GOP Climate Change Deniers Running For House Energy Committee

Grist:

The House Energy Committee is seeing an intense leadership fight, as four different Republicans are vying to take over the influential post from Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), who shepherded progressive climate legislation through the House in 2009, before it foundered in the U.S. Senate.

Read the whole story: Grist

Comments

[maxwells]

11:16 PM on 11/09/2010

The whole debate over global warming needs to shift from whether it's happening (it is) or whether it's man-made (it is) or whether it's serious in the long term (it is) to honest issues like what if anything can or should be done about it.

Is cap and trade the optimal answer? If you're a Repub, libertarian, or teabagger, well...I and most knowledgeable progressives don't think so either.

How about cap and dividend, like the Cantwell/Collins bill? Btw, Collins is a Repub.
Looks better, more equitable, but still not all that great.

Is there any legislative measure, short of draconian, that has a chance for substantive impact? That's a good question. Because the problem is LAG.

"Feels warm and comfy right now said the lobster in the kettle."

I.e., 90% of the excess heat trapped by CO2 is still upwelling to the atmosphere from the deep oceans. So, I have no kids, but honey, we're in for a loooong stretch of continued warming.

So, what about geo-engineering measures - stratospheric sulfate injections, sea salt spray to seed clouds, reflective particles, etc.?

These are the real issues we need to be talking about. Not the settled science. That's so....20th century.

[Richard2]

02:24 PM on 11/11/2010

There are a few of us who disagree with your last sentence. You totally forgot about the uncertainty.

"Uncertainty gets a seat at the “big table”

On Nov 17, the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is holding a hearing on “Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response.”

I have been invited to present testimony for this hearing. I have been specifically asked by the minority (Republicans) to discuss how we can go about responding to the climate change issue in the face of uncertainty, dissent and disagreement." Dr. Judith Curry, at her website.

[Publicola]

02:38 PM on 11/11/2010

You totally forgot about Dr. Curry being in general agreement with climate scientists who were authors of the IPCC report.

"The IPCC WGI report is a good summary of the overall state of the science"

-- Dr. Judith Curry, at her website

[maxwells]

04:37 PM on 11/11/2010

By "uncertainty", you mean "sowing doubt"?

Richard2 knows this well, because as a well-trained propagandist, he's been well-schooled in the tactic of sowing doubt. Fossil fuel shills lifted that tactic explicitly from Big Tobacco.

From a Brown and Williamson Tobacco internal memo -

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

www.ucsusa­.org/asset­s/document­s/global_w­arming/exx­on_report.­pdf

Then again, Richard2, Judith Curry believes in anthropogenic global warming. But you admire her open call for dialog with skeptics. Why?

Does it mean that talking to her might reverse your own public opinion?

Otherwise, why extol that perspective?

That is, as either an honest skeptic (or more likely a paid shill - judging by your monomaniacally exclusive 1,800+ posts on this topic in 20 months on HuffPo, starting from Day 1), is your own opinion on the reality of anthropogenic global warming actually reversible, or is Curry really naive and clueless about what and who she's up against?

So, Richard2, which is it? Is your own crafty public opinion reversible, or is Curry really that clueless?

[Richard2]

04:28 PM on 11/13/2010

"Some breaking news. I received an email from the House of Representatives staffer who invited me to participate:

Just an FYI – Republicans will be inviting a witness for each panel. This is a change from the usual practice of one witness per hearing, regardless of the number of panels.

Now this makes it much more interesting. I have no idea who else has been asked. Place your bets, make your recommendations!" Dr. Judith Curry.

So there are three panels, with Dr. Curry on the third. Who will the Republicans select for panels one and two?

[DocSkull]

06:17 PM on 11/18/2010

"Who will the Republicans select for panels one and two?"

If it is like last time, a British entertainer and no one else. He'll be opposed by three bored scientists who will discuss basic facts with Democrats, but won't be asked anything by Republicans.

[dragonmaster]

04:17 PM on 11/09/2010

The future of the planet and our children in the hands of these sleazebags-

what a great nation we have- in the not far off future it will be falling fast off the edge of a cliff like Wiley the Coyote.

