Committee Republicans Unanimously Reject Measures Reaffirming Science Behind Global Warming

WASHINGTON -- In a vote split cleanly along party lines, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday rejected measures reaffirming climate change as a scientific reality, with every Republican on the panel voting "nay," Roll Call's Jennifer Bendery first reported.

Committee Republicans rejected three amendments acknowledging the science of climate change, with every Republican on the committee voting against an amendment introduced by California Democrat Henry Waxman calling on Congress to affirm “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.’’

The committee also voted 31-20 along party lines to turn down an amendment introduced by Washington Democrat Jay Inslee asking Congress to accept that ‘‘the public health of current generations is endangered and that the threat to public health for both current and future generations will likely mount over time as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and result in ever greater rates of climate change.’’ A similar proposal introduced by Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette was also soundly defeated.

The three amendments were introduced in the course of debate over a Republican bill to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Committee Chairman Fred Upton in his opening remarks claimed the bill would help spur job growth and accused the EPA of destroying jobs in an already faltering economy. "There are a host of reasons to support H.R. 910, but let me put it simply," he said. "This bill says 'stop' to an EPA attempting to impose policies we cannot afford that will destroy jobs we cannot afford to lose. By passing this bill, we can put Congress back in charge of setting the energy and environmental policies that will allow our nation to create jobs, bring down prices at the pump, and make America more secure and energy independent."

Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the committee, called the bill "dangerous" in his opening remarks and implored lawmakers not to "put our head in the sand like an ostrich."

Comments

[RealConservativeAmerican]

01:06 PM on 04/13/2011

Committee Republicans unanimously reject SCIENCE. They're all a bunch of religious crazies who think the world was created 6000 years ago . . . or was it 4000?

[ILoveFiction]

09:26 AM on 04/14/2011

No, no, no.

Get your facts straight:

11,013 BC—Creation. God created the world and man (Adam and Eve).

4990 BC—The flood of Noah’s day. All perished in a worldwide flood. Only Noah, his wife, and his 3 sons and their wives survived in the ark (6023 years from creation).

7 BC—The year Jesus Christ was born (11,006 years from creation).

33 AD—The year Jesus Christ was crucified and the church age began (11,045 years from creation; 5023 calendar years from the flood).

1988 AD—This year ended the church age and began the great tribulation period of 23 years (13,000 years from creation).

1994 AD—On September 7th, the first 2300-day period of the great tribulation came to an end and the latter rain began, commencing God’s plan to save a great multitude of people outside of the churches (13,006 years from creation).

2011 AD—On May 21st, Judgment Day will begin and the rapture (the taking up into heaven of God’s elect people) will occur at the end of the 23-year great tribulation. On October 21st, the world will be destroyed by fire (7000 years from the flood; 13,023 years from creation).

http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/

[RealConservativeAmerican]

10:55 AM on 04/14/2011

Thanks for setting me straight on that! I should have listened to Kirk Cameron when I had the chance . . . I can already feel the flames of hell licking at my heels!

[RealConservativeAmerican]

11:08 AM on 04/14/2011

Yea, and verily did Allen looketh unto the heavens whereon a glorious light poured over the lands, and when he gazed down upon his feet, there were a great many pamphlets, 8 times folded, with 3 golden staples binding parchment, and typed in the splendorous sans serif font of angels and the lord god spoketh unto Allen: Lo, I have given you these pamphlets that they may verily be distributed upon the bus stops and public bathrooms of the land . . .

[realpolitic]

02:45 AM on 04/11/2011

"In a vote split cleanly along party lines, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday rejected measures reaffirming climate change as a scientific reality, with every Republican on the panel voting "nay," Roll Call's Jennifer Bendery first reported." Republicans are just dumbing down society to a degree they will soon be dragging their knuckles across the floor.

[absolument]

09:08 PM on 04/09/2011

I read last night that the last-minute budget deal repeals this gop bs but I'm not sure it repeals all of it. Anybody know for sure or do I have to look it up myself? :-(

[More tea Vicar]

07:04 PM on 04/09/2011

Upton said: "This bill says 'stop' to an EPA attempting to impose policies we cannot afford that will destroy jobs we cannot afford to lose." So he's willing to destroy the Earth so as not to destroy jobs? There will be many more jobs created by cutting down on the Earth's destruction and cleaning up the mess we've made in the last century.

