Anybody Want to Go to a Hearing?

December 2, 2015


A courageous Senator determined to find the truth.

Senate Commerce Committee:

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, will convene a hearing titled “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate” on Tuesday, December 8 at 3 p.m. The hearing will focus on the ongoing debate over climate science, the impact of federal funding on the objectivity of climate research, and the ways in which political pressure can suppress opposing viewpoints in the field of climate science.


Dr. John Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. Judith Curry
Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics, Princeton University

Mr. Mark Steyn
International Bestselling Author

*Additional witnesses may be announced

Hearing Details:

Tuesday, December 8, 2015
3:00 p.m. ET

Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness hearing entitled “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate”

This hearing will take place in Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253. Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on

34 Responses to “Anybody Want to Go to a Hearing?”

  1. Can someone PLEASE inform Ted Cruz that the “climate debate” ended decades ago? “Data or Dogma” ??? Cruz refuses to educate himself on the data and then forces his dogma on us. Idiot.

  2. Dr. David Titley is a new witness.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Really? Where find you find that bit of news? Titley is a climate change realist, not a denier whore, and it’s hard to believe Cruz would let him anywhere near the sham “inquiry”.

      • skeptictmac57 Says:

        It came up on Mark Steyn’s site.

      • skeptictmac57 Says:

        Maybe can add a bit of balance and gravitas since he is a former Rear Admiral for the Navy.

        • jimbills Says:

          Four hardcore deniers/skeptics vs. one non-scientist. The only thing he does is add legitimacy to this farce.

          • jimbills Says:

            My bad. I spoke before fact-checking. Titley is a scientist, but my point stands. He’s only there to create the illusion of a rounded and non-biased discussion, and in the end it only serves Ted Cruz’s agenda.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Glad you rethought that. Titley was the Navy’s chief oceanographer and he has spoken out a number of times about the threat of climate change, both in clips here on Crock and in TED talks, among other places. Here’s one link:


            (Ignore the moronic comments from the deniers that seem to be the only response to the Crock piece)

            Google him on Youtube and you’ll find a lot more, some of them quite lengthy.

            Sorry to say that you may be correct about him being there to “create the illusion of a rounded and non-biased discussion”, but his credentials are far better than Happer’s and Steyn’s, and the contrast between the truth he will speak and the BS the others will spew may just get some folks thinking. And don’t forget, if we were to have true balance, we’d have 96 more testifying on Titley’s side against Cruz’s 3 or 4 denier whores, and that won’t happen.

          • skeptictmac57 Says:

            There is the danger of that, however, the optics of someone like Cruz challenging the integrity and competence of a high ranking ex-military officer might be a risk that Cruz should think twice about. Many conservative voters place the military way above politicians when it comes to respect and trust.

          • jimbills Says:

            “may just get some folks thinking”

            But, it’s not about “thinking”. The meeting is about “confirming”. They’re going to go have 4x (at least) the speaking time that Titley does, plus Cruz will get to hear himself yammer, and they’ll end it with the smug satisfaction that they at least allowed a lone contradictory voice – unlike those crazy warmist religion believers and their meetings.

            They won’t hear what Titley says. It’ll be filtered out by their own biases. They’ll hear what the others say, though, nod approvingly, and move on.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Of course the hearing is a sham, and for all the reasons you give. However, we can’t stop Cruz (and Lamer Smith and Strom Inhoffe) from conducting these kinds of circuses, so we must hope that we CAN “get some folks thinking” by contrasting their BS with scientific truth and thereby exposing their game.

            And by “listening” I am not speaking of those who only seek to “confirm” their half-assed beliefs and spread denier propaganda, but those in the audience who may have functioning brains and half-open minds—the ones like the minority committee member that tore Lamer Smith a new one over the NOAA paper foolishness.

            Skepticmac57 is correct in saying that Titley may have far more impact than the denier stooges like Happer and Steyn because of his status, even though he is “outnumbered”. We will never convince the willfully ignorant Repugnant “base” of anything but what they WANT to believe anyway—-let’s hope we can swing some of the undecideds over into a better understanding of how AGW is being politicized by slimeballs like Cruz, and having Titley there to speak some truth can’t hurt.

          • jimbills Says:

            Well, perhaps I’ve seen this sort of circus event too many times before. There’s nothing “entertaining” about any of this. I’d suggest we watch this particular event (most of these sorts of things are recorded and posted afterwards) and then decide whether or not it was “entertaining” and whether or not Titley got the best of the others.

            The more I think about “fence sitters”, the less I’m inclined to believe they are of significance. First off, no one actually at this hearing will be a fence sitter. They’ll all have their minds made up – one way or another. Secondly, the number of fence sitters who will take the time to watch this charade will be practically zero. Thirdly, the fence sitters will hear the denier BS 4x times more than Titley in a format designed to push the denier agenda – so are they likelier to believe Titley afterwards?

            Fourthly, and most importantly, people just believe what they want to believe. This is a simplification, but 9 times out of 10, it’s true. The number of people who have the rigor and discipline to question their own beliefs is vanishingly low. They’re a tiny minority in the general population. There are fence sitters who are inclined to believe the denier position, and fence sitters who are inclined to believe the opposite. They’ll shake out over time into their individual camps – IF they care about the issue enough. And that’s the fifth thing – most people don’t care enough. They’re too busy with their own lives, too incurious, or too intellectually rigorous to question what they are told.

            The format for the the meeting has an obvious political agenda, so why is Titley there? Is he there to be an actual counter-weight, or is he there to add legitimacy to the event? I lean towards the latter, but one can draw their own conclusions after the event itself, if one can stomach the agony of watching it.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          From the web page:

          “The hearing will focus on the ongoing debate over climate science, the impact of federal funding on the objectivity of climate research, and the ways in which political pressure can suppress opposing viewpoints in the field of climate science”.

          That sentence says it all. Yes, it WILL be “entertaining” in a perverse way (but sickening for those of us that understand the real agenda).

        • Hardly. As all likely saw, Dr Titley gave the answers the Democrats were expecting. He’s a dang good speaker, no doubt about that, but nevertheless enslaved to the literally unsupportable talking point about “97% consensus”. Repeat it all you like, it never makes it so.

          But what y’all probably thought was less entertaining but more alarming was the way Senator Markey looked when suddenly faced with hard questions being fired at him from the witnesses.

          There is your vulnerability right there. Being a fan of movie quotes, here’s an applicable one from Ronin: “You’re great in the locker room, pal, and your reflexes might die hard, but you’re weak when you put your spikes on.”

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Here’s Russell, dutifully earning his whore’s dollar by supporting other denier whores and seeing what he wants to see in the hearing rather than any truth. It was just another circus-like farce put on by ringmaster Cruz to gain publicity for himself and advance the Repugnants” cause of distracting and detracting from the Paris talks.

            Just as Russell has been outed as a paid-to-lie whore for the fossil fuel interests, that senile old fool Happer has now been caught with his pants down also. Some breaking news there:


            “Busted: Academics-for-Hire Exposed for Failing to Disclose Fossil Fuel Funding

            “A Greenpeace undercover investigation has exposed how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies’ commercial interests.

            “Posing as representatives of oil and coal companies, investigators from Greenpeace UK asked academics from Princeton and Penn State to write papers promoting the benefits of CO2 and the use of coal in developing countries.

            “The professors agreed to write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the source of the funding.

            “The leading climate-skeptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret.

            “Happer is due to appear this afternoon as a star witness in a U.S. Senate hearing called by Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

            “In emails to investigators he also revealed Peabody Energy paid thousands of dollars for him to testify at a separate state hearing, with the money going to a climate-skeptic think-tank.

            Read the full article and try not to puke. Exxon has nothing on these guys.

            Happer never had any credibility because he is an atomic physicist with no climate science expertise who only parrots what is fed to him (like crap about how Co2 is good for us from the Idso’s), but he has now lost the last shreds of whatever honor he may have had. Like Willie Soon (and Russell) and that total moron Steyn, whose testimony was so far out that it seemed ;like he was joking and doing a parody of deniers..

          • Dr. Titley was “enslaved” to climate science before the 97% study was published on May 15, 2013. Search “David Titley Climate Change” for 2000 thru 2012.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Don’t confuse Russell with the facts—-Russell does not deal in facts, only denier BS.

            Perhaps we won’t have to deal with Russell’s BS on Crock any longer? After yesterday’s revelations about scientists being paid by fossil fuel interests to lie about climate change and spread FUD as “merchants of doubt”, Russell has lost his raison d’etre and should now disappear into the shadows.

            Along with the Exxon revelations, this new information is the PROOF that Russell is always demanding. He won’t be able to shout “prove it” (27 times in one sentence) anymore. The link again:


            And all should note that two of the “witnesses” (paid deniers) at the Cruz Circus Hearing are on the email list for Fred Springer’s infamous “what should we do about being caught with our pants down” messages about Merchants of Doubt. I speak of the now totally discredited William Happer and Judith Curry.

            (And Russell has never answered my many questions about why HE also appears on the address list for those emails).

          • Not disappearing into any shadows anytime soon. Notice how you fellows needed to put a good spin on what was happening to Sen Markey.

            I was outed as a paid liar? Indulge anyone else who drops in here to read this: where did this take place? What specifically are my lies and what specific evidence do you have that would hold up in a courtroom evidentiary hearing that proves I know what I say is false, that I am instructed to say what I say, and that I will not receive payments if I do not honor those instructions. And please, do tell us what evidence there is for the accusation that I get particular payments for dropping in here. I’d love to see that myself.

            Meanwhile, regarding the shenanigans from Greenpeace against Dr Happer, allow me to repeat the tip I sent to Anthony Watts which he placed in a post this evening ( ): “After 20+ years of failing to come up with evidence that skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie by industry people, nothing telegraphs that failure better than fabricating the evidence out of thin air right now.”

            Gents, stop and think about this. Believe all you want that skeptics are crooks, but when your dear leaders feel compelled to concoct evidence, that’s one huge indicator of just how weak the accusation has been this entire time.

