Skeptical scientist hijacks AOC Congressional climate hearing

via Climate Depot, summary:

  • Climate Statistician Dr. Caleb Rossiter: ‘We are trying to save the people of the planet from the people ‘saving the planet.'”
  • AOC “seemed to recognize that Rossiter’s presence, and incendiary claims, had become central to a hearing that was not supposed to be about coal.”
  • Rossiter to Congress: “Extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, droughts and tornadoes are not increasing in incidence or lives lost. Indeed, the global mortality from all weather-related natural disasters declined by 99 percent while the population trebled after 1920, thanks to improved economies and technologies. Food production and calorie consumption per capita continue to increase, thanks to the green revolution, increased CO2 fertilization and longer growing seasons. Fossil fuels contribute enormously to the production, safe storage and transport of food and thus to human nutrition.”

By: Marc MoranoClimate Depot

Climate statistician Dr. Caleb Rossiter from the CO2 Coalition hijacked the Democratic Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and the Democrats climate hearing on Capitol Hill on April 30. Dr. Rossiter upended the House Oversight Committee Environment subcommittee hearing on “The Public Effects” of climate change when he declared “CO2 emissions have had a positive and modest impact on Americans’ health.” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez saw her message “hijacked” by the skeptical scientist.

Image result for caleb rossiter

Yahoo News reported on May 1 in an article titled “How to hijack a climate change hearing”:

Ocasio-Cortez, who said she did not want to spend her allotted time to question witnesses solely to fact-check Rossiter, did do some of that. “Let’s get it back to the actual subject of this hearing,” she urged, “which is the impact of climate change on human health. We’re not debating whether climate change is real, and we’re not debating any of those attendant effects.” The 29-year-old legislator, who has spent less than six months in Washington, seemed to recognize that Rossiter’s presence, and incendiary claims, had become central to a hearing that was not supposed to be about coal, or its role in the 21st century economy.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Caleb Rossiter of the CO2 Coalition, an organization whose mission is to highlight the “important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy,” played the role of spoiler. The group was co-founded by William Happer, a physicist who is now leading the Presidential Committee on Climate Security, a newly formed panel that many believe will be used to undermine established science on global warming. The CO2 Coalition is largely funded by conservative foundations, including those of the billionaire Koch and Mercer families. Rossiter was the last of the afternoon’s witnesses, and followed public health experts and medical doctors who described how global warming was not just an ecological disaster but approached epidemic levels in its human costs. Speaking in urgent, distressed tones, they described elevated levels of asthma and obesity, respiratory disease and food poisoning.

But Dr. Rossiter countered with a clear and concise scientific and health message, noting that “So far, CO2 emissions have had a positive and modest impact on Americans’ health” and adding that  “weather mortality” has fallen. Rossiter touted development to help with the impacts of natural disasters, explaining “being wealthy saves lives.”

Excerpt from Yahoo News:

Rossiter, adorned in a bow tie, had an altogether different message. Calling himself a “climate statistician,” he depicted his group as a lone truth-teller in a field otherwise besotted with alarmist predictions. “We save the people of the planet from people who think they are saving the planet,” Rossiter said in his opening statement. He then proceeded to tout the benefits of carbon dioxide, which is emitted when carbon is burned and traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.

“So far, CO2 emissions have had a positive and modest impact on Americans’ health,” Rossiter said. He said “weather mortality” has fallen because most weather-related deaths come during cold spells, which presumably become more rare as the planet warms.

Rossiter proceeded to show a slide of what he said was “a typical rural African dwelling.” The following slide showed a woman in traditional garb (Rossiter did not say which African country the images came from) cooking a meal over an open fire. He argued that fossil fuel-generated electricity was modernizing Africa and leading to better health outcomes.

“Being wealthy saves lives,” he said. [ALso see:Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]

Rep. James Comer, who is the committee’s ranking member and represents coal-rich western Kentucky, mused about “the role that coal would play in helping more Americans escape poverty and maintain a higher state of health and well-being.”

#

Climate Change, Part II: The Public Health Effects
Environment subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee

Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 – 2:00pm

Location: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

Climate Change, Part II: The Public Health Effects

Subcommittees: Environment (116th Congress)

Full written testimony of Caleb S. Rossiter, Ph.D.before the Subcommittee on the Environment of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, April 30, 2019.

Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member Comer, and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am honored to be invited to testify on Climate Change: The Impact on Public Health. From my time on the congressional staff I developed a deep affection for this American institution and a deep appreciation for the difficult job you all do for all of us.

I am a climate statistician and the executive director of the CO2 Coalition, which was founded by Princeton atmospheric physicist and hence climate scientist Will Happer. Professor Happer is now President Trump’s national security director for emerging technologies. As the Subcommittee knows from recent hearings, he advocates a scientific review of claims that fossil-fueled climate change threatens national security.

I represent our 46 members, who are atmospheric physicists, climatologists,
agronomists, geologists, ecologists, statisticians, medical doctors, and energy economists. Our Coalition’s mission is science education. We are trying to save the people of the planet from the people “saving the planet” from what has been – for 30 years — an always predicted but never realized climate catastrophe.