I believe the US is the only country still denying climate change. And guess who owns the government (especially the Republicans, like Upton? Companies like the Koch's and Exxon, 2 major polluters and GOP funders who between them have spend over $30,000,000 to deny climate change!

These people are being allowed to destroy the Earth for profit at the expense of our children and grandchildren. The de.vil is in the driving seat and has to be kicked out.

[RealConservativeAmerican]

01:10 PM on 04/13/2011

Its a bogus claim that EPA regulations will kill jobs especially given that Republicans actively fight against the creation of so-called green jobs, which could save our country billions & create new industries that America could lead the world in.

[StephenBP]

07:41 AM on 04/14/2011

I've seen much higher figures than $30,000,000 total. That sounds like maybe a yearly figure? Plus whatever we can't track.

At any rate, it is a very small insurance premium for the fossil fuelists to pay, allowing them to successfully stop scientific inquiry in its tracks and extend the life of their industry for years.

Stopping fossil fuel is not going to be easy. At this point, the climatology community collectively is putting out a weak message which suggests, when you think it through, that we need to cut off one of our economic "legs" in order to save the patient.

We need to grow that replacement "leg" pronto, so that when it is overwhelmingly obvious to the patient that the leg has to go, and they agree to surgery, we have something else to stand on.

[StephenBP]

08:09 AM on 04/09/2011

I think that discussions with Republicans on global warming are very difficult at this point.
It is pointless to argue with people who are ideologically fixated on something. If their ideological faith prevents them from even for a moment doing a thought experiment to test their belief, discussion is essentially impossible. If their ideological direction is aimed at quarterly profits and re-election based on the manipulation of the religiously vulnerable, I do not expect much rationality.
Personally I am always looking for believable evidence that the earth is not warming globally. I am not religious in my beliefs about global warming. My beliefs are all couched in terms of probability. If people with Ph.D.s whom I have found to be honest and intelligent in the field of science suggest something within their field of expertise, I give their ideas more weight than the arguments of people who care more about their political and economic ideology and their comfortable sacred life style than they care about science.
So when someone repeats over and over that local sea levels have dropped at some really small portion of the planet, I am puzzled at their motivation to repeat this mantra. There is a huge world coastline of which California is really a tiny portion. Sea levels vary around the world based on things like prevailing winds and vertical tectonic movement. What is the point? It may be an ideologically based debating tactic, but it is not part of a rational discussion.

[Richard2]

01:04 PM on 04/05/2011

"Local sea level has dropped since 1990s"

Wind, temperatur­e and pressure are pushing water away from the coast

By Sherry Seethaler, in the San Diego Union Tribune

Monday, April 4, 2011 at 12:01 a.m.

"While global sea level continues to rise, sea level rise along the California coast tapered off in the early 1980s.

According to Reinhard Flick, a researcher at the Scripps Institutio­n of Oceanograp­hy, who studies tides, sea level and coastal impacts, the average sea level at La Jolla measured with the Scripps Institutio­n of Oceanograp­hy tide gauge was 81.8 centimeter­s for the 1980s (1980-1989­), 84.6 cm for the 1990s and 82.9 cm for the 2000s (relative to mean lower low water, the point of reference used on tide tables).

Therefore, local sea level was 1.7 centimeter­s lower on average in the decade of the 2000s than during the decade of the 1990s. ....­"

Declining sea levels, who would have known?

[ubrew12]

01:40 PM on 04/05/2011

Thanks for the mother of all cherry picks.

[Richard2]

03:22 PM on 04/07/2011

So comparing all the sea level measurements from one entire decade with all the sea level measurements from another entire decade, from the same La Jolla tide station, is a "cherry pick?"

Some might suggest that reviewing all the data over a ten year period is in part an attempt to avoid making cherry picks, such as only one unusual year, such as 1998 with some other cherry picked date.

Saying that ON AVERAGE, the local sea level was lower from 2000 through 2009 than it was from 1990 through 1999, doesn't exhibit the features of a typical cherry pick.

