Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Joshua

December 9, 2015, 4:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by sarastro92

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)

$

0

0

As if on cue:

“CRUZ: So let me ask you a question, Steve. Is there global warming, yes or no?

INSKEEP: According to the scientists, absolutely.

CRUZ: I’m asking you.

INSKEEP: Sure.

CRUZ: OK, you are incorrect, actually. The scientific evidence doesn’t support global warming. For the last 18 years, the satellite data – we have satellites that monitor the atmosphere. The satellites that actually measure the temperature showed no significant warming whatsoever.”

A perfect example of vague, unscientific rhetoric of an advocate that Judith’s testimony essentially ignored and certainly shed no light on.

Do you think he is unfamiliar with Judith’s opinions? Is he someone, who convened the hearing, of consequence?

---

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by sarastro92

December 9, 2015, 4:44 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by john321s

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Joshua

$

0

0

To the American public who might be watching a US Senator asserted CAGW is valid because this year and last year are the warmest on record.

The leading skeptical climatologist did not challenge this claim in any real way… so Americans will conclude that CAGW is true.

That’s unfortunate.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by john321s

December 9, 2015, 5:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by catweazle666

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by sarastro92

$

0

0

Having read all of Judith’s “verbal remarks,” I’m very curious what her nonverbal message was.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by catweazle666

December 9, 2015, 5:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Peter M Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by john321s

$

0

0

Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos): “the absurd work of Steven Goddard”

As opposed to your absurd work, do you mean?

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Peter M Davies

December 9, 2015, 5:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by dougbadgero

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by catweazle666

$

0

0

@sarastro92 “….a US Senator asserted CAGW is valid because this year and last year are the warmest on record.”

Since recorded climate observations have only been for a very short period in the billion year history of climate on this Earth, I am bemused by both sides of the AGW debate claiming any discernable trend either way.

If Americans (or any other nationality) conclude that CAGW is true let alone AGW, it would generally be the fault of leftist ideologues and the MSM.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by dougbadgero

December 9, 2015, 5:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Peter M Davies

$

0

0

It is hard to know where to begin when Markey is starting from that level of stupidity.

He doesn’t know the difference between a value and a rate of change. He doesn’t understand that there is no reason to expect the natural climate to be stable. He thinks that a record in a 150 year time series is important during a 20,000 interglacial.

I do think the correct response to the assertion that 2015 is the warmest year ever in that venue is to point out that it isn’t. The MWP and RWP were in fact warmer and that the few millinea between then and now is a geologic blip.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)

December 9, 2015, 5:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by dougbadgero

$

0

0

I find it baffling nobody few people seem to even try to rebut the “97% consensus” message. It’s incredibly easy to do. The most important work it is based on, that by the Skeptical Science group, is fraudulent with the authors having intentionally misrepresented their results.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

December 9, 2015, 5:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by chuckrr (@chuckerenno)

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)

$

0

0

sara.. I don’t think anyone is going to conclude much of anything from that bit of political theater. Dr. Curry mentioned the 200 years which is conservative and natural variability. Warmest year, day or month is a political issue more than a scientific issue or they wouldn’t be picking favored data sets or spending so much time trying to eke out hundredths of degrees.

The 200 year comment is actually pretty important though. Preindustrial is the reference temperature for all the pledges and the uncertainty in preindustrial is around +/-0.35 C degrees, maybe a little more with BEST, but what exactly what is “preindustrial” global mean surface temperature?

---

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by chuckrr (@chuckerenno)

December 9, 2015, 5:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aneipris

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$

0

0

Listen to Morano’s interview with Cook today. He’s excellent on this point. Over at WUWT

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aneipris

December 9, 2015, 6:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aneipris

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by chuckrr (@chuckerenno)

$

0

0

Brandon,,,

Me too. it drives me nuts. It’s their big gun, the 97percent number. And it’s bogus! Based on a shamefully bad “study!” Why oh why do they let it go unchallenged?

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aneipris

December 9, 2015, 6:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aneipris

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aneipris

$

0

0

chuck….it’s a long sit to get through that audio. Can you tell me approximately where Morano addresses it?

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aneipris

December 9, 2015, 6:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Barnes

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aneipris

$

0

0

Thanks Beth. I needed a point of two today :-)

Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Barnes

December 11, 2015, 4:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by aneipris

$

0

0

Re point 3, have you read agenda 21?

Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Jim D

December 11, 2015, 4:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Turbulent Eddie

≪ Previous: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Barnes

$

0

0

TE, you are just doubling down on all the ideologies rather than disagreeing. These all represent the divide, and the debate needs to be on the science and the findings, but we get this generalized anti-science and anti-academic stuff instead. You don’t like Mann’s HS, just move on. Try Marcott, Ocean2k, and countless others already seen in AR5. The “skeptics” are being swamped by all these confirming studies, but now just want to blame the scientists instead of the data, while not even trying to do their own studies on this. Use the paleo data if you want to deny what the papers say. It doesn’t carry any weight unless you do. It is just talk.

Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Turbulent Eddie

December 11, 2015, 4:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Jim D

$

0

0

Jim D, here in the UK we’ve been paying far more than $2 per gallon tax for more than two decades now. And then VAT on top of that.

And….

… I’m guessing that hasn’t led to a breakthrough CO2 free technology for autos in Britain that we just haven’t heard about yet, correct?

---

Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Jim D

December 11, 2015, 4:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by dougbadgero

≪ Previous: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Turbulent Eddie

$

0

0

And that is nothing to do with climate change, nor did it collapse the economy.

Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by dougbadgero

December 11, 2015, 4:06 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Jim D

$

0

0

Models are validated, and they can fail validation. The GCMs fail validation badly. You can parse this reality with whatever language you like.

Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Jim D

December 11, 2015, 4:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by dougbadgero

$

0

0

I think Obama still holds out hope that Republicans will see the light, but I don’t believe he has the tools that you outline anyway. He needs policies that will last beyond his administration, and the EPA is the way that is being done as you may have noticed. He can’t direct stimulus money where he would like to. That takes congressional acts. He can work with other nations to get the global reductions needed, and he is. I think he has done as much as he can in the existing US political climate.

Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Jim D

December 11, 2015, 4:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by peter3172

≪ Previous: Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Jim D

$

0

0

Steve is right. In science, data is key. You don’t like all the studies, do your own. See if they look credible against the ones published.

Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by peter3172

December 11, 2015, 4:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Turbulent Eddie

≪ Previous: Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by Jim D

$

0

0

Jim D, it certainly did the economy no favours whatsoever – and at least exacerbated the recession we’ve just been through – which has left me near retirement age with few assets and little pension to look forward to.
And it’s done precious little to cut down of CO2 emissions, other than to poison our lungs with diesel fumes.