots and the agw zealots have just as much evidence, logic and practicality supporting them,

  6. I just finished watching this segment. Ed Markey is a FRACKING moron. The Steyn-Curry double-teaming of Markey was AWESOME!!!

    • Ed Markey obviously suffers from the same left wing Ed Syndrome as the two Eds in the UK, who did not have a clue about climate science, relied on sound bites and caused such huge economic damage:

      Ed Milliband – previous Labour Party leader and architect of the UK’s disastrous Climate Change Act, and

      Ed Davey – previous Liberal Democrat Minister of Climate Change.

      When people are clueless about a subject, they tend to rant to try and hide their ignorance, which is what I saw in the video clip, a classic case of cluelessness.

      • Peter Miller:

        You say

        Ed Markey obviously suffers from the same left wing Ed Syndrome as the two Eds in the UK, who did not have a clue about climate science, relied on sound bites and caused such huge economic damage:

        Ed Milliband – previous Labour Party leader and architect of the UK’s disastrous Climate Change Act, and

        Ed Davey – previous Liberal Democrat Minister of Climate Change.

        Really? The “two Eds” merely continued what Margaret Thatcher had started and her Conservative (Tory) Party had continued.

        Adoption of the “UK’s disastrous Climate Change Act” was supported by the Tories and only three Members of the Commons voted against it. Also, the Tories are the present UK government and they don’t intend to repeal the Act.

        Ed Davey was the Minister of Climate Change of the Tory/Liberal coalition government and the Liberals were the minority Party in that Government; i.e. the Tories with Liberal support appointed Ed Davey as the Minister of Climate Change.

        So, according to you, Margaret Thatcher and the Tories “obviously suffers from the same left wing Ed Syndrome as the two Eds”. In reality you are trying to mislead American readers into thinking that the UK has similar ‘left v. right’ division about ‘climate change’ as that which uniquely exists in the US. In fact there is not a ‘left v. right’ division about ‘climate change’ in the UK.

        Richard

  7. Markey is still mad about not getting the pot of gold carbon tax passed, aka pot of gold and redistributive wealth fund. Obama pledged to continue the fight after the bill was pulled. Only white hot phone lines to congress stopped the bill. They still smell blood (money) in the water after that episode.

  8. Scientist make the mistake of thinking that truth will out. Sadly, rhetoric has much more influence on what the public believes than truth does. Politicians need not be expert in anything but rhetoric. I watched much of the hearing and it did not go nearly as well for truth as one might have hoped.

    • Rhetoric, and the well funded influence which determines which rhetoric gets heard. I’m still not sure how many decades it will be until this is flushed out of middle school text books. And that process won’t begin until this thing is blown wide open. It has some cracks now, but geez… it’s going to take the NOAA or NASA getting busted to gain that kind of traction.

    • All politicians care about is the opportunity for corruption and graft. In other words, show me the money.

  9. Markey won’t learn because he is an ideologue. He chaired the committee asking Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chair, what happened to cause the 2008 crash. Greenspan simply said, my model was wrong. When asked how long he had used the model Greenspan replied 40 years. The IPCC models are pushing 30 and equally wrong.

    • Markey is the tool who pushed the Obama Admin to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2011. He pressed the Bush admin repeatedly to stop filling the SPR in 2008. Markey has repeatedly in the past demonstrated he is a socialist who believes Government should control the energy market in toto.

      Markey won John Kerry’s senate seat when Kerry became SecState. A classic case of going from bad to worse.

      • Much of the high power academic support for CAGW/CO2 can be found in the group known as the Intellectual Elite of the Boston area. Markey’s old 7th district is well aligned with those folk.

        If you pick apart his talking points and compare to the NGOs and elite school groups statements they often have the same content and flavor.

        A major giveaway is his attempt to link natural variability to being blinded by allegience in God at 2:35.
        This is a classic undercurrent in the Intellectual Elite battle with the GOP.

  10. Wow … natural variability was sneakily converted to God-made by Markey.
    You could tell by the cadence of his delivery that he KNEW what he was doing.

    • He knew what he was doing… He just didn’t know anything about the science not written into his talking points.

      • Ah yes, the “talking points”.
        Much like Benghazi, it would be worthwhile to see who prepares the talking points for various politicians.
        It would be worthwhile to see the cross connections of the reviewers and the origination of the messages.

      • Gallileo shot himself in the foot by not leaving it as a scientific theory but trying to make it theological as well ie. What God said in the Bible.

      • Note well that Galileo was exonerated in…. Wait for it! 1967. You can see that the “revolution” that every one is expecting to overturn the Synod of Climate Bishop’s could be a long time coming.

      • Actually Galileo brought it on himself not by the science but in his writing where the official church view was expressed by a character named ‘Simplicio’ which was felt to be mocking the Pope. Up til then his long time friend, Urban VIII, had protected him, once he did this he was in trouble.

      • Phil,

        Thanks for bringing some historical fact on Gallileo. I’ve always thought it is one of the most misrepresented pieces of history we hear so often. It wasn’t that he was challenging the consensus regarding the science, it was his perceived challenge to the authority of the Church and the Pope.

        Supposedly Gallileo was a rather disagreeable fellow and regularly pissed of his contempories.

  11. What an a$$ole Markey is. BUT he managed to divert the argument away from IPCC, which he couldn’t defend to something he could by appealling to authority.

  12. The overwhelming consensus of Scientific witnesses (100% of climate scientists) agreed that the satellite was the best temperature measurement and that it showed no warming in 18 or so years.

    For some reason the alarmists don’t seem to like that consensus. I just can’t understand why they’ve gone off consensus so quickly.

    • ” I just can’t understand why they’ve gone off consensus so quickly.”
      I would venture to say because they realized they ‘cannot get there from here.’ [Blows the agenda.]

  13. Two people in the exchange were accurately quoting scientific evidence, one was misquoting from his hymnal. Sane objective folks would have no difficulty identifying each, but the members of the choir will just keep singing along.

  14. Paraphrase….
    “40% of the warming in the 20th century was from 1900 to 1950 before CO2 was a factor”

    Great fact. Just need to keep repeating the facts. Stick to the data, avoid $hit slinging contests.

    Amazing the insults to such a distinguished scientist. Can’t stoop to that level.

    • To make the warming still continue they are adjusting the data to make those years even cold, thus making the warming continue, but then they are still saying most of the warming happened before when CO2 was a factor. Even when trying to save themselves they are dooming themselves.

  15. Sorry guys. Markey came off very well and got the best of Prof. Curry… when he brought up the “warmest year” issues she should have asked if he knows what El Nino is and the effect t had on temperatures in ’97-98… maybe that was implicit in her mention of natural factors but it was so vague that there was no impact. She should have challenged him on the data series as well, since ’14 was not the hottest in the satellite record.

    Steyn acted like a blowhard and was all over the place.

    • Markey came across as an arrogant jerk. Watching him smear one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world as a “denier” was one of the most arrogant and contemptible things I’ve seen in many years. He’s nothing but a latter day Joe McCarthy.

      • You’re tone deaf. 2014-15 as the hottest years is probably the only climate news the public knows about. It was a Home run for Markey and there was no answer from Curry. She was caught on her heels. Sorry.

      • The planet has been warming for at least 19,000 years, to the benefit of humanity. A lack of “hottest years on record” would suggest a possible reversal of the trend, which would truly be a disaster for much of the planet’s population.

      • Sarastro is correct. Even though Markey comes off as arrogant, he got the air time and his warmest year line and unusual warm water – cause of heavy snow line is what the media and casual observers are most likely to remember.

        Think about it this way. Markey comes off as a clown to most of us. Yet the voters in Mass continue to elect him every term. The average voter is the target audience and unless they are predisposed to a low opinion of Markey, they were not all that certain to take away from the exchange that he was punked by Judith and mark Steyn.

    • Markey came off as the twit he is. He never responded to Curry and as far as I could tell, never got her name right either – “Dr. Titly?” Forsooth. He demonstrated unswerving avoidance while making blanket, unqualified assertions. In fact he tried to level some of the same “faith” arguments against Curry that sceptics level at the AGW faithful.

    • Steyn acted like a blowhard and was all over the place.

      Don’t you mean he blew Markey all over the place?
      Kudos to Steyn for his support of Curry.
      What Markey said about her wasn’t on the video but she wanted to respond. He said, “I didn’t ask you a question.” in an attempt to shut her up. Steyn jumped in and the rest is what we heard and saw.
      (Markey reminded me of a less confused but no more knowledgeable Joe Biden.)

      • Markey drove home the climate news of the year and Curry had no answer (Steyn mindlessly flailed)… To the average American Markey was on point and Curry was left stammering. That was obvious to any impartial observer.

      • sarastro92 December 9, 2015 at 2:38 pm Edit
        You’re tone deaf. 2014-15 as the hottest years is probably the only climate news the public knows about. It was a Home run for Markey and there was no answer from Curry. She was caught on her heels. Sorry.

        You may have missed where she pointed out that NOAA acknowledged that the “warmest year on record” had a 32% confidence level (68% chance of being wrong) and that NOAA’s error bars were clearly not broad enough. She also pointed out that the HadCRUT reconstruction did not agree with NOAA as to the warmest year on record.

        This strawman was shot down several times by Curry and Steyn at various points in the nearly 3 hour hearing.

      • sarastro92-
        The average American won’t ever see the video, nor will many impartial observers. Nor does the average American really care if global temps were hundredths of a degree warmer. Climate change falls almost dead last among American concerns, and the only group that American’s trust less than scientists right now is politicians. So Barkey will be ignored.

      • Aphan
        The average American or any other average citizen will not see or be interested in the hearing. This is fortunate. If they were following all this stuff agw might be a concern instead of last on their list of worries. It is, however important to keep blasting and calling out politicized science at such hearings, to the press, to academia to your neighbours etc. I have had some success talking to people who raise the topic as if it were a foregone established finding. Most never think to question it but are happy to hear it disputed.

    • So, sarasota, you seem to think that scoring points is more important than telling the truth.

      IOW you are just another push-the-narrative-at-any cost-proglodyte.

      Tell me, how do YOU or Markey or anyone else make the “warmest on record” claim without acknowledging that the global records using uniform measurements taken by calibrated instruments in orbit have been yielding data only since 1979?

      Please produce standardized temperature data taken all over the planet before then.