[jimboy71]

05:31 PM on 04/05/2011

"While global sea levels continue to rise.."

WOW!

[rodjard]

07:37 AM on 04/05/2011

Are they that stupid?
Or are they that corrupt?
Maby both, but the results are the same. Nothing.

[Robco1]

01:12 PM on 04/01/2011

“Americans are expecting us to roll up our sleeves and get to work, solving today’s pressing issues – putting America back to work, and reducing the federal deficit. Instead, radical Republicans are using the budget process to push for extreme policy positions that would gut the Clean Air Act and roll back important public health protections. These same Republicans are literally demanding that we compromise our children’s health to get a short-term budget deal.” --Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, speaking in defense of the Clean Air Act http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/index.cfm?id=0fdbc1dd-a386-46f4-9b63-8aead1e9d4ca

[jimboy71]

03:58 PM on 04/01/2011

What's the health of a few million children compared to the wealth of a few thousand men?

[Richard2]

09:29 AM on 04/01/2011

And at the State level in the United States:

The New Hampshire House of Representatives, the third largest legislative body in the world, voted yesterday to end the state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program. The House voted 251-108 after less than 5 minutes of debate to repeal the law under which the state joined RGGI.

[ILoveFiction]

10:33 AM on 04/01/2011

That would be a great place to apply tea party principles and set up the ideal 17th century agrarian society.

[jimboy71]

09:54 PM on 04/01/2011

They tried it already...it ended poorly. Have you seen New Amsterdam?

[chrisd3]

11:26 AM on 04/01/2011

And...?

What is this supposed to prove other than that politicians know how to get themselves re-elected?

[absolument]

11:53 AM on 04/01/2011

Funny moose! "Prove?!?" It's not meant to "prove" anything!
Richard2's purpose is only to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. Clear, well-defined assertions of fact are nearly useless for his agenda. His lack of clarity is intentional and strategic.

[leftcoastindy]

06:13 PM on 04/21/2011

And that Richard2 needs a real job so he can quit posting for penny's on HP

[ILoveFiction]

08:11 PM on 03/31/2011

A Watts was for BEST before was against it.

Hah!

[absolument]

08:28 PM on 03/31/2011

And now, for something completely different:

The Republican Party this week announced a comprehensive plan to address global warming. As the Party never believed global warming exists, it came as a surprise even to themselves, and as a welcome relief from pretending that they have a clue, or care, about what to do to create jobs.

"Unlike Democrat tax and regulate plans, this is simple, comprehensive, and handles the problem immediately, once and for all", said House Speaker, John Boehner, a-glowing. "Instead of stopping global warming it reverses it. And, we know this is a good bill because it is only one-page long."

The bill, authored by freshman Tea Party Member Ben Quayle -- whose Vice-President father, Dan, once promoted a manned-mission to the sun, proposing to avoid its extreme heat by going at night -- is called the "Reverse [Non-Existent] Global Warming With a Stroke of the Pen" Act. It outlaws Fahrenheit, substituting Celsius for all temperature readings, reports and thermometers, and thereby instantaneously reduces all temperatures.

"Fahrenheit, like fluoridation of water before it, is a socialist plot. It is designed to make people believe the temperature is hotter than it is," said Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK). "They want you to believe, for example, that it is 68° in Tulsa, whereas we can now say it is only 20°. That is more than a 3-fold difference. In my part of the country we don't call that hoax, we call it a lie".

[ILoveFiction]

09:03 PM on 03/31/2011

Eureka!

[absolument]

09:44 PM on 03/31/2011

The best what?

[chrisd3]

11:29 AM on 04/01/2011

BEST, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures, Richard Muller's forthcoming study. The deniers had high hopes for it, but it turns out that he says that NOAA/NASA/etc. are right, and Watts is wrong.

[Richard2]

07:15 PM on 03/31/2011

In my opinion, Emanuel and other senior members of the climate community bear much of the responsibility for the escalation of the incident beyond the borders of East Anglia and Penn State. If Emanuel and others wanted to stop criticism and suspicion, they should have carried out their inquiries in a systematic way, as inquiries are carried out in other fields.

