2011-04-03 17:39:40Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Fairly simple blog post on the quotes from the hearing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-myths-at-the-US-House-Hearing-on-climate-change.html

More detailed analysis will follow (eg - Dana has already written a post but this one will go first). I made the quotes the star of the show but also embedded Kerry Emanuel at the end.

Much kudos to the cyborg for singlehandedly harvesting all the quotes from the entire hearing.

I'm shopping this around to a few well placed people to see if they might find it useful in the U.S. - if they deem it useful, I'll add a PDF version of the quotes for distribution and will include that in the blog post. In the meantime, feedback welcome. Should publish this tomorrow.

2011-04-04 01:18:45Looks good
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
I like it, nice and simple. Hopefully someone you emailed has an idea to enhance it's impact.
2011-04-04 07:55:01
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.84

Quick and effective response. More in depth commentary can be published later, if needed.

2011-04-04 16:25:58
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.202.31

Nice. Pretty much sums up what it was all about.

2011-04-04 18:41:15
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
58.164.126.208

Good job John. Perhaps one small addition. Identify each person as a committe member and party, or witness and area of expertice. Any reasonable quotes from Dem committee members?

2011-04-04 20:48:53Nice idea, Glenn
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

I've added some code that displays the affiliation beneath the skeptics' name. It's not in the blog post yet but you can see it direct at the source:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php?a=5756

Note - a few politicians don't yet have their party-state added to their name yet so if someone wants to go into Skeptic admin and update the politicians, would be great.

Also, I suppose we could add something in for the scientists. Eg - perhaps Job-Institution. Eg - John Christy's could be "Scientist-UHA"? Open to ideas...

2011-04-05 02:38:53
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John and Dana fantastic work, especially in such a short time!  I do think it important to tie in the EPA (see below), as they too have refuted many of the falsehoods and myths perpetuate during the hearings.  There are also some good nuggets here (fro Gavin's live blogging on the event).  For example,

"

12:56
 
Gavin Schmidt: 
Christy confuses 2001 TAR with the WMO 1999 report, and confuses Mann et al (1998) with Briffa et al (2001)."

"

12:53
 
Gavin Schmidt: 
Rohrabacher asks whether the MWP caused by CO2? And he accuses others of avoiding honest debate.
"

"Rohrbacher: "We've all heard 'case closed'...over and over again" on "man-made global warming" .

He says today's hearing was a "first good step" towards an "honest debate" on the issue."
[There has been much open debate both in the IPCC, EPA and in the literature]

 

"

12:03
 
Eli Kintisch: 
Montgomery says that Denmark's wind industry has collapsed, which interesting...
"

"

11:42
 
Eli Kintisch: 
Now comes Paul Broun (R-GA), who asks Christy about "hide the decline" . He goes on to quote statements by a computer programmer from University of East Anglia, including certain frustrated comments that used the "f bomb" as Broun put it...but anyone know where those quotes were from?
11:42
 
Gavin Schmidt: 
The 'Harry_README' file referred to is not related to any of the datasets that any else has discussed. (It was one programmer's struggle over 3 years to deal with an old project CRUTS, and successfully in the end).


Also, we have to be fair and unbiased.  Was Emanuel guilty of airing myths or did he make any mistakes?

 

A little late in the game, but the following quotes are from here,

 

"Dr. John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, discussed his skepticism of how IPCC operates.  “The committee should understand that the IPCC presents one version of climate change science generated by an establishment that has evolved to largely reflect a particular point of view…this point of view attempts to dismiss information that questions the belief that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of observed climate change.”

Not true.

 

"...Mr. Peter Glaser, a Partner at Troutman Sanders, LLP, discussed the lack of transparency by EPA in formulating this decision.  "In my view, EPA failed to observe basic requirements set forth in applicable law as to how a regulatory determination such as the Endangerment Finding should be made.”  Glaser questioned the fundamental fairness and transparency of the way EPA arrived at its endangerment finding and the quality of the information on which EPA relied. “The procedures EPA failed to observe are designed to ensure the integrity both of the decisionmaking process and the ultimate result an agency reaches.”

Not true, the EPAS have been very transparent and tolerant of opposing views.  The public was allowed to pose questions and the EPA answered pretty much all of them.  More on this can be found at the EPA website.  For example,

"This document provides responses to public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, published at 74 FR 18886 (April 24, 2009). EPA received comments on these Proposed Findings via mail, e-mail, and facsimile, and at two public hearings held in Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington, in May 2009. Copies of all comment letters submitted and transcripts of the public hearings are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, or electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171."

Looks open and transparent to me.  The GOP and other nay sayers have clearly not even bothered to read the EPA's response to the thousands of questions (~30 000 comes to mind), not even the foreword.

2011-04-05 03:03:36
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
166.164.151.33

I don't think I'm ready to go into Admin. and start messing around but here's half the leg work...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sandy Adams
Congressman Republican-Florida
(R-FL)

Mo Brooks
Congressman Republican-Florida
(R-AL)

Paul Broun
Congressman Republican-Georgia
(R-GA)

Chip Cravaack
Congressman Republican - Minnesota
(R-Minn)

Ralph Hall
Congressman Republican-Texas
(R-TX)


Peter Glaser
Aerospace Engineer.

J. Scott Armstrong
Professor of Marketing
University of Pennsylvania

Peter Glaser
Aerospace engineer

David Montgomery
Economics Ph.D.

Richard Muller
Professor of Physics

2011-04-05 03:28:24glaser
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

That's a bit outdated on Glaser.  He's now a lawyer.

Peter practices in the energy and environmental law fields and is the Chair of the Firm's Climate Change Practice Team. He represents electric utility, mining and other energy industry companies and associations, as well as other businesses, on regulatory and commercial matters. He specializes in environmental regulation and litigation, particularly in the area of air quality and global climate change.

2011-04-05 03:56:49
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Quick question, as I have not yet read the full post: is it really a myth when the politicians pose the ideas as questions to be answered, rather than direct statements?  While they are slightly loaded and imply a "skeptic" mindset, they don't really strike me as directly promoting a myth.

I actually think that the third quote for Sandy Adams might relate just as much to "It's not bad" as to the topic of CO2 limit impacts on the economy, as she says "so-called danger."

2011-04-05 04:53:25questions
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I mentioned this to John on Skype - I added quotes from both the questions and answers in many cases.  Reason being, as I discussed in my follow-up post, most of the Republican questions were aimed at getting a specific answer, effectively "leading the witness".  For example, they didn't ask about the '70s cooling myth because they really wanted to know if our current situation is different, they asked the question because they wanted to be told that the two are similar (and Christy obliged). 

Besides which, our format still works in this situation - you get the question in the left column, and the (correct) answer in the right column.

As for Adams' third question, she was fundamentally asking an economic question, and addressing the economist, so I think "CO2 limits will hurt the poor" is more applicable than "it's not bad" for that one.

2011-04-05 09:31:37
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Gotcha, I wasn't aware of the profession of whom she was asking.

2011-04-05 09:58:30Published
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Thanks for all the feedback, made lots of tweaks to the post.