Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
On March 31, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science Space and Technology held a hearing on Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy. There was a breathtaking (but not altogether surprising) amount of climate misinformation provided both by the Republican politicians and the skeptic scientists they invited as witnesses. Much credit goes to Dana Nuccitelli who went to the trouble of transcribing all of the misinformation (full video of the event is viewable here). Here is a collection of the climate myths quotes from the politicians and scientists (which have been added to our Climate Myths from Politicians):
Climate Myths from Sandy Adams (R-FL)
What the Science Says
"if [CO2 limits] had passed...do you think the economic damage created by that bill would have been worth the carbon emissions decrease it was estimated to have achieved?"
"if we were in the US to bring our carbon emissions down to zero within 20 years, and invest all of this even though countries such as China and India and EU do not, there would not be much of a difference in what is going on today"
"Does the so-called danger posed to the economy by not acting to reduce what some may call man-made effects on climate change outweigh the economic costs to the country?"
Climate Myths from J. Scott Armstrong (Professor of Marketing)
What the Science Says
"I work with Willie Soon, who does a lot of research on this particular topic, and that's what he tells me [that natural factors are causing global warming]"
"Would it be fair to say then, that in the scientific community, it literally is asking too much of them for them to be able to tell us whether 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now, Earth's temperatures are going to be warmer or cooler, much like it is pretty unreasonable to ask a meteorologist whether we're going to have rain in Washington just 2 or 3 weeks from now?"
"I couldn't help but pull up the Time magazine front page article dated April 28th, 1975 where we have a penguin on the cover and it says "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age". How do you compare that global cooling claim versus today's global warming claim?"
"pretty much the one constant about the weather is that it's always changing...Looking at the Earth's past climatological data, have their been cooler periods than we're not experiencing?"
Climate Myths from John Christy (Climate scientist)
What the Science Says
"[the hockey stick] was the icon of the TAR, the Third Assessment Report, and what the tree ring record did, in showing it did not agree with temperatures, indicated that the icon itself, which was based primarily on tree rings prior to the 16th century, was therefore not very good at explaining what the temperature was."
"I think there's been too much jumping to conclusions about seeing something happening in the climate and saying 'well the only way that can happen is human effects'"
"Greenland ice borehole temperatures...indicated a clear 500 year period of temperatures warmer than the present centered around 900 AD commonly referred to as the Medieval Warm Period."
"Evidence was presented by Dr. Ross McKitrick and others indicated the popular surface temperature data sets were affected by warming not likely to be caused by greenhouse gases."
"The hockey stick's author was the same IPCC lead author who in my opinion worked with a small group of cohorts...allowing amputation of a disagreeable result, and the splicing of unrelated data to 'hide the decline'."
"The hockey stick's author was the same IPCC lead author who in my opinion worked with a small group of cohorts and misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1,000 years by promoting his own result"
"IPCC-selected lead authors are given significant control over the text, including the authority to judge their own work against the work of their critics...this process has led to the propagation of incorrect and misleading information in the assessments, and thus should lead you to question the IPCC's general support for a catastrophic view of climate change."
"If everybody, if all the United States we go totally green, but other countries throughout this world don't follow suit, can you tell me what kind of tick that's even going to put in the CO2 emissions?"
"back when I was graduating from high school I remember the "great global cooling". Is this "great global cooling" similar to the great global warming that is going on today?"
"Over the last century, as anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased...every relevant indicator of public health and welfare has improved dramatically around the world rather than deteriorated."
"The leaked emails from the University of East Angeles [sic] Climate Research Unit in the November of 2009 revealed that the scientists most vocal about the effects humans were having on the climate...were not following accepted scientific practices."
Climate Myths from David Montgomery (Economics Ph.D.)
What the Science Says
"even if all of the climate science was accepted as good science, we still need to worry about the bad economics and bad policy analysis that had been used to leap from conclusions - to leap to conclusions about what should be done from that basis."
"the Waxman-Markey [climate] bill with costs in the range of $1,000-2,000 per household, a loss of 1-2% of GDP of what it would be otherwise, and perhaps close to a doubling of electricity prices"
Climate Myths from Richard Muller (Professor of Physics)
What the Science Says
"Luis Alvarez taught me the fundamental scientific rule, which is you've got to show everybody your dirty laundry...My problem with the way the hockey stick was derived was that there was none of this...if you hide something...the person you are most likely to fool is yourself."
"There was a period that we call this 'Medieval Warming Period', is there any suggestion that that was caused by an increased level of CO2, especially by human beings, and if not...and it was warmer then, how can we then say scientifically that today's cycle that seems to be a little bit warming anyway, was caused by CO2?"
"Do you believe the Sun and natural causes may have more to do with cycles the Earth is going through, including the current one, than mankind's use of fossil fuel?"
"Do you believe the Sun and natural causes may have more to do with cycles the Earth is going through, including the current one, than mankind's use of fossil fuel?"
However, there was one bright spot at the hearing: the testimony from climate scientist Kerry Emanuel also testified at the event. (available on YouTube and embedded below). His closing words are particularly poignant and worth dwelling on:
"We properly revere our forefathers for making material and mortal sacrifices for our benefit. One only hopes that our descendants will hold us in similar regard."
On March 31, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science Space and Technology held a hearing on Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy. There was a breathtaking (but not altogether surprising) amount of climate misinformation provided both by the Republican politicians and the skeptic scientists they invited as witnesses. Much credit goes to Dana Nuccitelli who went to the trouble of transcribing all of the misinformation (full video of the event is viewable here). Here is a collection of the climate myths quotes from the politicians and scientists (which have been added to our Climate Myths from Politicians):