      PLEASE tell us how all those multi-ton dinosaurs survived on a cooler earth, just for starters.

      Then explain the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warming periods, the latter being something Mann said he had to “get rid of”.

      EXPLAIN! Right here>>>>

      Or just STeffU.

      As for Steyn: he was a witness, yet he put Markey on the defensive, making him answer rather than be the interrogator.

      • I DON’T BELIEVE claims that 2014-15 was “the warmest ever”… but Curry did not have an answer. That’s obvious.

        In the video clip presented a US Senator made a claim about climate that is widely repeated and believed by most people and Prof Curry did not dent that claim. And that’s unfortunate, because the clip could be played before wider audiences, and it appears that the Claim that ’14-15 are the warmest on record could not be refuted in any convincing manner by a prominent skeptical scientist.

        I hope this clip is dead and buried… but it was not a good performance in front of a mainstream audience. I have a nose for politics and journalism and that’s my judgement.

      • To claim its not the hottest year ever, Dr. Curry would have had to open a can of worms. Namely the manipulation of data. THIS is public!!!!! Dr Curry can not in a few moments that she is allowed list ALL of the information the public needs to see the truth. Making he statement with out having the time to carefully lay out the information would merely reinforce The “U.S. Senators claim. In stead Mr Steyn was able to step in and show that said Senator was lacking in the knowledge of the local history of the State he was elected to represent.
        Perhaps the next step should be a audit in to whether or not the good Senator has the education level to be part of the relevant committee. (I loathe such tests but for goodness sakes please know local history.)

        michael

      • Not going to argue how it came across to the less informed just a suggestion if someone asks you in the future.

        The best estimate of how the global temperature has changed comes from satellite data from 1979. Two different groups have employed them and both show a pause for 18 years. Prior to further adjustments in 2015, all temperature records showed that the warming over the past 18 years that was too low to be consistent with alarmist claims rather than zero.

      • Could also add

        Nobody denies that the globe warmed last century after a period that was once referred to as the Little Ice Age but the rate of warming in the second half was no greater than for a few decades in the first half, and now its much less. It doesn’t need to cool to debunk claims that the world is well on its way to catastrophic warming.

      • Robert B… too bad you weren’t responding to Markey’s assertion in the Senate sub-committe. Your answer is more convincing than the one that was given. Which is exactly my point.

      • Some of you really need to read and not shoot from the hip.

        It also might help to step outside your normal viewpoint (no matter how correct you think it is) and look at it from other points of the compass. That is what sarastro is doing. Doesn’t mean they agree with Markey’s position.

        Bottom line is that Markey’s comments are more likely to be dissemenated and heard than those of Steyn and Curry from this particular exchange.

        And before anyone decides to show their ass, my first comment in this thread was that I couldn’t watch the clip to the end because I couldn’t take any more of listening to Markey. I personally think the clown is anti-American and couldn’t pass a high school science test.

      • Had Curry responded to the stupidity about the “warmest ever,” the discussion – such as it was – would have descended into dueling data sets. Worse there is a methodological problem and the problem of methods employed. Markey is a lawyer and as such is well trained in how to debate substanceless issues. He can’t argue substance or science and was quite transparent in avoiding it. He could and did recast Curry as “antiscienc.” She could and did challenge his knowledge and every question she posed about his knowledge was avoided. Markey relied for his assertions on the adjusted NOAA Surface Stations data. Curry did not bother to assert that the satellite data disagrees, nor did she point out that the “adjustments” are trivial, falling within the estimated error of the actual measurements. What she exposed without overtly embarrassing Markey was that he had no familiarity with any science associated with climate, nor the major issues that really drive scepticism.

        Even Curry probably does not have a good handle on how justified the “adjustments” were, so expecting to debate that with Markey would be pointless. There is no necessary reason to question “adjustments” to new data derived from new types of instrumentation. It is unlikely that an unmonitored electronic device will perform in precisely the same fashion as an historic instrument, producing data directly comparable to historic data. The outstanding problem is the purported adjustments to the historic data itself. That has no rational, methodological justification; it is what it is. Even the so-called TOD adjustment, which is broadly accepted, has a weak methodological foundation since it cannot be demonstrated that every record has the same necessary “bias.” The adjustments depend upon assuming and then estimating an unknowable but pervasive bias in the historical data. This is far too subtle for a Senate hearing.

    • So, sarasota, you seem to think that scoring points is more important than telling the truth.

      IOW you are just another push-the-narrative-at-any cost-proglodyte.

      Tell me, how do YOU or Markey or anyone else make the “warmest on record” claim without acknowledging that the global records using uniform measurements taken by calibrated instruments in orbit have been yielding data only since 1979?

      Please produce standardized temperature data taken all over the planet before then.

      PLEASE tell us how all those multi-ton dinosaurs survived on a cooler earth, just for starters.

      Then explain the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warming periods, the latter being something Mann said he had to “get rid of”.

      EXPLAIN! Right here>>>>

      Or just STeffU.

      As for Steyn: he was a witness, yet he put Markey on the defensive, making him answer rather than be the interrogator.

      • Anna,

        You are pissing on the wrong tree. Sarastro is simply referring to perceptions and since most of us understand this is not about science but policy and politics, perception is truth when it comes down to what policies get enacted.

    • By the pre-hearing demonstration, the Democrats earned Steyn’s disdain and he gave it to them.

      That said. I totally agree Markey had them on their heels with the warmest year meme.

      Dr. Curry should have said “with the error bars in the heavily adjusted data, it would be scientific malpractice to declare any year in the last 100 as warmest. In the 1930s the U.S. Experienced more 100+ days and the Great Dust bowl. Stating warmest year, month, day on record given the dramatic changes in measurement approaches makes a true scientist bristle or biffa like they are sitting on pine cones”

      • Dr. Curry should have said “with the error bars in the heavily adjusted data, it would be scientific malpractice to declare any year in the last 100 as warmest. In the 1930s the U.S. Experienced more 100+ days and the Great Dust bowl. Stating warmest year, month, day on record given the dramatic changes in measurement approaches makes a true scientist bristle or biffa like they are sitting on pine cones”

        Too many words
        Most brains like major spoken themes to be made in 30 words or less.

        How about ….

        Senator Markey, you are scaring people and you should be ashamed. Recent temperatures are within the normal range of man’s time on earth.

        That is a jab to the throat. Boxes the opponent in to have to defend both his intention and then explain a faulted position. It’s like boxing.

      • Agreed Knute,

        Although remember much of this is to be put in the record. A backhanded slap at Mann by weaving scientific malpractice, questionable temperature custodianship, and the pine cone witchcraft into her response would have been epic.

        Also, you protect against the next warmist year claim. But I do agree your response is direct and confrontational of his scare tactic.

      • I totally understand the need to memoralize for the record. That’s typically what your statement is for.
        I’m also fine with introducing lines of evidence in the level of detail you suggest, but remember its a show and each showman has a different style.

        Markey is easily baited because he shows the strategy of the bully who thinks he already won. Hubris, arrogance and all that. Supposedly, one of the best strategies with the bully is the immediate throat punch to his intent which he has to defend, then you take him in baby steps to each successive science based line of evidence. The pros try to keep the lines of evidence for the theme (this temp is part of the natural variability) to 3 and pound them over and over again.

        It’s you who drag him down the slippery slope, not he who gets to pontificate.

        The GOP could get an awful lot of mileage out of a weekly “for the record” tabletalk thru the committee.
        They don’t do this, so I figure they aren’t THAT serious about the attacking posture. Presidential prize is the key … IMO

      • markey-
        When you were born, decades ago, you were very short and not very smart.
        Yesterday you were the tallest you have ever been. Today you are the tallest you have ever been.
        If your height continues to increase at the historic rate, in 2030 you will be nearly 10 feet tall.
        Yesterday you were the stupidest you have ever been…

    • sarastro92,

      I can agree that Curry didn’t reply very effectively to the “warmest year” crapola.
      In a free-for-all like that, it’s hard to consistently punch your points.

      You go on to profess to be endowed with a “nose” for politics and journalism and I cannot claim to be astonished that a fellow human extols his own acumen in a blog comment. However, I didn’t find that a convincing factor in any of the arguments you make.
      Speaking of which, there was actually only one argument and you seemed to think a blend of repetition, condescension and personal insult would adequately make your case. That didn’t really work for me. Maybe it did better with ‘the common man’.

      As I said, IMO, Markey won a few points on that one angle; mostly, he was out-punched by our duo but noTKO.

      • In case you forgot: In a professed democracy it’s always a good idea to convince the average voter … Curry missed on this one and should use this as a learning moment to prepare better next time. In a public forum sometimes a quick succinct answer is required to be effective. That’s what we want, no?

        Sorry that little bit of advice is so offensive to your brittle sensibilities. The stakes are high enough for this to matter.

      • That is why, in a professed Democracy, scientists don’t (as a rule) run for political office. They are, typically, not good at verbal jousts, in large part because they have to simplify complicated issues into answers people with IQ’s south of Bostons average mean winter temperature can understand.

        Instead what we have for statesmen are empty suits filled with hot air to give off flourishes of oratory with the odor of a wet phart and the value of the residue left in their underwear. Markey gave us his best Brian Williams impersonation in that video and did not come off believably for anyone paying attention.

        But, to your point, it is fair to say that the slack jawed post 1990 public school student with internet access would give him the thumbs up for that nonsensical outburst.

  16. After watching that display, I wouldn’t vote for Markey for dog catcher. The man is an arrogant ass, a grotesque ideologue and a disgrace to the U.S. Senate.

    It’s clear that Markey (a lawyer with no scientific training) thinks he knows more about the climate than a distinguished climate scientist like Dr. Curry.

    My hat’s off to Professor Curry and Mr. Steyn for standing up to the jerk, instead of simply getting up and walking out of Markey’s kangaroo court of the absurd.

  17. Steyn was awesome. What I found amazing was that Dr. Christy remained silent while his “baby” the UAH data set was being torched. I’m sure there is never enough time in these kinds of hearings, but man that had to be difficult for him to listen to.

    • Why ?? If you’ve got the raw numbers that tell the story, you don’t need to defend them. You just watch all the bent arrows that miss the point.

      John Christy is one of my personal heroes; and also author of the other piece of the climate Rosetta stone.

      I think it is the January 2001 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. You gigglers can correct me if I mis-remember.