The Coalition published a White Paper on Climate Change and Health last fall. We have provided copies with my testimony, and I hope the Chair will make the electronic pdf we provided part of the record. The principal researchers for the paper were two of our medical doctors and public health specialists, Jan Breslow, professor at Rockefeller University and head of its Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, and Weston Allen,
First, the decisions Congress makes on whether to restrict fossil fuels and their emissions of carbon dioxide will affect the health not just of Americans but of people all over the world.

So far, CO2 emissions have had a modest, positive impact on public health in the United States: they have increased plant productivity because CO2 is plant food, and reduced mortality because CO2 has contributed to warming. And you have already heard testimony in a previous hearing, the fracking revolution may have averted many deaths here because it has reduced the price of home heating.

But it is in Africa that whether U.S. policy promotes or restricts fossil-fueled
electricity is truly a matter of life and death. Only 25 percent of African homes has electricity. That explains much of why life expectancy in Africa is 20 years lower than in the rest of the world.
Reliable electricity means that Africans don’t have to do their cooking and heating with wood and animal dung. That dramatically reduces lung and heart disease.

Reliable electricity means that water can be purified for safe drinking. That
reduces the largest cause of child mortality.

My second reason for being pleased to testify is that I and the members of the CO2 Coalition were recently the object of an attempt by a member of this Subcommittee to censor us by blocking our public appearances, and to defame us by stating that we “deny established science.” To use the “climate denier” label over technical disputes about immensely complex and uncertain computer models of the combined atmosphere-land-ocean system is to make a shameful comparison to kooks who deny the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust.

As I read through your recent hearings on Climate Change, I saw once again how difficult your jobs are. You were exposed to two contradictory views of climate science. First, former Senators Kerry and Hagel saw CO2 emissions behind everything from the sinking land at a naval base to wildfires and hurricanes.

Similarly, Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia said: “The U.S. and the planet are buffeted by extraordinary heat waves, droughts, floods, forest fires, and extreme storms.”

Second, Nicolas Loris of the Heritage Foundation testified, as Roger Pielke Jr. did before the Science Committee in 2017, that UN IPCC and U.S. government data show that rates of sea-level rise and extreme weather were the same during the half-degree of early 20th century warming, which was almost entirely natural, as during the half-degree warming since 1980, at least half of which the IPCC says was due to industrial CO2.

What is the subcommittee to make of this dispute? I think that the answer was actually provided in statements by the Chairman and Senator Hagel.
Chairman Rouda noted that in 1992, the United States and 154 nations agreed that warming will occur from CO2 and that it “may adversely affect natural systems and humankind.” The CO2 Coalition are in complete agreement with that statement, as a scientific fact. Then Senator Hagel testified that: “Scientists reduced uncertainty about climate change over the last two decades.” And we agree with that too.

That’s because we look at the actual data that scientists have collected during this period. Science is fundamentally the testing of hypotheses with data. The data are what country singer Porter Wagoner calls, “the cold, hard facts of life.” And the cold, hard fact is that the “may” in the 1992 agreement remains possible, but has not yet occurred.

Using the IPCC’s own words and data, Professor Pielke and Professor Judith Curry have shown that decadal rates of drought, storms, flooding,  hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, and the rate of sea-level rise have not registered any statistically significant change during the recent period of warming that was partially induced by CO2.

Here are the quotations and their sources:

IPCC AR5 (2014): “It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 (1.5 to 1.9) mm/year between 1901 and 2010…and 3.2 (2.8 to 3.6) mm/year between 1993 and 2010. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.” (Curry Sea-level paper,
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/special-report-sea-level-rise3.pdf)

IPCC AR5 (2014): There is not enough evidence to support medium or high
confidence of attribution of increasing trends to anthropogenic forcings as a result of observational uncertainties and variable results from region to region…we conclude consistent with SREX that there is low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century.
(Pielke Jr. testimony, https://republicansscience.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG115-SY-WState-RPielke-20170329.pdf)

IPCC AR5 (2014): In summary there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.” Ibid.

IPCC AR5 (2014): Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in
global cyclone frequency over the past century… No robust trends in annual
numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes have been identified in the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.” Ibid.
So climate catastrophe may happen, and we need to maintain vigilant scientific inquiry. But it hasn’t happened yet. That, too, is a cold, hard fact.
So now that we have disposed of our current fears, let’s look at the issue of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide, and public health.

Humanity thrived during long periods considerably warmer than now and suffered terribly during cold periods, such as the preindustrial Little Ice Age. In most countries, winters are still much more lethal than summers. Globally, cold weather kills many times more people than hot weather, and modelling indicates that it will continue to do so regardless of greenhouse gas emissions.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) primarily affects minimum temperatures at night, in winter and high latitudes. This reduces temperature variability, the diurnal temperature range and hence cardiac and COPD mortality, asthma, respiratory infections and even gastroenteritis. Whereas heatwaves have a great effect on the
those about to die, cold spells have more prolonged effects on respiratory,
cardiovascular and stroke mortality.

