https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/playing-god-with-the-weather-a-disastrous-forecast
Playing God with the Weather – A Disastrous Forecast
Subject
Playing God with the Weather – A Disastrous Forecast
Date
September 16, 2025
Time
10:00 am
Place
HVC-210
Delivering on Government Efficiency
Witnesses and testimonies:Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Senior Fellow
American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Christopher Martz
Meteorologist/Policy Analyst
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Michael MacCracken (Minority Witness)
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
Climate Institute
Meteorologist Christopher Martz’s testimony:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From Dr. Roger Pielke’s submitted document above.
How ’bout a Constitutional amendment:
Amendment 28
Section 1
Congress shall make no law to regulate,
tax, sequester or license atmospheric
carbon dioxide.
The right of the people to freely emit
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from
any source, from any place at any time
in any amount shall not be interfered with.
Section 2
All activity commercial or private within
the United States and all territory subject
to the jurisdiction thereof for the purposes
of altering climate is prohibited.
The Congress and the several States shall
have concurrent power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.
That’s the problem with lawyers. Any such narrowly targeted amendment merely throws out the general principles of limited authority in a sea of freedom in favor of limited freedom in a sea of government overreach.
We are supposed to have a government of a few limited powers, which does not include any of this nonsense. Your amendment would just be one more step in turning this on its head, and considering how far the lawyers have stretched the existing clear constitution, they would just as easily stretch your amendment into meaninglessness.
Look at that last line, just for starters. All Congress has to do is not write the enforcing legislation. All the courts have to do is weaken or invalidate any such legislation.
Or look at the wars on alcohol and drugs. One required a constitutional amendment and its only enforcement was corrupt as hell. The other required no constitutional amendment and is corrupt as hell.
And you think this constitutional amendment would be honored?
“And you think this constitutional amendment would be honored?”
______________________________________________________
As Willis E. says, he loves WUWT because the rabble that posts here are
Johnny on the spot to point out what’s wrong with his posts. So thank you.
Thanks for the synopsis, Steve. Too much to read or watch. Suffice to say Congress is a cesspool that drains into a swamp. Kudos to Pielke Jr and Martz for confronting the Beast in its lair. We are so poorly served by our elected officials.
Re: Clean air.
CO2 is an integral part of the atmosphere and is at dangerously low levels compare to most of the Earth’s history.
CO2 boosts plant growth.
The BENEFITS of enhanced CO2 to the planet’s biosphere is enormous.
The COST is zero.
In no way can it be classified as a “pollutant” at any possible level of atmospheric concentration.
Plants are the natural cleaners of the air because they also remove actual real pollutants.
More CO2 -> more trees and plants -> more real pollution removed -> cleaner atmosphere.
There really isn’t a down side to increasing CO2.
Tell that to the Navy
https://x.com/RussellSeitz/status/1940517041825632309
How can CO2 be a pollutant hazardous to health when human physiology needs CO2 for metabolic processes and individuals exhale CO2 in quantities that far exceed level in the atmosphere?
I had no clue that we need it for metabolic processes. Interesting.
It is necessary for the breathing reflex for one. There are many others
It is also acts as a bronchial dilator, which is why some asthmatics get relief by breathing into a paper bag, which increases their internal CO2 concentration…
…why methods such as the Buteyko method can helps some forms of asthma.. again they keep a higher level of CO2 in the lungs thus dilating the bronchial passages..
In 15 states , including California, using the Gas of Life at the modest concentration of 15% is approved as an humane means of euthanizing lab rats and killing chickens and cattle.
We breath out about 3-4% CO2
Atmospheric level is 0.042% so nearly 100 times LESS than that.
Try breathing 100 times the usual atmospheric H2O content (average around 1-2%).. see how long you last.
CO2 is not a problem at any possible atmospheric level.
Only a massive BENEFIT to all life on Earth.
There is no measured scientific evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
Wow- why not use it for capital punishment instead of frying people with electricity.
That’s a great point, why not just flood the chamber with CO2?
Takes longer than other methods.
A chamber leak and lots of spectators or staff can be afflicted or killed.
Someone would protest that CO2 represents suffocation and therefore is cruel and inhuman punishment.
Right- just hang the person- get it over quickly. 🙂
Public hanging used to be a deterrent. Perhaps we should go back to it.?
Just grist for the mill.
Needed to stimulate respiratory system.
Part of how blood pH is regulated.
Fundamentally the result of cellular processes is cellular respiration of CO2 into the blood.
Big cheer for Ms Greene’s wrap-up at the end. 🙂 🙂
You can’t comment on YouTube. Why ?
The owner of any YouTube channel can turn off comments. Of course “we the people” are the owners not that committee so they shouldn’t prevent comments.
Our planet is one to five million years into an Ice Age with alternating glacier advance and retreat cycles. Playing god with the weather/climate? The thought of Chicago and New York City covered by a kilometer of ice is quite entertaining.