      Prof Christy reports on about 20 years of simultaneous oceanic air Temperatures (at + 3 meters altitude), and oceanic near surface (-1 meter depth) water temperatures, as recorded by some floating oceanic buoys, starting circa 1980.

      That 20 years of data, showed that oceanic air and water Temperatures are not the same; they do not track each other, and they are not correlated.

      I forget which way the air and water Temperatures differed (read the paper), but the fact that they don’t correlate means that prior to about 1980, ALL of the oceanic Temperature data, that was previously recorded from a bucket of water, going back maybe 150 years, is bovine scat, and is uncorrectable, because of the lack of air water correlation.

      You can’t fix that 150 years of total rubbish, which we recently learned they largely just made up in the first place. A perfect GIGO problem.

      The air over Hawaiian water today, may be over California next week, so why on earth would anybody ever believe that water and air should reach thermal equilibrium.

      The other piece of the climate Rosetta stone, is the Wentz et al paper from SCIENCE, July 1 2007; ” How much More Rain will global warming bring ? ” Which points to how cloud feedback works to regulate the surface Temperature. (measured data; NOT models).

      g

    • FYI. Curry thinks that the BEST data series is the Gold Standard. Last week she wrote exactly that. She doesn’t talk much about the satellite data.

      • We’ll be getting our paper out before too long. Anthony and the team. Dr. Curry seemed quite amenable to the concept of Heat Sink Effect and microsite.

        And, as Mosh of BEST said right here in this forum, siting “is a good issue”. Because its effect is systematic.

        Therefore any significant heat sink effect turns homogenization from Uncle-H into the H-bomb. By definition.

      • “You’re tone deaf. 2014-15 as the hottest years is probably the only climate news the public knows about. It was a Home run for Markey and there was no answer from Curry. She was caught on her heels. Sorry.”

        Tone deaf? Surely you jest. It’s tone – exactly that – of which I’m speaking.

        Watch it again. Malarkey managed to personify arrogance and pretentiousness as he (a non-scientist) impatiently and condescendingly lectured a distinguished climate scientist about climate science. That’s about as tone deaf as I’ve ever seen it.

        Malarkey was rude and bullying, talking past (and sometimes over) a witness who was present at the invitation of the committee. (Most well-brought-up ten year olds would probably think, “He shouldn’t talk to her like that.”) In the process, Malarkey also trampled on Senate rules of decorum and civility. His boorish and ill-mannered behavior is exactly what most fair-minded and sensible people are going to remember, not his BS rant about the “warmest year ever, blah, blah, blah.” Sorry.

    • “What I found amazing was that Dr. Christy remained silent while his “baby” the UAH data set was being torched.”

      That’s because he was told before the hearing that he had no right to interject, only to respond to questions. That’s why more GOP attendees were needed, to ask him to respond to his critics.

  18. At the end, Dr Curry was making a point about the membership of the meteorological society but I’m not clear what is was. It sounded like she said %52 of the members said it was majority human caused. I’d like to know where she was going with her argument.

    • I think it is along the lines of ONLY 52% are of the opinion that the majority of the post 1950 warming is attributable to humans.

  19. “This is the warmest year ever recorded.. etc.. etc..”

    Disappointing that Curry let him get away with these repeated claims.

    • Actually – I think Dr Judith Curry is letting this idiot Markey hang himself with his own petard – you just have to take a slightly longer view.

      Do remember guys – not only do we have time on our side (the pause will become the norm given another decade or so!!!) but we also have the idiotic arrogance of the likes of Markey that will ultimately show themselves to be the Proctologists Dream to the population that we already know them to be.

      In some ways – it is undeniably fun to challenge them now.

      In other ways it will be enormously satisfying to haul them up before some sort of tribunal to explain just why so much taxpayers money was wasted.

    • You’re exactly on point Ian. In the court of public opinion “the hottest year” is climate news people know and understand, and Curry a) conceded the point as “True” … that’s debatable; and b) said nothing about El Nino.

      Markey won. That’s unfortunate. Curry was not prepared.

      • Abject nonsense.

        She clearly addressed this point when Cruz asked a follow-up question.

        Markey was spewing so much horseschist, that no one could have addressed all of it in one answer.

      • Curry’s response was to ask how much of the current warming is natural variation. That implies that she agrees that there IS record-shattering warming (the satellite data say otherwise, of course).

        The “natural variation” was vague and made no impact. If Curry had mentioned El Nino, that would have done the trick. So she blew it… Markey’s assertion was left unchallenged.

      • sarastro92:

        I make no comment on American politics because I am not an American.

        People considering your point are ‘talking past’ each other, so I write in hope of helping discussion of your point saying

        You’re exactly on point Ian. In the court of public opinion “the hottest year” is climate news people know and understand, and Curry a) conceded the point as “True” … that’s debatable; and b) said nothing about El Nino.

        Markey won. That’s unfortunate. Curry was not prepared.

        The arguments about who “won” exist because who “won” depends on
        (a) what winning is considered to be
        and
        (b) over what time scale winning is seen to occur.

        Markey clearly “won” in terms of immediate ‘point scoring’ that would convince uninformed onlookers. Such ‘point scoring’ is the business of politicians seeking votes so it is no surprise that an elected US Senator is better at it than a professional scientist and a journalist.

        But few uninformed voters will have (or will) see Markey’s performance in the Senate Hearing and, therefore, that “win” is not significant.bold

        The Senate Committee Members clearly have less expertise than Judith Curry and they know it. They will assess the points of Markey and Curry and see that Markey had no answer to the “38%” point made in rebuttal by Curry. This will be recorded in the Committee’s Report. Therefore, in terms of the Committee’s Report, it can be expected that Curry will be seen to have “won”.

        The Committee’s Report of its findings is the important (because influential) outcome of the Hearing and, therefore, it is probable that Curry had a significant “win”.bold

        Rapid response answers to unexpected assertions may not be the ideal answers that would be provided were preparation time available to consider the ‘best’ answer. In this case, the probably ‘best’ answer would have been similar to:
        “Yes, it was originally claimed that last year was the ‘hottest on record’ but that was soon retracted. It is now agreed by all that there is a ‘two to three’ probability that 2014 was not the hottest and, for example 1998 was hotter. There is no dissent from this consensus. And some people think this year will be hotter than last year because of the temporary strong El Nino. However, it remains to be seen if this year will be hotter than last. If it eventually it is determined that 2015 was hotter than 2014 then we will still have to wait to see if that determination will fail scrutiny as last year’s determination did”.

        In addition to agreeing Markey’s assertion while refuting it, the suggested answer states that the person providing the answer has more knowledge and expertise than Markey while using Markey’s own tricks of appeals to authority and consensus and introduces the issues of data validity and natural variation from ENSO.

        Some such reply to Markey’s assertions of ‘record years’ could have been prepared if there had been warning of them. Importantly, a similar reply can be presented if Markey’s assertions are repeated.

        Richard

      • I find it astonishing you keep going to this. A respected scientist is verbally abused by an arrogant politition that won’t stop running his mouth long enough to hear a responce and you are all up about Markey winning. Mark put him in his place and you don’t seem to see that. People like you are what’s wrong with climate science. Facts get in your way so you point to meaningless things to redirect. Come up with something or stop cluttering up this forum.

      • Richard,

        Even fewer people are likely to read the Hearing report than watch it on Cspan or Youtube. Then there is the secondary effect of how it gets reported in the media. So if Markey “scored” points on this exchange, he in effect did win. Because it is all about politics, not science. Meaning you were not the audiance, the American votoers were. Along with those in the media (or those who like to use the media) who get off on thinking they can influence how those voters choose.

      • timg56:

        Thankyou for your clear and rational comment on my above post. It goes to the heart of my point about “what winning is considered to be”.

        Your point is mostly about how American politics works. As I said, I am not willing to interfere in American politics by addressing it here because I am not an American. That is not evasion: it is courtesy when posting to an American blog.

        My point is about tactics in a public forum. I have some experience at that (e.g. in each of five successive elections I was elected as the National Vice President of a TUC-afiliated Trades Union).

        I think you may want to read – and possibly comment on – my post below in this thread that is here.

        Richard

  20. I find it quite strange that no one there didn’t take the senator to task over his 97% claim.
    It’s been debunked so many times that even mainstream media is very hesitant to use it anymore.
    Only a fool or a liar would risk using it in a serious debate, simply because it so easily blows up in your face.

    • The “science” in the 97% figure is social science not climate. Curry and Steyn avoided arguing a science – such as it is – in which they have no expertise. It was really a smart move since Markey was walking his own plank and apparently doesn’t know it.

    • seem to me that both Dr. Curry and Steyn had a difficult time completing a statement as Markey just kept stepping on them. I’m sure that both would have been more on point not being constantly interrupted. The inquest is not at all interested in science nor truth.

    • Steyn debunked it at least once as did Curry.

      If they took them time to debunk it evey time the Democrats repeated it, they wouldn’t have had time to say anything else.

  21. Did that congressman arguing that Boston’s record-breaking snowfall was caused by man-made climate change really say that the ocean water was 21 degrees above normal? Oh yes he did!

  22. More please. This exchange between a well-informed and able scientist plus and author with a belief backer dramatically shows the intransigence, ignorance and duplicity of the warmist position. Thank God for open government.

  23. Friends, I don’t think the distinguished scientists were there for debate. They were there for expert testimony. Markey tried to debate and fell flat, choosing to ignore the expert testimony before him. A very poor actor with an impeachable character. Just terrible.

    • No, Markey tried to shut down any debate (as did another Democrat) by saying “I didn’t ask a question” Senator Cruz was quick to allow a response from the panel. I agree that Markey fell flat. He is obviously an indoctrinated bore accessorised with spittle.

    • @heysuess, you are right. but ” there are more videos to follow” is something we should all do and then see what happened in the rest of the Hearings.

    • But only because of adjustments and not – IIRC – in the satellite record, but rather in the surface stations data which has been pureed – ah, make that homogenized – and “adjusted” until no one really knows the reality.

    • And he chooses not to acknowledge that 2014 was only fractionally warmer than 1998, meaning statistically global temperature has been flat for a human generation. He flourished his hand skyward and actually said temperatures were climbing “straight upward”.

      • That depends on the aspect ratio of the chart he’s looked at, and the compression ratio of the horizontal axis.

