House Energy Committee Chairman Fred Upton Denies Human Role In Climate Change (VIDEO)

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, revealed in an interview that although he does believe that the climate is changing, he does not believe that humans play a role in this change. This is not the first time Upton has cast doubt on humans' role in global warming.

Upton had previously written that the EPA's plan to regulate carbon emissions was "an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs - unless Congress steps in."

Not too long ago, Upton was considered by some to be a "moderate" on climate issues. But lately, he seems to be anything but moderate on the environment.

As reported by Reuters, "Upton has called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, scaling back government aid for renewable energy and voiced opposition to requiring electric utilities to use alternative energy for some of their power generation."

Here's the video of Upton denying the role of humans in climate change.

WATCH: (via ThinkProgress)

Comments

[MarcDel]

04:12 PM on 03/16/2011

"In the past, Upton — the incoming chair of the House energy and commerce committee — has advocated taking action on global warming. 'I strongly believe that everything must be on the table as we seek to reduce carbon emissions,' he once stated on his website. But that statement recently vanished from his site — along with, it seems, his concern about global warming."

[Chris 1]

10:25 AM on 02/21/2011

Another positive step for sceince;

" famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a congressional committee that, unfortunately, climate has become a political science. It is tragic the some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best."

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/19/house-votes-244-179-to-kill-u-s-funding-of-ipcc/

Just another "no-nothing" right HP warmist wonks?

[Publicola]

11:22 AM on 02/21/2011

The politician you are quoting from - Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri) - obviously doesn't understand climate science, yeah.

Got any direct quotes from Austin - who isn't a climate scientist in any event - that demonstrate that Austin does not agree that the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming?

[angryangel]

09:57 PM on 02/21/2011

Yes, Austin is a no-nothing with respect to climate science. He's a biophysicist, not a climate physicist. He does not even try to publish papers in climate science, since he does not know that area of physics well enough to even begin to try.

I repeat: The guy is out of field; his specialty is not climate physics - "famed" non-climate-physicists like him saying that climate physicists don't know what they're doing is as silly as "famed" gynecologists saying that neurosurgeons don't know what they're doing.

So many deniers don't seem to grasp that physics - like the field in which I have a degree, mathematics - is as big or bigger a field than medicine with MANY, MANY specialties and sub-specialties. The specialists and sub-specialists of ANY field of science have ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more knowledge and understanding than those outside the specialties and sub-specialties.

Yet again, climate science denial is showing itself to be the same as evolutionary science denial - cite people who are out of field, who are in fact no-nothings in the field in question.

I reissue my challenge to all deniers I gave in
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/angryangel/fred-upton-climate-change_n_820511_78189852.html

[Richard2]

05:53 PM on 02/19/2011

"more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report. These 700 scientists represent some of the most respected institutions at home and around the world, including the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, and even the Environmental Protection Agency.

For example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a congressional committee that, unfortunately, climate has become a political science. It is tragic the some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.

Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go to the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million in his fiscal 2012 budget request.

My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American."

.

[angryangel]

12:22 AM on 02/20/2011

Luetkemeyer "argues" with non-arguments:

So what that there are 700 or whatever? There are thousands of "acclaimed international" scientists that reject evolution.

Let's sieve out from that set of 700 or whatever all those (1) who reject evolution, (2) who have taken money from those who make money from the selling or burning of oil, coal, or natural gas, and (3) who have not gotten even a single contrarian idea of theirs on climate science past a referee at a reputable journal covering climate science to become published as peer-reviewed research - a refereed research paper on climate science in such a journal.

How many are left? Essentially none.

Note: Austin would be one of those sieved out. He has not gotten even a single contrarian idea of his on climate science past such a referee. And the guy is out of field; his specialty is not climate physics - "acclaimed international" non-climate-physicists like him saying that climate physicists don't know what they're doing is as silly as "acclaimed international" gynecologists saying that neurosurgeons don't know what they're doing.

By the way, using this list of 700 or whatever as an "argument" is also another example of what I wrote earlier: The foundational argument of all crankery, this argument being the rejection of peer-reviewed science and the exaltation of that which is not good enough to be peer-reviewed science.

