Rabid global warming deniers at Watts Up With That? were sure they were about to have their climate skepticism cake and eat it too with the testimony of physicist and climate change skeptic Richard Muller before a Republican chaired House committee’s hearing on climate change. Oops, How to make climate skeptics angry
The issue at question here is the integrity of the readings made by thousands of land-based temperature stations. Watts has long argued that, for a number of reasons, surface stations have exaggerated global warming over the past century. His argument is laid out in detail in a rebuttal letter written in response to Muller’s testimony.
[ ]…For years, the mainstream climate science community has responded to Watts’ assertions with the argument that the potential anomalies in surface station temperature readings have already been accounted for.
Then came Muller’s testimony:
Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations in the US Historical Climatology Network would be ranked “poor” by NOAA’s own standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C.
Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.
So now Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?, as well as the rest of the internet community of climate change deniers feel betrayed that Muller did not come up with the conclusions they liked. Should Muller have submitted his paper for publication and peer review before citing his and his colleges conclusions. That would have been better in terms of taken that extra step to adhere to the strict rules of golf ( or science in this case). Though does anyone honestly believe that WUWT or any of the other members of the denialist club have felt any differently. While it is only human to have some feelings about being yet once again proved wrong, Watts and compatriots view that they have been the victim of some kind of grand Shakespearean betrayal is public knickers knotting at its finest.
Skeptical Science coverage of the hearings – Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change. Republican after Republican, in puppet like fashion all referred to the CRU e-mail non-scandal. They apparently read all the right-wing web sites version, but not the findings that cleared the CRU of any wrong doing. At $174k to $195k per year the least conservative members of the House could do is their homework. What kind of example are they setting for the children.
There are lots of global warming denialist taking points. One of the favorite is there is no scientific consensus. That is not true – Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.
“The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists’ is very interesting,” he said. “Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon.”
But wait a minute, a 100% is a consensus. Only if you live in a fable and not the real world. In a report on climate change called National Security and the Threat of Climate Change commissioned by the Pentagon, Former U.S. General and Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan said about %100, “People are saying they want to be convinced, perfectly. They want to know the climate science projections with 100 percent certainty. Well, we know a great deal, and even with that, there is still uncertainty. But the trend line is very clear.” This is especially ironic if you watch Fox News or read extremist conservative web sites. If these sites and pundits had to provide absolute 100% accuracy for their assertions they’d have to shut down. The double standard for proof has, during my life time, always weighed more heavily on liberals and science, than the Right and libertarians. Much of right-wing “think” tanks agenda seems to be about presenting plausible lies and distortions than about carefully scrutinized empirical evidence. Some denialist will acknowledge the climate is changing, but it is not due to human activity, it’s those darn solar flares ( this one has been used at WUWT), Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth’s temperature to rise.
One would think, being both concerned about wasting tax dollars and having this historic opportunity to put on a show trial to show off the real true science of global warming, Republican would bring out the super stars of climate science, The Truth, Still Inconvenient
So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing walk into a room. What’s the punch line? They were three of the five “expert witnesses” Republicans called for last week’s Congressional hearing on climate science.
But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans, when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify went off script.
Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation. And climate deniers — who claim that researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted the data — had been hoping that the Berkeley project would conclude that global warming is a myth.
Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his group’s preliminary results find a global warming trend “very similar to that reported by the prior groups.”
It’s the same rhetoric that Democrats used to sell the health care exchanges that are part of the Affordable Care Act, but in Ryan’s case the comparison doesn’t hold up. Ryan is constraining the rate of growth in Medicare by offering seniors a defined contribution, regardless of the rate of growth in health care costs. The federal government’s contribution in the FEHBP program, by contrast, reflects actual increases in premium levels. As the Office of Personnel Management describes it, the FEHBP formula “is known as the ‘Fair Share’ formula because it will maintain a consistent level of Government contributions, as a percentage of total program costs, regardless of which health plan enrollees elect.” The difference is that Ryan’s proposal provides seniors with a set amount of money that, in order to reach the kind of savings he’s advertising, would have to depreciates every successive year — even as health care costs increase.
Ryan’s other selling point about increased assistance to lower income Americans is similarly misleading because seniors who will be forced to choose from an array of private insurers would still have to pay more for the same amount of coverage than if they simply stayed in the traditional Medicare program.
They do not call it the Wonk Room for nothing. Ryan is simply resuscitating his own Road Map. One in which fans of creative accounting and propaganda could use as a how-to guide – Experts: Ryan Roadmap Balloons Deficits While Taxing Middle Class, Slashing Entitlements. As regards Ryan and his conservative brethren plans to dismantle Medicare and especially Medicaid, his new plan is like the old plan. You get a voucher to go health care insurance shopping. That insurance will come with payments, deductibles and likely co-pays and of course limits on the total paid in any one year. Once you reach the limits of your super-duper vouchers, you die or beg or whatever, Ryan and Republicans don’t say or seem to care, than find some health care and a way to pay for it. In Bizarro World that is called flag waving chest thumping good old-fashioned con values. In the real world it is called social-Darwinism for the poor and middle-class, where only the wealthy get all the top-notch medical care they need. Everyone has heard about the theory of six degrees of separation – you know some who knows someone and so forth – the connected world. When it comes to Medicare and Medicaid that degree of separation is not armchair speculation. One in seven Americans are on Medicare – about 38 million Americans as of today. There are about 50 million Americans on Medicaid – part of those numbers are due to the Great Recession, largely caused by Republican economic policies. In other words everyone has a friend or family member on one of these programs. We know that private plans are not cost-effective, they generally cost about 9% more in administrative costs ( and Medicare Advantage was subsidized by tax payers). Plans, or rather slight of hand boondoggles like Ryans are always accompanied by the it is time to make tough choices speech. The point at which the middle-class and working poor should hold their wallet a little tighter. Tough choices, for those that don’t speak far Right doublespeak, means the economy is in still struggling so the people who can least afford it have to anti-up. While the top 2% of wealthiest Americans and corporations making record profits must be sparred any sacrifice.
the great depression. america before the social safety net. For Ryan and the conservative movement its time to return to these good ol’days.
the great depression. america before the social safety net. FDR once said there is a difference between being a tough nation and a cruel nation. conservatives seem incapable of making that distinction.