Huffingtonpost.com:
WASHINGTON — House Republicans selected Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), who is on the record questioning whether humans are causing climate change, to head of the Science Committee’s environment subcommittee.
Schweikert will replace Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who moved to the House Appropriations Committee. He said he plans to use his new post to target the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda.
“Too often, this Administration has tried to bypass Congress and impose its will on the American people through regulatory fiat,” Schweikert said Thursday in a statement, The Hill reported. “We have a responsibility to provide a check-and-balance to ensure there is fairness and openness in the process and that taxpayers are not being subjected to onerous and unnecessarily burdensome rules and regulations.”
A main component of the Obama administration’s environmental work is new limits on power plants’ greenhouse gas pollution. Schweikert has argued that the idea of man-made global warming may be “folklore.”
“Understanding what part of climate change is part of a natural cycle and what part has human components is the first step,” he said as a candidate in 2008. “Our elected officials must be careful to react to facts and not folklore.”
In a Facebook post last year, however, Schweikert seemed to indicate that reducing carbon dioxide emissions might be a good thing — while bashing President Barack Obama’s efforts to do so. He wrote on June 25:In light of Obama’s ‘climate change’ speech today, I would like to REMIND him that at the time of its expiration, the Kyoto Protocol mandated that developed nations reduce their CO2 output by an average of 5.2%. Though we never ratified the Kyoto protocol, our country was able to REDUCE CO2 through new technology in the private sector, NOT top-down, economic crushing government mandates.The Kyoto Protocol is the international treaty on climate change that took effect in 2004, which the United States declined to join. A significant portion of the reduction in emissions that the U.S. has achieved since then is due to rising consumption of natural gas, which is noted in a blog post that Schweikert linked to in his post. That, and the recession.
Schweikert will have good company in Science Committee leadership. Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is also a climate change denier.
It sounds like there is a small chance that Rep. Schweikert might possibly have a modicum of open mind. It also sounds like he might admit to some man caused climate change but also is unwilling to act upon regulations that might seek to control the situation worsening. Is this what we call cognitive dissonance?
I would be more than happy to have someone heading up any science committee that might not know all the answers but who is willing to learn. I don’t think Rep. Schweikert fits the bill. I hope I am wrong.
I guess his grandchildren will be the one to pay, just like mine, for our inaction. What a shame. I guess poisoning of our fish in the oceans from mercury is a fallacy too. What rational person cannot believe that all massive amounts of pollution on an ecosystem doesn’t have serious consequences? Would you ingest massive amounts of toxins and believe you would be fine?
The earth IS an organic system……HELLO!
Like my buddy Marvin Gaye, lo these many years ago, Mercy Mercy Me
I love how the prog climate scammers use Godwinesque terms like “denier” for those whom question their feverently held religious belief that bovine flatulence (among other evils) is killing Earth Mother Gaia.
I have another Godwinesque term which should be applied to those still carrying water for the AGW swindle: collaborator. See also: Vichy France, and Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst.
I suppose it’s easier to name-call than to admit that we have some environmental problems on our hands.
Just out of curiosity, what do deniers have to gain? Money.
Oh no! The GOP didn’t appoint an AGW activist to a position! We’re doomed.
Meanwhile, the EPA shuts down more energy producers and raises our rates for no reason other than they think CO2 is pollution.
@Elena
Elena…I’m all for cleaning the environment. But pollution is not what is supposedly driving AGW.
We have not had warming for over 15 years, as per the Brit Meteorological office and others.
I don’t know where you are getting your statistics from. Everyone else seems to recognize there is warming and that there has been for over 100 years.
Carbon emissions are a pollutant. Who disagrees with that? You want to lock yourself in a garage with a running engine? Carbon monoxide is a poison.
Let’s just start there. I am not a chemist. I know that whatever crap cars throw into the atmosphere isn’t a good thing.
@Moon-howler
Accurate science and resistance to the socialist programs supported by the statists pushing AGW.
The IPCC of the UN wants TRILLIONS to help fight man made global warming…all through THEIR pockets.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13/top-global-emitter-china-best-on-climate-change-figueres-says.html
Communism is the way to fight global warming, according to them. And China is the one doing it right…..
Meanwhile, our “emissions” are dropping like a rock.
You are certainly summarizing in a way that best suits your political stance.
The point is, that China can just decree to clean up the air without going through the democratic process.
I really see a lack of intellectual honesty when you attempt to politicize this situation. Because of the opposition to even accept climate change politically, any efforts on the US’s part have been slowed down.
and the sea levels are rising and deep water temperatures are rising and the glaciers are getting smaller and smaller. But there are some that say move along there is nothing going on here. And I do not know what is going on – but it is sad that every topic from Climate Change to cable channel to soft drink becomes a partisan issue and ‘debate’ is reduced down to a two minute segment on a pundit’s show.
The problem with climate change is that there is not yet sufficient evidence to distinguish between human influence and natural variability. It reminds me of a Rorschach inkblot test in which a vague outline is taken as absolute truth and anyone that fails to see the accepted shape is called a denier.
What do you want as sufficient evidence? Surely you aren’t saying that various carbon emissions from engines and plants and factories aren’t harming the environment?
The word “denier” seems a little inflammatory for something like climate change.
I can’t think of a better one …skeptic seemed a little too much of a down-play.
I don’t think climate change is one of those things that should be politicized, any more than the dangers of smoking, clean water or air, or AIDS.
@Moon-howler
The use of the term “denier” shows the desperation of climate-change proponents. In other branches of science, people are not denigrated for demonstrating the shortcomings of mainstream theory. The two primary pieces of evidence in climate science are: the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing and the climate has warmed over the last 100 years. No one has been able to show how these two facts are connected.
The inconvenient truth is that carbon dioxide is a VERY modest greenhouse gas. Without resorting to climate feedbacks as a mechanism to amplify the small warming of CO2, carbon dioxide cannot explain the strong warming over the last 100 years. However, there has been no obvious evolution of cloud cover or water vapor to produce these climate feedbacks, so the current theory is lacking right now. Until someone can demonstrate convincingly how the climate system amplifies the small warming from carbon dioxide emissions, there is simply no proof that human-induced climate change will be large enough to be of concern.
However, this does oppose the prevailing orthodoxy in society that it must be bad if humans are emitting something into the atmosphere. I tend to agree with this orthodoxy. We are primed to “BELIEVE” that climate change inevitably follows from polluting the atmosphere, which I understand. But belief is not the same thing as scientific proof and belief does not make it so. There is and will remain a huge reservoir of CO2 in the atmosphere whether humans emit carbon or not. So in this case, it will not be a huge surprise if “pollution” in the form of carbon dioxide does not have a significant impact on the environment.
Amounts and change. So lets see…are you suggesting that there are no evolution deniers? How about moon landing deniers? How about UFO deniers?
I will always believe that this entire topic is inflammatory because of Al Gore. Id the flip side “Voted for George Bush and Proud of it?”
Too are just too many political buzz words. I don’t think science should be political. I don’t like it that environmental sciences are seen as girlie and hippie. I also don’t like it that SUVs are bombed or that ink and permanent dye is thrown on people wearing furs. I think that kind of environmental terrorism is criminal.
So, “alarmist” is off the table as well?
@Lyssa
Yes. “Denier” and “alarmist” should be off the table if the objective is to have a civil, rational discussion. However, I do tend to respond in kind when attacked.
My point is that if climate-change proponents truly had science on their side, they would not have to resort to name calling. An argument that relies on consensus (97% of scientists agree ….) or ridicule to stifle debate has not proven its case. The physics of climate is indifferent to consensus. The debate would have ended long ago if the major scientific uncertainties were really resolved.
Most current scientific thought is still in the tweaking stage. New discoveries, refined theory. Why should this be any different. If I had a nickel for every time I have heard “there is no such thing as climate change” or the nasty snickering about it, like people who believe that our coal burning and gasoline usage has negative impact on the atmosphere are total morons I could retire a happy old lady. I guess what goes around, comes around.
The location of climate change is not indifferent to global reaction.
Now you want to take alarmist and denier out of the conversation? 🙄 The language police are here.