[Chris 1]

10:28 AM on 02/21/2011

angryangel,

You're attending the Societ school of debate on this site. Expect name-calling and a constant reference to the "consensus" which is a pre-screened list of those who support the state funded solution.

Check your mind at the door please.

[angryangel]

08:43 PM on 02/18/2011

To address the many very recent comments by Chris 1 below:

Since they all deny peer-reviewed science, they're all by definition examples of that assault on real science and that exaltation of crank science that I wrote about directly and indirectly in
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/angryangel/fred-upton-climate-change_n_820511_76883332.html
and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/angryangel/memo-to-fox-news-science-_b_822162_77164506.html

May all who care for the truth see real science denial for what it is - the utter rejection of reputably peer-reviewed science (science published in reputable journals as refereed research) on a topic, the utter rejection of letting the peer-review process work itself out over time - be it on climate science or evolutionary science or any other science - for politically and/or religiously motivated reasons.

Confirmation of this: The brute, plain fact that deniers cannot cite even one peer-reviewed study that seems to confirm their denials but hasn't been slapped down by subsequent peer-reviewed studies. Not even one.

(That 2009 Lindzen paper? Because it was such a shoddy piece of work, it was easily slapped down not only by some 2010 refereed research, some of which I indirectly cited in
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/angryangel/fred-upton-climate-change_n_820511_76767584.html
but outside of the peer-reviewed process it was slapped down by even Roy Spencer himself, the scientist who is the other darling of the denier movement.)

[Chris 1]

12:40 PM on 02/18/2011

The IPCC the "gold standard" of peered review climate science?? What a joke;

IPCC charter seems biased
Some politicians still see the IPCC as being the gold standard of climate science. In fact the IPCC is a single-interest organisation that was established twenty years ago. Right from the start it assumed a widespread human influence on climate. Its charter was To assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. Such a charter makes it unlikely that the other factors influencing climate change would be taken seriously. In short, the IPCC's agenda appears to be political rather than scientific. As I show below, its integrity is now being challenged by the scientific community.

Many IPCC members are not scientists
Dr John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, says "It is well known that many, if not most, of [the IPCC's] members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist".

Dr William Schlesinger, biogeochemist and president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, notes that 80% of the IPCC's member had absolutely no dealing with climate as part of their academic studies.

Interestingly, politicians and the media have never noticed that the IPCC's president Rajendra .....
http://www.undeceivingourselves.com/I-ipcc.htm

[Publicola]

12:55 PM on 02/18/2011

"Many IPCC members are not scientists"

The authors of IPCC Working Group I, which deals with the physical science of global warming, are climate scientists.

[Chris 1]

01:13 PM on 02/18/2011

Are you saying all??

Working Group I - (303 from the USA or UK)
215 climate science (assumption for all authors associated with 2 key climate institutes in each country)
24 atmospheric physics
27 geophysics or geology
4 statistics
8 mathematics/physics
8 engineering
2 biology/ecology
1 history of science
1 computer science
1 economy
1 agronomy
1 lawyer who claims to also be skilled in oceanography
8 unknown

The actual science studies might be less than 10% of the bias problem. The IPCC is a politcal organization first and foremost. They were formed with an assumption that agw both existed and was a problem. The past 21 years has been a sales job. The summary conclusions don't reflect the science reports.

[Publicola]

09:46 PM on 02/18/2011

Chris1: "Are you saying all?? "

With respect to the authors of the climate science it is my understanding is that all who contributed to the IPCC AR4 WG1 report are experts in the relevant fields. If you know of any exceptions please provide their names and examples of where they have authored within the IPCC AR4 WG1 report outside of their area(s0 of expertise - thanks.

Also: Are you saying what you cited is from a reputable source that provides correct and reputable references?