  24. Kelvin Duncan December 9, 2015 at 1:36 pm
    More please. This exchange between a well-informed and able scientist plus and author with a belief backer dramatically shows the intransigence, ignorance and duplicity of the warmist position. Thank God for open government.

    Oh yes indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I think Judith Curry played a blinder (UK term for a clever strategy) – I believe she simply let Markey open his mouth and sh!t all over his foot.

  25. Marvellous Judith Curry and Mark Steyn, both courageous heroes. ‘Veritas magna est et prevalebit’! The truth is great and will prevail. Stick at it.

    • Yes, but consider how many witches were burned around Salem before truth finally prevailed. How long to undo the damage, and untangle the webs they are weaving?

  26. The most useful part of the hearing was understanding what warmunists like Markey see as their key talking points. It enables the rest of us to develop ‘bullet proof’ sound bite responses. Examples:
    To Markey on post 1970 warming: there was a statistically indistinguishable like amount from 1920-1945 that the IPCC says could not have been anthropogenic. Has natural variability disappeared? Essay C?aGw.
    To Titley on I am just a sailor, but my chart shows no pause: I see you are using the ‘ new improved’ 2015 Karl version. Do you know that NOAA’s same chart in 2014 showed a 14 year pause, acknowledged by the IPCC in AR5? And, are you aware that NOAA is presently in contempt of congress over the House science oversight committee’s subpeona to understand the background motivation of that startling change, which whistle blowers from within NOAA have told the committee was rushed and ill considered? Tony Heller has the side by side comparisons up.
    Cruz was remiss in not having a 97% consensus talking point rebuttal along the lines of: there are two papers manufacturing this degree of consensus. One surveyed about 4500 scientists, then whittled the answers down until 75 of the 77 deemed worthy agreed. The other led by an Australian cartoonist surveyed paper abstracts, most not on climate science but presuming the consensus to explore comsequences. That paper has been show gravely methodologally flawed by Tol in peer reviewed critique. Since those two efforts to manufacture 97% have been publicly debunked, what is a reliable source for your figure? Or, are you still relying on the previously debunked stuff?

    • [Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, sockpuppet. -mod]

    • Ristvan, here is 3 studies and a short analysis of what they tell. Highlight the questions / answers to get a true feel of what the beliefs are.

      As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.

      Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
      An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth). [Note only government scientist, private sector need not apply]

      This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey

      1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
      2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

      With 3146 individuals completing.

      In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

      the AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014.
      In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.”
      Questions –

      Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
      2a./2b How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
      How sure are you? –Extremely –Very sure –Somewhat sure –Not at all sure -Don’t know –Not at all sure –Somewhat not sure – Very not sure – Extremely not sure

      So answering the questions –
      1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
      2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
      3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
      4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
      5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?

      Answers and questions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contributing and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere?

      Do these questions really provide the answer that; stopping man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more], which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will actually keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?

      • There was no research conducted with that found that 97% of scientists (or just climate scientists) are certain that the 20th C warming would not have happened if not for human emissions of CO2 (let alone that the science is so settled that anyone who strays even slightly from official dogma is a denier of the science).

  27. Great stuff! Scroll to 3:40 minutes into the video and watch Senator Malarkey. He is so overwhelmed emotionally he literally begins to foam at the mouth. Boy oh boy, this whole episode in human folly is going to end badly for our US democrats.

  28. If one has to point to consensus as a reason then they do not know enough science to argue the point. Science is not a democracy so it does not matter one iota how many scientists are on which side of the AGW conjecture. There is scientific rational to support the idea that the current warming up from the Little Ice Age is very similar to the warm up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period that occurred roughly 1300 years ago Clearly the warm up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period was not caused by Man’s use of fossil fuels. Models have been generated that show that global temperatures at least since the Maunder Minimum are correlated with total solar activity and ocean related cycles and not CO2. There is plenty of scientific rational that CO2 has no effect on climate. It is all a matter of science.

  29. I would be more comfortable if we shut down the “climate change” argument. Either anthropogenic CO2 causes “Global Warming” or it does not. Not one Warmist has, unless I’ve missed it, explained how the increased human CO2 emissions after about 1950 caused the cooling cycle of the 1970’s.

    Additional CO2, a Green House Gas, in the atmosphere MAY cause some atmospheric warming which MAY or MAY NOT be discernible/detectable with modern technology. Only a change in climate that can be shown to be directly related to a WARMING of the atmosphere could then possibly, MAYBE, be linked to anthropogenic CO2.

    Hurricane and tornado activity has been less in the US over the last 10 years, a reasonably positive thing for some, yet even that can’t be definitively linked to warming since the overall warming has stalled/paused for almost 18 years. Is it reasonable to ask why, since the end of the LIA, we haven’t been having a constantly lowering of this hurricane and tornado activity while we’ve been warming?

    Also, It just doesn’t pass the “smell test” to be claiming a record cold spell somewhere, after over 150 years of an increasingly warmer climate, is caused by the warming.

  30. The Japanese IBUKU climate satellite has given irrefutable evidence that almost all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by temperature induced plant decomposition mainly in equatorial high vegetation areas in the southern hemisphere plus some from ocean de-gassing.. the contribution from human use of fossil fuels is insignificant. read the new best seller UN Climate Liars by Christian Gerondeau now available

  31. It is so difficult in these situations. Prof Curry did well, my preference would be to pick up on the senators use of the D word. As soon as someone uses this word the debate is no longer science, it is religious. My technique is to point out that as long as they (the oppositions) use these words they are in teh world of anti-science. From this point it is possible to counter attack, asking the opposition to explain how they can possibly think the D word is acceptable in scientific debate, asking them if they judge the debate is about believing and disbelieving.

    Everyone around will quickly understand the point, and the debate can get back on track.

    The Senator lost it, but through bluff he gave a false impression of confidence. You have to hit that confidence!

  32. I don’t understand what the deal is about Sen Malarkey and the other leftists. They accept their AGW as a matter of faith and simply will not allow any fact or reason that contradicts their faith to penetrate their tiny brains.

    There he was, debating a well-published climate scientist on the matter and calling her a ‘Denier’. What’s wrong with listening to what she has to say?

    • That part is easy.
      1) Follow the money, power, and influence. We produce CO2, and therefore can tax it.
      2) If cracks appear in the theory, do what all good totalitarian, otherwise useless, humans do – persecute those who disagree using all means available.
      3) When (if) it ever blows up, distance yourself from the issue and wait for the media to stop writing about it so that the public will forget.

      At this point, we are at the beginnings of 2). I’m not comfortable waiting, either, because the US government can do a heck of a lot of economic damage in very short periods of time with ill-conceived legislation.

      I was also disappointed that more of his claims weren’t challenged, but at this point, one could ignore every single skeptic argument or theory and the issue is still hopelessly confused by the sheer amount of variation, revision, adjustments, non-working models, rhetoric, etc., and conclude that even the IPCC and all its adherents have no clue as to what the truth actually is or was.

    • To add to Justin’s remarks,

      Markey is most likely someone who really believes he is more intelligent, better educated and able to make better judgements and decisions than the average person. He probably views his getting elected to office as proof of that (as well as proof that the voters think the same to have elected him). Therefore, once Markey has decided the “correct” course of action, he doesn’t need experts or facts. At least not any which get in the way of what he thinks needs to be done.

      When viewed this way Markey’s performance is fully understandable. Contemptable in my opinion, but understandable.

      PS – I consider Hilary to be in the same vein. The difference being she’s not an idiot like Markey.

    • “They accept their AGW as a matter of faith and simply will not allow any fact or reason that contradicts their faith to penetrate their tiny brains.”

      ———–
      Here are three relevant warmist-related quotations from H.L. Mencken:

      The believing mind is eternally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked…

      The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.

      Here’s a lesson Markey’s learned from being a politician (and from reading Romm, maybe):

      The public, with its mob yearning to be instructed, edified and pulled by the nose, demands certainties; it must be told definitely and a bit raucously that this is true and that is false. But there are no certainties.

      • Ah, Roger, common sense! Mencken was the best. Of course, for me, that comes with a Baltimore bias.

        No Sense in the non-science of of CAGW. It is all mass manipulation through fear and guilt stimulation of the amygdala by the Big GovMint and their media minions.

  33. We often hear that weather is NOT climate, and still any warm event is a PROOF of global warming. A cold event is NOT. Sigh. A climate change would require a trend of 30 or more years I guess to prove anything. Right?

  34. I may be in a minority here, but frankly I thought Steyn was as annoying and potshot in his remarks as Markey. I am angry that Judith Curry was not allowed to take Markey through the science as systematically and relentlessly as she was clearly doing. Steyn is a grand-stander, and there are already enough of them thank you. Curry was the only one worth listening to.

    • Jon Burack:

      Curry would not have been able to reply except that Steyn demanded it with his “grandstanding”. Watch the video and you will see this for yourself.

      Richard

    • “I thought Steyn was as annoying and potshot in his remarks as Markey.”

      Markey made a habit of interrupting. Only Steyn had the voice volume and brass to steamroller over Markey’s interruptions.

      • rogerknights on December 11, 2015 at 6:44 am

        – – – – – – – – –

        rogerknights,

        The few moments of somewhat unrestricted give-and-take between Steyn, Curry and Markey was needed to stop the bully senator from bullying the folks testifying.

        John

  35. Markey is WRONG ON IRISH!

    The Irish have been in Boston since the early 17th century, when they arrived as indentured servants, merchants, sailors or tradesmen. Since Catholicism was prohibited in the Bay Colony, many Irish had to be discreet and hid their identity. But many of the early settlers were actually Presbyterians from Ulster, who began arriving in large numbers in 1718, looking to establish congregations. Many of them were sent to the outer fringes of the Bay Colony, and founded towns like Belfast, Maine, and Londonderry and Derry, New Hampshire, as well as Worcester, Massachusetts.[2]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Irish_Americans_in_Boston

    • You’re right. He’s a bad scientist AND a bad historian. Thomas Duee (an ancestor of Admiral Dewey and myself) came here in 1730.

  36. Did I hear right at 3:22? The senator said the waters off Mass. were 21 degrees above normal!!! This cannot be right.

  37. The difference between a scientific mindset and a scientific illiterate mindset is very clear in this video.

    The arguments from Sen. Markey is of the type:
    “We had a 110 inches of snow in Boston last year – That indicates global warming!”

    Yeah – I know I am cherry picking – but Sen. markey didn´t deliver anything else than cherries.
    He delivered nothing else than inductive reasoning and logical fallacies to argue for his ideas.

    While the arguments from Judith Curry on the other hand is of the type:
    The idea that IPCC has a proper explanation for the recorded changes is wrong – it is falsified. See my written testimony and the report from IPCC.

    The only thing IPCC says they have an explanation for is the warming from year 1975 to 2000.

    Judith Curry could have added that IPCC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variability in the period 1975 to year 2000. Hence – IPCC excluded natural variation by a logical and scientific flaw:

    IPCC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variability. IPCC relied on climate models (CMIP5), the hypotheses under test if you will, to exclude natural variability:
    “Observed Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies relative to 1880–1919 in recent years lie well outside the range of Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies in CMIP5 simulations with natural forcing only, but are consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 simulations including both anthropogenic and natural forcing … Observed temperature trends over the period 1951–2010, … are, at most observed locations, consistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including anthropogenic and natural forcings and inconsistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including natural forcings only.”
    (Ref.: Working Group I contribution to fifth assessment report by IPCC. TS.4.2.)

    If we add to it that the only reason the models show plausible results is that they are panel beated to do so.
    The idea that the models are pure physics is wrong – they are parameterized, adjusted and tuned.:

    «When initialized with states close to the observations, models ‘drift’ towards their imperfect climatology (an estimate of the mean climate), leading to biases in the simulations that depend on the forecast time. The time scale of the drift in the atmosphere and upper ocean is, in most cases, a few years. Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori. …»
    (Ref: Contribution from Working Group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC; 11.2.3 Prediction Quality; 11.2.3.1 Decadal Prediction Experiments )

    And! – we can add to it that even one of the most eager proponent for United Nations climate theory states that it “The refusal to acknowledge that the model simulations are affected by the (partially overestimated) forcing in CMIP5 as well as model responses is a telling omission.”:
    (Cherry picking again – I know – but the rest is also served for refreshment)

    17
    Mark says:
    3 Nov 2015 at 6:41 PM
    Apparently Roy Spencer’s CMIP5 models vs observations graph has gotten some “uninformed and lame” criticisms from “global warming activist bloggers,” but no criticism from any “actual climate scientists.” Would any actual climate scientists, perhaps one with expertise in climate models, care to comment? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/models-vs-observations-plotting-a-conspiracy/

    [Response: Happy to! The use of single year (1979) or four year (1979-1983) baselines is wrong and misleading. The use of the ensemble means as the sole comparison to the satellite data is wrong and misleading. The absence of a proper acknowledgement of the structural uncertainty in the satellite data is wrong and misleading. The absence of NOAA STAR or the Po-Chedley et al reprocessing of satellite data is… curious. The averaging of the different balloon datasets, again without showing the structural uncertainty is wrong and misleading. The refusal to acknowledge that the model simulations are affected by the (partially overestimated) forcing in CMIP5 as well as model responses is a telling omission. The pretence that they are just interested in trends when they don’t show the actual trend histogram and the uncertainties is also curious, don’t you think? Just a few of the reasons that their figures never seem to make their way into an actual peer-reviewed publication perhaps… – gavin]

    – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/unforced-variations-nov-2015/#sthash.eIH9lMBG.dpuf

    (Gavin Schmidt is Climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York).

    There are few decent words to describe the lack of scientific integrity by United Nations IPCC in general and Sen. Markey in particular in this video – I can´t find any at the moment.

  38. I eagerly look forward to the excerpt where Lysenkoism was brought up… “Lysenko called, says he regrets other people adopting his methods” is my favorite one line zinger on CAGW. It at least forces them to look up what Lysenkoism is.

  39. I wish everyone, Judith included, would stop accepting the whole “warmest year on record” thing. The temperature records have been tampered with, trends added in, and everyone on our side knows it. So call them out on it. Don’t accept the premise. 2015 is not the “warmest year on record”.

    • “warmest year” also doesn’t follow a normal distribution, in fact it’s anti-normal. It’s an arcsine distribution. i.e. take the bell curve and turn it upside down is a reasonable approximation. You hardly ever get numbers in the middle.

      So those confidence level of 32% thing? It’s still wrong, it’s actually far lower than that.

  40. Reblogged this on pattikellar and commented:
    What I know to be true: Science is never Settled. We need to have the debate.

    “Hearing: Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate
    US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

    Dr. Curry ask to respond to “denier” charge from Sen. Markey, and cites IPCC in her testimony. Steyn spars with Sen. Markey while Markey acts like he’s an authoritarian on the issue.”

  41. For Mr Mark Steyn, and others who are dogged enough to get into these rediculous sparring matches with ideologues on the left … I implore them to ask this simple question!!!!

    ” We have GISS, Hadcrut, NOAA, UAH, and RSS, .. and now BEST ….. and a plethora of others. Given that there is only ONE REAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE …. Which of the global temperature metrics published and used by the IPCC is the correct temperature metric for the globe???? ….. if they by some chance give you an answer … which would be wrong … then ask them … “OK … so why are the others wrong??”.

    A range is NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!! …. I don’t give a damn if the “Trends” all “look alike” … the measured differences establish significance or not!! … if we don’t know the EXACT temperature metric of the Globe within 0.01C increments ….. we don’t have squat, and can’t say squat!! AND .. if that “golden temp record” can’t be reproduced by other groups using the same data and methods, then you don’t have science. Further, if the “anomaly” measurements between the different so called temperature records differ by more than 0.05 degrees … then they are ALL worthless for making any statement regarding how much the temperature has risen for any given month or year …. because of question 1 … Which one is the correct one??

    • There’s enough temperature sets to take the mean and std deviation for all the datasets, including past releases. There’s also enough independence to make for some sort of approximation of the std error, and to judge that error to be our lack of understanding of how to deal with measuring global temperatures.

      Try it with SST. You’ll be shocked how big the error bars are (+/- 2stddev). Bob TIsdale’s post a while back shows all the leading SST sets on one graph, it’s amazing, it looks to the eyeball to be +/- 0.8degC. That’s larger than the entire estimated historic 135 year trend of 1degC. And since SST dominates global temperature, it’s a probably pretty good estimate of the overall error of the global temperature.

      No, the self-estimated std deviations of e.g. BEST doesn’t count as a reasonable estimate of error. If anything, should add up all the self-derived variances of the data sets as yet another independent source of error making the error bars even larger.

      I’d pick RSS, UAH, Hadcrut, GISS, BEST just to start. Then possibly add in older version of GISS and HadCrut and the balloon sets. That gives what I call the “human variance” of estimates of global temperature.

      Peter

      • The mastery of the ruse is that CAGW has been sucked into a debate over minutia of recent differences while ignoring the much larger and reliable paleoclimatic patterns as the earth rotates around the sun in an elliptical fashion.

      • I would just like to reiterate a word in your post ….

        Approximation!!!!!!

        When we are talking about a change of 0.05C +/- 0.5C ….. you pretty much have a meaningless number, and a range within which you can draw any trend you would like!!!

        This is all a bunch of B.S. …. and it is the reason they use models!! They don’t KNOW what the mean global temperature is … let alone what the mean change in temperature is from month to month, year to year, or even decade to decade. I’m not even sure they have a reasonable grasp on temp changed century to century!! About the best they have is the ice core data that estimates on a millenial scale … and even that is not precise.

  42. In a response to Mr. Booker, best I can read the name in the video

    What a joke. He’s a joke. So if there is a majority consensus of people who believe man is the cause of climate change, it makes it true? Again, what a joke! I would be there screaming at the guy, “Where’s your proof?! Where is your proof?!. Consensus is not proof! You might as well be telling me to believe in some non-existent god because the majority because the majority of people claim it exists!. Get real!”

      • The broken part of the American political election process is that popular outsiders rarely get to see the light of day. Heavyweights get groomed and endorsed thru their districts .. a certain mass of the vote is obtained and the rest is history. That’s the short story of how the US is left voting for a choice between two weevils.

        If they want better candidates they have to be open and provide an opening to accept those not affiliated with one of the juggernauts.

        I’m sure other systems such as Canada, Aussieland and England suffer from this.

      • knutesea,

        My own opinion is that the 17th Amendment took far too much power away from the States, and handed it to the respective political Parties headquartered in Washington DC. Prior to the 17th, each state’s legislature elected its own senators.

        The state legislatures used to groom their candidates, then horse trade with other state legislatures. Better candidates tended to be chosen, and the citizens of the states had a much bigger say in the selection process.

        But now the national Dem and Rep parties select each state’s candidates for senator, and those who win are indebted to their party, not to their state or its citizens. The national parties dole out the money; candidates either play ball, or they’re starved of funds.

        So the party bigwigs in Washington DC now call the shots. It doesn’t matter if Sen Feinstein (for example) from California is told by her party to vote directly against the interests of her state’s citizens. She will do it in a heartbeat (and often has), because she is beholden to the national party over her state’s citizens.

        The 17th Amendment is one of the worst changes to the Constitution. Back when the Constitution was being formulated, about sixty years of intense discussion preceded its passage. Those decades were spent discussing the best way to create a govenrment, largely in coffee houses and with the belief that they wouldn’t really get the chance to implement their ideas. So the emotion and the self-interest was taken out of the discussion. The proposed rules were thoroughly debated by people who weren’t interrupted by TV, or video games, or texting, or Hollywood, or email, or sports, or all the other distractions we have now.

        Furthermore, they were highly educated, and very aware of history. They knew every form of government since ancient Egypt, and the Greek city-states, Macedonia, and Rome. They understood despotic dictatorships, good and bad kings and queens, Parliaments, and the original democracies. They read Plato and all the other Classics. They understood and debated what worked, and what didn’t.

        And they knew human nature as well as any KGB colonel. They studied human nature and applied it to the proposed new government. The result was as close to perfect as any government that ever existed.

        But then the meddling began. Income became the primary tax base, instead of property. Everyone must use real property, and property can’t be hidden away like income. Also, income eventually required withholding, so the tax bite didn’t come once a year. It came out of every paycheck, and like the frog in water heating up, the populace accepted much higher taxes than they would have otherwise.

