#B-Unauthorized annotation of Chairman Lamar Smith’s March 29 Climate Science statement. (2 of 2)

US House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith had a hearing March 29 during which he made many claims and insinuations which are frankly false.  
In this exercise I keep my commentary to a minimum and allow scientists to speak for themselves by way of a number of embedded YouTube videos.  If the videos don’t work for you, I’ve included the URL’s so you can link to them.  I also included links to other resources where appropriate.  This collection is for sharing.  For more of an introduction you might try: Confirmed Lamar Smith Manipulated Bates (feb 5th) A Line by Line Review.  Official Hearing Record:

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and

For Immediate Release Media Contact: March 29, 2017

Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method

Part 2 
{Link to Part 1}

____________________________________________

Chairman Lamar Smith continues:  For example, the Science Committee heard from whistleblowers that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) employees put their “thumb on the scale” during the analysis of data.

___________________

Recent Ocean Warming has been Underestimated

Zeke Hausfather

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnyX32nkYBs&t=9s

~~~~~

Bruce Wielicki - Climate Change: Fact And Fiction 

Dr. Bruce Wielicki senior scientist for Earth 
science at NASA's Langley Research Center - cloud expert

TEDx Talks | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YNfA7mDri4

~~~~~

There's more to this claim of "thumbs on the scale," for the rest of that story link to and check the list of information rich stories:

Confirmed Lamar Smith Manipulated Bates - 

A Line by Line Review of Smith’s February 5th statement.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/02/confirmed-lamar-smith-manipulated-bates.html

#A-Unauthorized annotation of Chairman Lamar Smith’s March 29 Climate Science statement. (1 of 2)

US House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith had a hearing March 29 during which he made many claims and insinuations which are frankly false.  
In this exercise I keep my commentary to a minimum and allow scientists to speak for themselves by way of a number of embedded YouTube videos.  If the videos don’t work for you, I’ve included the URL’s so you can link to them.  I also included links to other resources where appropriate.  This collection is for sharing.  For more of an introduction you might try: Confirmed Lamar Smith Manipulated Bates (feb 5th) A Line by Line Review.  Official Hearing Record:

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and

For Immediate Release Media Contact: March 29, 2017

Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method Part 1 {Link to Part 2}

Chairman Smith: Today we will examine the scientific method as it relates to climate change. We must ensure that the underlying science that informs policy decisions is based on credible scientific methodology.

___________________

STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN 2015 - Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 

NATIONAL CENTERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION | August 2016 (v97n8)