          • “… (And Russell has never answered my many questions about why HE also appears on the address list for those emails). …”

            Yes, I have, but evidently in a manner too subtle for “d.o.g.” to comprehend. It is because I’ve had the opportunity to exchange emails with Dr Singer ever since 2005 (the first as an out-of-the-blue alert to him after seeing some mention of his SEPP site, when I was jousting with Seattle mayor Greg Nickels over Nickels non-science pronouncements about AGW). By the summer of 2009 I had exchanged enough with him that he asked me to meet with him when he came to town, and later that year when I ran headlong into irreconcilable differences in Ross Gellbspan’s accusations about corrupt skeptics, I alerted him to that, and we’ve exchanged many more on that topic ever since. But as I said in prior answers, my work on the smear of skeptics is why Dr Singer emails me and includes me in cc’d email recipients, and you’d think that would be an aswer as plain as the nose on my face, if only “d.o.g.” would take the time to read the content I’ve written over the years in online articles and at

            It is also a possible future reason – if I may humbly suggest it – why Greenpeace may go down in flames, all faith in them on the global warming issue vanished like a collapsed ponzi scheme.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            (In reply to Russell Cook at December 9, 2015 at 11:28 am)

            Yes, Russell HAS already spun out this folksy tale of how he and Uncle Fred “found each other” and became bosom buddies, and just as I did last time, I will call bullshit on Russell.

            Russell laments that his brilliance would be “….as plain as the nose on my face, if only “d.o.g.” would take the time to read the content I’ve written over the years in online articles and at”

            I should actually be anointed as some sort of superhero for venturing onto Russell’s site as often as I have. My motto could be “I go there and risk my sanity wading through Russell’s BS so you don’t have to”. I have put on my multi-layer tinfoil helmet and knee-high anti-BS boots and ventured over there once again—it appears I have returned unharmed (although I may have difficulty sleeping for a night or two). Here’s what I found:

            1) Almost no one visits Russell’s site. Maybe 15 visits a day, no likes, no tweets.

            2) Russell says he “endorses” the journalist’s “TAO pledge” (Transparency, Accountability, Openness) but won’r sign it himself—-he DOES NOT allow any outside comments on gelbspanfiles “because of lack of time to deal with them” and the fact that lying denier BS elicits what Russell calls “hate mail” (which I define as “questions about lying denier BS that they can’t answer’). It is interesting that Russell is himself a serial commenter on many sites, and spews a brand of “hate mail” that has gotten him banned from several and labeled a “harasser”, “troll”, and “fossil fuel shill” on others.

            3) Russell says that he was “self paid” until January of 2013, at which time he accepted $12,000 from Heartland to whore for fossil fuels. He also took $1000 from the infamous right wing site SPPI and $1350. from CFACT (Morano’s sponsors). Russell has gotten raises since, and I think he’s up near $30K now, although the references to that have mysteriously disappeared from his site since I saw them there. Russell would have us believe that there is no quid pro quo, that taking money from known right wing conservative AGW denier sites has no strings attached. LOL

            4) I have read many of Russell’s pieces over time and marvelled at their “content”. This last visit to gelbspanfiles was used to tally up and analyze the 70+ pieces of work that he cites in his gelbspanfiles “archive” page. There IS a pattern there—-below is a listing of years with the number or “articles” Russell wrote each year and the number of sites on which they appeared in parens.
            2009 (2 on 2 sites)
            2010 (23 on 4 sites)
            2011 (26 on 8 sites)
            2012 (12 on 5 sites)
            2013 (7 on 4 sites)
            2014 (4 on 3 sites)
            2015 (2 on 2 sites)
            Looking at that data, It would seem that Russell has long ago “peaked” and should be looking for his “exit plan” (unless he wants to move back into his mother’s basement and once again starve).

            5) Of course, there IS another explanation for this pattern, and it dovetails nicely with the warm and fuzzy BS about he and Uncle Fred becoming soulmates. Try this out and see if it fits the data. Russell and Uncle Fred came across each other in 2005, mainly because Russell had decided that his future lay in being a denier whore, and Russell was actually “stalking” Fred. Their meeting in 2009 was a “job interview”, at which Russell was told to “show what he had” by writing denier BS and getting it published. Russell busted his ass doing so during 2010 and 2011 and 2012, and was finally put on the Heartland payroll in 2013.

            The big dropoff in production over the past two years may be because Russell has become more of a “secret agent” for Heartland, concentrating on making round-robin visits to websites like Crock and “commenting”. Since no one goes to gelbspanfiles, Uncle Fred now sends him to us, and it is NOT a joke when I chide him about “getting his Heartland time card punched” for each comment. That’s his main source of income now, trudging the internet and trying to obstruct intelligent discussion and sow FUD on sites like Crock, and reinforce the beliefs of the ignorant and stupid conservative lemmings on sites like WUWT and American Stinker.

            Yes, Russell, it’s as plain as the warts on a toad’s ass why Fred copies you on his Merchants of Doubt emails. You are a minion—-one of Heartland’s paid whores, and he somehow thinks that you may have something to contribute as he tries to escape his and Heartland’s fate when the RICO ax falls. Too bad that you’re just a failed graphic design and business major that knows nothing about science—-he should never have put you on the payroll in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: