Economics, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Climate Change: Data Or Dogma?

7 Comments

This looks like an interesting (and likely very entertaining) Senate hearing:

Witnesses:

Dr. John Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. Judith Curry
Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics, Princeton University

Mr. Mark Steyn
International Bestselling Author

*Additional witnesses may be announced

Stock up on popcorn.

7 thoughts on “Climate Change: Data Or Dogma?”

  1. As Steyn notes, “The Hot Whopper is not taking it well.”

    There’ll be nothing but “uncertain”, “IPCC”, “models”, “delay”, “defame”, “deny”, “send the world to hell…as soon as possible”.

    Umm… “models”? Very difficult keeping up with the catastrophist fever swamps, but I thought they were all in on “models”. Now if you mention models you’re a denier?

  2. They really really need to find some AGW-believer witnesses – experts. Curry and Steyn can defend their positions well, and Cruz et al would only gain by having competent opposition. Otherwise it looks like a joke.

    1. They really really need to find some AGW-believer witnesses – experts

      One might conclude the President of the Sierra Club (annual budget >100mil) could be considered an expert, no? At least one should conclude that his testimony to a Senate hearing wouldn’t be considered a joke, right?

      1. First of all, one is just not enough. There should be an appearance of parity. Second, no, the president of the Sierra Club is not an expert. There are plenty of top climate scientists who could (would?) come. Curry is a real live practicing climate scientist. That’s what you need. (I assume Steyn is there to describe his legal experiences.)

    2. Yup, a one sided hearing will just be dismissed. It will be dismissed anyway because Republicans have control over it but it would be better for all involved if they had some actual scientists who support AGW.

      A broader range of scientists might actually show that even among people who think AGW is happening, that there is still a lot of uncertainty in predictions, effects, and policy prescriptions.

    3. I think I was just making a mistake. This is the list of witnesses invited by the Republicans on the committee. The Democrats will have their own witnesses.

Comments are closed.