Senate Science Committee hearing challenges “dogma” of climate science

[steve2470]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/senate-science-committee-hearing-challenges-dogma-of-climate-science/

While the eyes of the world are on Paris, where nations are hammering out an agreement to do something about the reality of climate change, the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness once again held a hearing on Tuesday to debate whether climate change is for real. Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who is running for his party’s presidential nomination, convened the hearing titled “Data or dogma? Promoting open inquiry in the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth’s climate.”

Senator Cruz brought in four witnesses to testify, mostly chosen from the usual suspects that have participated in similar hearings in the past. There were two of the very small handful of climate scientists who express doubts about human responsibility for climate change—Georgia Tech professor and blogger Judith Curry and John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. William Happer, a retired Princeton physicist and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-tank, was also invited to speak. The fourth person brought in to talk climate science was conservative radio host and columnist Mark Steyn. (The last two were keynote speakers at this year’s Heartland Institute conference for climate “skeptics.”)

Senator Cruz opened the hearing with some ironic remarks. “This is a hearing on the science behind the claims of global warming. Now, this is the Science Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, and we’re hearing from distinguished scientists, sharing their views, their interpretations, their analysis of the data and the evidence. Now, I am the son of two mathematicians—two computer programmers and scientists—and I believe that public policy should follow the actual science, and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and evidence.”

John Christy, who has helped develop the UAH satellite temperature dataset favored by climate “skeptics” because it shows slower warming in portions of the troposphere than we see in surface records, made his pitch for why we just don’t know what has caused recent warming. That explanation involved highlighting his graph of tropical mid-troposphere (rather than global surface) model projections and observations that frequently appears in the comments on stories like this one—a graph other climate scientists take issue with—and claiming that emissions cuts would have a minimal impact on climate change. While claiming that research funding is biased, he proposed setting aside five to 10 percent of federal climate research funding for a “Red Team” like the CIA section tasked with outside-the-box analyses that challenge the status quo. This Red Team would “produce an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses” for climate change.

more at link

[hifiguy]

1. Peer reviewed, multiply verified scientific facts = "dogma"

Fairy tales about Invisible Man in the Sky = "fact"

No wonder this country is circling the effing toilet bowl.

[HuckleB]

2. Umm.

[HassleCat]

3. He is truly disgusting

I listened to NPR interview him on this subject, and he answers questions like a fundamentalist preacher who got caught with his pants down.

[Rex]

4. Yes let's all die with certainty the planet is not becoming uninhabitable due to our meddling.

This country is in a lot of trouble.

[Johonny]

5. If only their science publication record kept up with their appearances on special panels

to debunk dogma they can't debunk with actual science evidence... At least these people make $ off their BS. What do the millions of GOP voters get, besides a more polluted environment?