        The 17th Amendment re-directed power to unelected party operatives, and away from the states’ citizens (we were set up as the United States, but now that’s in name only.) So as the new amendments piled up, they changed what was originally a near-perfect set of rules. Had we remained with the original Constitution and Bill of Rights and added nothing more, the country would be far better off today.

        The original intent was that the states would be the laboratories of the republic, trying out various ways to solve problems. The states that did it best would be emulated by other states, and the federal government would just take care of interstate commence, the administration of federal justice, dealing with foreign countries, and a few other national requirements. But most regulations (the EPA comes to mind) would be handled by the individual states. If someone didn’t like the way their state was handling things, they would be free to move to a state more in line with their views.

        That has all gone by the wayside. Early in the last century the Rockefellers commissioned a study of how to influence (in other words, how to control) the population. The results of their study concluded that if they controlled the twenty-five largest newspapers in the country (this was before TV, and there was very little radio then) they would be able to get whatever federal legislation passed that they wanted.

        They took that advice, and that lesson hasn’t been lost on others. Today only six entities control all of the major media, with the exception of the internet. You can be certain that plans are actively being made to control that information exchange, too. “Net neutrality” is the stalking horse for that takeover.

        So unless something completely unexpected happens, I think an EU-style dictatorship is a done deal: rules will be enacted by nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats, who will implement regulations with the force of law — just like the EPA does now. And most Americans are not aware that the EU President (de Rumpuy) was never elected. He was installed by a shadowy group of bureaucratic bigwigs, and of course they are his constituents, not the citizens. Karl Marx even warned about such rule by bureaucracy. Now it’s happened in the EU.

        It’s starting to happen here, too: the President just proposed an extention of the “terrorist watch list” law. Those on the list will not be permitted to fly, or to purchase or possess firearms, or do many other things that are now taken for granted in a free country. Worse, they won’t need to be convicted of anything, but simply put on the watch list. And they won’t be told who put them on the list, or why.

        They will find out only when they try to buy a firearm, or ammunition, or try to buy an airline ticket, or any of the other forbidden things denied to those on the watch list. Most disturbing, their names will be put on the watch list by unaccountable, anonymous bureaucrats. They will not be allowed to face their accusers. Citizens might be able to challenge it if they are put on the watch list, but they will need a good lawyer, and be prepared to spend a lot of money to clear their name — and then another politically appointed bureaucrat can simply re-enter their name on the watch list. Can you see the tempatation to put people on an ‘enemies list’? Zombie Nixon must be spinning in his grave with jealousy.

        I don’t know the answer. The country has been dumbed down by decades of government .edu factories that produce mass ignorance. Inertia is moving society in the direction the EU has taken, and stopping it or changing course will take a tremendous effort of national will — and plenty of luck. And I’m afraid the worst is coming in the last half of this President’s second term.

        Almost without exception, no one on the national scene will stand up for American citizens’ basic right and freedoms. We all know there are major problems. A real leader is necessary, but most of the putative ‘leaders’ just want to tweak the system, instead of forcing it back to its roots. That makes them part of the problem.

        Yes, I’m a pessimist about this. Will someone please cheer me up? C’mon, promise me a miracle! Gimme some happy talk.  ☹

      • DB

        As always, such a well thought out post. The solution lies within your post …

        The original intent was that the states would be the laboratories of the republic, trying out various ways to solve problems. The states that did it best would be emulated by other states, and the federal government would just take care of interstate commence, the administration of federal justice, dealing with foreign countries, and a few other national requirements.

        Much of what you write about in the above paragraph is best found in the local county level of governance. Most of the work of living takes place here as well. Counties manage resources. Those resources are maximized for profit and taxes go to help promote their management and use. The great test of America will be how well and how long those local entities hang onto to their innate power.

        One of the unintended consequences of the current economic model is the move away from hard asset driven economic growth and more of a financial and soft dollar asset development. This undermines the provenance of the local resource holder.

        The current economic trend is unsustainable. There has never been an economic period of prosperity in the history of man and so the odds are good that a retrenching or restructuring of essential goods and resources will take place. Be is food, energy, manufacturing, distribution each locale has a thing that makes them important in the web of what it takes to be a country that conducts commerce.

        My opinion is that you will see a resurgence of state and local power when the current economic phase runs its course. In my mind this ties in closely with CAGW. Of course its a ruse, but its true harm will be felt if the decline in the current economic phase happens as the climate is cooling. Even out of this harm will arise opportunity. As the climate cools, food, energy, mining, hard resources will become far more important in the economy that replaces the fiat one.

        Please allow me the freedom to think out loud in this post. It’s better over a beer with coasters as helpful aids but instead we have this forum. Try not to nitpick the above and instead look at it from the point of view of what is more likely to come than not.

  43. Most of the time you try to discuss science with a politician, who has a predetermined position, you have to wash your clothing, take a shower, and you still can’t get rid of the stench.

  44. Wasn’t sure where to post.
    Sorry if it’s out of place to the Curry thread but perhaps you’ll find a CAGW ditty in it.

    Heard about this and finally got to play.
    It’s a one stop shop for polling results.
    No, not ALL but alot.

    http://morningconsult.com/

    enjoy

  45. Actually I think curry and steyn did not respond to markets statements. There was ample opportunity to discredit him…..but they failed to take advantage. Markeys an experienced debater where curry and steyn aren’t. And it showed in that video.

    • Markey ran out of the room after impugning Curry’s integrity. Steyn was arguing with an empty chair – albeit only slightly emptier than when Markey, the former Mr. Frosty and the man who got his ass kicked by his own girlfriend, occupies it.

      You obviously failed to read Curry’s and Steyn’s written testimony. It is a part of the record of the hearing and is considered by Senate rules to be the equivalent of sworn testimony. Do yourself a favor and read them; you may actually learn something. If nothing else, even if you disagree with the argument, you will read a remarkable polemic by Steyn – I daresay a written work better than even George Orwell’s finest essays.

      • “a remarkable polemic by Steyn – I daresay a written work better than even George Orwell’s finest essays.”

        Not quite! (But close.) Certainly not up to the knockout lethality of HLM.

  46. Politicians seem to have a serious difficulty grasping the difference between a rate of change and an absolute value.
    Clearly the demonstration of runaway global warming in response to increased GHG emissions would have to be an increase in the rate of warming.
    If the warming now was occurring at the same RATE as the warming 100 years ago then this clearly does not support the hypothesis.
    BUT – every time that someone tries to explain that to a politician they return with “last year was the warmest on record”, or “the last decade has been…”, or “last month…”.
    Do they genuinely not understand what a rate is?
    Has this entire topic simply gone straight over their heads?
    Firstly some scientists began to conclude that there was a slight warming trend during the 20th century, then they supposed that this may be linked to CO2, then they created a theory that CO2 had an amplified control over the climate – then they proposed runaway global warming.
    Then runaway global warming failed to occur.
    Not they have told everyone – see a warming trend, marginally. We told you so.
    But, the warming trend was observed first before the whole shebang began.
    The continuation of slight warming provides evidence for nothing.
    Tomorrow the sun will rise. Water will continue to flow down hill. Waves will lap up and down the shore.
    Just observing the continuation of an already discovered trend does not prove anything.
    Yes, it might be a 0.8 degree C warmer than 1915 on average after 100 years of a steadily warming climate. And during that time there were doubtlessly lots of “hottest years since 1915”.
    A casual look at the NOAA graph suggests that almost every year from 1915 to 1945 would have been the “warmest on record” by this criterion.
    A long term trend that is almost identical in magnitude to that between 1970 and 2000.
    And yet curiously nobody was freaking out!!!!

    (P.S. And that’s even if we accept these “gold standard” NOAA figures, (sarc))

    • Markey is closely aligned with this group http://earthjustice.org/tags/Climate-Change.
      They are closely aligned with Boxer.
      If you meander around their webpage you similar talking points as expressed by Markey.
      These talking points are not unique to NGOs, but this particular one is a cutting edge group.

      If you are into how the presidential politics will cut and divide for victory you’ll also see the latino – promises of class action success connection thru this webpage.

      Fun times are a coming /sarc

  47. “sarastro92 December 9, 2015 at 2:38 pm
    You’re tone deaf. 2014-15 as the hottest years is probably the only climate news the public knows about. It was a Home run for Markey and there was no answer from Curry. She was caught on her heels. Sorry.”

    I agree that for the non partisan public listening to this (very few people though), Markey won by saying that ” 2014-15 was the hottest years” and by getting no objection or explanation (I know Curry said we have to know what causes that heat, but she offered no explanation and she was also implicitly admitting that the figure was right).

    Steyn asked about Plymouth Rock’s weather in 1750 (the settlement had been abandonned by then, he must have meant 1650)…But Steyn did not say how cold/warm the winters were. So again the neutral public will not know, is left with a question without answer and will not have understood what point Steyn was trying to make (I imagine he was referring to the Little Ice age not caused by the lack of SUV, but most of the non committed public would not know).

    I was also disappointed that the Alabama meteorologist was so polite as to never interject to defend his graphs and satellite measurements (Happer had to do that when the rear-admiral spoke about all the problems with satellite measurements and the four versions of these graphs, etc. ).

    I listened to the whole hearing. I think it is a draw: no one will have changed his mind.

    • Of course no one’s mind was change. The warmists are devote followers of AGW and skeptics will never be persuaded by 97% (not part of the scientific method) or the warmest year on record (that’s 130 out or 4,500,000,000 or .00000029%).

  48. Markey didn’t actually contribute to the debate. All he did was reiterate talking points from the public relations sheet. Her also tried to dominate the speaking time so nothing substantial could be said by Dr Curry and Mark Steyn.
    In other words, he knows this is a scam but he was trying to stop it being exposed.

  49. The hottest year does not imply that co2 was the cause. It is so far below the models that to use hottest year and caused by co2 a proof that the one does not cause the other. Our production of co2 continues to increase by bmt, yet the hottest year is within the error bars? And that’s after they adjusted the data, again.

    The ultimate say on this is the math. If the math is wrong, then the entirety of CAGW is wrong. The impassioned rhetoric is nothing more than a child throwing a tantrum.

