“Science”: Committee Show Hearing on Climate Change

March 29, 2017

Actually starts about 16:00 in.

Mike Mann’s best line on Chairman Smith’s use of the phrase “scientific method” –
“I don’t think that means what you think it means.”

Gizmodo:

Presiding over this shitstorm was, of course, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, who has been Chair of the committee since Republicans took the House in 2012. No one would claim that Smith held back when it came to climate change while President Obama was in office, but having fellow climate deniers installed at the White House seems to have given him an extra bit of joie de vivre. Nothing like some honest-to-god momentum toward planetary destruction to add a little spring to one’s step!

Speaking of momentum, the hearing came a day after President Trump signed an executive order aimed at rolling back progress the Obama administration made on climate, ostensibly to bring back coal jobs (not happeningever), and a couple of weeks after a “skinny budget” from the White House suggested cutting just about everything science-related you can think of, and climate-related programs in particular. The hearing featured one widely-respected climate scientist—Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric science at Penn State—and three Republican invitees whose views on climate change, if we’re being charitable, lie somewhat outside mainstream scientific consensus: Judith Curry, professor emeritus at Georgia Tech; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville; and Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.

The witnesses, along with some of the Committee members, repeated a number of claims that the GOP has clung to for decades now: The climate models don’t match reality (yes they do); extreme weather events, like hurricanes and droughts, are in no way linked to climate change (yes they are); there was a consensus in the 1970s that the world was cooling (not even close to true); and so on. Multiple people even brought up the ClimateGate “scandal,” involving hacked emails and accusations of fiddling with data, which was investigated to death with no evidence of wrongdoing years ago.

As Democratic Congressman Bill Foster—the only member of Congress with a PhD in a scientific field—put it at one point during the hearing: “This is a very strange mixture of science and… not.” When Mann quoted a recent article in Science calling out Smith for using the committee for political gain, the chairman interrupted him to say that that journal—Science!—“is not known as an objective magazine.”

It was, overall, a horrendously depressing display of scientific illiteracy, but there were some odd bits of optimism to be found. The witnesses all agreed at various points that yes, the climate is changing and that humans play a role (though they disagreed, contrary to overwhelming evidence, on the magnitude of that role), and they also agreed that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to Earth-observing systems at NASA, NOAA, and elsewhere are a monumentally dumb idea.

What’s more, perhaps the best point was made by one of the GOP witnesses, Roger Pielke, Jr.: “Scientific uncertainty is not going to be eliminated on this topic before we have to act.”

In other words, not knowing everything is not a justification for doing nothing. But that’s just what opponents of action seize on all the time—uncertainty, to them, means nothing is certain. “Before we impose costly government regulations, we should evaluate scientific uncertainties and ascertain the extent to which they make it difficult to quantify humans’ contribution to climate change,” Smith said in his opening statement, ignoring the vast piles of evidence on that very topic.

 

Advertisements

16 Responses to ““Science”: Committee Show Hearing on Climate Change”

  1. webej Says:

    Out of some morbid perversity I actually listened to the whole session. Watching these asshats partake in a kangaroo court evokes a high level of dread. Just imagine that we had imbeciles like this in charge of foreign policy or the economy. Oh wait, they are!
    During the course of the session in which the good old boys try to make a case for being agreeable and gentlemanly in agreeing to disagree with each other, almost every one of them takes their turn — with a fatuous smirk, gloating enthusiastically at the prospect of launching their checkmate counter argument — to bombastically propel another hackneyed zombie myth into the discussion. Just rack up them zingers: in the seventies it was the ice age, scientists on the take, climategate, the climate modellers run multi-variate simulations on super computers but are too stupid and dishonest to notice their predictions deviate from the record, the data has been massaged, natural variability, on and on. Lamar presiding over this hearing with the only 3 scientists in the world with any credibility to stage their 360th note of dissent before an offical panel, falls out of his chairman role whenever he feels threatened and then starts to editorialize lest the other side score a point.

    There is a point at 2:15″ when Foster (who is on the right side of the argument) actually has a chance to get them to agree on a number of scientific basics [funding for instruments to fuel science; CO² is a greenhouse gas; the basic physics and thermodynamics of the climate system] but he unfortunately fumbles the ball rhetorically by not being clear and concise enough in his approach (and letting Mann dwell too long on whether Curry is a climate change or climate science denier). It is unfortunate because even though they deny that we can divine the trends, their scientific credibility is predicated on their basic agreement with the physics, unlike many of the detractors.

    Christy makes a credible impression with his well known graph, but nobody points out that the revision history of the 3 incarnations of his graph (without provenance from a scientific article) since 2010 has itself almost doubled the decadal rate of warming: so much for his canonical temperature trend.

    All in all a travesty. Reminiscent of animal farm, where serious faced cows, sheep, and pigs pontificate on scientific method and sit in judgment of those who manage to get paid to carry out scientific investigation, even though they themselves could not evaluate a scientific argument if it hit them in the face as hard as a two by four. What a bunch of ignorant bad faith sycophants.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: