The Week Ahead: Congressional Hearings on Global Warming (cont’d)

By July 24, 2006Global Warming

This week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will continue last week’s hearing on global warming. Remember, last week’s hearing featured Dr. Edward Wegman critiquing the basis of Michale Mann’s “hockey stick” theory so central to the global warming religion garnered almost no media attention. It was off (their) message, after all.

So this week the Committee wades back into the fray. After a few tries, the Committee has secured (they believe) the testimony of Michale Mann himself. Not sure who else will be there, but we’ll keep you posted.

Here’s a link to the Committee’s release, announcing Thursday’s hearing.

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • Yong says:

    Another thing I would like to point out is that republican constantly brought up the popular global cooling article in Times back in 1970s to against current global warming idea. However, the article doesn’t seem to indicate a new ice-age despite the headline… (From what i recall, Kukla did propose that we were on our way to one – in several thousand years!).

    Another interesting fact is that the University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists were on the right track. They suggest that decrease in solar output combined with particulate emissions were the reason.

    Today the theory is that a combination of low solar, combined with sulphate aerosols were “masking” the GHG warming signal – once we passed the ’70s the GHG signal became too strong to be masked.

    As for a new ice-age, it was a popular concept in the 70s, but didn’t have scientific backing (except that it would happen in millenia context).

    William Connolly (a climate modeller) has a page collecting these:

    And has a page called “The global cooling myth”:

    A lot of people also feel 2 degree warming won’t cause big problems for human being. But that’s global average temperature increase, when it comes to local temperature variation, it can be much stronger. Also, lots of species actually can’t stand 2 degree temperature change. If the sea water temperature change 2 degree, virtually all coral reef will be dead, so as lots of fishes rely on coral reef for their living.

    A few degree temperature increase won’t seem to affect your life when you have air conditioning at work and home, all the wild species won’t like that. The scary thing is not about the amount of temperature increase, it’s the rate of increase. Many species won’t be able to adapt themselves to the fast rate of change.

    No, global warming won’t kill us in a short time. But it will kill lots, lots of species. Once the consequence is so obvious, our children will suffer from our ignorance for hundreds of years because it takes a long long time for the earth climate to reach equilibrium again.

  • Dominic says:

    the Hockey stick theory is not ‘so central to the global warming religion’. the reason for its significance is due to how visually impacting it is to the layman – this is why it is trying to be discredited.

    A quote from the NAS report that criticised Mann’s methodolgies also stated:

    ‘Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era (ie Mann’s graph) are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.’

    I can understand why those clutching at straws might find this congressional hearing exciting, but unforunately whatever the outcome, it won’t have too much of a dent on the scientific evidence already established.