  50. 3 higher altitude observations

    1. Dr Curry broke decorum by demanding to address the committee when not questioned. Good for her, but it’s not normal. Gave me goosbumps when she did it and I was extra impressed that her voice didn’t show signs of cracking under duress. Greater men have crumbled. She needs some coaching in her breathing for delivery … better murder boarding is the buzz phrase.
    2. You’ll see how the invited speakers are huddled together like hamsters at the table effectively shrinking their turso. Elbows are barely able to rise above the table. It’s a nifty little display of dominance over them.
    Sometimes it backfires as the viewer aligns themselves with the underdog position.
    2. IF the GOP was serious about laying out a barrage of “for the record” skeptical points of view they could request a weekly testimony for the record. They control the committee. They can do this.

    I still contend that the GOP has their eye on the prezzy prize and they are fishing concerning CAGW. They hold theatre like this to gauge the reactions of the public, esp concerning the prez vote.

  51. First, let us congratulate Senator Cruz for calling these witnesses to testify before the committee. Giving skeptics a hearing promotes debate in general. Heck, Michael Mann found himself tweeting about the hearing.

    Second, I wish someone would say to the alarmists “El Ninos are naturally occurring events that have been occurring for centuries. All of the upswings in global temperatures in recent times have come during strong El Nino periods. Looking at recent global temperature changes, the data would indicate natural causes have dominated manmade causes. We are currently in a strong El Nino event and any recent changes in global temperatures are due to this naturally occurring event.”

  52. I clicked on this and all of sudden I saw that my electronic notifications for my bank account donated a sizable sum to the African Power Consortium run by the International Community of Conmen. I checked its bylaws and it appears that Africa will be allowed to have only the forms of energy the world allows them to.

  53. Senator Markey very obviously was not in attendance to listen to Dr. Curry; he was there to instruct. The very idea is absurd.

    I think it’s also telling that he referred to Curry in the first few minutes as “Dr. Mann”. What was he thinking? More appropriately, does he think?

    I looked closely for foaming at the mouth based on the comments of others but I didn’t see any. It’s really tragic. I can only hope the dog & pony show results in a few high paid honorariums for Dr. Curry, she deserves it for putting up with all that nonsense.

  54. For those of us familiar with the issues, Markey (Booker?) sounded like a raving fool. The anyone not familiar with the issues, he scored a lot of points on Curry with his warmest year ever rhetoric. As someone else suggested upthread, explaining this matter in proper context is far too complicated and takes far too long to be effective in a debate format where constant interruption is the norm. Not to mention intense pressure, very few people can be at their best in such an environment.

    My own recommendation for dealing with this particular nonsense is not to be debate it, but to examine it. My own retort would have been:

    by how much?

    This is effective in that the senator is highly unlikely to know the number at all, and will be left stammering. In the unlikely event that he does know the number, immediately fire back

    according to which temperature record?

    Now you’ve got him stuck on facts he himself has endorsed and can be further explored.

    Yes Mr Senator, that’s right, 5 one hundredths of one degree. Exactly what we’ve been trying to tell you, the change is so small we’re not even sure if our instruments are accurate enough to measure it, and by the way, the most accurate measurements we have are the satellite measurements and they disagree.

    I tackle the 97% meme the exact same way. When someone quotes that one at me, I fire right back:

    Are you quoting the Cook et al 97% study or the Oreskes 97% study?

    The invariably do not know, and begin stammering. I interrupt the stammering with lines like:

    Because if it was the Cook study, you’re aware that he is a professional cartoonist, right? and if Oreskes, you know you surveyed over 10,000 earth scientists and rejected the answers of all but 59 of them?”

    Don’t fight the stupid statements. Just ask for the supporting details.

    • It’s better to ask people what they think causes the warming. The real issue is that there is a campaign to convince the public that limitting CO2 emissions will stop an impending disaster. When runaway global warming fails to materialize maybe they will try to convince the public that we need to cut CO2 emissions to prevent plants from taking over the world.

    • davidmhoffer:

      I usually find myself applauding your posts but on this occasion I write to provide a disagreement with your suggestion of how to respond to the “hottest year on record assertion”.

      You say

      My own recommendation for dealing with this particular nonsense is not to be debate it, but to examine it. My own retort would have been:

      by how much?

      Sorry, but I disagree. That method leads to winding debate.

      In my above post I explain how and why I would turn the issue back on the person making the assertion by replying with something like this.

      “Yes, it was originally claimed that last year was the ‘hottest on record’ but that was soon retracted. It is now agreed by all that there is a ‘two in three’ probability that 2014 was not the hottest and, for example 1998 was hotter. There is no dissent from this consensus. And some people think this year will be hotter than last year because of the temporary strong El Nino. However, it remains to be seen if this year will be hotter than last. If eventually it is determined that 2015 was hotter than 2014 then we will still have to wait to see if that determination will fail scrutiny as last year’s determination did”.

      Richard

      • Richard.
        What you say is accurate and to the point. However, it falls into the trap that it is implicitly assumed that the temperature increase was due to burning fossil fuels.
        How much global warming due to the burning of fossils fuels was predicted by the climate models? How much warming actually occurred?”
        You can then ask what percentage of warming was due to burning fossil fuels.
        Or you can simply ask:

        “Why is there such a large discrepancy between what was predicted and what actually occurred given that we were were assured that the science was settled?”

      • Walt D.:

        Thankyou for your considered response to my suggestion.

        As happens, this evening I have had discussion with a friend who just refuses to face reality. Asking questions gets nowhere when every question is answered – as Markey answered – by assertion that ‘the science’ is settled and what the scientific papers say is too complicated to be understood by a layman. As with Markey, every question is answered by another question based on the ‘settled science’.

        In a public meeting that is not effective. As I said in my above post about Curry’s reply to the “hottest year” issue

        Rapid response answers to unexpected assertions may not be the ideal answers that would be provided were preparation time available to consider the ‘best’ answer. In this case, the probably ‘best’ answer would have been similar to:

        “Yes, it was originally claimed that last year was the ‘hottest on record’ but that was soon retracted. It is now agreed by all that there is a ‘two to three’ probability that 2014 was not the hottest and, for example 1998 was hotter. There is no dissent from this consensus. And some people think this year will be hotter than last year because of the temporary strong El Nino. However, it remains to be seen if this year will be hotter than last. If eventually it is determined that 2015 was hotter than 2014 then we will still have to wait to see if that determination will fail scrutiny as last year’s determination did”.

        In addition to agreeing Markey’s assertion while refuting it, the suggested answer states that the person providing the answer has more knowledge and expertise than Markey while using Markey’s own tricks of appeals to authority and consensus and introduces the issues of data validity and natural variation from ENSO.

        Some such reply to Markey’s assertions of ‘record years’ could have been prepared if there had been warning of them. Importantly, a similar reply can be presented if Markey’s assertions are repeated.

        I am saying that in a public meeting if presented with an aggressive assertion in the guise of a question then it is most effective to feed the issue back at the questioner.
        This tactic is good because the aggressive questioner is making a point and not wanting an answer, so the tactic refutes the point for the audience.
        I offer the following example.

        In year 2000 scientists from around the world were invited to give a briefing on global warming at the US Congress in Washington DC. There were three briefing Sessions that each were addressed by 4 different scientists one of whom chaired the Session. Fred Singer chaired the first Session on climate data. I chaired the second Session on climate models. And David Wojick chaired the third Session on potential political responses to the global warming issue. In each Session the scientists of that Session each gave a presentation and following all 4 presentations the Chair invited questions from the floor.

        Following our presentations of the second Session, I invited questions from the floor. A person stood and said in aggressive manner,
        The first Session said we cannot trust the climate data and this Session has said we cannot trust the climate models. Where do we go from here?
        He then rapidly sat down.
        Gerd Rainer Weber stood to answer but as Chair I signaled him to sit, then I faced the questioner and said,
        Either the climate data are right or they are not.
        If the climate data are not right then we have nothing with which to assess the climate models.
        If the climate data are right then the climate models cannot emulate past climate.
        In either case, we cannot use the models to indicate future climate.
        So, I agree your question, Sir, where we go from here?

        The questioner studied his shoes and said nothing.
        Gerd indicated that he did not want to add to my answer, so I took the next question.

        Richard

      • I tried the simple approach over the weekend. I drew an ellipse in the sand, put a stone closer to one corner of the ellipse and a pebble on the ellipse near that corner. Hopefully you can see the picture. I then asked … if you were that pebble and the stone was the sun would you expect to be hotter versus colder.

        I didn’t let the conversation meander to CO2, polar bears and sky ponies.

        After my buddy recognized that the pebble would be hotter in that position, I showed him the previous approx 100K year cycle. He pondered it for awhile. He saw the pattern.

        Today he called me and said … “I think all this CO2 business is nonsense, they just want my money and oh, btw when is it going to get colder”

        1 down, _______ to go.

      • Richard,

        I like your suggested responses and think that the tactic you recommend of turning the question back on the asker sounds solid. That you have the experience helps confirm it for me.

        I think my response to the “hottest year” statement would have be to ask the Senator if he could tell us just how much hotter it was that 2014 (the previous “hottest year” on record). Other qustions which come to mind as “Senator, do you know how long the record is?” and “Senator, can you tell us to what degree of accuracy we can record or measure the temperature?”

        To be honest, my first response, without thinking, would have been “Senator Markey, you do know that all of your comments, “97%” , “hottest year ever”, “global warming caused record snow in Boston”, etc, are basically those a parrot can be trained to utter, right?” “No science required.”

      • In this case, the bully maintains power by asserting itself as the PROTECTOR of the people.
        I am, I do, I decide, I protect, I am elected to, I blah blah.
        As long as he’s doing that you are in the subservient position.

        You can question to your hearts content, but first you have to punch the bully in the nose in front of the audience by vividly demonstrating that the so called PROTECTOR is scaring people for no good reason AND that you are there to help him PROTECT THE PEOPLE.

        Then you lay out what you know and he is in a backpeddling position.
        He’s backpeddling because he has to counter your clarity.

        It’s a beautiful thing when done right.

    • Excwellent David.

      FYI – Markey must have been sitting in the seat reserved for Chris Booker (D;NJ) who did not attend.

      • Keep in mind you are talking about Mass. They manage to elect all sorts of clowns. Hell, Markey was elected to fill John Kerry’s senate seat.

  55. Meanwhile at the very moment of these hearings, tourists in the American Southwest are enjoying the quint cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde. This entire culture lived on subsistence farming and faced away when the localized climate became too dry and hot.