[StephenBP]

01:43 PM on 11/08/2010

Deny-a-list List…
Okay lets go over the checklist .
Growing seasons, lengthening…… check
USDA planting zones moving towards the pole….. check
Neolithic human artifacts falling out of melting glaciers….. check
Global temperature trend for the past century, up ……. check
Arctic ice extent and volume on significant downward trend….. check
Stratosphere cooling….. check
Troposphere warming… check
Carbon dioxide still obeying the laws of physics and absorbing infrared….. check
Humankind still putting billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year… check
Ocean levels rising…. Check
Tropical diseases moving closer to the poles......check
Coral reef die offs and temperature-sensitive species decline.....check
Changes in animal migratory routes and timing.........check
Catastrophic erosion of arctic beaches.........check
Thawing permafrost and increasing methane emissions......check
Insect pests surviving winters and moving closer to the poles.......check
Each succeeding decade of the last several contains a record for number of above average temperatures…. Check
Ecological niches moving higher up mountains…. check
Politicians and parties supporting denialism tightly linked to fossil fuel money.... check

Well, I think that proves it. There is no such thing as global warming. Lets go save some tuna.

[yellowjay]

12:32 PM on 11/08/2010

Someone wrote: "The American rich think climate change doesn't apply to them. "
Looking at last weeks election results, I think it should be:
The majority of Americans, rich and poor, think climate change does not apply to them.

[Richard2]

12:31 PM on 11/08/2010

Here is another potential witness before the Energy Committee: The Rational Optimist.

"Some weeks ago I wrote an article for The Times about why I no longer find persuasive the IPCC's arguments that today's climate change is unprecedented, fast and dangerous.

I was delighted to receive a long and courteous letter from David MacKay, the chief scientific advisor to Britain's Department of Energy and Climate Change. With his permission I am publishing my reply to that letter. I would put his letter here too (again he agrees), but I only have a hard copy of it, so that will have to follow when he has time to send me a soft version.

The remarkable thing about this exchange is that far from weakening my doubts about the IPCC case, it has strengthened them. The letter explains why. Essentially, I have realised that almost the only weapons left in the alarm locker are the retreat of the Arctic sea ice and an event that happened 55m years ago and was probably not caused by CO2 at all. Everything else -- the CO2-temperature correlation in the Antarctic ice core, the hockey stick, storm frequency, phenology, etc etc -- no longer supports the argument that something unprecedented in magnitude or rate is happening. Remarkable."



Here is my letter:

[Richard2]

01:24 PM on 11/08/2010

Matt Riddley, at: www.rationaloptimist.com

[Publicola]

01:32 PM on 11/08/2010

There you go quoting science denier rhetoric by non-climate scientist libertarians again, R2.

What Riddley leaves out, amongst other things, is that the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.

[Richard2]

11:39 PM on 11/07/2010

Here's a chart for the new chairman: The sea level is rising in Los Angeles at a long term rate of about 3 inches per century!

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_stations.shtml?stnid=9410660

[wdw505]

09:36 AM on 11/08/2010

oh no a whole 3 inches in a hundred years.........say it is not so

[Publicola]

11:49 AM on 11/08/2010

R2 your link's broken.

In any event, as climatologist Dr. Susan Solomon explained in Congressional testimony:

-----------------------------

Sea level rose by about 6 inches in the 20th century...

It is well established that water expands when heated [and] that small glaciers worldwide have lost mass as the world has warmed, supplying more liquid water to the ocean and contributing to sea level rise. These two processes are well understand and can be expected to produce up to 3 feet of sea level rise within about the next two to three centuries if carbon dioxide continues to increase. Three feet of sea level rise would inundate many small islands and low lying coastal regions, such as Florida, and this is already becoming part of coastal planning in many regions.

A third process may be very important but is very poorly understood, rapid flow on the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland... The total contribution to sea level rise... could be on the order of a few meters over centuries, but is very uncertain.

http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/solomon031709.pdf

[Richard2]

11:16 PM on 11/14/2010

It is extraordinary that when you sum all the processes you have mentioned, the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, small glaciers, the expansion of water when it warms, that the sea level trend at places like Los Angeles remains unaffected. We are still experiencing the same very modest, and harmless sea level rise that has been experienced for the last few hundred years, which is a tappering off of the melting from the end of the last ice age.

