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.
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.
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
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.
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 received thousands of dollars from a proposed wind farm off cape cod.
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
“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%).
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.
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.
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.
Knute? You’re so friggin (frackin) practical. It will not play in Poughkeepsie 🙂
Bart
Tis true. I feel deeply but my emotional circle of trust is very small.
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.”
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.
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.
PS: These are you tax dollars at work. A US Senator just tried to take down a scientist who has studied climate her entire life. With NO evidence. NO rational argument. Nothing at all. And he apparently won.
What a waste. What a useless WASTE…
And he actually blamed the weather in Boston on CO2. He really did it. It just frosts my balls.
You could try dipping them in that boiling ocean off Boston!
Sorry, that would be “your tax dollars”
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
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
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.
A member of congress slinging the denier word at people summoned to give evidence is a disgrace. Shame on you Sen. Markey.
Pointman
And shame on the electorate to continue electing a prat like him. Might as well put Chris Mooney or Dana Nuccitelli in office.
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.
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?
Markey actually said that a cold weather event was caused by warming planet.. He is an idiot!
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?
Here’s the transcript from the video. This part of the Q&A nicely illustrates why the climate policy debate has been gridlocked.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/12/10/senate-climate-hearing-91817/
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).
If I ever buy a parrot, I will call it 97% and train it to say, Markey wanna cracker! 😉
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!
Not a volcano–it would just give warmists an “out.”
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?
The rule at these hearings is that witnesses can’t pipe up–they must only respond to questions.
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.
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.
I’m sorry, but i couldn’t make it through the video. As others have noted, Markey is an idiot.
97% of scientists believe Markey is an idiot. Settled science.
Now, if only 51% of the voters in his state would think the same.
21 degrees in the Atlantic with moisture from this meeting cold polar air? (Deg F or Deg C?)
These are the temperature anomalies during that period –
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/sst-regional-movies-as-described-here-i.html?WxK=27
I don’t see any evidence for Markey’s assertion but since he is a politician he won’t let facts alter his predjudice