Congress Opening Their Eyes!

IanC

Gold Member
Sep 22, 2009
11,061
1,344
245
from Dr Judith Curry's blog-

Climate Etc. Skip to contentHomeAboutBlog Rules ← Older posts
Testimony follow up
Posted on December 3, 2010
by curryja| 71 Comments
by Judith Curry

Pursuant to my recent congressional testimony, I have received some follow up questions that were submitted by Members of the Committee.

Here are the questions:

1. It is clear from your public statements that you generally agree with the mainstream view of global warming and cannot easily be characterized as a climate change “denier” or “skeptic.” Nonetheless, you have been quite critical of the process under which climate sciene is conducted, saying that “it is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thward the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports.”

a. Why are so many scientists “pointing their guns” at skeptics when sharing data and embrcing debate seems to be an obvious way for scientists to increase the credibility of their arguments and influence public debate?

b. Given the potentially enormous influence of climate science on economic and environmental policy – which ultimately boils down to jobs 00 shouldn’t it be held to a higher standard in the public debate? For example, should Congress consider blocking funding for researchers that do not make their data and materials available for public scrutiny?

c. Should such research be excluded from use in policy debates and scientific assessments such as those by the National Academies or IPCC?

2. You state in your testimony that the conflict regarding the theory of anthropogenic climate change is over the level of our ignorance regarding what is unknown about natural climate variability. For a long time, the scientific community did not consider uncertainty a bad thing. In fact, the word “certainty” was something that was almost never used (you are not certain the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but you are reasonably sure that it is very likely to occur.)

a. At what point did uncertainty become a bid thing in the climate community?

b. How did this shift within the scientific community occur? How does it shift back?

c. Are there any efforts within the scientific community to self-correct this paradigm shift? If there is not, what does this mean for the decision-makers needing objective and unbiased scientific information to inform their policies?

3. Do you believe the current IPCC processes are working? If so, why? If not, what specific actions can be taken to repair them, and in the meantime, why should the product of a process that isn’t working be relied upon as the basis for policy actions that would impose enormous costs on the United States economy?

These are REALLY GOOD questions, with no easy answers. I am pondering how I am going to respond (response due Dec 10). In the mean time, I am opening this up for discussion, and hoping for some good ideas!

http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/03/testimony-follow-up/ Linked

Congress"s simple act of asking good questions could mean that they are not all idiots after all.
 
The guns pointed remarks should give you a clue as to who is saying this crap.

Why not NAME the senators?

oh I get it your a partisan hack
 
I would like to see people like Inhofe up there answering questions concerning his statements on global warming. And what science that he backs those statements up with. This is the same old bullshit the tobacco companies used to cast doubt on the findings of medical researchers concerning the ill effects of smoking. They are even using the same old lying scientists that have previously whored out their degrees.
 
I would like to see people like Inhofe up there answering questions concerning his statements on global warming. And what science that he backs those statements up with. This is the same old bullshit the tobacco companies used to cast doubt on the findings of medical researchers concerning the ill effects of smoking. They are even using the same old lying scientists that have previously whored out their degrees.



GEN_115_LR-18.jpg
 
Picking the side of a few scientists over the vast majority of scientists is merely a political hack move.

You are playing a fucking game and its obvious you are being BOUGHT by the wealthy assholes who pay the hack sceintists to cast doubt on REAL science for science sake.
 
Hey..........heres the poop........... the global warming alarmists dont have a fcukking leg to stand on anymore with all their "science". In terms of public policy...........nobody gives a rats ass.


Id say, for them............time to call in Gigantor!!!!


gigantor15hj3cx3.gif
 
You people need to realise in ANY scienetific field there is NOT complete concensus.

There are nut bags in EVERY field.

The nutters you guys back are at least making some money for their hackery
 
You people need to realise in ANY scienetific field there is NOT complete concensus.

There are nut bags in EVERY field.

The nutters you guys back are at least making some money for their hackery




Thats the whole point asshole............been saying it for 10 years. Public policy in America had been moving as if there were a consensus on global warming.

But Not Anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu:

Time for the k00ks to take their bat and ball and go home!!!
 
Picking the side of a few scientists over the vast majority of scientists is merely a political hack move.

You are playing a fucking game and its obvious you are being BOUGHT by the wealthy assholes who pay the hack sceintists to cast doubt on REAL science for science sake.




Ahh that old BS cannard about the majority of scientists eh. I hate to tell you but that is untrue...but you allready knew that as your whole life is untrue.
 
You people need to realise in ANY scienetific field there is NOT complete concensus.

There are nut bags in EVERY field.

The nutters you guys back are at least making some money for their hackery




Science (this is the correct spelling, use it from now on) is not about consensus sweety. The ESSENCE of science is scepticism. If there were no sceptics people like you would still think the Sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth itself was flat. Oh wait, you still do!:lol::lol::lol:
 
Picking the side of a few scientists over the vast majority of scientists is merely a political hack move.

You are playing a fucking game and its obvious you are being BOUGHT by the wealthy assholes who pay the hack sceintists to cast doubt on REAL science for science sake.




Ahh that old BS cannard about the majority of scientists eh. I hate to tell you but that is untrue...but you allready knew that as your whole life is untrue.

Hey Walleyes, just one scientific society that states that AGW is not a fact. Come on, you can do that, can't you, old sot? Surely, amongst all those scientists they have one scientific society that agrees with you? Come on, just one!

How about a National Academy of Science? Even Outer Slobovia. Just one?

Or a major University?

The vast majority of scientists, and especially those scientists in Geology, Biology, Climatology, state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Leading in the battle to inform the public concerning the reality of what this warming will create, is the American Geophysical Union, and the other scientific societies dealing with the earth sciences.

When the upcoming AGU Conferance is over, I will post links to the lectures presented. How many do you think will be claiming that AGW is a hoax?
 
Picking the side of a few scientists over the vast majority of scientists is merely a political hack move.

You are playing a fucking game and its obvious you are being BOUGHT by the wealthy assholes who pay the hack sceintists to cast doubt on REAL science for science sake.




Ahh that old BS cannard about the majority of scientists eh. I hate to tell you but that is untrue...but you allready knew that as your whole life is untrue.


When the upcoming AGU Conferance is over, I will post links to the lectures presented. How many do you think will be claiming that AGW is a hoax?


The only people paying attention though are those that are the true believers.........but not anybody else.


sorry s0n...........Ive posted up volumes of evidence to support my statement above. The envrionmental k00ks know it..........they just choose to pretend "their science" is universally accepted in the arena of public policy.
 
You people need to realise in ANY scienetific field there is NOT complete concensus.

There are nut bags in EVERY field.

Consensus isn't the issue, facts are the issue. And the fact is that the data has been cooked by those 'majority consensus' folks thus, anything they spew is suspicious. Aren't you one who always rallies against 'liars'? Why are you defending these liars?

The nutters you guys back are at least making some money for their hackery

Any guesses on how much money will be 're-distributed' through this giant ponzi scheme they're trying to pull?
 
You people need to realise in ANY scienetific field there is NOT complete concensus.

There are nut bags in EVERY field.

Consensus isn't the issue, facts are the issue. And the fact is that the data has been cooked by those 'majority consensus' folks thus, anything they spew is suspicious. Aren't you one who always rallies against 'liars'? Why are you defending these liars?

The nutters you guys back are at least making some money for their hackery

Any guesses on how much money will be 're-distributed' through this giant ponzi scheme they're trying to pull?




Because the liars are furthering the nut and fruit groups political goals.
 
Last edited:
I realize I am breaking this message board's protocol by not insulting insulting someone or making insinuations about a political group but ....

The OP seemed to show that Congress was opening their eyes to many of the very real problems involved with the science and the politics of climate science. Now they seem to be willing to actually take baby steps towards ameliorating some of the basic conditions that have caused so much skepticism over temp records.

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sens. David Vitter and John Barrasso today introduced S. 4015, the Public Access to Historical Records Act, which would dramatically improve the transparency and accuracy of NASA’s historical records and guarantee public access to the data....The bill by Vitter and Barrasso is consistent with the Data Quality Act, which requires that scientific information from government agencies be accurate, clear, complete and unbiased. The Public Access to Historical Records Act would require NASA and the National Climatic Data Center to immediately release relevant climate data that outside groups have long been attempting to review through the Freedom of Information Act....The bill would also force NASA to make all of its raw historical temperature data available online to the public and would require the agency to compile an official U.S. historical temperature record with oversight from an independent council of appointed meteorologists and statisticians.
from A bill for climate data integrity: The Public Access to Historical Records Act | Watts Up With That?

All I can say is that it is about time. And if the bill does pass, good luck to the auditors who's job it will be to put the records back together.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top