Committee Hearing

here .

68 Comments

  1. Jim O'Toole
    Posted Jul 12, 2006 at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, are you invited?

  2. Jean S
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 2:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re #1: Steve seems to be avoiding every question concerning the Committee, and I think everyone can make they own conclusions out of that :)

  3. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 4:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Don’t over-interpret as the time shown here is Pacific time; Eastern time is 2 hours later. I’d been out to dinner and I went to bed after posting up this link. So I didn’t actually avoid the question last night other than being offline.

  4. John A
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 6:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Will they be inviting Michael Mann for a chat to discuss issues arising?

  5. John A
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 6:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    PS I’ve added a countdown.

  6. TCO
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 7:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, ya did now, munch munch.

  7. BKC
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    So I didn’t actually avoid the question last night other than being offline.

    So… now you’re avoiding the question? :)

  8. John Hekman
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Mark T. mentions “suing.” There have been discussions before on this site regarding the possibility of lawsuits. For one thing, the legal process would require Mann to produce all his documents, including his algorithm.

    I just received the latest copy of the ABA Journal (Amer. Bar Assn.) And BTW I am not a lawyer. The cover story is titled

    “Feeling the Heat: The growing debate over climate change takes on legal overtones.” It says that there have been “legal actions seeking more forceful regulatory steps by government.” And “Lawsuits have been filed in efforts to hold alleged polluters accountable for damaging the environment.”

    These suits could conceivably lead to expert testimony from “climate scientists” to establish a link between pollution and “damage to the environment” (climate change damage, I assume). It would be an interesting forum for debate of this alleged link.

    The Supreme Court has weighed in against junk science in the courtroom (Daubert and Kumho Tire). There could be quite a battle over which side was using “acceptable” scientific methods of the field.

    Of course, if climate scientists say that MBH is the accepted standard, the court could rule in their favor.

  9. Doug L
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #7

    After being called a witch hunter, Barton’s going to hold another hearing and cave in to political correctness?

    If I were him I’d put some people up there with an alternative view and then bring up Peter “I wouldn’t be embarrassed” Bloomfield.

  10. John A
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #10

    I also wondered about this characterization of Barton. He’s never demonstrated before a willingness to cave in to political correctness – quite the reverse.

    I just hope there’s an entertaining list of witnesses called to testify.

  11. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 3:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    These suits could conceivably lead to expert testimony from “climate scientists” to establish a link between pollution and “damage to the environment” (climate change damage, I assume). It would be an interesting forum for debate of this alleged link.

    If one looks at some recent decisions of US jury trials and the response of jurors to the emotional arguments of trial lawyers, one would not necessarily expect the jurors to render a rational decision. While the details of the proceedings may lead someone to an entirely different conclusion, I would almost bet that the headlines coming out of such a trial would be along the lines of company X’s defense of the uncertainty of AGW is shredded by plaintiff’s lawyers who will now collect billions in damages for their clients (and unmentioned millions for themselves) by convincing jurors that AGW is a real and eminent threat of which Company X was well aware.

  12. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #3

    …the time shown here is Pacific time; Eastern time is 2 hours later…

    Don’t sell North America short (or narrow!) — Eastern time is a full 3 hours ahead of us West Coast laggards. :)

  13. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #14. It was a 2 hour difference. It must be Mountain Time although they are in Vancouver.

  14. Bill Bixby
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 6:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve heard that North and Von Storch are going to be witnesses, as is McIntyre and some statistician that’s been working for Barton — name escapes me. My sources are unclear as to whether Mann will participate.

    Yours,
    Bixby

  15. TCO
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    They should invite TCO!

  16. Kopernik
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve,

    Barton is more representative of the views of the House of Representatives than Boehlert. Boehlert is a confirmed AGW believer. Barton isn’t. Furthermore, Boehlert is a lame-duck; he won’t be in the House next year. Barton will.

    Boehlert is from New York State–one of the more liberal state in the country. (I know. My son Zachary had to listen to AGW in his science class.) Texas is one of the most conservative. Boehlert is from an energy consuming State. Texas still has a lot of oil.

    I expect Boehlert to be hard on AGW. If he isn’t, we’re in deep trouble.