    Also at the very moment that Senator Markey was scolding the climate deniers, biologists at Harvard and elsewhere continued their work at extracting DNA from tissue of mammoth elephants that had been recently harvested from thawing tundra in Siberia. Since mammoths eat vegetative matter, and some have been found with leaves still in their mouths, logic dictates that the climate at the time they were entombed in snow was mild up util that moment about 3,600 years ago. Siberia with mild climate 3,600 years ago?? Hello!! Is Senator Markey home?

    • What is idiotic is claiming that global warming of a few hundredths of a degree last year produced 110 inches of snow in Boston.
      Since we have another few hundredth of a degree increase this year can we expect even more snow this year and next year?
      After all he is claiming that this is climate change rather than just a weather event.
      BTW for anyone living in buffalo NY, has the been any snow yet?

  56. Markey is just another example of the human predilection for not actually thinking…most notably displayed among and encouraged by politicians, reporters, and fraudsters (perhaps that last one is redundant).

  57. I don’t see how such events help the skeptic cause. What we really, truly need is some assistance from Mother Nature. It would be nice to have a strong tropical volcanic eruption like another Pinatubo, during a strong la-nina, during a solar minimum. Without some true cooling, sufficient to take a year out of the running for “statistically manipulated warmest ever”, we’re just not going to make any real progress against the warming establishment, IMO. C’mon Ma Nature, give us some help!

  58. Actually I thought that the key point in that video cut was right at the beginning where Sen. Markey tried to prevent the guests from even speaking in reply to his accusations and claims. That is what the proponents of the AGW crowd are all about. Shut down any debate and there it was, a perfect example in a microcosm and US Senator being an AGW advocate and trying to shut down any response to his rhetoric at a “Hearing” from a scientist that specializes in the field. How come for nearly my entire 60 year life time on this planet the electorate of the state of Massachusetts has voted left wing wackos to the Senate?

  59. Markey cited Galileo – that the Earth rotates around the Sun is settled science. He is wrong. Einstein showed that in General Relativity there is no absolute frame of reference.
    Even before Galileo, scientists were able to predict the position of Jupiter in the sky using the Earth as a frame of reference.(Their equations were complicated).
    People were able to navigate the oceans using a sextant that tracked the motion of the Sun across the sky.

  60. Aaron December 10, 2015 at 7:47 am
    I don’t see how such events help the skeptic cause. . .

    Just getting testimony from the likes of Prof. Curry, Prof. Happer, and others (not to exclude the always-entertaining and enlightening Mr. Steyn) can help at the margins of the swamp trampled by the Climatosaurus. Kudos to Ted Cruz for holding the hearing, and I second the calls here for regular repetitions.

    I have the misfortune to live not only in the state represented by the (now) Senator Malarkey, but in the very district he was said to have ‘represented’ for some 37 years. He is a good example of how the parties have trampled on the Constitutional system created by the Founders, and most recently of the effect of the 17th Amendment that DB Stealey describes above. A way to reverse the decline to Euro-style bureaucratic tyranny he describes might be the Convention of States proposed by Mark Levin, unlikely though that is to occur.

    As for the exchange that occasioned this thread, I agree with those above that, if anyone in the General Public were listening (unlikely), Malarkey would have gotten the verdict, because in the circumstance there could be no true dialogue, and if Malarkey is good at anything, it is riding roughshod over witnesses.

    /Mr Lynn

    PS The debate over “The Warmest Year Ever” is a shibboleth that needs exorcizing. Does it really make sense to talk about “Global Temperature”? Aside from averaged satellite measurements, it appears to be a concept that has no factual referent. It is an angel dancing on an imaginary pin.

  61. I apologize if someone has already said what I am about to say but I got tired of reading comments about water temperature. The answer to senator Markey should have been that the fact that 2014 and 2015 were the warmest years on record is not significant. We are experiencing a pause in warming but it is a pause that is a plateau at the highest temperature levels since 1880. Therefore the warmest years during this pause will set records for the highest temperatures since 1880. But those high temperature years will be offset by cooler years forming our current temperature plateau and it is likely that the pause in continuous temperature rise will continue until around the year 2030. The current warming that Senator Markey refers to is no doubt caused by the existing El Nino effect which should be diminishing shortly. The argument that there is no pause and that continuous warming is occurring will be refuted by the temperature record of upcoming years providing there is no data manipulation by official temperature data sources. These temperature pauses are a dagger in the heart of the CO2 warming argument and adherents of that argument are frantic to deny the existence of periodic pauses in temperature rise.

    • Bingo

      “10 of the last 15 years are the 10 hottest on record” means nothing when there is either no trend or an insignificant, easy to adapt to trend.

      Even then, to say “easy to adapt to” is suggesting we as inhabitants of this awesome planet haven’t benefitted from what warming we’ve had in the last century.

  62. Why does anyone call this a “debate”. It was a hearing, which in government, should mean to gather evidence, but which actually means to provide an opportunity for Senators to get their face on TV, demagogue, repeat the dogma of their particular ideological positions and that of their “tribe”. A debate operates by a different set of rules. So it is pointless to score who won, or didn’t, in this hearing. To get one’s particular point of view read into the record is enough.

  63. What I got out of this, plus a piece at Mark Steyn’s website, was a feeling of utter contempt for the process. Not being an American, I had only a vague idea of how Senate hearings were conducted — from TV news clips, old footage from the McCarthy era, the Di Caprio bio of Howard Hughes and so on.

    I’d been under the impression that a group of senators would assemble, the expert witnesses would appear and be questioned. There would be back-and-forth debate out of which something heading toward the truth would emerge.

    Instead, a senator would take his place, read out a statement of his position, ask a Dorothy Dixer* and disappear. All the while the expert witnesses would have to sit there and cop it.

    If this is a democratic process, then I’m the Queen of Sheba. What I saw and what Steyn describes is arrogance on an industrial scale.

    Since the arrival of the internet, I’ve had quite a few political discussions with Americans. They have been invariably polite but always with an undertone of “our system is vastly superior to your system” because “we got rid of kings and princes and emperors and all the rest and we are all equal here” with the more ignorant adding that “you have to bow down to a queen”.

    Well, that may be the theory but it sure ain’t the practice.

    You have an emperor, he’s elected every four years, sometimes he hangs around for eight.

    You have princes; they are called senators. Exactly what their day-to-day duties are I’m not sure but they, like princes of ancient times, spend a vast amount of effort jockeying for position in order to be the chosen one when the emperor is removed.

    And you have lesser courtiers, known as congressmen. They also jockey for position for higher honours and act as spear throwers for the more exalted senators.

    I’m just guessing, but no doubt this process is repeated on a smaller scale throughout the fifty states.

    A couple of days ago I watched a parliamentary hearing from Westminster, where a professor of economics was giving evidence to a committee of MPs on the econoimic implications of the UK leaving the European Union. The MPs asked their questions (padded with opinion, I have to admit) and then sat and listened when the professor replied. What followed was a back and forth until the matter had been thoroughly thrashed out. Nobody made a statement then left the room, both sides heard the other out, the hearing was conducted under proper rules of committee.

    In short, the US system of government has plenty to learn from Westminster.

    I realise that this is not a political forum but this Senate hearing was, above all else, a political occasion and that needs to commented on.

    The Steyn piece is here: http://www.steynonline.com/7351/markey-mark

    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Dixer

    • Well, apparently, this is a unique, or almost unique, happening in a Senate hearing. Left to her own devices, Curry would have taken Markey’s nonsense on the chin. But Steyn, someone with a working knowledge of the Westminster process, got on his hind legs and called the senator out. From what I understand, no native-born American would dare, on an occasion such as this, to question the motives of a senator, the bearer of an office that is beyond criticism.

  64. At the risk of being a Monday Morning Quarterback, it would have been nice for one of the panel to point out that his complete dismissal of the information presented and the qualifications of those present was a fine example of the Dogma side of the discussion. That said, I can see why it would have been difficult to respond without getting a bit hot under the collar to such drivel.

  65. It’s been about 10 hours since I watched this, but didn’t the senator repeatedly say something about Galileo? As if the science world agreed with him in his day? He was against the consensus of his time and effectively one of the 17th centuries best analogues to Dr. Curry. He should be applauding her for standing up for what she believes is right by her own scientific inquiry, not beating her upon the head and shoulders with highlights from the work of someone else, who’s very title suggests he will act as commanded by his beurocratic superior.

  66. I had never heard this senator speak before but what I witnessed was pointed out above. Here we had a lawyer talking over the other two and getting his talking points and zingers in before they could open their mouths. If you check out the actual face time, the senator dominated the clock by not letting anyone else speak. The ‘left’ uses this tactic very well.
    Is that debate style effective? Apparently it is. Any neutral observer who witnessed the political debates leading up to the last Canadian election would think Mr. Trudeau was simply a puerile gasbag who wouldn’t let his opponents speak. We know how that turned out.

  67. I listened to the whole thing, all 3 hours plus of the “hearing.” It certainly wasn’t a debate, and for the Democrats participating, there was little evidence of “Hearing.” Quite sadly, it seems they Markey (D-MA), Schatz (D-HI) and Nelson (D-FL) are incurious and ineducable. They queried only “their” man, whom they flattered to the point of embarrassment (Markey equated Titley to Galileo, as if he, Titley, were some kind of brave person standing up to power. I kept waiting (hoping) Titley would demonstrate the slightest iota of scientific integrity by clarifying the inapplicabilitiy of the “97% consensus” meme, which was the hook on which the Democrats – -majoritarians that they seem to be except when it comes to “hearing” from the people – – repeatedly, severally and collectively rested their closed-minded cases, and with such arrogant triumphalism.

    Surely Titley knows what a fraud the “97% consensus” construct is, how non-science, but, in the moment he seems to have been too swimmy-headed with all the attention and plaudits to be an honest man. So Titley did a Gruber. Sad to think his is the only chorus the Democrats are capable of hearing. A sad, pitiful note. Alas, America.

    • He has a title they can understand: Admiral. His title effectively shows he can take orders and execute them extremely well which is exactly what those guys want.

  68. Did my comment get lost? I don’t know if I can take it, it took so long to bake it. and I’ll never have that recipe again … oh no…. oh no

  69. My answer to “warmest ever” would have been “No one knows that.” My answer to “warmest on record” would have been “So? Do you realize how incredibly short the record is?” or “Warmest where? Certainly not everywhere. An average temperature is meaningless.”

Comments are closed.