The relationship between climate and vector-borne disease is complex. Despite global warming from 1900 to 2012, the malaria mortality rate per capita declined 95 percent. The recent upsurge in dengue is due primarily to rapid urbanization and international travel. The reason Chikungunya virus spread rapidly after 2005 was a genomic micro-evolution enabling it to be transmitted by the mosquito, Aedes albopictus, which may be adversely affected by future warming and CO2 fertilization of plants. Warm El Niño events actually reduce the transmission of tick-born encephalitis. Modeling of Lyme disease in the U.S. projects an expansion into Canada and a retreat from the southern states, resulting in an overall reduction
in the exposed population.

Extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, droughts and tornadoes are not increasing in incidence or lives lost. Indeed, the global mortality from all weatherrelated natural disasters declined by 99 percent while the population trebled after 1920, thanks to improved economies and technologies. Food production and calorie consumption per capita continue to increase, thanks to the green revolution, increased CO2 fertilization and longer growing seasons. Fossil fuels contribute enormously to the production, safe storage and transport of food and thus to human
nutrition. Modeling indicates an inverse relationship between future global water stress and emissions.

Air pollution kills about 7 million people annually, and the major culprit is not fossil fuels, but burning biomass (wood, dung and crop waste). The provision of affordable electricity for cooking and heating of homes in developing countries could save millions of lives annually. Air quality in the developed world has improved greatly since the 1970s, thanks to catalytic converters, scrubbers and precipitators, removing 97 percent of the sulfur dioxide and 99 percent of coal’s fly ash. Coal power in the U.S. is 17 times safer than that in India and China.

Energy costs need to be kept as low as possible, especially in cold climates, so that poor people can afford to keep warm in winter. For every death from heat, there are twenty from cold. Fossil fuels, including clean-coal will continue to have an important role to play in advancing civilization and human health over the 21st century. Our focus should be on conservation and health-promoting activities rather than on CO2 and climate change. Unmitigated warming this century is likely to be less than 1 degree Celsius and thus more beneficial than harmful for humanity and perhaps for the planet.

The latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers states: “The most effective
vulnerability-reducing measures for health in the near term are programs that implement and improve basic public health measures such as provision of clean water and sanitation, secure essential health care including vaccination and child health services, increase capacity for disaster preparedness and response, and alleviate poverty (very high confidence).”

We agree with the IPCC. There’s no denying that we are part of that scientific consensus. But those solutions are not possible without cheap, reliable energy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

* * *

Advertisements

120 thoughts on “Skeptical scientist hijacks AOC Congressional climate hearing

  1. The Democrats have to be asking “Who the hell let the truth-teller” into the room?

    • Oddly he spoke about CO2 in hearing about the effects of climate change. Strange.

      Meanwhile AOC seems to think it is about coal .

      “Speaking in urgent, distressed tones, they described elevated levels of asthma and obesity, respiratory disease and food poisoning.”

      So what the hell has all that do with the effects of climate change or CO2 ?

      Maybe if they want to call hearing about coal, they should call hearing about coal.

        • She also keeps referencing ‘Flint’, and nobody calls her on it.

          The politicians/administrators, State regulators, and “engineers” that thought it would be a good idea to acquire different source water (without regard to the water chemistry) are responsible for ‘Flint’.

          Ocasio, What the hell does CO2 (or even coal) have to do with ‘Flint’?

          (If we want to get sciency with the Flint problem we need to understand that the problem is Hydrogen … Hydrogen is indirectly responsible for poisoning the Flint kids. We need to get rid of the hhydrogen … it’s for the kids)

          • And they only made sure that the water leaving the treatment plants meet the water quality requirements.
            Don’t know the regulations today on water quality but 40 years ago when the water delivered to our community contained “fecal coliform” bacteria. As we lived in a develement out in the county, no state or federal rules applied. What was really strange was that the plant I worked at got a citation and large fine from the EPA for pumping water from a flood out of the lower levels of the plant back into the river during this same time frame. When trying to get the EPA to force the water company to do something we got nowhere EPA claimed “Not in our area of control or regulations.”

          • To correct a misconception about Flint, it wasn’t the change in source water that caused the lead in some service lines to leach into the water. Flint had been buying its water from Detroit. Detroit fed a corrosion control chemical in its treatment process. Zinc Orthophosphate which works by depositing a thin layer in the inside of the pipe to prevent water to metal contact. No water to metal contact, no leaching of metal.
            When Flint reactivated its old water treatment plant, the bean counters nixed adding a
            ZOP feed system. The layer laid down by the Detroit water broke down. CO2 did NOT break it down. 😎 It needs to constantly be renewed.

          • When Dumbocrats tell you a story, just assume they are lying.

            You’ll be right most of the time.

            The Flint story you usually hear is a lie.

            I live about an hour from Flint, and cared enough to get the facts.

            Flint water did not even have the highest lead content in Michigan, much less in the US.

            Was the water sometimes brown, or distasteful — probably yes … and the city was also in bankruptcy, trying to save money on too many things.

            But the alleged health problem from lead was grossly overstated.