The Oxburgh inquiry, of which he was a member, should have had written terms of reference, should have interviewed critics as well as CRU, should have had (at least) transcripts of the interviews – among other things.

The Oxburgh “report” was an insult to the public. Emanuel shares the blame for that.

That Emanuel, a member of one of the inquiries, should be unaware that hide-the-decline occurred in peer reviewed literature and IPCC merely proves, if anyone were in doubt, that the inquiries were cavalier and negligent rather than thorough and diligent.

- Steve McIntyre, commenting on K. Emanuel's testimony before Congress today.

[absolument]

07:29 PM on 03/31/2011

For somebody who is as much at fault as the oil shill Steve McIntyre is for the "climategate" propaganda festival to want to dictate who "shares the blame" is of course cowardly. But moreover, it is shockingly and tastelessly unoriginal.

Ben Santer:
Unlike Mr. McIntyre, David Douglass and his colleagues (in their International Journal of Climatology paper) had used the freely available raw model data. With these raw datasets, Douglass et al. made intermediate calculations similar to the calculations we had performed. The results of their intermediate calculations were similar to our own intermediate results. The differences between what Douglass and colleagues had done and what my colleagues and I had done was not in the intermediate calculations – it was in the statistical tests each group had used to compare climate models with observations.

The punch-line of this story is that Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests were completely unnecessary. In my opinion, they were frivolous. Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the information necessary to check our calculations and our findings.

When I invited Mr. McIntyre to “audit” our entire study, including the intermediate calculations, and told him that all the data necessary to perform such an “audit” were freely available, he expressed moral outrage on his blog. I began to receive threatening emails. Complaints about my “stonewalling” behavior were sent to my superiors at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and at the U.S. Department of Energy.

[absolument]

07:49 PM on 03/31/2011

(Ben Santer, continued)

A little over a month after receiving Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests, I decided to release all of the intermediate calculations I had performed for our International Journal of Climatology paper. I made these datasets available to the entire scientific community. I did this because I wanted to continue with my scientific research. I did not want to spend all of my available time and energy responding to harassment incited by Mr. McIntyre’s blog.

Mr. Pearce does not mention that Mr. McIntyre had no need to file Freedom of Information Act requests, since Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the raw climate model data we had used in our study (and to the methods we had used for performing intermediate calculations). Nor does Mr. Pearce mention the curious asymmetry in Mr. McIntyre’s “auditing”. To my knowledge, Mr. McIntyre – who purports to have considerable statistical expertise – has failed to “audit” the Douglass et al. paper, which contained serious statistical errors.

As the “Climategate” emails clearly show, there is a pattern of behavior here. My encounter with Mr. McIntyre’s use of FOIA requests for “audit” purposes is not an isolated event. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests serve the purpose of initiating fishing expeditions, and are not being used for true scientific discovery.

[absolument]

07:53 PM on 03/31/2011

(Ben Santer)
Mr. McIntyre’s own words do not present a picture of a man engaged in purely dispassionate and objective scientific inquiry:

“But if Santer wants to try this kind of stunt, as I’ve said above, I’ve submitted FOI requests and we’ll see what they turn up. We’ll see what the journal policies require. I’ll also see what DOE and PCDMI administrators have to say. We’ll see if any of Santer’s buddies are obligated to produce the data. We’ll see if Santer ever sent any of the data to his buddies”

(Steven McIntyre; posting on his ClimateAudit blog; Nov. 21, 2008).

My research is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Mr. McIntyre’s blogging is not. He can issue FOIA requests at will. He is the master of his domain – the supreme, unchallenged ruler of the “ClimateAudit” universe. He is not a climate scientist, but he has the power to single-handedly destroy the reputations of exceptional men and women who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of climate science. Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of “Climategate”. I hope that someone has the courage to tell this story.
===================

Had McIntyre's power been earned by merit, it would be less extraordinary. But what is clear from his refusal to analyze the raw data himself, and outrage at being offered it, is that he is utterly incompetent. He expected somebody to have something to hide, and when none of his targets did, he just made **it up.

