2011-04-02 06:56:34House Climate Hearing recording available
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

The House Climate Hearing recording can be viewed here.  Instructions to follow on how we should proceed.

2011-04-02 08:22:56Suggestion
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238
I suggest we crowd source getting quotes from the hearing. Perhaps in this thread, indicate you're tackling a certain segment so others know to leave off. Note - we tackle both politicians and scientists - we will include both in the hearing blog post. If a skeptic is not yet in the database, add them and I can add in the photo later.

As soon as I'm able, I will add to the skeptic admin the functionality to assign quotes to events. In the meantime, we can still add the quotes, then go back and assign them to the hearing afterwards.

The strategy will probably be to do a blog post about the hearing, featuring the summary of all the quotes. Eg - a nice overview of the event and a way to continue showing off our quotes database (and make it larger). Then we'll do some more detailed posts on individual witnesses (Dana has dubs on the economist).

2011-04-02 08:23:28
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Bleh!  Windowz media redirector.

2011-04-02 08:50:00claim segments
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I suggest we claim 30 minute segments, from which we will each transcribe the relevant quotes into the database (instructions here).  I'll take the first half hour.  I think it's 3 hours long, so we need 6 volunteers.

2011-04-02 10:20:06You can now assign quotes to an "article"
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238

I've done some recoding and database tweaks so you can now assign quotes to "articles". I've added the hearing as an article and set it so when you add a quote, you can choose the hearing (it's the only option so far).

Next, I'll set it to display all the quotes in one page. But I've got some family stuff today - I may not have time to do that before I go out. I'll try to claim a 30 min segment when I get back but would be great if others could grab a 30 min segment too - help spread the load. We could get this done fairly quickly and have a blog post up within a few days.

2011-04-02 10:35:55VERY rough sample of hearing page
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238

Very rough, I'm quickly rushing some code together just so you can see the Hearing page grow as you add quotes:

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

I'll snazz up the formatting later with photos, etc - but for now, you can at least see the quotes all in one place.

Haven't figured out how to do ordering yet though - probably should be chronological. Hmm...

2011-04-02 13:21:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

What is the timeline?  I have some important deadlines to meet on Monday, but should be able to tackle a 30 min segment after that.

I think John's recent Gish Gallop post may be in trouble ;)

2011-04-02 13:49:59ASAP
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

For obvious reasons we want to get this done as soon as possible.  We'll see if we can get it done this weekend.

2011-04-02 15:00:14progress
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

I've gotten through 25 minutes so far.  Not too many useable quotes.  Most of it was Armstrong who's a total jackass.  At the end of his presentation he concluded that Congress should revoke all funding for climate and renewable energy research.  Just ridiculously stupid.  I'll probably do the first hour.

Muller is mainly talking about BEST.  Mentioned Watts and the surface station project, said that taking it into account isn't changing the warming trend (0.7°C since 1957).  He spent a significant amount of time praising Watts, surfacestations, and McIntyre for doing "citizen science".  He concludes "some of the most worrisome biases are less than I previously thought".  No myths to add from Muller yet.

Christy provided a bunch of quotes.  He basically whined that the IPCC ignores 'skeptics' most of the time.

Glaser is a lawyer who they brought in to criticize the EPA endangerment finding from a legal standpoint.  Nothing to do with science whatsoever.  Though he did repeat a couple quotable myths.

Emanuel's testimony is excellent.  He made the point that there is uncertainty, but that just means certainty that global warming will be benign is misplaced.  And he pointed out that he was part of one of the Climategate investigations, which found no wrongdoing.  Talked about HIV->AIDS and plate techtonics 'skeptics'.  Said that politicians treat climate 'skeptics' as "mascots", twice.  Funny stuff :-)  Ended by saying that we revere our ancestors for making sacrifices, and hopes our descendants can feel the same about us.

I finished at 1 hour 13 minutes, if somebody wants to pick up where I left off.

2011-04-03 03:32:46just me
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Nobody else picking up yet huh?  Well, I'm up to 1:33 now.  Will keep going for a while.  I also added a new rebuttal for "renewable energy is too expensive" because Montgomery tried to argue that wind is more expensive "than the alternatives" (meaning coal), which is bogus.  I adapted my 'True Cost of Coal' post into the rebuttal.

2011-04-03 03:54:22
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana and John,

I think that I am just about as pissed off abut this as you are.....but time management is a big issue for me right now.  Will Monday afternoon Mountain Time be too late?

A couple of things.  First off, here are some tricks they are using, that i'm sure you have noticed.  They frequently use argumentum ad absurdum, they appeal to emotion (energy is used to power MRIs....OMG!), lie by omission, present falsehoods (the whole DDT nonsense) and present opinion as fact etc.  Maybe a list of techniques that they are using to deceive needs to be created. 

They also repeatedly tried to push this distraction which goes something like this:

If the US were to reduce its GHG or carbon emissions to zero today, it would not affect global temperatures in any significant way. This is a rather clever move.  First, it creates the false impression in some peoples' minds that that is what the EPA intends doing.  Second, it creates the incorrect impression that US emissions are inconsequential for global climate, and ignores emissions to date.  Third, it misses the point entirely because we are not talking about reducing global temperatures, but limiting the amount of future warming.  They also seem to ironically concede that CO2 causes warming, b/c by their own admission eliminating US emissions does not cause further warming.  Well what do ya know?

Tim Lambert sums this all nicely here when he says, 

"Of course this just demonstrates that Abbott has no clue what the whole climate change debate is about. The reason for cutting emissions is not to reduce temperatures from current levels, but to prevent them from increasing to dangerous levels. And the fact that, as Flannery pointed out, CO2 emissions largely stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years is the reason why we can't just postpone cutting emissions until the temperature rises dangerously -- by then it will be too late."