[Dardedar]

03:25 PM on 02/19/2011

Science denier canard #110: "The IPCC consensus is phoney"

“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change”.

http://skepticalscience.com/Hulme-IPCC-consensus.htm

Once again we see three things:

1) All of the science is against Chris's science denial position.
2) He still can't come up with a denier argument that isn't shot to pieces at skeptical science.
3) He can't rebut the science and only talks politics. Why? See #1.

[Chris 1]

07:54 AM on 02/18/2011

Addressing the phony AGW narrative of "consensus";

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/17/galileo_and_the_scientific_pose_of_the_left_108934.html

It's the left that would have lined up against Galileo.

[Publicola]

12:52 PM on 02/18/2011

From your source:

"The whole global warming theory began with mathematical computer models."

Really. They had computer models back in the 19th Century?

Who knew.

[Dardedar]

03:10 PM on 02/19/2011

Reviewing the consensus again:

1) "All scientific bodies of national or international standing agree with the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2) "At the 2008 Future in Review Conference, Harvard professor James McCarth, former co-chair of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), was asked how many of the world's top 1000 climate experts would disagree with the basic scientific consensus that the increase in green house gas concentrations over the last 50 years to levels not seen in 650,000 years is primarily anthropogenic and is the cause of an increase in global temperatures.
He replied, "Five."
http://www.davidbrin.com/climate2.htm

3) "an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers... show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the IPCC..."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

4) "A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. She... analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,... none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The question Chris won't answer:

Are there other areas of science where you know more than all of the experts or is it just in climatology?

[Chris 1]

11:16 AM on 02/17/2011

How the EPA suppresses dissent;

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/EPA_Suppresses_Dissent.htm

Big Brother knows best?

[Publicola]

03:38 PM on 02/17/2011

If Alan Carlin's - who is evidently an economist, not a climate scientist - deep misunderstanding of the science of global warming extended to what he wanted included in the report then it's no wonder that it was not included, since it would not have met proper scientific standards. For example per Chris1's source Carlin maintained that "global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century" - a position that is strongly and decidedly at odds with the actual science and the actual scientific data.

[Chris 1]

12:19 PM on 02/18/2011

This is a poor joke of slander considering all political appointees found inside the IPCC with bogus resumes;

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

20 economists in working group 3 where they get to plan world domination through taxes and regulation. Lawyers, web designers etc. etc.

[Publicola]

12:49 PM on 02/18/2011

Chris1: "20 economists in [IPCC] working group 3"

IPCC Working Group 1 is the IPCC working group that deals with the physical science of global warming. The authors in that group are climate scientists, not economists, as it should be.

Carlin, an economist, is not qualified professionally judge climate science, in an EPA report or otherwise. And his deep misunderst­anding of the science of global warming demonstrates as much.

[Chris 1]

10:59 AM on 02/17/2011

http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2010-02-16-the-climate-dominoes-fall

More on the fake science political consensus.

[Publicola]

03:44 PM on 02/17/2011

And here's even more about fake science "consensus"!

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

/sarcasm

[Dardedar]

01:47 PM on 02/16/2011

I wonder why outspoken GW denier Lomberg just flipped if the skeptics are "winning" the debate?

"The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn...

Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.

But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

Deniers are dropping like flies. Climatologist Gavin Schmidt just said the other day he is often getting "we surrender" cards.

The world is getting warmer and we are causing it. Oh, and smoking causes cancer.

[Chris 1]

11:03 AM on 02/17/2011

You get more deceptive with each post but the article has one telling quote;

"Pachauri once compared Lomborg to Hitler"

That's science "reason" for you, isn't it? LOL

All the same voices in lock-step Dardedar, the ultimate YAWN.....

[Dardedar]

08:08 PM on 02/17/2011

"Pachauri once compared Lomborg to..."

How is this relevant to anything?

[Chris 1]

11:41 AM on 02/16/2011

George Dvorsky, a director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies put forward five reasons for the failure at Copenhagen (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20100110/):

5. Weak consensus on the reason for global warming

Even warmists admit the science consensus is weak among other counter claims found here.