To me, someone who denies something exists, is a ‘denier.’
@Cato the Elder
Bovine and other flatulence does add to the problem. Never stand behind and elephant or a hippo when they fart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddjD4c-WTGE
Does responding in kind help?
Does responding in kind help?
@Moon-howler
It s not a lack of intellectual honesty.
I’ve always supported the idea that the AGW movement, especially the UN department of it, wants to implement its solutions via more socialist ideas.
How you summarized that article was not honest. You politicized it into something that wasn’t really what was said. For example, if memory serves me, the article didn’t say communism was best. It said it was easier for China to implement programs of change than it was for the USA. Why? Because in a democracy there could be several factions disagreeing. Not so much in a communist country. I think we could substitute any totalitarian system of government into that article and prove the same point.
I would argue that there is no AGW movement. There are people out there who believe in common sense. Is that a movement? AGW is a trigger word.
@Moon-howler
It is now being acknowledged that the strong heating of the 90s was due to natural variability and that the climate is in an unexplained 15-year pause from significant warming. These developments contradict the immediate need for government action to avert “climate catastrophe” and thus represent much more than a minor “tweak”.
The term “denier” is a pejorative for someone who denies obvious facts, such as the holocaust. The term “climate change” is short hand for global warming due to human influence. The media and science activists use the term “climate-change denier” to give the impression that human-caused climate change is undeniable by reasonable people. It is not unreasonable to question the validity of climate predictions since the models (and the feedbacks therein) cannot reproduce recent climate trends.
@lyssa
It always helps to defend yourself against cheap shots.
You seriously are trying to be the language police? “Denier” is one who denies. If it’s pejorative, then so be it. I have listened to snickers and sneers over everything environmental for years, like saving the earth is girlie or sissy.
Hmmmm…let’s see…how many people deny that the earth is at least a billion years old? How many people deny that a certain species of animal, like man, for instance, might have gone through certain changes over the eons? How many of those people insist that all animals have existed in their present form since their time on earth, despite facts to the contrary?
Most of the climate scientists agree that climate change is taking place. those who deny it is taking place do so for political reasons. Of course there will be different scientific thoughts on the matter. That’s just how science is.
@Moon-howler
It is now being acknowledged that the strong heating of the 90s was due to natural variability and that the climate is in an unexplained 15-year pause from significant warming. These developments contradict the immediate need for government action to avert “climate catastrophe” and thus represent much more than a minor “tweak”.
The term “denier” is a pejorative for someone who denies obvious facts, such as the holocaust. The term “climate change” is short hand for global warming due to human influence. The media and science activists use the term “climate-change denier” to give the impression that human-caused climate change is undeniable by reasonable people. It is not unreasonable to question the validity of climate predictions since the models (and the feedbacks therein) cannot reproduce recent climate trends.
@lyssa
It always helps to defend yourself against cheap shots.
I am not trying to be the language police. The term “denier” fits for those who cannot accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution or that the holocaust really happened. I am suggesting that it does not fit in the case of climate science, because human influence on climate may yet turn out to be inconsequential. The evidence is not there yet. If you call someone a climate denier, then a discussion stands a very good chance of becoming argument.
It would be no different than if I told someone that their understanding of the climate is no better than a third grader’s. It may well be true, but the statement does not do much to advance the cause of civil discussion.
A denier is a denier. It doesn’t really matter what its over, does it?
There is so much evidence out there supporting climate change. While we might disagree on why, I don’t think its possible to disagree that its happening.
I might be one of those people whose scientific understanding of many things is like that of a third graders. Does that make me any less right? My understanding of an atomic bomb might be at third grade level, if that. Does that make an atomic bomb any less real? I have no idea how radiation kills people. It still does. I don’t think just people who are scientists can have an opinion.
I know as an observant human being that the glaciers in glacier national park are melting. I know for a fact that the tree leaves are turning later and that the growing season has extended from when I was a child, and even a young woman. I have read about the water level difficulties many cities like Norfolk are facing.