    Also, try to watch the hearing or read the transcripts. Don’t expect the American mass media to report it fairly.

    Kopernik

  17. Kopernik
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 7:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Please change Boehlert to Barton in my next to last sentence. Sorry for the mistake.

    Kopernik

  18. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 9:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Speaking of American politicians, I think that I might have played rugby against Bill Clinton. It says here that he played for Univesity College, Oxford. His 2nd year 1969-70 was my first year at Oxford. I don’t remember specifically playing against University College, but they were probably on our schedule.

  19. fFreddy
    Posted Jul 13, 2006 at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, were you a Rhodes Scholar too ?

  20. Posted Jul 14, 2006 at 12:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Thats great that the link to the broadcast will become active 10 minutes prior to the start of the hearing. Nways…………..are you invited Steve??????

  21. JSP
    Posted Jul 14, 2006 at 3:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve,

    Fat Bill’s biography mentions a lot of things that he never did. I doubt that he ever played Rugby for Oxford, or any sport. Besides, he was too busy hanging out with his Stalinist friends at the Union or contracting a STDs.

    SP

  22. fFreddy
    Posted Jul 14, 2006 at 4:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #23, Louis Nettles

    … The report … due to be released today …

    Anyone know where ?

  23. JerryB
    Posted Jul 14, 2006 at 5:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The July 19th hearing seems to be by a subcommittee of the Barton committee. the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee link
    chaired by a congressman Ed Whitfield

    members
    , so it may be referred to at the Whitfield subcommitee.

  24. Frank
    Posted Jul 14, 2006 at 5:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I hear the full report will be posted at http://energycommerce.house.gov later this morning.

  25. fFreddy
    Posted Jul 14, 2006 at 6:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks, Frank. I foresee my refresh button getting a bit worn out today …

  26. Geoff
    Posted Jul 14, 2006 at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #25, out already – enjoy.

  27. David Smith
    Posted Jul 15, 2006 at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I noticed that Henry Waxman is a member of this committee. Was he well-behaved in the earlier hearins?

    He has an activist bent, of the Al Gore type. I’ll be surprised if he stays on the sideline.

  28. Steve Bloom
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I see that there’s now a hearing scheduled for Thursday (7/20) by the Government Reform Committee (apparently the full committee). RP Jr. is set to testify. The hearing is titled: "Climate Change: Understanding the Degree of the Problem."
    [snip]
    Keep the party politics off the weblog. Thank you

  29. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re:#29
    “…the roster of wingnut witnesses cooked up by Barton …”
    Which witnesses do you feel fit your description?

  30. Doug L
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 2:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re # 29,30

    He can’t help using argumentum ad Sierra Club ‘em, especially on a hot day :-)

  31. Steve Bloom
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t take the “W” word as necessarily implying party affiliation, although in retrospect it’s a fair enough point that others may see it differently. Regarding the remainder of my comment, I would point out that avoiding a discussion of party politics (intra-party in this case) in the context of these two hearings makes it impossible to discuss what’s really going on.

    In any case the ultimate nature of the witness list is a matter of my speculation. I suspect that the hearing on the 20th may be in part a response to the refusal of many scientists to agree to appear at Barton’s hearing. At this point, given the availability of the former venue, I think Barton may have a very hard time looking even faintly balanced. Maybe the hearing on the 20th will get all the coverage, with the Barton hearing getting a small sidebar focusing on its obvious bias.

  32. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I suspect that the hearing on the 20th may be in part a response to the refusal of many scientists to agree to appear at Barton’s hearing.

    I would imagine that Barton has the power to compel testimony via subpoena, which would mean contempt should they refuse and Barton chooses to follow up.

    Anyone that does refuse, will have a hard time crying “unbalanced” in light of the fact that they were given an opportunity (fact because any refusing were obviously invited in the first place).

    Mark

  33. fFreddy
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #32, Steve Bloom

    …the refusal of many scientists to agree to appear at Barton’s hearing.

    Do you have any facts to back up this implication ?