            One month ago I got fed up with the lying, and decided to publish an article on the subject on my climate science blog, even though it’s not climate science related, here:

            https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-junk-science-used-for.html

          • Gunga,

            Orthophosphate encapsulates, or potentially seals, the stuff that you do not want the water to react with. A general alternative (and usually tried prior to introducing the expensive ortho-phosphate) is to raise the pH to lessen the corrosion … Too many H’s in the water. How & where the chlorine disinfection is introduced can also screw up the intent of the ortho-phosphate. Non of this is a solution … the solution is replacement of the mostly private lines that have lead solder; and the replacement of the old public lines that create the brown aesthetic problems … EPA rules ignore the fact that the private lines are crap and the regs say that the delivered water needs to be treated in a manner that will not corrode the 80 year old crap plumbing.

            Usur, Drinking water program people and water quality program people are completely different departments and don’t talk to each other. (where I come from the water quality people are idiots & zealots, and the drinking water people are pretty good). Current regs are that “unregulated” systems are 3 or less users; 4 to 13 is another level; and over 13 is a community system that needs to spend a lot of money on regulatory compliance.

      • Just when I thought the CAGW crowd couldn’t find anything else to blame on global warming they are now blaming it for obesity. How is obesity caused by global warming? I guess it is too much food production due to carbon dioxide fertilization.

      • If our emissions are causing asthma (Obama claimed his daughter’s asthma was due to our emissions), why weren’t they causing ten times more asthma 20 years ago, when emissions were ten times higher?

      • There are none so blind, as those who will not see …
        inotherwords … “The science is settled” … “the time for debate is over” … ad nauseum

        AOC needs a white cane

    • Temperature C relative to 1900 has gone up Shindell, et al
      Science 335, 183 (2012)
      Since then NASA data shows data points over 1 degree C on a reference line with CO2 measures. https:// data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs. The trajectory is on track to 1.5 degree C by about 2040 . It goes earlier if you look at the reference points going up during the last 4 years. So, what to do? Well , I for one am not an alarmist but with wiggle room to 2030 declining….I would rather trust us to do it with a feee and dividend system and let’s do individual and community action rather than trust a D.C. bureaucracy. By the way, has anyone ever seen what happened to the P.A.S.S. modeling from the 90’s from Los Alamos?

  2. Sadly not a single Democrat will take any of this to heart. They will remain willfully ignorant. And willful ignorance is *not* a survival trait.

    • Saint Jordan Peterson warns of ideological possession. That describes the Democrats. It cost Hillary the election.

      For a while after the election, some Democrats seemed to get the message that they lost because they threw the forgotten Americans (Hillary called them the deplorables) under the bus. Now they’re back to their old tricks. That makes it much more likely that they will lose the next election.

    • I cannot believe your statement that “not a single Democrat will take any of this to heart”. I think it is so encouraging that Caleb Rossiter was allowed to deliver his piece without being called to order for not sticking to “the actual subject of this hearing as Ocasio-Cortez put it. The Sceptic was allowed to speak. That is an huge improvement to the usual carry-on.

  3. I would love to have seen the face on AOC after that presentation. Can I get a “Hallelujah”?

  4. Mods:

    15 minutes after hitting enter button, comment still has not posted.

    Why?

    • They are apparently batch processed by WordPress at 5 minutes after the hour. Check it yourself if you like.
      It’s become a subtle interference, as I see it.

    • Happens to me all the time every day, Javert. Maybe something to do with my browser cache or IP address? I don’t know. Never used to be like this and I am not on any ‘watch list’ that I am aware of as far as WUWT is concerned. My comments usually become visible after an hour or so, but occasionally almost immediately.

      • [MODS] can we have a clear statement about this?

        There have been many reports of this once per hour processing and it basically stifles any means of having an exchange with others on WUWT.

        Since E J Zuiderwijk says this does not happen to him, it means it is selective. What is this, partial shadow banning for certain users IPs, some WP censorship of WUWT? What is going in here?

        Thanks.

        (You are reading into this too much, at this time there are no spam or trash message, and already approved two unrelated messages. Nothing is being held back by Moderators) SUNMOD

        • I notice a lag between my posts and when they appear on the site, but I’ve never seen one that didn’t make it on the thread.

        • Greg, sometimes moderators pass out and fall off their bar stools. You can’t expect them to read your comments until they wake up. This has been a huge problem among website moderators, but there is no excuse for them not using a special bar stool, with a seat belt. By the way, the moment a moderator falls over, is called “The Tipping Point”, in the community of moderators — they do have quite a sense of humor — of course that may be the alcohol speaking.
          Three Cheers for the Moderators
          Internet comment s could not exist without them !

    • I think people are getting waaaaayyyyyy too hung up on this post response “issue”. Sometimes I don’t see my posts for ages, but I don’t crack the sh!ts about it! Chill…

  5. ……..they described elevated levels of asthma and obesity, respiratory disease and food poisoning.

    Logic seems to be very scarce in Congress, at least on one side of the aisle:
    – No physician has ever hinted that CO2 causes asthma; and I’d love to see the study that shows a fraction of a degree temperature increase results in an increase in the prevalence of that ailment. It should be easy; just compare St. Paul to Miami.
    – How in the heck do you tie obesity and food poisoning to “Climate Change”?!? There are so many factors that influence both of those conditions, and they had to reach and tie it to the bogey man “de jour”?

    • George:

      You hafta unnerstand that they are trying to create a mental link between “pollution” and “carbon”. Therefore anytime you get to say “pollution” the listener is supposed to think “that includes carbon”.