So real proof from science is needed to compel the party that embraces creationism? Both those who reject global warming and those that reject evolutionism seems to be rejecting basic scientific methodologies regarding dating. I’m by no means a scientist but to study geology you need climate models. So what I get from this is that some are trying to “sell” certain science as an ideology.
It definitely sounds like political cherry picking to me.
I imagine this is a communist plot too! Damn them, who needs coral reefs anyway. It’s hyped up science, totally untrue, jury is out, yadda yadda yadda…………………….
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/a-world-without-coral-reefs.html?_r=0
interesting, clearly, this is why the professionals should be handling this topic!
http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/
I am familiar with this study by Cohen et al, 2009. Unfortunately it is slightly dated because its temperature trends are based on data that end in 2007. Nevertheless, the paper is interesting because it highlights a potential NEGATIVE feedback on global warming, that is, it proposes a mechanism that reduces warming of the climate. It is noted in the paper that global climate models cannot reproduce this behavior.
This paper is highly speculative, but let’s assume it’s true. If so, it contradicts climate scenarios with large, harmful temperature increases, because those scenarios require large, POSITIVE feedbacks to amplify the small initial warming produced by CO2.
It would be interesting to see this analysis repeated with temperature data that accurately reflects the slight cooling in global mean temperature over the last decade.
Bigfoot has been sighted, right here in Prince William County: http://www.virginiabigfootresearch.org/arch_blog.asp?blog=yes&ID=61
I figured it was worth bringing up as long as we’re talking about fairy tales.
Elena, i’m not trying to be insulting. But imagine some disturbed person ranting about toxins in modern food and how they’re going to kill us – and that we need to stop using nitrates to preserve meat ASAP or WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE. Do you see how that’s analogous to your initial post?
Yeah, pollution’s bad, generally. It doesn’t mean that it’s causing climate change.
But enough studies suggest that pollution is causing climate change that we should pay attention and not just dismiss it because people don’t want it to be true.
Should we just let the “professionals” decide whether two plus two equals four? The earth’s orbit has irregularities that cause warming and cooling; the Sun’s output has cycles that cause warming and cooling. We do not have a detailed record that will tell us where we are in the cycles, or what to expect yet.
All sorts of things cause warming and cooling. However, is it possible that burning carbon based products also causes a problem?
I don’t want to build a shield around the earth because of it but I also don’t like this political ‘global warming or climate change doesn’t exist attitude.’
@Elena
Sea ice is NOT vanishing.
Arctic ice is within norms and actually started freezing earlier this year.
Antarctic ice is growing.
ZERO models predicted this stop in global warming.
When it was 9 years old, the major climate scientists stated that it had to last at least twelve years to be worth noticing. Now they are attempting to move the goal posts because its over 15 years old now.
Also, many climate scientists may think the earth is warming. They do NOT think that its caused by man. The man made global warmists….are a subset.
Sea ice is melting. Water levels are rising.
Why do you not want there to be climate change? You seem to feel that it is a personal affrontery to you if there is.
“Many climate scientists…’ compared to how many who think that some climate change is caused by man?
@Moon-howler
Sea ice is NOT melting. It is within 2 standard deviations of the average..that makes it within norms.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is much greater than in 2012.
Consensus is not science. The science is not settled, no matter how many times the activists repeat themselves. Their models do not work and their predictions have been wrong.
Why do you WANT there to be man made global warming?
You probably need to go check out your data source again. Climate change isn’t determined in months. It wont be the same every where in the world. I don’t think your source backs up your position at all.
YOU are the climate change activist. You want so badly to prove something is wrong. More recent science is never “settled.” There will always be someone who comes along with a new idea. Look at the words you use. They mean nothing. Concensus, models, blah blah blah. You insert them as though that settles it. NO, it really doesn’t.
I would really prefer that burning carbon fuels wasn’t leaving a footprint on the earth and the atmosphere. I know what I have seen over my lifetime. To ignore it would be absurd.
Deny all you want. It changes nothing. Climate change is fairly new and the data coming in is new. We can’t take a chunk out of the Mesozoic era and freeze it in time. New findings will be explored and discussed daily. That doesn’t invalidate the data.
No, it isn’t girlie to give credence to environmental sciences. The science of deniers is actually pretty interesting. I simply don’t understand why the huge fight.
