As far as I can tell, reading between the lines, it seems the main reason they object is because he is icky. What a surprise, it’s from Grijalva.
Excerpt:
Dear Dr. Jacobs:
We are writing to raise concern about the irresponsible installation of Dr. David Legates as the new Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction. Dr. Legates’ continued denial of human-driven climate change and its devastating impacts degrades the scientific integrity and derails the mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
With the daily realities we face as a country and global community, it is shameful that such a thing as a “climate denier” still exists and extremely problematic that one be appointed to a prominent position in NOAA.
Dr. Legates has testified before our Committee downplaying or downright refuting the anthropogenic drivers of our current climate crisis. He stated: “Climate has always changed, and weather is always variable due to complex, powerful natural forces. No efforts to stabilize the climate can possibly be successful.” He went on: “…transition[ing] from fossil fuels to so called clean energy to protect us from climate change is a recipe for personal and economic disaster that will have virtually no impact on the Earth’s climate.” NOAA’s own data, compiled over the 50 years of the agency’s existence, points to exactly the opposite. Specifically, the third National Climate Assessment coauthored by NOAA stated “Global climate is changing, and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.”1 Furthermore, the increase in frequency and severity of extreme events that are exacerbated by climate change are well-documented, particularly by NOAA.
2 Nowhere is the connection between human-driven climate change and extreme climate events more clearly exemplified than the current fire and
drought conditions in the West, and the hurricanes and flooding in the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico.
Dr. Legates’ appointment is an extreme risk to the American public and an insult to the quality science and scientists at NOAA.
Full letter at link below.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Simple question: Is this from a Babylon Bee article?
One more time…
“Witch! Witch! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!”
“… it is shameful that such a thing as a “climate denier” still exists…”
That’s a crazy thing to say. Shameful? Another way of calling someone a heretic? And of course nobody denies there is a climate.
“a thing”?????
My high English teacher would have flunked these authors.
Furthermore, the increase in frequency and severity of extreme events that are exacerbated by climate change are well-documented, particularly by NOAA.2
If you go to the cited link you find
and
and
Misrepresenting the citations is a common tactic that the Climate Alarmists employ to push their lies and half-truths. The authors of the National Climate Assessment (NCA) do that with regularity. Pretty much any claim in the US govt NCA one has to wade though several layers upon layers of citation to get to the original study that shows the authors are either exaggerating what was found, telling only half the story in the citation, or just out right fabricating something not said at all.
A good example of the govt climate hacks on NCA doing that was the hand-waving they did in the 2009 NCA. In that glossy report, led by Tom Karl, they called the missing mid-tropospheric tropical hotspot issue “largely settled”. But when I drilled down through the 2 layers of citations they used to support that claim, I found no such thing in the research or the reviews cited. Just a big fat lie. They are depending on the main stream media to no longer do their job on climate claims and actually check the references when alarmist statements are made by the the US government entities.
So true. I ALWAYS try to read the original article. More often than not, the Alarmists completely misrepresent the authors.
Congressperson Grijalva is a buffoon and and embarrassment to Arizona. He’s in the next CD over from mine. But Tucson and So Arizona with the abundance of UA liberal loons that infest it means he’s in a solid Blue district and safe.
Once again, if there are people who believe that fossil fuels represent an existential threat to humans, it is on them to serve as examples and give up ALL benefits of using fossil fuels or other CO2 emitters. That means no fuel burning cars, no power that comes from anything but wind or solar, no jet trips, no plastics, no wood cut using fossil fuels, etc. Oh, and no concrete, cement, or steel since those add to atmospheric CO2.
Let them serve as the example for the rest of us…otherwise they can shut the H*LL UP. I have no patience for hypocrites.
Wind and solar? Sure – Windmills without concrete fundations, steel or plastics please. And Solar panels made from “renewable” energy only.
You need better arguments. I have one.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. There is on average 50 times as much of it in the atmosphere as CO2. Explain how CO2 is dominant?
I have had warmists reply to that with clap trap about how water vapor is not persistent. So. What? Do what the earth does. Integrate. Sum over time.
We have to demystify their stupid science. This mistake is huge and they have no defense.
Excerpt from the September 15, 2020 letter by Raúl M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on Natural Resources and Jared Huffman, Chair, Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife, US House of Representatives:
“With the daily realities we face as a country and global community, it is shameful that such a thing as a “climate denier” still exists and extremely problematic that one be appointed to a prominent position in NOAA.”
Really? Do either of these Congressmen have any scientific education? Grijalva has a BA in Sociology from University of Arizona, so… no. Jared Huffman has a BA in Political Science from University of California, Santa Barbara and a JD in Law from Boston College, so again… no.
Dr. David Russell Legates is an American climatologist and professor of geography at the University of Delaware. He is the former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the same university and a former Delaware state climatologist. Legates is a professor of geography at the University of Delaware. He has also taught at Louisiana State University, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Virginia. He has been a Visiting Research Scientist at the National Climate Data Center. Legates received a bachelor’s degree in 1982, a master’s degree in 1985, and a Ph.D. in climatology in 1988, all from the University of Delaware.
So what was the technical argument by Grijalva and Huffman that was intended to “cancel” David Legates appointment to NOAA? That he was a “climate denier”? Let’s be frank – neither Grijalva nor Huffman, standing on their tip toes, could reach David Legates ankle socks. These two Congressmen are as ignorant as anyone on the planet, yet they are bold enough to slander Legates, who is infinitely more educated, and I suggest infinitely more ethical, than either of them.
We have known since ~forever that green energy schemes FAIL due to intermittency and diffusivity – we published that conclusion ‘way back in 2002. In the same paper we also clearly debunked the false global warming (aka climate change) crisis.
The greater question is why so many politicians and citizens have been so stupid as to believe the global warming/green energy scam – and how could any rational person be this stupid for this long?
I published in 2012 that there must be a hidden agenda, and now green activists are admitting that the climate scare was never really about the climate – it was always a false front for extreme-left political objectives – to end capitalism and impose a centrally-planned Marxist economy.
So the real challenge is how to rationally govern countries where so many people are extremely stupid and gullible – imbeciles who will believe any falsehood that is repeated often enough?