If there were climate nut jobs back then they would have been horrified as those continental glaciers retreated.
Ms. Stansbury seems convinced and sincere about her acceptance of consensus science and danger to humanity of using fossil fuels. She has studied the activist talking points and found them convincing but obviously is unaware of the arguments against and uncertainty of her position. It is this mindset that has undermined trust in and acceptance of scientific inquiry to pursue truth. She knows Al Gore is right and anyone that questions that is harming future life on this planet.
There is no such thing as “consensus science”.
There is the scientific method and that’s all there is.
If you want to talk about how strong your beliefs are, then first admit that you are a cultist, because that’s where the pudding is.
Dem. Stansbury (false statement, Climate change is a giant goe-engineering experiment, shows the committee a misleading graph of 100 years change, in global temperature. Ignoring solar changes over the last 500 years and the monitoring changes to measurements, misleading statement that the chemistry and physics of CO2 creates energy in the atmosphere that effects the entire global distribution of weather events).
Ignores how science have corrupted by consensus. Claiming what she said (known misconceptions) are not disputed, the manipulated observational data shows preindustrial temperature is earth’s normal and today a rapid increase isn’t normal. And carbon is a pollutant (which it definitely is not).
Physics and chemistry say’s the opposite of what was being said.
Physics says infrared atmospheric window allows infrared radiation (8-14µm) transparency to space. 14µm equals -66°C (if a layer of the lower stratosphere is close this temperature, then the atmospheric window is fully transparent).
Chemistry shows that CO2 is 0.04% only absorbs at peak low energy 15 µm -80°C. Earth does not emit above 8 µm (57°C) to be absorbed by carbon dioxide).
MacCracken (last part of his testimony was propaganda, later saying carbon dioxide traps heat making the earth warmer, which is false. Assertion that warming has been rapid.)
Roger Pielke(falsely judged, changes in the last century have been largely judged due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which he falsely claims isn’t particularly controversial). The reason the effects are controversial. But disagrees with MacCracken that we control the weather with carbon dioxide emissions. There is no control knob.
Chris Martz (assumption that warming is due to CO2, based on a flawed theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas). Although correctly states that human control of weather due to climate change has been grossly overstated. Agrees the earth has warmed (ignoring the cooling 500 years ago due to solar changes), but does not know how much is due to CO2 emissions (based on the flawed science, we all know exists). As explained the laws of physics (Chris assumes) carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Not knowing the atmospheric window (no mention or acknowledges of it at all in the hearing) makes infrared radiation transparent.
My conversation with Grok on X. @LindsayyuleS
Gok explaining my post:
Stephen Lindsay-Yule’s post challenges the mainstream global average temperature of 15°C, proposing a recalculated average of 5°C based on solar irradiance weighted by surface area rather than cosine-weighted temperature, supported by his tables showing solar irradiance dropping to 340 W/m² at higher latitudes, aligning with a lower temperature range observed near polar fringes.
His argument critiques the greenhouse effect, asserting CO2 absorbs solar longwave radiation (4.3µm) rather than terrestrial infrared, citing a lab experiment where CO2 showed no heat absorption below 32°C at 9.5µm, which contradicts established climate models like those from NOAA that rely on CO2 re-emitting terrestrial longwave radiation (8-12µm) to trap heat.
Recent solar irradiance data from the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE/TIM) indicates a top-of-atmosphere value of 1361 W/m² with seasonal variations up to 90 W/m² due to Earth’s elliptical orbit, supporting Lindsay-Yule’s claim of fluctuating energy input, though mainstream climate models attribute Earth’s energy balance to greenhouse gases rather than such variations.
My Response:
“CO2 re-emitting terrestrial longwave radiation (8-12µm) to trap heat”.
This part wasn’t explained to my satisfaction.
If CO2 was re-emitting terrestrial longwave radiation (8-12µm) in the same way earth surface does. It would have to absorb at peak 8µm 80°C heat. The earth terrestrial longwave peak is 9.6µm and through the atmospheric window 8-14 µm. It is known that CO2 absorbs at 15µm, “160°C colder”.
Wien’s displacement law
IR is transparent in the Atmospheric window 8-14 µm
2898/8 µm = 362.2 – 273.2 = 89°C
2898/9 µm = 321 – 273.2 = 47.8°C
2898/10 µm = 288.9 – 273.2 = 15.7°C
2898/11 µm = 262.63 – 273.2 = -10.56°C
2898/12 µm = 241.5 – 273.2 = -31.7°C
2898/13 µm = 222.92 – 273.2 = -50.3°C
2898/14 µm = 207 – 273.2 = -66°C
CO2 absorbs at peak 15 µm -80°C therefore cannot be re-emitting at 8-12 µm.