      So the funny part (it would have made a great chart) is that the cleaner the air has become in the USA over the past 50 years, the higher the incidence of asthma. The rate has been increasing much faster than the rate of removing PM2.5 from the air. So much for “cause and effect”.

      So the new plan is apparently to connect asthma to “ground level ozone” while simultaneously uttering the words “pollution from coal burning power stations”. That idea is we should consider ozone to be a product of coal combustion because coal contains carbon and carbon is pollution and ozone is pollution therefore coal caused it.

      We are supposed to be scared, then worried, then angry, then rage against “coal”.

      Obesity is supposed to be caused by “pollution”. Carbon pollution makes people obese? Anyway that’s the plan. I’ll drink to that.

      Food poisoning is the idea that “fallout” from coal combustion lands in fields and is absorbed into “crops” giving you lead and mercury poisoning because it is detectable in the soil. The fact that the entire planet has lead and mercury in “detectable” quantities may put you off terrestrial food for the rest of your (severely shortened) life. Combined with linear no safe dose thinking, statisticians can generate deaths on paper from any imaginable cause you like. Even I know how to do that. You can just make stuff up – kill by assumptions.

      The figure above of nine million deaths annually “from cooking over wood and dung fires” is nonsense. The claim, and it is a very shaken one, is that such fuels “contribute” to the “premature death” of 4.2m people per year. The stat doesn’t say anything about “killing” anyone. It is a committee attribution based on populations, usually national.

      I am sure there are some deaths from cooking fire smoke, but that is not what the stat claims. It is “attributed” by a committee as being a contributor, one of more than 70, to a statistically significant set of premature deaths in a population, not a cause of death. Premature means before the age of 86, BTW. If anyone you know who was born after 1933 and is already dead, they died, in part, from cooking fire smoke – so it is estimated. There is no “there” there. It is an invented number.

      • Crispin in Waterloo

        WHO predicted that between 2015 and 2050 (35 years) 120,000,000 people in the developing world will die from respiratory conditions directly related to burning wood and animal faeces. Around 3.5m per year.

        It is believed that 1,000,000 people a year die from the lack of vitamin A which can be alleviated by allowing them access to GM Golden Rice.

        It’s also understood that in excess of 500,000 a year die as a direct result of inadequate sanitation.

        844 million people lack even a basic drinking-water service, including 159 million people who are dependent on surface water.
        Globally, at least 2 billion people use a drinking water source contaminated with faeces.
        Contaminated water can transmit diseases such diarrhoea, cholera, dysentery, typhoid, and polio. Contaminated drinking water is estimated to cause 502 000 diarrhoeal deaths each year.
        ” WHO https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water

        So far I’m up to around 5.5m deaths that could be alleviated by cheap, available, fossil fuelled power.

        • your 11 mil quote on vit A was a guesstimate made ages ago
          theres NO real data of proveable DEATH from lack of vit A some eye issues mostly
          and once again a carrot or some fruit would solve it
          poverty is the cause

          • Best source of carotene (vA) is organ meats, especially liver.

            Beta carotene, the form found in carrots and other fruit&veg, needs extra processing by the body to convert it to true carotene and is thus a much less efficient means to get it.

      • Crisp in
        The primary cause of asthma is probably house dust mite allergy. Studies in the UK show that at least 80% of asthmatics are allergic to house dust mites. The universal installation of central heating has encouraged the mite population which relies on human skin flakes for it’s main source of food. It is the mite faeces which are responsible. Because it is a fairly primitive animal the mite excretes enzymes inits faeces which help to break down skin. The main enzymes are cysteine protease which are extremely potent. Dust mite allergy usually starts with atopic dermatitis in children whose skin is particularly sensitive to the enzymes. The also inhale the mite faeces and thus become sensitised to the potent proteas allergens. In severe asthma the epithelial tissue in the lungs becomes permanently damaged and readily inflamed by other material micro carbon particles might do this but they are definitely not the cause of asthma they just enhance the symptoms. Damage to the epithelial cells cause the release of the inflammatory cytokine TSLP which predisposes the immune system to produce IgE and hence allergic responses. The asthmatic symptoms are far too complicated to ascribe them to just pm10 or pm2.5 and it’s not helpful in treating the underlying condition

        Tony Berry

        • “The universal installation of central heating has encouraged the mite population which relies on human skin flakes for it’s main source of food.”

          So more frequent vacuuming is called for, to reduce the dust these mites feed on (and the mites themselves)? There’s a “study” that should be funded. (Maybe by Hoover?) (The EU’s reduction on maximum vacuum power should be reversed if vacuuming helps.)

          • Spending less time indoors would help to, where the mites are most concentrated.

            Not many kids had asthma when most were born at home and played outside in the dirt everyday.

      • Check impact of tire wear in urban areas where concrete highways were grooved to keep the truckers on time. These particles are smaller I wager than PM 2.5 and so go into the aveoli deeper in the lung tissue as an irtitant.