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/bams-sotc/2015/bams-sotc-2015-briefing.pdf

~~~~~

A Climate Minute - Climate Science History

John P Reisman  |  (starts at 0:17)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czRDS3jTM4o

____________________________________________

I believe the climate is changing and that humans play a role. 

___________________

Tendency to underestimate climate impacts

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfggcaM666s

____________________________________________

However, I also believe significant questions remain as to the extent.

___________________

WHAT ARE THESE SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS?  

Okay mineguy, lets debate Jim Steele and his LandscapesandCycles conviction

{edited to fix formatting issues  8/2/16}
I received a dismissive, yet challenging, comment from a "mineguy," he claims he can "take down" my arguments with ease.  

Okay Mineguy, I'm game.  Bet you can't! 

I invite you to choose from any of my Jim Steele Critiques (I include the list after my response to your revealing comment.).  Then in a rational constructive manner, point out my errors and produce some evidence to support your opinion - I'd be happy to learn from you, if you can produce some rational defensible evidence. 

Here let me give you an example of how it's done:

 At 3:44PM, August 28, 2016, mineguy's comments: 

A brief read indicates this WUWTW site is another of the group-think anthropogenic true believers who are incredibly organized to dispute, disparage, and ‘take down’ any sane and objective contrary argument against that line of propaganda. 

Find it at "LandscapesAndCycles"

“Group think” -  What’s that even mean in this context?  

You could just as easily complain that, me trusting that men landed and walked on the moon is the result of group think.  

What's wrong with group think based on facts?

NC-20 Burton's five 'challenging' questions - a study in deception.

Looks like we've got a debate doing after all.  Dave Burton has challenged me with a series of questions.  It's in the comments section after Dave Dewitt's  "The Changing Carolina Coast: Managing The Threat Of Rising Water," at http://wunc.org/post/changing-carolina-coast-managing-threat-rising-water#stream/0

As these things go it's gotten confused and convoluted in a hurry.  That's another tactic, Gish Gallop, tons of distracting questions that offer nothing, so far a learning is concerned, more like playing catch the ball with a dog, but using a bucket full of balls.

Though I'll admit Dave was kind enough to come up with 5 "straight forward" questions.  In this retelling I've been able to add a little more information.

____________________________________________

Dave Burton to citizenschallengeAE • June 15, 2015

Nobody has identified any inaccuracies in what I've written, 

{“AnOilMan” certainly pointed out a bunch in his discussion with you, http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/23/research-confirms-exxonmobil-koch-funded-climate-denial-echo-chamber-polluted-mainstream-media#comment-2381652596 among other places in that thread.}

either here or on my web site. {Perhaps that has more to do with your lack of introspection and inability to admit being wrong and learning from said mistake.} But do feel free to try, Pete. Please be specific.  I suggest that you start with my list of five things which are surprising to many climate alarmists:

1. Do you dispute the fact that the new NC Sea Level Rise Report abandons the 2010 Report's erroneous claim that sea-level rise has accelerated due to global warming?

2. Do you doubt that the Obama Administration's Dr. Steven Koonin has acknowledged that sea-level is rising no faster now (at ~400 ppmv CO2 & 1.8 ppmv CH4) than it was 70 years ago (at ~310 ppmv CO2 & 1.1 ppmv CH4)?

3. Do you dispute the fact that incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have a diminishing effect on temperatures?

4. Do you doubt that Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 "The Precious Air Fertilizer," because it is so dramatically helpful for agriculture?

5. Do you question the fact that most of the apparent rise in sea-level at Duck, NC is because the land near the southern Chesapeake is sinking, rather than because the sea is rising?

Can you answer "yes" to any of those questions, Pete, or do you acknowledge that I am correct about all five?

_____________________________________________

Please note, how NC-20 Dave’s response has devolved this into a lawyerly word game.  Tossing down carefully crafted misdirections cloaked in questions, and demanding only a simple Yes/No answer.  No details please.  That’s how political games work.  But, that is not how any of us learn anything, nor how science works.

These global warming dialogues, exchanges, debates (whatever you want to call them) should be about constructive learning experiences so I’ll try to make some lemonade out of the lemons NC-20 Dave dropped at my feet.

NC-20 Dave Burton runs to echo-chamber, Poptech's clubhouse.

As predicted I might add.  Rather then engaging in a good faith dialogue (or dispute if you like) Dave went running to his echo chamber to complain about what a nasty character I am and Poptech was happy to provide a stage.  

He posted the following comment at his blog, after marching over to that Republican/libertarian climate science attacking crowd to do his whining.  With their typical nasty brand of barroom derision, they are having a field day piling it on.  That it's contrived bull-shit purely intended to demean the messenger and self-justify their willfully ignoring the substance of the information I've confronted him/them with, goes over their heads.  They seem to feel oh so holy, not a doubt in their minds.

But that is one of the big tragedies, these people won't even honestly listen to what one is trying to explain to them.  They simply cannot handle crediting anyone they disagree with, everyone who opposes their self-certain fantasy, becomes the enemy and is open to any and every attack.

They reframe every fact to suit their faith-based conviction.  It's like they've created their own fantasy world from start to finish, one founded on their political dogma and paranoia - one frighteningly devoid of all basic awareness/appreciation for the physical world we depend on.  

My bias is understanding and appreciating this planet and I stand prepared to engage in a constructive debate with any climate science "skeptic-contrarian" type who has the intellectual integrity to actually listen to what his opponent is saying!  

And then to respond directly to those points, without juvenile meaningless distractions.  

As for my character references, what can I say? http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2016/05/considering-character-references.html)

Now Republicans are cheering for Global Warming

Now that the Paris Climate Conference is over, it's been astounding, and heart wrenching, seeing how the Republican anti climate science crowd has double-downed on their incessant campaign of contrarian crazy-making, I mean YouTube and the internet in general has been getting carpet-bombed with contrarian talks and arguments of the most juvenile rung, but it seems to satisfy their constituency, no one is complaining.

I mean ignorant dismissiveness stuff such as:

R Jr. wrote: CitizensChallenge, We live in an Ice Age. You know those little white things at the poles? Warming is good, otherwise when the Holocene ends, the cold, lack of rain, increased deserts and extreme storms will kill 7+ billion. Oops!

End the Ice Age. Promote Global Warming. Warmth promotes life.

(informative links explaining the science behind my claims is offered at the end of this post)

_________________________

R Jr. has never taken the time to learn about how important those big white things at the poles (along with the pretty white things on top of mountains throughout the world) are to this biosphere humanity evolved within, and is dependent on.

Losing the Arctic's ice cap is going to force radical changes onto ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, along with allowing the ocean water to directly absorb sunlight that used to get reflected back to space - all this will profoundly disrupt the flow of the Jet Streams along with the weather that they create.

As for the glaciers throughout the world, they are keystones of regional hydrologic and weather patterns, along with stabilizers of river flows.  But, Republicans are thoughtlessly cheering on the end of those patterns that our society has become dependent on.  Why?

Don't people understand that our farms, transportation, energy infrastructure, even daily quality of life are all intimately connected to relatively benign and predictable weather patterns.  Losing the polar ice caps and mountain glaciers means radically disrupting those weather patterns and the hydrologic cycles that regional economies and people are dependent on.