If the processes you mentioned are caused by man, and if the effect of these processes is to increase the sea level, then there must be some natural offsetting process which continues, year by year, to somehow just offset the man made effect.

Is it credible to believe that a natural offsetting process would somehow just offset the effect of man-made warming? It doesn't seem so.

An alternative hypothesis appears more credible. That the man-made processes are either imaginery, or the processes described are normal, and are so small as to not be noticeable in the sea level data from Los Angeles and from around the world.

[Publicola]

04:09 PM on 11/15/2010

R2: "We are still experiencing the same very modest, and harmless sea level rise that has been experienced for the last few hundred years, which is a tappering off of the melting from the end of the last ice age."

Wrong again R2 - over the past century sea level rise has accelerated.

[johuyik]

11:24 PM on 11/07/2010

Their denial of climate change is based on the teachings of their revered profit, Curly, who when faced with disaster he didn't know how to cope with wisely advised all around him to "Think it didn't happen!".

[gallon]

11:46 AM on 11/08/2010

Ha ha ha!
Moe Hmmmm, Hannity looks a lot like Moe.
Larry Well, imagine O'Reilly with curly red hair.
Curly Could be Beck. Could be Limbaugh.

The Marx sister, Ditzy so many candidates for this one. However, Palin is the ranking one.

[Neil Moerman]

08:43 PM on 11/07/2010

It seems to me that there is cause and effect.If a persons water was fine before fracking and after fracking it burns and if it is methane that is causing the burning it is still related to the activity of fracking.And you're very right about the concept of NIMBY and more to the point of NIABY.I am also correct in stating that the gas companies will not reveal what they are blasting into the earth.If you think I'm wrong then tell me what they are.Natural gas in spite of its clean image is a very dirty technology and it merits very close scrutiny.

[ObjectiveRealist]

04:17 PM on 01/02/2011

Not criticizing here, I just think you'll appreciate this information.
"Natural gas [TM]" is an advertisement and an oxymoron. Its proper chemical name is "methane."

[Richard2]

08:40 PM on 11/07/2010

Pielke Jr.,

"In one interesting exchange, Revkin brought up as an example of the messy interface of science and politics Michael Mann's Washington Post op-ed last month that sought to associate the climate science community with the fortunes of Democrats in the mid-term elections. I followed Revkin's criticism of Mann's op-ed by arguing that in the face of Republican-led attacks Mann made a decision (and it was a decision) to characterize this issue in politically partisan terms. He could have instead chosen to characterize the issue of his personal fortunes as one of academic freedom and integrity, which matters irrespective of one's political stance.

The fairly obvious implication of Mann's acceptance and amplification of the stark partisan terms of the debate offered by those Republicans is to make not only himself, but the broader climate science community, poster children for the Tea Party movement. (I did not say the following last night but perhaps should have -- It doesn't matter who started the politicization, what matters more is who seeks to move beyond it. Of course, I have supported Mann consistently since Cuccinelli began his various fishing trips.) Not surprisingly, Curry had the most scathing comments of the night..... She said several times that most (but not all) climate scientists are clueless about policy and politics, yet dive into the deep end anyway with little understanding of the possible consequences. Mann's op-ed provides a good example."

[Publicola]

09:28 PM on 11/07/2010

R2, quoting Pielke: "I have supported Mann consistently since Cuccinelli began his various fishing trips"

As well he should, since Cuccinelli is on a modern-day witch-hunt. Do you support Mann consistently since Cuccinelli began his various fishing trips against Mann as well, R2?

Also:

R2 yet again references Dr. Curry while yet again failing to acknowledge that with respect to the SCIENCE Dr. Curry continues to support the scientific consensus as presented by climate scientists in the IPCC report.

"The IPCC WGI report is a good summary of the overall state of the science"

-- Dr. Judith Curry, October 25, 2010

Are you capable of acknowledging that Dr. Curry continues to support the scientific consensus as presented by climate scientists in the IPCC report, R2?

[ ... cue still more evasion from Richard2 ... ]

Didn't think so.

[Richard2]

11:26 PM on 11/07/2010

Dr. Curry's views and my own differ. However, we share a dislike for dogma in climate science.

[Publicola]

11:40 AM on 11/08/2010

Again:

Are you capable of acknowledging that Dr. Curry continues to support the scientific consensus as presented by climate scientists in the IPCC report, R2?