    • My asthma is triggered by cold, that a big reason I now live in Arizona now and not North Dakota where I spent most of my adult life and Minnesota where I grew up. Add in cold on my skin creates hives, yes Arizona is better. Yes there is such a thing as cold allergies. I have them and for me they could be fatal. Heat I get inpatient for it to get to the 100s every year and morn when they leave. The truth of the even without allergies, if humans were to go without clothing, shelter and heat most of the world would be of limits to humans, the truth of the matter humans cannot survive below 80 degrees without those items.

    • CO2 is actually a bronchial dilator.

      That is why sufferers from bronchial type asthma can often alleviate symptoms by breathing into a paper bag, thus increasing the level of CO2 they breathe in.

    • My physician surprised me by asking me as a geologist if I thought global warming was a big threat. I replied that climate today is cooler than most of the entire history of the earth and that similarly, CO2 levels are very low compared to a historical average of about three times as high so that there were no tipping points to disaster in the offing.

      He said he began to have doubts when so much was made of rising incidence of asthma. At a medical conference he asked other doctors if they had experienced an increase in such cases and they all said no. He realized then that global warming threats were similar to bs about a number of non-existent health issues that threaten us.

      I asked him about the reported rapid decline in the incidence of cancer and other serious diseases over the past three decades. He said it was true but they weren’t sure why. I had an inspiration! I said it coincides with rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 which has expanded forests and greened arid lands – maybe it has improved human health as well. He wondered how it coukd be studied Anyone any ideas?

      • During the past 30 years (within my experience) people have stopped smoking (almost entirely), they drink a lot less, eat much more diverse and healthy meals and exercise more often, plus they use sunscreens and protect themselves with clothing. During the same period air, water and food standards have all improved, plus better medicines.

        I suspect these and other related changes can explain fewer cancers as well as fewer strokes and heart attacks.

        • The obesity problem? Would that correlate to the increase in give away food stuffs, and give away monies to buy their stomachs desires?

  6. Well said, but likely to fall on deaf ears as far as the catastrophists and far left democrats go. The deniers are those who deny the science and objective facts in favour of religious belief in the end of times being just around the corner.

    • In this day and age and with a democrat controlled committee? Oh yes, her narrative was hijacked.

    • James

      If anyone listens, it is effective, and therefore it is a hijack. It means to commandeer the vehicle, right? So the committee was on a preordained journey and it is now heading in another direction.

      The biggest problem facing AOC is the numerous claims that everything is getting worse. If anyone checks, they quickly find out everything is getting better. Hence cognitive dissonance. The “thankless taskiness” quotient is growing, I’d say.

    • If the purpose of the hearing is to support a false narrative for a hidden agenda, that would be a hard yes!

  7. Ms. Googly-Eyes has very likely never been truly cold, for even one moment of her life. I believe quite sincerely that she is so disconnected from the real world, that she thinks home heat comes from the thermostat.

    Therefore, if Mr. Rossiter buffaloed her, I’m happy.

  8. So much more that could have been said but rather then getting stuck in the finer details his points are hard to argue against and how can you argue with a guy that goes to bat in a bow tie.

  9. From the article: “by William Happer, a physicist who is now leading the Presidential Committee on Climate Security, a newly formed panel that many believe will be used to undermine established science on global warming.”

    I like the sound of that!

    As for “established science”, nice try, no cigar.

  10. A little OT, but CNN, the BBC and others are reporting that the UK Parliament has declared a “climate emergency”…..

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/europe/uk-climate-emergency-scn-intl/index.html

    Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party celebrate like they’d won a football game…

    “…WE DID IT! Thanks to pressure from the Labour Party, the UK just became the first country to declare an environment and #climateemergency. Now it’s time for real action to tackle climate change. Share this….”

    Now watch other countries follow suit.

  11. IPCC AR5 (2014): “It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 (1.5 to 1.9) mm/year between 1901 and 2010…and 3.2 (2.8 to 3.6) mm/year between 1993 and 2010. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.

    It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950. B I N G O !

    • Steve ==> One of the wonders of modern climate science is that they can make such a statement in the first place — without mentioning that the two rates of SLR are the results not only of differing time spans but measurements by different methods. The differences are still a big part of sea level science — trying to figure out why the two are not closer to one another.

      Personally, I think that neither is as correct as claimed — both need uncertainty bars larger than their principle metric (+/- 2 cm or so….)

  12. It’s amazing how almost any weather ”event” now is blamed on CC as if it’s just a given. We had a nice dump of rain last night, in fact as much as the total May average in some areas – it’s been dry this year – and I’m just waiting for the cries of CC. The weather report last night (Victoria Australia) was very quick to point out that the number of days reaching 30C in April is trending up over the last 50 years. Given the BOM’s adjustments I wonder just how factual this is…..

  13. re AOC: Beware of getting into a battle of wits if one is only half armed!
    (an old high school saying)

    • you are being too generous in referring to AOC being as much as half-armed in the battle of wits.

    • Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

  14. Dr. Caleb Rossiter: ‘We are trying to save the people of the planet from the people ‘saving the planet.’”

    That along with the rest of his presentation was absolutely a knockout punch! And the bow-tie …. well that’s icing on the cake. Give that gentleman a cigar!

    Absolutely love it!

  15. If anybody else gets those questionnaires from the Republicans about Trump’s priorities, I hope you wrote in a high priority for him to please expose the climate alarmists’ hidden agenda after Happer’s committee exposes the truth about CO2.