[Dardedar]

01:23 PM on 02/16/2011

Still waiting for Chris to present a science based denier argument that can't be debunked in two minutes by a grade schooler with access to this list of 148 of his favorites:

http://ske­pticalscie­nce.com/ar­gument.php

Step one: find tired old science denier argument/assertion (you've got lots)

Step two: go to above link and see if it's been debunked (it has)

Repeat step one.

[Chris 1]

06:07 PM on 02/16/2011

You're a two trick pony Dardedar;

A. Keep mumbling "peer review" which is religious code for only IPCC steered swill you are willing to accepts. No dissent allowed.

B. "Consensus" which is about the same as "A".

There are still old women walking around Red Square with pictures of Stalin holding candles Dardedar. You would fit right in.

Less than 60 "scientists" worked on the summary report (AR4) and of those only a tiny fraction extrapolated after decades of politics the needed but fake "very likely" statement which the radical left has used to try to seize global power. It's a fake consensus Dardedar, unquantified in the many fake polls that are steered at a tiny percentage of climate scientists that are either niave or whoring for the IPCC process for coin.

[rdrioane]

03:49 PM on 02/17/2011

Here is a question for you. If human activity is the cause of Global Warming. What caused the end of the Ice Age?

[Chris 1]

11:22 AM on 02/16/2011

How dangerous is a science craze?;

http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

[Dardedar]

01:29 PM on 02/16/2011

Ah yes, late fiction writer Crichton, otherwise known as Bush's climate science advisor.

One of these days Chris is going to accidentally bump into an actual science based link on the topic of climatology. He's going to be so surprised!

Here's how the world should work: Climatologists shouldn't tell civil engineers where to put the sidewalk or lay the waste water pipe, and civil engineers shouldn't pretend they are in a position to tell climatologists they don't understand the science of climatology.

Oh wait, that IS how the world works. Good thing too. As you were.

[Publicola]

01:33 PM on 02/16/2011

Gotta love misleading rhetoric excerpted from science fiction books. Or not.

For example the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) might have supported researching eugenics - they for example sponsored a conference on it once, if I recall correctly - but quite unlike with respect to AGW theory the NAS did not, AFAIK, officially maintain that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that eugenics was correct. If you think otherwise cite reputable primary references that in your mind indicate as much; thanks.

[Chris 1]

10:47 AM on 02/16/2011

Why is the raw climate data hidden?

http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/06/more-data-refusal-nothing-changes/

[Publicola]

12:34 PM on 02/16/2011

Most of the raw climate data isn't hidden - have at it:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

[Publicola]

01:45 PM on 02/16/2011

BTW the very small portion of raw climate data that is not publicly available - the so-called "hidden" data - is not publicly available because of copyright restrictions.

[Chris 1]

02:19 PM on 02/16/2011

Rejected as false;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/07/an-foi-ruling-more-significant-than-the-russell-review/#more-21548

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2010/02/01/pathological-liars-more-ipcc-data-fraud-exposed-amazon-rainforest-not-affected-by-global-warming-claims/

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2009/12/canadian-climate-skeptic-fudged-data.html

Dog ate data??

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

[Chris 1]

09:54 AM on 02/16/2011

Follow the money;

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

[Dardedar]

10:07 AM on 02/16/2011

Hey Chris, yer spinnin yer wheels. Everyone knows any civil engineer can have a tantrum and google denier blogs. It doesn't require reading, or thinking. Seen it all before.

Find us a science based denier argument that can't be debunked by a grade schooler with access to this list of 148 of your favorites:

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Dare ya.

[Chris 1]

11:27 AM on 02/16/2011

As if you have had anything compelling to say? You support the state view, got it.

We'll see how it goes when congress opens the books and data in the coming year. It will take years but co2 fraud is a dead horse. Next you be selling another version of eco-fantasy like "sustainability" another retread from the 60's-70's which use to be called "zero growth movement".

http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/political-social-movements/what-zero-population-growth-movement

[Chris 1]

09:48 AM on 02/16/2011

Another nice summary guide;

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

[Publicola]

01:48 PM on 02/16/2011

Yawn.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Scientific-Guide-to-the-Skeptics-Handbook.html