  34. Steve Bloom
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t know, FFreddy, what meaning would you impute to the second hearing? Don’t you think it likely that a number of potential witnesses would be happy to use the second hearing as a reason to not appear at the first one? Also, although this may mean nothing, I’ll note that the Barton hearing witness list has yet to go public.

    Mark T., I don’t claim to be real familiar with the ins and outs of Congressional rules, but I suspect anyone appearing at the hearing on the 20th would be covered. Recall also that Barton is already a bit out of school with respect to the subject matter jurisdiction of his committee.

  35. jae
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Watch out, guys, you are dealing with the Sierra Club’s “expert” on these matters!

  36. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 4:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #35
    “Don’t you think it likely that a number of potential witnesses would be happy to use the second hearing as a reason to not appear at the first one?”
    I’m sure that unbiased scientists wouldn’t wish to give an appearance of bias by doing so.

    As regards the “…out of school…,” I would think that the refusal of the NAS staff to address many of Boehlert’s questions in his request to the NAS gives Barton much more freedom of action.

  37. fFreddy
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #35, Steve Bloom

    Right. You don’t have any facts to back up that implication.

  38. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #29,32
    PS – Like SB, I understood the “w-word” to be a personal attack rather than a party-politics issue.

  39. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 5:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Recall also that Barton is already a bit out of school with respect to the subject matter jurisdiction of his committee.

    a) irrelevant, a congressional subpoena may hold the same weight of law as any other regardless of jurisdiction,
    and
    b) not true. House Energy committee is exactly the jurisdiction for this type of discussion. The HS is (potentially) being used as evidence to govern CO2 emissions in the US, which directly impacts the US energy policy.

    I’m not sure what you meant by “anyone appearing at the hearing on the 20th would be covered.”

    Mark

  40. Pat Frank
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 5:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #32 — Steve Bloom wrote: “I would point out that avoiding a discussion of party politics … in the context of these two hearings makes it impossible to discuss what’s really going on.”

    The context of what’s going on, Steve B., is the aggressive centerfold display of Mann’s hockey stick in the TAR, followed by large amounts of activist dust, in the form of accusative innuendo, kicked up by folks like you, followed by Mann’s immediate and continuing refusal to release his code and his methods in contravention of the standards of ethical science, followed by Steve M.’s and Ross’ analyses showing that Mann’s work reflects either incompetence or disingenuity, followed by Mann’s obscurantism. All of that exacerbated by folks like you in order to advance the real issue, which is the subordination of knowledge to ideological whim.

    That’s the context. Not the chorus line of political dancers.

    The fact that huge amounts of money are involved has attracted the interest of congress to what otherwise would have been a relatively obscure battle in the continuing attacks of cultural relativists against the universal standing of science.

    The context, Steve B., is the on-going war of a failing and fatuous sentimentalism against the waxing of objective knowledge. A century ago, Andrew Dickson White wrote a great book on this war; of the same context, under a different flag.

  41. Steve Bloom
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, it’s very clear what you guys would like the Congressional rules to say and how you would prefer all of this to play out. Let’s check back at the end of the week and compare notes about what really happened.

  42. jae
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 5:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Yeah, Steve B., let’s do that. LOL.

  43. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, it’s very clear what you guys would like the Congressional rules to say and how you would prefer all of this to play out.

    My comments have nothing to do with “what you guys would like…”, you mentioned scientists refusing and I simply noted that refusing MAY not be an option if a subpoena is issued (granted, a subpoena so someone outside the US is not binding necessarily). Really, you’re taking this waaaay too far.

    Mark

  44. ET SidViscous
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 6:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    THe real sad part is

    This guy makes more sense than most of the warmers

  45. ET SidViscous
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 6:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Damn Link got lost.

    http://tinyurl.com/n3ub2

  46. welikerocks
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Let’s check back at the end of the week and party! Whew hew!

    ET #46 that’s hysterical.

  47. ET SidViscous
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 7:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Its funny because it’s true.

    Shows that particular groups grasp of physics too.

  48. welikerocks
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 7:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #48
    Well I know the tsunami back at Christmas time changed the wobble.
    Do you have to lean a certain way whilst jumping? LOL ;)

  49. ET SidViscous
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 7:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Yeah that was my fault.