    The whole thing boils down to a thimbleful of science lost in a bushel of politicized hyperbole.
    CO2 has become a symbol of pollution by no fault of its own, separated from its beneficial effects. The malignant symbol of CO2 has taken on a life of its own, and seems philosophically impervious to facts or observation.

  16. I’m absolutely stunned that any health official can sit in a room and pontificate about the looming health crisis caused by climate change when two million Americans develop antibiotic resistance infections each year, and 23,000 die from those infections

    The ongoing evolution of superbugs, which are bacteria that become resistant to even some of the strongest antibiotics, is a real and tangible health crisis today. Yet we sit here and yap about some hypothetical health threat from climate change. These health care officials should be ashamed of themselves.

    • But those “superbugs” evolve faster because of the higher temperatures of CAWG.

    • Superbug mutations crop up all the time, but under normal circumstances competition from other non-super bacteria keeps them in check. But when everything else has been killed off by Abios and/or disinfectants, the superbugs get the place all to themselves.

      Know those antibacterial cleaners that say they kill 99.9% of germs? Seems to me, it’s the 0.1% they don’t kill that you need to worry about.

      Patients on long-term Abio regimens can get superbug infections in the gut as the native bacterial colonies get disrupted and displaced. A relatively new method of treatment is a fecal transplant. Feces from a healthy donor is introduced back into the patient’s gut tract to serve as a probiotic. The growth rate of the superbug colony slows and eventually stops as the normal, natural competition returns.

  17. Rossiter, adorned in a bow tie
    Perfect!
    Everyone who’s been coached with their public speaking have been told, “the message is the messenger”
    Dressing like the enemy is so….something…I’m going with heartwarming…(but secretly, I think it’s actually in-their-face). I knew a real big coal guy who liked to testify in a robin egg baby blue colored sweater. Good, but the bow tie is even better.

  18. “Let’s get it back to the actual subject of this hearing,” she urged, “which is the impact of climate change on human health. “[ Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez ]

    But he just told her otherwise. Uff da!

    Reminds me of . . .
    Yes, she’ll tell you she’s an orphan
    After you meet her family</em"
    [ Black Crowes: She Talks To Angels, 1990 }

  19. Mark Stein could have been given the talking points and his eloquence would have pummeled the Democrats to slink down in their chairs. I have had enough of this scam and now am angry as hell.

  20. I only wish articles like this would avoid the political angle (like the hearing being hijacked from AOC and some of the other overtly political statements/cheering), especially when it makes it sound extremely partisan.

    While I agree with the points in the testimony, I’m not going to link those I’m trying to convince of the facts to something they’ll discard as partisan drivel. It just turns them off and gives them an excuse to ignore what is presented. Too much of WUWT presents its articles in the same politically partisan way, which undermines the ability to teach it to those who aren’t already skeptics. It ends up just preaching to the choir.

    • I only wish articles like this would avoid the political angle

      1) It’s a hearing in a political body (the House of Representatives). Have you ever listened to one of those hearings? It’s a political show from opening to closing. There’s no avoiding the political angle
      2) CAGW is nothing but political. Consensus? that’s not a scientific term, it’s a political one.

      sorry but your concern-trolling fails to consider reality.

      • JE,
        I wouldn’t be using overtly political statements from politicians to try to convince someone the facts aren’t based on politics. That’s the whole point.

        The testimony itself is what I’m interested in pointing others to, but the overly political overtones of the narrative surrounding it is what will make it unconvincing to someone who wants to be certain they aren’t getting politicized information, but actual facts.

        You are free to politicize the science all you want, but you won’t influence anyone who isn’t already a skeptic. That’s a good way to lose the public opinion battle as far as I’m concerned.

        • Aliunde, it’s not the skeptics who make CAGW political, it’s the alarmist, going at least all the way back to When Hansen and co shut off the AC and opened the windows before their hearing in congress that they scheduled for the day of the year that records indicated is likely to be the warmest. You can pretend with your concern-trolling that it’s not political all you want, doesn’t change the fact that it is and always has been.

          • JE,

            Do you understand the concept of a complete non sequitur? Because your retort responded to a point no one was disagreeing with.

            You are, however, a classic example of someone I’d never be willing to assume could present me actual facts in an unbiased way. I don’t think you’re self aware enough to be aware of your completely ineffective communication style, which is, in fact, a classic example of exactly what I’m talking about when it comes to the capacity to persuade others rather than making them more likely to assume the “other side” is filled with partisan hacks rather than neutral facts that don’t care what your politics are. And please, feel free to take the last word.

          • Do you understand the concept of a complete non sequitur?

            Yes, prime example being your concern trolling that started this little sub-thread. You are complaining about politics in a subject that is nothing *but* politics and you wonder why no-one is taking your concern-trolling seriously. boo hoo. And yes, I know nothing I can say will persuade you because there is nothing *anyone* could say to persuade you because you are not here to be persuaded you are here to concern-troll. What you don’t get it that it’s transparent to all that care to look that that is what you are doing. so cry us a river of your fake concern troll tears, no ones buying them.

            And please, feel free to take the last word.