Please answer the question; thanks.

[ ... cue still more evasion from Richard2 ... ]

Didn't think so.

[maxwells]

11:19 PM on 11/07/2010

Pielke, Jr. is a poli sci policy twerp, not a scientist.

HIs dad is the PhD meteorologist and climate researcher. Don't confuse the two. Pielke, Sr. believes in anthropogenic global warming and has stated so regularly.

[jimpager]

08:35 PM on 11/07/2010

Politics has moved beyond the looking glass...

1) Climate change deniers are gonna manage climate policy. This is like NASA hiring homeschooled engineers to plan our Mars trip. I sure wouldn't be volunteering as an astronaut on that program...

2) The American rich think climate change doesn't apply to them. How ironic...the people who resist the most will lose the most. Oh well...

3) Most of Florida will be underwater by 2050. In addition to eliminating all wealthy second homes in Florida which will serve as new artificial reefs so the fish can make a comeback, climate change will ultimately create perhaps ten million Floridian refugees wandering around as if they were in Haiti. They won't have any homes, food, or money so steer clear of them lest you learn what people will do once they've lost everything but retain their second amendment rights to hunt with M-16s...or M1A1 tanks, or whatever else they need to "appropriate" from the remaining rich.

4) Manhattan will be awash. Let's see how computerized hedge fund trading works with three feet of saltwater on the exchange floor.

5) The most fun will be watching the news videos of congressmen who voted against climate change sloshing around the floor of the house and senate in their expensive suits while citizens laugh from the galleries as the Patomac over-runs its banks.

6) But not to worry. We liberal climate conspiracists will have our new waterfront homes in the Rockies.

[RichieB]

08:45 PM on 11/07/2010

I agree with your post. The only thing I would change in 1) would be to compare the repugs running the house energy comittee to NASA hiring moon landing deniers to plan our next trip to Mars or an astroid.

[jimpager]

08:58 PM on 11/07/2010

LOL...I like it...Thanx.

[Whiskeyman09]

03:32 PM on 12/07/2010

You watch too many movies...

So most of Florida will be under water in 40 years huh? Manhattan and DC too... So, if that was actually going to happen just how much money is it going to take to stop it from happening?

Someone rang the Silly-Bell on HuffPost today...

[hernan1333]

08:15 PM on 11/07/2010

"The only thing to fear is...d*mb rethugs in Congress"

[nkurland]

08:06 PM on 11/07/2010

Sizeable contributions from energy companies are what these four all have in common. These House members can't possibly believe what they're spouting. More proof that the GOP is simply a wing of the political elite defending their self-interest outright.

[mixpiklix]

07:33 PM on 11/07/2010

who do these people work for , not us that is for sure

[VikingQuest]

08:38 PM on 11/07/2010

They work for me, I'd like cheap energy.

Whether it's green or not is second on my list.

[RichieB]

08:54 PM on 11/07/2010

What about when a war breaks out between Israel and an arab country and the price of gas goes to $10 dollars a gallon and we don't have a back up plan for alternative energy. It's not just about a clean enviroment, which is important to our quality of life in the future. But it's also about having a plan to make sure we have enough energy for our country to run on. Oil will not last forever nor will it always be abundent.

[Rooster Coburn]

07:33 PM on 11/07/2010

While anthropogenic global warming may not be your own personal cause du jour there's always,
"The sky is falling, and how we can stop it" or "Stop volcanoes, how you can help" or "Ending hurricanes, a citizen's guide to saving our coastlines" and finally" "The abc's of planet control, a guide to perfect weather every day" that might grab your fancy as causes for this week.

[playsindirt]

05:43 PM on 11/07/2010

I'm sitting in Missouri, sweating, on November 7. Hell yes there's global f*&%g warming.

[JBoy]

09:20 PM on 11/07/2010

...or a high pressure system over your head?

[playsindirt]

09:42 PM on 11/07/2010

Cute. Very cute.

[BlackbirdHighway]

10:00 PM on 11/07/2010

Eighteen countries on three continents set all time record high temperatures this year. This year, 2010, has been the hottest global temperature in recorded history.

To a denier this is just an ordinary everyday high pressure system.