[ClimateHawk]

08:15 PM on 03/31/2011

"I am here today to affirm my profession’s conclusion that human beings are influencing climate and that this entails certain risks. If we have any regard for the welfare of our descendents, it is incumbent on us to take seriously the risks that climate change poses to their future and to confront them openly and honestly." Kerry Emanuel

[absolument]

09:36 PM on 03/31/2011

That's a big "if" when talking to Republicans.

[absolument]

06:07 PM on 03/31/2011

98% of professional climate scientists are in agreement.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

I wonder how the composition of "experts" at today's Science Committee Hearing (House of Representatives) compares? Is agreement also ~98% among those that the Republicans invited to testify to them, or did the Republicans cherry-pick scientists from the community?

Maybe one of the climate science deniars can tell me what's wrong with these "experts'" credentials?

http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-climate-change
Witnesses
Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania...
Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP...
Dr. David Montgomery, Economist

Maybe not.

[Chris 1]

03:01 PM on 03/31/2011

Want to see a micro study on science fraud and government working hand in hand??

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/31/green-regulation-in-ca-academic-fraud-retaliation-and-science-denial/

Imagine cap and tax by a factor of 10000x greater than this sad story.

[absolument]

03:04 PM on 03/31/2011

It's telling that your point of view always requires us to "imagine" whereas climate science only requires us to learn. Thanks anyway, Chris, I prefer reality-based reality.

[jimboy71]

03:24 PM on 03/31/2011

Chris,

There is undoubtedly fraud going on all over the world. It's a human charachteristic and weakness. However, what you're suggesting ad nauseam is that science is somehow MOST fraudulent.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Science (and academics) are the only bodies left with OVERSIGHT in the form of peer review which ensures that scrutiny is given to every bit of research done to try and guarantee that it is as STRONG as it possibly can be.

I suppose you think that science should also be "deregulated" and ideas tried in the court of popular opinion? While we're at it, why not de-regulate engineering, medicine, and education too? That always works well.

We don't need no stinkin' rules or standards...

[ILoveFiction]

11:34 AM on 03/31/2011

The House Science and Technology Committee is scheduled to hear from our dear friend Dr. Christy today. As well as several other illustrious purveyors of doubt. They love hearing about how there are many questions.

[absolument]

12:45 PM on 03/31/2011

It's entertaining how few answers their preferred "experts" have, and how many fewer of their answers have ever proved correct. It's just so sad that they aren't able to understand and enjoy the gag.

[ILoveFiction]

01:30 PM on 03/31/2011

http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-climate-change

The first witness refers to Idso and Singer. And probably Dr. Doolittle.

[jimboy71]

02:16 PM on 03/31/2011

Yes, there is much walking with the animals...talking, I'm not so sure...

[chrisd3]

02:23 PM on 03/31/2011

Thanks for the link. Here's the first thing that jumped out at me from Richard Muller's testimony:

"We have also studied station quality. Many US stations have low quality rankings
according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in
the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations. "

That's game, set, and match, I believe.

[absolument]

01:29 AM on 03/31/2011

Who do these gop "represent­­­atives" on the House Energy & Commerce Committee really work for? (part 4 - Ed Whitfield)
Industry Total
Health Professionals $940,107
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $340,209
Electric Utilities $283,615
Tobacco $239,435
Retired $237,605
Oil & Gas $234,997
Telephone Utilities $225,990
Insurance $223,492
Beer, Wine & Liquor $217,725
Lawyers/Law Firms $212,595
Leadership PACs $198,109
Railroads $187,206
TV/Movies/Music $178,293
Mining $160,677
Commercial Banks $148,865
Crop Production & Basic Processing $148,550
Real Estate $137,785
Automotive $132,650
Lobbyists $131,894
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $124,797
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00003467&type=I

[gallon]

09:42 AM on 03/31/2011

Good work absolument.

[texfly]

12:13 PM on 03/31/2011

Great! and a great site!

[absolument]

12:49 PM on 03/31/2011

It is! And so is this one http://littlesis.org/

'LittleSis* is a free database of who-knows-who at the heights of business and government.
* opposite of Big Brother'

Much of their data about financial ties comes from opensecrets.org, but they also compile more biographical information, which is sometimes also necessary to know, especially about the most cynical abusers of our democracy.