            Ok, last word taken 🙂

    • I understand your point. WUWT used to be less political. But the CAGW debate has (like it or not) become one of politics. WUWT has followed that shift.

      We all know the Dems love the CC narrative, but I would like to see WUWT posting more articles shamming the RINOs who pander to the CC industry.

      Being from Canada, we have this problem too. All political parties have bowed down to the CC god. They are frightened that a news paper or news TV network might publish a negative article about their skepticism. So the only differentiator now is what policies they plan to enact to combat CC.

      Almost every country in the world has this dilemma. In the political theater, there are no opposing views. The CC industry has done a great job there.

      • “So the only differentiator now is what policies they plan to enact to combat CC.”

        Then let the RINOs push back with a nuclear power plan. What’s the matter, are they stupid? (Yes)

  21. When I read the part where mortality statistics in Africa and the lack of electrification [and how this affected heart and lung health and thus the mortality rate] I recalled debates about World Bank policies that either helped or harmed the construction of power plants. The alarmists want the world bank to retard development of power plants there. It struck me how this is a modern and pernicious form of First World Imperialism these same people are otherwise quick to condemn.

  22. Did a breath of fresh air just happen? Well done Dr. Rossiter, and all who sail with you.
    Meanwhile, the media reports on ”climate experts” who think it’s clever to super glue themselves around town. Let’s see who the politicians will listen to… Oh, right.

    Elections coming up here in Ireland soon. Virtually every Political party and Independent candidate have attached themselves to the Climate crusade. The result will show a mandate for making it a priority.

    Eamon.

  23. Think about this for a moment. Global mortality from all weather-related natural disasters can decline by 99% and people can STILL get away with claiming that they’re increasing.

    Here, AOC gets called out on it, but that doesn’t always happen.

  24. Ocasio-Cortez, who said she did not want to spend her allotted time to question witnesses solely to fact-check Rossiter, did do some of that. “Let’s get it back to the actual subject of this hearing,” she urged, “which is the impact of climate change on human health. We’re not debating whether climate change is real, and we’re not debating any of those attendant effects.”

    This is code for “Let’s get back to my narrative. These on topic facts don’t support my narrative, so let’s all just agree to ignore them.”

    • Let’s get it back to the actual subject of this hearing,” she urged, “which is the impact of climate change on human health…”

      Which shows she didn’t listen to what Rossiter said, as he discusses “the actual subject of this hearing.” when he discussed the impact on human health – burning cheap, reliable fossil fuels (the stuff she blames for climate change) are a net benefit to human health. the impact is *positive*, not *negative* like she wishes everyone to believe.

      We’re not debating whether climate change is real

      And neither was Mr Rossiter. He took it as a given that there is man-made CO2 driven climate change and proceeded to point out that the impact of that is a net positive.

      and we’re not debating any of those attendant effects.”

      What she really means is don’t destroy her narrative agenda with actual facts.

  25. I disagree. Dr. Caleb Rossiter did not hijack the congressional ‘Climate Change’ flight of fancy. He spanked the hijackers, tossed them out of the cockpit, and returned ‘Climate Change’ testimony to the course of verifiable facts and truths.

    Well Done, Dr. Caleb Rossiter! Well Done Sir!

  26. And now I read in the Brussels Times “Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones, German study shows”

  27. Check out the video on YouTube of this committee hearing (Subcommittee on Environment: Climate Change II).

    https://youtu.be/EIhfCAUMKM8?t=5557

    Five Alarmists on the panel to one lukewarmer…typical.

    I was hoping to learn about the link between climate and childhood obesity (nope). Alarmists can just say any dumb thing they want about warming.

    Also the pollution from the US is causing $Hundreds of $Billions worth of health problems to children around the world from climate change. What crap.

    Just another worthless government hearing where Democrats tell lies…usually when no one is listening fortunately. Nobody is likely to see it or hear about it. No minds will be changed.

    The only takeaway: THE NEXT TIME DEMOCRATS ARE IN POWER THEY WILL TRY TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY AND THE ECONOMY…AGAIN.

  28. Every time I read about someone like Dr Rossiter speaking knowledgeably and calmly in the face of hostility and wilful ignorance, I think about the citizens who listened on C-Span or via other access. Then I choose to believe that there are those whose minds are subsequently opened to a version of reality other than what the MSM shovels out daily. Just a few at a time, who then begin to talk bravely and gently to their friends about what they are learning. Spreading the word. Keeping faith.

  29. The tiny little speck (okay, maybe a limited few tiny specks) of anthropogenic CO2 molecules in a tall column of atmosphere up to 25 km is responsible for what?

    Idiots.

  30. Well done, sir. I’m proud of you standing up to the political hacks of the left trying to use this hyperbole to control the peoples of the world who think we’re so stupid we’ll accept their lies.

  31. Looks like the Cavalry has finally shown up, and not a minute too soon. Now maybe the fight can be fought with facts and real science.

  32. The fewer the facts the stronger the opinions but it hasn’t really been about the truth for a long time .
    The scary climate bed wetters seek political power , another source of revenue to fund a communist globalist agenda and a way to fleece tax payers for themselves and bunk buddies .
    Who knows taking the high road may pay off . Certainly President Trump bought the silent majority time .

Comments are closed.