Comments on: Instant Reaction – Waxman Hearing http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Mike N http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7944 Mike N Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:49:24 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7944 I think Tim Clear nailed it. The GW industry is worth about 6 billion or so a year? Not too many scientists would give up a piece of that to tell the truth. Sorry for the pessimism but I just don't see much devotion to the facts anymore. I think Tim Clear nailed it. The GW industry is worth about 6 billion or so a year? Not too many scientists would give up a piece of that to tell the truth. Sorry for the pessimism but I just don’t see much devotion to the facts anymore.

]]> By: Tim Clear http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7943 Tim Clear Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:34:28 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7943 Mr's Bloom, Johnson, et al. I think you either ignore or are ignorant (same thing) of the fact that AR4 will be pronounced tomorrow by those anointed by the Oil for Food gang, and that the procedure will be that those expecting further funding will have to revise their "scientific" findings to reflect those decisions (to further the carbon trading scams) or else eat cake. Mr’s Bloom, Johnson, et al.

I think you either ignore or are ignorant (same thing) of the fact that AR4 will be pronounced tomorrow by those anointed by the Oil for Food gang, and that the procedure will be that those expecting further funding will have to revise their “scientific” findings to reflect those decisions (to further the carbon trading scams) or else eat cake.

]]> By: Marlowe Johnson http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7942 Marlowe Johnson Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:53:02 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7942 Roger, What is it exactly about Steve Bloom's comment that you think is without substance? IMO he nailed it pretty good... Roger,

What is it exactly about Steve Bloom’s comment that you think is without substance? IMO he nailed it pretty good…

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7941 Chris Mooney Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:19:52 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7941 Hi Roger, You've got a point re the Waxman committee's statement on hurricanes, but I'd say it's a relatively small one. Their language was actually pretty careful, though obviously they should have mentioned the WMO statement. My two cents: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/01/theyre_both_right.php Hi Roger,
You’ve got a point re the Waxman committee’s statement on hurricanes, but I’d say it’s a relatively small one. Their language was actually pretty careful, though obviously they should have mentioned the WMO statement. My two cents:
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/01/theyre_both_right.php

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7940 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:20:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7940 The folks at Real Climate provide this odd response to my comment reprinted above, once again showing that their focus is, ahem, only on science: "[Pielke's] statement is fair enough in itself, but this was not a hearing about the administration putting its stamp on preferred policy responses to global warming. It was about systematic suppression of scientific evidence regarding the magnitude of the harm. I don't really expect RPJr to be able to tell the difference, but I'd hope the rest of us could. --raypierre" Ray obviously didn't watch the hearing, because it was all about the Bush Admin putting its stamp on its preferred policies. The folks at Real Climate provide this odd response to my comment reprinted above, once again showing that their focus is, ahem, only on science:

“[Pielke's] statement is fair enough in itself, but this was not a hearing about the administration putting its stamp on preferred policy responses to global warming. It was about systematic suppression of scientific evidence regarding the magnitude of the harm. I don’t really expect RPJr to be able to tell the difference, but I’d hope the rest of us could. –raypierre”

Ray obviously didn’t watch the hearing, because it was all about the Bush Admin putting its stamp on its preferred policies.

]]> By: Steve Bloom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7939 Steve Bloom Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:06:01 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7939 Had the WMO statement tilted toward any one view, it would have been ineffective as a truce. Also, in my prior comment I meant to say statementization, although come to think of it consensusization (of a truce) would probably be best. It is a fine locution, as I'm sure the proprietors will agree. Had the WMO statement tilted toward any one view, it would have been ineffective as a truce. Also, in my prior comment I meant to say statementization, although come to think of it consensusization (of a truce) would probably be best. It is a fine locution, as I’m sure the proprietors will agree.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7938 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:52:46 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7938 Steve- Welcome back. We'd welcome anything substantive that you'd like to contribute. Thanks! Steve-

Welcome back. We’d welcome anything substantive that you’d like to contribute.

Thanks!

