Tuesday, November 16, 2010

A Rational Discussion of Climate Change - Maybe?

Tomorrow, the Subcommittee on Energy & Environment of the US House of Representative will be holding a hearing tomorrow titled “A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response”. The hearing has been divided into three panels (I recall there were titles attached to each panel, but I can’t find it now – if you come across it, please let me know in comments).

In my experience, when looking at these types of panels one of the most interesting things to see is who has been invited to present to the hearing. Each panel has 4 presenters and it appears that the Republicans were allowed to select a presenter for each panel. The presenters are listed below along with links to give you some background of them and their positions.

Panel I
* Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone
* Dr. Heidi M. Cullen
* Dr. Gerald A. Meehl
* Dr. Richard Lindzen

Panel II
* Dr. Benjamin D. Santer
* Dr. Richard B. Alley
* Dr. Richard A. Feely
* Dr. Patrick J. Michaels

Panel III
* Rear Admiral David W. Titley
* Mr. James Lopez
* Mr. William Geer
* Dr. Judith Curry


I think it is very telling who the Republicans selected for their members: Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Michaels and Dr. Curry. Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Michaels are probably the most prominent of the doubters, but they carry with them a large amount of baggage which includes some very poor published work. The presentation I am looking forward most to is Dr. Curry’s. Dr. Curry is an interesting figure. She knows the basic science very well, but seems to have some unique views on the uncertainties associated with climate change. I think it is also telling that Dr. Wegman, their star performer from the hearing 4 years ago is absent in this one.

Now, consider the other presenters. They are not part of the group of scientists associated with Real Climate so they don’t have the baggage that – for example a Dr. Michael Mann – would have. Instead we have representatives from the leading scientific organizations, NGOs and even the military. I think that what we will see is a strong statement of the science from most of the members but the typical statements from Dr. Lindzen and Michaels (my prediction, criticism of the models will form part of Lindzen’s statement). Unknown what Curry will say. Tomorrow should be interesting.

Update: The Hearing Charter is now out which is very good reading. It gives a very brief synopsis of what each speaker will talk about (and yes, I win my bet that Lindzen will talk about models). However the background information is very well writen and presents the background science much better than I expected. This should be a very interesting hearing.

5 comments:

Zog said...

John,

Why wouldn't Lindzen talk about models? I would too since they are the foundation (a very shakey one) on which the whole crubling AGW edifice is built.

Holly Stick said...

Meanwhile, back in Zog's fairytaleland...

You should get away from that little cave full of denialist blogs and make your way out into the real world, Zog.  http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-climate-science-climategate/

Zog said...

"Brilliant" riposte, Holly.

BTW, I don't get my science from blogs, although I must confess that I do enjoy an occasional dip into "Watts Up With That". When I first heard of the AGW theory twenty years ago, I found it interesting and possibly credible. Then, like a lot of scientists not directly involved in the controversy, I started reading the IPCC reports. They contain a grain of rationality but, by and large, they have little to do with scientific inquiry and a lot to do with attempts to justify pre-conceived notions. I'm just an unreconstructed empiricist who deals in observable facts and not computer-generated moonshine. (Yes, I realize that glaciers are receding in much of the world but, human detritus being exposed as they retreat in the Alps and southern Greenland shows conclusively that the same thing happened about a thousand years ago. Why did that happen? Damned if I know but, I'm certain that it wasn't caused by Medieval coal-fired power plants.)  

Zog said...

"Brilliant" riposte, Holly.

BTW, I don't get my science from blogs, although I must confess that I do enjoy an occasional dip into "Watts Up With That". When I first heard of the AGW theory twenty years ago, I found it interesting and possibly credible. Then, like a lot of scientists not directly involved in the controversy, I started reading the IPCC reports. They contain a grain of rationality but, by and large, they have little to do with scientific inquiry and a lot to do with attempts to justify pre-conceived notions. I'm just an unreconstructed empiricist who deals in observable facts and not computer-generated moonshine. (Yes, I realize that glaciers are receding in much of the world but, human detritus being exposed as they retreat in the Alps and southern Greenland shows conclusively that the same thing happened about a thousand years ago. Why did that happen? Damned if I know but, I'm certain that it wasn't caused by Medieval coal-fired power plants.)  

Holly Stick said...

Meanwhile, back in Zog's fairytaleland...

You should get away from that little cave full of denialist blogs and make your way out into the real world, Zog.  http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-climate-science-climategate/