House hearings today

The US House of Representatives' hearing on climate change is today. The hearings - entitled "A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response" - should be fascinating stuff. To add spice to the day's events, those naughty people on Capitol Hill have scheduled Ben Santer and Pat Michaels to appear on the same panel of witnesses. Who can forget Santer's most famous contribution to the CRU emails?

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Just as well this isn't a scientific meeting.

The hearings start at 10:30am EST, which is 3:30pm in the UK. I haven't located the link for the webcast, but it may well be here.

Comments

[Pete H]

Popcorn anyone?

[Phil's Dad]

I bet Santer is all fur coat and no knickers. Just like my boy, likes to talk the talk.

[JohnH]

This is not the New House but the Old one, New one is in Jan ?

[j ferguson]

That the hearings could happen with the present constituency of the House is quite telling. They really do want to know.

[Jim Karlock]

You might also try C-Span for liver coverage:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/schedule/?zoom=0&timezone=Eastern&date=Nov+17%2C+2010

They also archive much of (all?) their stuff on their website.

Thanks
JK

[Bernie]

Jim:
Whatabout the onions?

[Phillip Bratby]

And bacon.

[Pharos]

Dont forget the gravy.

[golf charley]

That a "scientist" thinks he can resolve scientific differences more effectively with his fists, than with his scientific ability, says a lot about the "scientist" and his "science"

[Phillip Bratby]

gc

He didn't say he'd use his fists. I bet a baseball bat would be more in character.

[hunter]

Dr. Santer can come to Texas and give that method a try sometime.

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

j ferguson

That the hearings could happen with the present constituency of the House is quite telling. They really do want to know.

This was my initial reaction, but I think I will wait to see if they are simply trying to preempt Issa.

We shall see.

[Sir DigbyCS]

Just listening to this; Dick Lindzen is fantastic! He's talking about Permanent Dipole Moments, structure of molecules and lots more relevant science. I can't imagine this EVER happening in our parliamentary enquiries.

[RobB]

Yes - but the level of debate is quite poor and just a platform for the politicians to posture. Most people accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that some part of the current warming is due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The real debate is how much warming is it causing and how much in the future? More importantly, the real contention revolves around the fact that further 'dangerous' warming depends on positive feedbacks. Why didn't Lindzen challenge on that basis rather than getting bogged down in an esoteric argument concerning the small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Sir DigbyCS]

I doubt today is about debate, it's more a series of broadcasts from the different groups, but as one of the panel members has stated at least the ratio of the two sides is now 1:4 rather 1:16 as it's been in the past. If there is any debate about the science, at least these guys have mentioned some and a larger proportion of the panel have Ph.Ds whereas we have to rely on Graham Stringer, plus some ex party wonks and Dr Evan Harris' (MD),

SDCS

[not banned yet]

Sir Digby - I just read the online witness statements (available at the link Bish gives in the head post) and agree Lindzen's stands out as discussing scientific issues with proper context. I particularly liked his use of graphs with appropriately scaled vertical axes :-)

Rob B - read the statement as Lindzen covers well the issues you raise.

btw - Sadly the Chair's introductory remarks display a rather "settled science" view - I wonder if he'll find this "Rational Debate" informative?

And if you want a giggle read the conclusions of the "pro lobby" submissions....unprecedented use of the conditional tense anyone?

[Robinson]

I think Santer was actually convincing. Michaels did ok as well, but was bloviating a little towards the end. 5 minute recess followed by the second panel.

It's here on C-Span

[MartinW]

In his opening statement, chairman Brian Baird, said -

"I believe the evidence of climate change and ocean acidification is compelling and troubling, but even without that conclusion, I am convinced that we must change our energy policies for reasons of economics, national security and environmental and human health…"

and

"… three panels of witnesses that will help us to better understand the concepts and impacts of climate change and ocean acidification."

So the Chairman comes to the hearings with a conviction that the evidence [for man-made climate change] and ocean acidifcation is compelling and troubling. Immediately, I have serious doubts about his neutrality, and whether these hearings really will be a dispassionate and balanced enquiry into the science.

[Bad Andrew]

"I believe the evidence of climate change and ocean acidification is compelling and troubling..."

And the evidence you base this belief on is where?

Andrew

[j ferguson]

MartinW:
"So the Chairman comes to the hearings with a conviction that the evidence [for man-made climate change] and ocean acidifcation is compelling and troubling. Immediately, I have serious doubts about his neutrality, and whether these hearings really will be a dispassionate and balanced enquiry into the science."

It's not in the nature of these things to have neutrality, nor balance. Instead, concepts and understandings contended.

Haven't I sensed some dismay at this sort of thing not happening on the East side of the pond? Isn't your loyal opposition expected to challenge every assertion made by those in power? Of late, we've had plenty of that. over here.

[PaulM]

Well, according to Judith Curry:

Panel II: Some fireworks between Santer and Michaels; Michaels seemed to come out on top. Michaels has some interesting stuff in his written testimony on attribution in the latter half of 20th century.

[Michael Larkin]

I enjoyed some of the presentations and discussions - I thought Lindzen was really good, and Judith Curry also pretty good, even though I disagree with her in significant ways. Some like to slag off the USA, but we've yet to see anything like this in the UK. I'm hoping when the Republicans take the reins, we will have more input from sceptics and lukewarmers over there.

One thing that has really puzzled me about this is that it doesn't seem to be being covered over at WUWT (unless I missed it?), though a little while back I did mention it in tips and notes, and anyway surely by now Anthony will be aware of it.

[Latimer Alder]

@michael

Its lead story at WUWT (with full recording to watch) right now.

[Roger Carr]

Ad-spam returns to Bishop Hill above: "Your article is good, I like it very much!guess shoes on sale"

[BH adds: Gone now!]

[Michael Larkin]

Thanks, Latimer. I was just a few hours too previous! :-)