Oh….and if all the sea ice in the world melted at once…..sea level would not rise. Sea ice is floating.
HuH? So much for the tip of the iceberg theory.
“But enough studies suggest that pollution is causing climate change that we should pay attention and not just dismiss it because people don’t want it to be true.”
Sure. But most of the studies either are using carefully worded language that works around the fact that THE PLANET IS NOT ACTUALLY GETTING WARMER in the past 15 years, and/or use models about CO2 trapping heat that have been debunked.
The story of how the top scientists discuss how to present data in misleading fashion, from those hacked emails years back, is extremely illustrative.
I can’t say for sure that we’re not causing warming. Any more than I can say that the Christian God or the Islamic God isn’t real, and I shouldn’t be praying to them. Global warming people are using the same type of “cautious” thinking that many of them do with rleigion – it’s insane IMO. Look at the issue rationally, and it is not clear that we are a major driver in warming and cooling. Nor at all claer whether the Earth is going to be getting warmer or cooler in the years to come – seems to me that all bets are off right now.
Look, I respect most of the posters on this blog. I find the majority to be respectful, earnest and I think they honestly believe what they say, unlike many folks in our Capitol. Unfortunately, some have succumbed to the active ongoing effort to muddy the waters on climate change, which is very similar, and with some of the same players, to the efforts of the tobacco companies to deny the link between smoking and cancer in the 70’s and 80’s.
“Climate denier” is a good term because it describes one who clings to any “fact” to “prove” that climate change isn’t real and is caused by excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. They deny that the earth is warming. Then they deny that the warming is caused by man. Then they deny that the effects of warming will be that bad. Deny, deny deny!
There’s no point in going over the science again. I have sent numerous studies and research papers in the past that show clear causation of human fossil-fuel burning for the extreme amount of CO2 now in the atmosphere, that show the science of how CO2 leads to warming, and what the effects of that warming are. These effects were predicted over 30 years ago, and are mostly coming true now. The peer-reviewed science has only gotten stronger over the years.
It is a good question, though- why do reasonable people such as those on this blog buy into the denier campaign? Why don’t we just get busy and work the problem as a country as we have in the past on other issues? I can see why the industry-backed groups ignore the science, just as I could with the cigarette companies- vested interest. But why you folks?
The root of “conservative” is “conserve.” That’s a philosophy we could all get behind. Does anyone really think that more consumption is what makes a person happier or healthier? Is it really keeping up with the Jones’ that makes life worthwhile? Can mass consumption buy you love? (apologies to John and Paul!)
I can assure you that I have no interest in conservative causes or energy concerns. To me this is a matter of simple logic. Bottom line – I know a scam when I see one. We’re all looking at a “scientific community” that is actively working to misrepresent evidence.
To me the way to “work the problem” is to monitor temperature and try to get a collective handle on what’s happening. And to continue to try to correlate CO2 levels and temperature. THIS HAS BROKEN DOWN. The narrative that was in vogue 10 years ago broke down. It didn’t hold. We should be trying to figure this out, scientifically, outside the vagaries of politics. i am convinced from what I see that this isn’t happening.
Symptomatic of what I’m talking about is the fact that despite all the warming/melting predictions gradually breaking down, there’s no room for expressing any self-doubt among proponents of climate change. They seem to see this as some type of strategic battle against evil, rather than an open scientific question as to where Earth’s climate is in its cycles, and whether the earth will be getting warmer or colder in coming years.
Reading about the story, it seems par for the course of American politics. We do, for example, have a President who let a slumlord buy the lot next to his and sell it to him at a discount.
And let’s not even get started about New Jersey.
Oops, sorry. Wrong thread.
Today there’s a story where NOAA trumpets that 2013 was one of the hottest years on record. You would think, from the way the story is laid out, that they are comparing apples to apples here. That they are measuring temperatures across the same regioins.
I don’t think they are. I believe they’ve changed what they’re measuring, and are comparing apples to oranges. They’ve recently started measuring Arctic regions that they hadn’t before, as they are trumpeting those as “where the warming is hiding”.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113092217.htm