Comments on: The Inconceivably Bogus Republican Science Committee Hearings

By: Russell Seitz

Russell Seitz — Sat, 08 Apr 2017 19:19:47 +0000

58
That has been my objective in dealing wiith his predecessors whenever I have testified on the Hill, and I look forward to the opportunity to query him as well.

By: Mann, did Judith Curry ever get Rogered! – Greg Laden's Blog

Mann, did Judith Curry ever get Rogered! – Greg Laden's Blog — Sat, 08 Apr 2017 19:13:02 +0000

[…] The recent Congressional hearings at which the two of them testified (along with a full on denier whom I’m ignoring right now, and actual scientists Michael Mann) exemplify this problem they have. There they were, tooling along with their denial or uncertainty or ax grinding, questioning the science and the appropriate policy, sucking up to the Republicans on the committee … until suddenly, near the end of the hearings … WHAM!!!!! Game over. Like the hovering lake fly that believes the trout to be a benevolent god right up to the moment the trout sucks the fly into its gut. (Apologies to Terry Pratchett.) […]

By: Christopher Winter

Christopher Winter — Sat, 08 Apr 2017 14:15:36 +0000

As her (sic) did not elect to reply, perhaps Gregg can venture a guess as to how many of that evidenttly (sic) endangered species have survived The War On Republican Scientists? Kerry Emanuel seems to be doing all right. I'm sure there are others. I would hope you also wrote to Lamar Smith to ask why he reflexively dismissed the criticism by calling Science a non-objective (i.e. biased) publication.

By: Russell

Russell — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:44:58 +0000

Mann sparred directly with Smith, highlighting a Friday article in Science magazine that criticized Smith for speaking at a conference for climate change skeptics. Science magazine is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

“That is not known as an objective writer or magazine,” Smith said.

Greg notes:

Mann replied, “Well, it is ‘Science’ magazine.”
This part, which is also discussed in the above referenced piece at the Guardian, was amazing. When Smith called the United State’s primary science journal a biased source, I could hear the sound of jaws dropping in unison across the world.’

In an E-mail exchange last year, our new AAAS ,CEO, a former Democratric Congressman aroused my curiousity when on being reminded that 93% if AAAS Congresssional Fellows work for his political cohort, he assertd that the body was ” non-partisan, not bipartisan.”

I then ventured to ask if he could find 10 Republicans within 100 feet of his office ( The 12 story AAAS building spans 183,000 square feet.

As her did not elect to reply, perhaps Gregg can venture a guess as to how many of that evidenttly endangered species have survived The War On Republican Scientists?

By: BBD

BBD — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:44:54 +0000

What a lot of evasive waffle from RickA. Again.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:12:50 +0000

Good catch.

He wants to pretend a legion for his claims, but when asked to show his proofs, he wants to beg off as being a simple lone querant.

Either speak for yourself or speak for a group, don’t fuck about and pretend to be both as seems convenient.

By: Marco

Marco — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:04:56 +0000

“Oh – you thought I was a climate scientist, speaking with authority?”

Your use of the word “we” betrays you, RickA.

You cannot write:
“We don’t know a lot about the climate and what changes it, over what time periods.”

You can only write:
“I don’t know a lot about the climate and what changes it, over what time periods.”

You are not skeptical, but pseudoskeptical, since you yourself admit that you do not have the expertise to have a qualified opinion!

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:58:36 +0000

“I think the warming of .7C from 550 to 950 AD is pretty mysterious.”

So you don’t know what did it.

So you don’t know that it’s still in effect.

Yet we DO know what CO2 does and how much it’s increased.

What is mysterious is why you think (for want of a better word) you have found any rationale for denial.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:56:54 +0000

“Or, another example: if you double your CO2, you’ve increased it by 100%. The best estimate is that that would warm the Earth by ~3C. If you double it *again*, then you’ve again increased by 100%, which should have about the same effect.”

“Dick” doesn’t get maths. Even grade-school maths. The main line of evidence that his claim to be a professional engineer is bogus and he’s likely only an oil-wiper.

By: Kevin O'Neill

Kevin O'Neill — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:30:08 +0000

RickA “What these temperature excursions of .7C and .8C over hundreds of years show is that natural forcing doesn’t always cancel out on a decade basis as is commonly raised in these discussions…. Some natural forcing takes place over century and probably millennial time periods.”

Sorry, I had *already* pointed out that your reference is an extra-tropical NH only reconstruction. It’s not global.No one should be surprised at regional variations larger than global variations.

You really don’t think these things through much, do you?