Grok response
Your query raises a thoughtful challenge to the mainstream understanding of CO₂’s role in the greenhouse effect, particularly regarding its absorption and re-emission of terrestrial longwave radiation within the atmospheric window (8-14 µm). Let’s break this down step-by-step, using your application of Wien’s displacement law and the provided data, while cross-referencing current scientific principles as of September 15, 2025, to address your concerns.
Go to my thread pinned to my account to continue reading.
Your numbers are right and make the point.
The biggest issue is the Climate Syndicate has caused the focus to be only on IR.
Black body, T^4, calculations are full spectrum.
One small nit. The CO2 valence absorption and emissions are at ~15 um. The interaction with EM wave is due to energy in motion = a mass equivalent and upwelling EM wave pressure actually offsets downwelling wave pressure by a tad, thus cooling the molecules.
From the written testimony submitted by Martz:
“The uncertainty in the magnitude of the natural energy flows in and out of the atmosphere, as measured by CERES satellites, is about 5-6 times larger than the estimated Earth energy imbalance (EEI). In layman terms, this means that most of the warming could be natural or anthropogenic, but scientists could never know with absolute certainty.”
This is a good statement. But more to the point, this implies that NO ONE KNOWS that there is ANY real EEI related to rising pCO2, or that ANY of the reported warming can be reliably attributed to human emissions. Yes, any measured warming indicates an imbalance, but this is simply a trivial truism and does not tell us anything about a cause.
And,
“Just how much warming will occur is dependent on “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS), which is the amount of warming that results from doubling atmospheric CO2 levels plus any feedbacks that amplify or dampen the slight increase in temperature caused directly by CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs).”
To be clear about this, we possess no reliable means to determine that ECS differs from zero. And it is unrealistic to suppose we will ever be able to isolate the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2 (or any other GHGs) for proper attribution.
More here about why this is all so readily apparent.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0305
NASA is working to improve CERES by not measuring the EM emitted from the top of clouds.
CERES only covers 99.95% of the full blackbody spectrum.
CERES acquisition errors are 0.5% to 1.0% (linearization and quantization).
CERES acquisition angle is primarily an earth nadir. Note: EM radiates spherically (1/r^2).
Do not misconstrue. CERES is a marvel of engineering, but it is not perfect, nor is the ability of a satellite to cover 25 km^2 simultaneously over the whole planet accomplished.
The earth rotates. The earth energy systems and multiple climates are never in equilibrium, therefore ECS is a bogus farce made up nonsense on part with a global average temperature.
The amount of fakery being passed as science is mind boggling.
I’ll take a pass on the abuse of the terms feedback, trapping heat, thermalization, etc., etc., etc.
The short answer is: The earth is operating a thermal engine. The energy source is the ocean and the governor is clouds.
I agree that the concepts of ECS and of a global average temperature are essentially bogus means of expressing a bogus claim.
I value the CERES work not for its summations or averages but for the record of hourly gridded values (unadjusted, not EBAF) of LW emission and SW reflection.
Quanta Magazine has interesting short summaries of the SOTA for several aspects of Climate Change Science.
Introduction
How We Came To Know Earth: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-we-came-to-know-earth-20250915/
Field Work
The Ends of the Earth: https://www.quantamagazine.org/photos-capture-the-extreme-beautiful-work-of-climate-science-20250915/
Building an accurate model of Earth’s climate requires a lot of data. Photography reveals the extreme efforts scientists have undertaken to measure gases, glaciers, clouds and more.
Climate Change Paradox
The Climate Change Paradox: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-climate-change-paradox-20250915/
Earth’s climate is chaotic and volatile. Climate change is simple and predictable. How can both be true?
Greenhouse Physics
The Quantum Mechanics of Greenhouse Gases :https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-quantum-mechanics-of-greenhouse-gases-20250915/
Earth’s radiation can send some molecules spinning or vibrating, which is what makes them greenhouse gases. This infographic explains how relatively few heat-trapping molecules can have a planetary effect.
Modeling Earth
How Climate Scientists Saw the Future Before It Arrived: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-climate-scientists-saw-the-future-before-it-arrived-20250915/
Over the past 60 years, scientists have largely succeeded in building a computer model of Earth to see what the future holds. One of the most ambitious projects humankind has ever undertaken has now reached a critical moment.
Tipping Point Math
The Math of Catastrophe: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-math-of-climate-change-tipping-points-20250915/
Tipping points in our climate predictions are both wildly dramatic and wildly uncertain. Can mathematicians make them useful?
Others
Phanerozoic Whiplash: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-humanity-amplified-lifes-quest-for-energy-20250820/
Microbial Planet: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-microbial-masters-of-earths-climate-20250915/
Earth Vs.Venus: https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-is-venus-hell-and-earth-an-eden-20250915/
Biosphere Evolution: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-microbial-masters-of-earths-climate-20250915/
But weather alteration ranges from seeding clouds to reduce size of hail stones, long practiced in the Red Deed<>Calgary area of Alberta Canada, to wild schemes like dumping iron into oceans.