]]> By: Steve Bloom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7937 Steve Bloom Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:46:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7937 It was an exercise in statementism, pure and simple. Just as with last year's statement, it's simply an agreement that people shouldn't yell at each other in public until after the next round of papers and in particular up through the release of the AR4 WG1 report. It was an exercise in statementism, pure and simple. Just as with last year’s statement, it’s simply an agreement that people shouldn’t yell at each other in public until after the next round of papers and in particular up through the release of the AR4 WG1 report.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7936 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:46:09 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7936 Comment submitted at RealClimate, just FYI: Interesting comments. As I understand it I was recommended by the Republicans and approved by the Democrats. My invite letter came from the Democrats. I hope that this information helps you to evaluate the substantive merits of my testimony;-) Anyone asserting that my testimony defends or represents the Republicans obviously hasn't read it. Similarly, I don't think that Shindell, Piltz, or Grifo were there to defend or represent the Democrats. We were each speaking for ourselves, we just happened to be picked because the politicians thought they'd get some advantage from it. I don't think any of the 4 necessarily was uniformly helpful to the party that invited them. Selection of witnesses at Congressional hearings is of course cherry picking 101. I asserted in my testimony that citing Emanuel (2005), Webster et al (2005) and Mann and Emanuel (2005) represented a selective presentation of the literature on hurricanes and global warming, especially in the context of the recent consensus statement from the WMO endorsed by the AMS (how could that be neglected?!?), which said of the debate over the trends documented in the first two of these papers: "This is still hotly debated area for which we can provide no definitive conclusion." Here is what WMO says about Mann/Emanuel: "The possibility that greenhouse gas induced global warming may have already caused a substantial increase in some tropical cyclone indices has been raised (e.g. Mann and Emanuel, 2006), but no consensus has been reached on this issue." No consensus. Hotly debated. Seems quite clear. Why anyone would go to the mat on this point is beyond me. There is a debate ongoing in the community. It is not necessary to assess certainty. In fact assessing such certainty misrepresents the science. So why do it? Anyone wanting to actually read my comments and discuss is welcome to on our site. Thanks! Comment submitted at RealClimate, just FYI:

Interesting comments. As I understand it I was recommended by the Republicans and approved by the Democrats. My invite letter came from the Democrats. I hope that this information helps you to evaluate the substantive merits of my testimony;-) Anyone asserting that my testimony defends or represents the Republicans obviously hasn’t read it. Similarly, I don’t think that Shindell, Piltz, or Grifo were there to defend or represent the Democrats. We were each speaking for ourselves, we just happened to be picked because the politicians thought they’d get some advantage from it. I don’t think any of the 4 necessarily was uniformly helpful to the party that invited them. Selection of witnesses at Congressional hearings is of course cherry picking 101.

I asserted in my testimony that citing Emanuel (2005), Webster et al (2005) and Mann and Emanuel (2005) represented a selective presentation of the literature on hurricanes and global warming, especially in the context of the recent consensus statement from the WMO endorsed by the AMS (how could that be neglected?!?), which said of the debate over the trends documented in the first two of these papers:

“This is still hotly debated area for which we can provide no definitive conclusion.”

Here is what WMO says about Mann/Emanuel:

“The possibility that greenhouse gas induced global warming may have already caused a substantial increase in some tropical cyclone indices has been raised (e.g. Mann and Emanuel, 2006), but no consensus has been reached on this issue.”

No consensus. Hotly debated. Seems quite clear. Why anyone would go to the mat on this point is beyond me. There is a debate ongoing in the community. It is not necessary to assess certainty. In fact assessing such certainty misrepresents the science. So why do it?

Anyone wanting to actually read my comments and discuss is welcome to on our site. Thanks!

]]> By: hank http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4083&cpage=1#comment-7935 hank Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:43:22 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4083#comment-7935 > If Mr. Waxman was interested in actually improving > policies governing science he’d haul down agency > press officers and those responsible for the > process of approving government reports to focus > on actual processes. How could he improve on this effort? He appears to be trying to do exactly that: http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130121238-79603.pdf What tactic would you suggest? > If Mr. Waxman was interested in actually improving
> policies governing science he’d haul down agency
> press officers and those responsible for the
> process of approving government reports to focus
> on actual processes.

How could he improve on this effort? He appears to be trying to do exactly that:
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130121238-79603.pdf

What tactic would you suggest?

]]>