John, sorry for the bold, but I do not want you to miss this.  I think it would be an excellent idea to work with CSRRT and the AGU group and Union of Concerned Scientists on this (there may be other groups who you could tie in that I am not aware of) and to issue a joint press release in which the lies and myths flaunted by the GOP senators and some of the witnesses yesterday are highlighted and dismissed-- they cannot be allowed to stand up in public and lie and deceive like this without being called on it  I also suggest that Prof Mandia send a copy of the final rebuttal to each and every senator's office and major media outlets.

Maybe George Monbiot would be interested in covering this? Stephen Leahy? Time to call on the few reputable journalists out there.

2011-04-03 04:06:30comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.26.196

not sure where mullers numbers are coming from cause the 0.7 since 1957 is quite a lot more than i thought happened over land?

2011-04-03 04:18:50transcribing
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Albatross - no worries about not having time.  I'm up to 2 hours now, and might just keep going and finish it myself.  A problem with the file formatting is that I don't think you can fast forward or save the whole file without first streaming the whole thing.  So you can't just pick it up at 2 hours easily.  Since I've already got most of the file streamed, it's probably easiest for me to just finish.   I've got time this morning.

You make a good point about the logical fallacies.  The guy who said energy is great because it powers MRI machines - there wasn't a quote I could assign for that.  He just failed to acknowledge that non-fossil fuels can provide energy too.  It was all just logical fallacies, but he didn't repeat any specific myths.  We should mention that in the blog post, maybe at the beginning before providing all the quotes.

Regarding the argument that our cuts won't impact global temps, we've got that rebutted in "CO2 limits won't make a difference".  So no worries with that one.  I've added the associated quotes.

2011-04-03 04:47:52DDT
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

The DDT bit was at 2:07, by the way.  No quotes I can add, but for future reference if we want to go back and use it as an example of the quality and honesty of various testimony.  Basically the "skeptics" follow the "skeptic" line on DDT as well as climate.

2011-04-03 06:51:17done
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Finished, all relevant quotes entered.

2011-04-03 06:57:22Couple of things
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
Firstly, Dana, huge thanks for so much you've done on this already! Apologies as I was really hoping to help with the workload but I only had time to do coding yesterday and even then didn't get time to get it to the level I want.

Second, albatross, good ideas. Will speak to a few people including Scott, the UCS and others, about how to roll this out. I know a few who were heavily involved with staffers at the hearing so hopefully we can come up with ways to get this resource in the right hands. I'm thinking as well as the webpage, we also do a PDF version for distribution.

My plan is to finish the coding so it looks snazzy then shop it around to the various parties later today. Better put an embargoed message at the top.

2011-04-03 13:10:14hearing quotes page
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

John finished formatting the page with the quotes from the hearing, organizing it by person.  This will be the basis of the first blog post and the PDF.  Take a look let John know if you have any comments about the formatting and such.

By the way, I added several quotes for "Climategate was whitewashed", but I just noticed we don't have a rebuttal for that.  Can one of Daniel's Climategate posts be adapted for that rebuttal?

Christy also argued for natural variability a few times.  We don't have a rebuttal for that either, so I just used 'natural cycles', but it's not quite the same.

2011-04-03 15:49:15Natural variability
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Working on a draft blog post now...

There's the "internal forcing" but that's not quite the hand waving "natural variability" either. In a sense, Dana's advanced rebuttal to "It's not us" is a good answer to "it's natural variability".

Re the Climategate posts (by James), I believe we've pretty much used all of James' work as climategate rebuttals - I don't think he's directly addressed the whitewash argument.

2011-04-03 16:28:20Whitewash
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Hmmm dang, I think you're right. It would be an easy enough rebuttal, basically summarizing the various investigations, if anyone wants to tackle it.
2011-04-03 17:11:54Note there are now *8* investigations
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

All listed, of course, at:

http://sks.to/climategate

2011-04-03 18:02:57Written the post (not yet live though)
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Online at:

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

I've emailed the URL to the CSRRT, Union of Concerned Scientists and a few others to see if there's any ideas on how to roll this out more effectively than a mere blog post.

2011-04-03 19:39:41John is correct
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.158.190

I haven’t really addressed the whitewash argument. My rebuttals were based mostly on the Muir Russell inquiry.

John, shouldn’t the one-liner rebuttals link to the full rebuttals, not to the misinformer?

2011-04-03 19:57:53Whoops re links to rebuttals
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Thanks for spotting that James, a SQL glitch. Easily fixed. Fortunately all the USA folk I emailed were probably asleep when I sent this so it's been fixed before anyone looked at it.

2011-04-05 02:11:32Paul Krugman's op-ed
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.178.151

Paul Krugman has a good op-ed about the hearing in today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

He doesn't mince words.

Might he be interested in spreading the word about the upcoming climate-myths post?

2011-04-05 02:34:20contact
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good article.  I don't know if he'd be willing to help spread the word about our upcoming post on the hearing quotes, but if we want to ask, here's Krugman's contact page.

2011-04-05 03:38:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Thanks Baerbel and Dana,

Good idea.  Maybe John C. should contact Paul when he wakes up?

Dana added some stuff on the blog post page, sory for the weird formatting...happened when I copied stuff from the live blog.

2011-04-05 03:44:48
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I like this quote that Krugman cited:

".....as Upton Sinclair pointed out long ago, it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

2011-04-05 03:48:33
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

And here is another article in the LA Times.

Watts must be incredibly unhappy right now....good.