    I wanted to make my birthday longer.

  50. ET SidViscous
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Since you get so much enjoyment from it, some more for you wlr

  51. welikerocks
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    A famous murder happened on my birthday. Associated with the letters O and J. What a downer. I leave the TV off.

  52. welikerocks
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 7:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Tee hee, I was one of those kids that tried to dig a hole to China in their back yard and asked questions like that.

  53. welikerocks
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 7:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #41 good post.

    Michael Crichton deserves a hat tip.
    Real Climate spent alot of time dishing State of Fear and him for speaking out.
    “the greatest threat to mankind is disinformation”
    from the speech- Aliens Cause Global Warming

    (Geez I sound like Cybill in my last posts…sorry about that!)

  54. TCO
    Posted Jul 17, 2006 at 9:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I would find it ENTIRELY in character for those wimpy girls to refuse to show up and then complain about imbalence.

  55. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 9:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I agree. However, you, like me, are jaded and cynical in this respect.

    Mark

  56. BKC
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Witness list for the hearing has been announced here.

    Somewhat interesting list – Dr.s North, Von Storch and Crowley (among others, including Steve M.) are scheduled to testify.

    Should be entertaining listening tomorrow.:)

  57. Steve Bloom
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Crowley and Karl are big guns, with lots of experience dealing with Congressional committees. Presumably Mann et al declined. We’ll see who shows up on the following day’s panel.

  58. TCO
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Crowley did not catch the butt-silly error in the NATURE Hegerl paper (confidence intervals). Steve is going to bloody him. The little scum.b

  59. Steve Bloom
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #59: TCO, I really try not to stoop to your level, but what the heck: More likely Steve M. will choke to death while being force-fed TC’s CV.

    P.S.: I was aware you had problems with relating to the opposite sex, but I’m surprised that even you would assume that TC would be reviewing GH’s papers.

  60. TCO
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 6:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    He is cited for part of the work, ya butt-ignorant moron. Next time, try reading the paper, you Al Queda dick-sucker.

  61. welikerocks
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #61 Mr. Welikerocks just REALLY LOL! over my shoulder here; he wants you to know.

    SteveBloom and his buddies, male and female, are re-living Jr. Highschool through the virtual world of the internet.

    We want high standards up held in the statistics of climate models (And they can’t say you don’t hold SteveM to those same standards either)

    ignore them!

  62. Steve Bloom
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 7:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #61: Ooh, I got TCO where it really *hurt*. And if TC was a co-author (I didn’t remember and hadn’t checked), obviously my comment is irrelevant (other than the part about TCO).

    Re #62: FYI, Rocksy, TC and GH are married, and TC is a senior colleague of GH’s at the same institution (which is not a junior high so far as I’m aware). I am of course entirely ignorant of whatever arrangements they may have about these things, and for all I know they may feel completely free to strongly criticize each other’s work with no implications whatsoever for their personal relationship. Human nature being what it is, I seriously doubt it, but it’s possible.

  63. TCO
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I know that they are married. He has an acknowledgement in the paper for proxy stuff. Would you just read it? Sheesh.

  64. welikerocks
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 8:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    63. I was talking about Deltoid, or whatever that place is called you all hang at: Nice nice here, and nasty nasty there. Gossip drama, “getting people where it really hurts” (you think) = Jr. High School

  65. beng
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 57:

    The latest hearing is hard to complain about since the player-list is much better balanced than the NAS panel, but I wish they would have gone the extra mile & got someone to represent the GCM modelers, and someone independent of them familiar w/the models. The HTeam side will try to hide behind GCM “results”.

    It’ll be inevitable to reassess the GCMs anyway if real progress is to be made.

  66. MarkR
    Posted Jul 18, 2006 at 11:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hi JohnA

    Is there any way the RealPlayer webcast of the hearing could be archived here?

  67. JerryB
    Posted Jul 19, 2006 at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    FWIW, I’m connected to the hearing webcast, and while I am seeing the video, I am hearing no audio.

  68. JerryB
    Posted Jul 19, 2006 at 8:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Disregard my previous comment; the audio problem was local.

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,875 other followers

%d bloggers like this: