House Science Committee Hearing Pits Three Fringe Climate Deniers Against Mainstream Climate Scientist Michael Mann

picture-7019-1570723309.jpg
on

Hearings of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology have officially turned into theater to stage climate science denial. This shouldnโ€™t come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the committeeโ€™s Twitter feed, which has turned into โ€œjust another climate science denying trollโ€ since President Trumpโ€™sย election.ย 

Today, the committee chair, Rep.ย Lamar Smith (R-Texas), invited to a hearing a trio of fringe scientists with positions far out of whack with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. Democrats on the committee filled the fourth seat with Penn State atmospheric scientist Dr. Michael Mann, who had to carry the weight of the 97 percent consensus, while being outnumberedย three-to-one.

This morningโ€™s hearing, titledย  โ€œClimate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,โ€ย was organized to โ€œexamine the scientific method and process as it relates to climate changeโ€ and โ€œfocus on the underlying science that helps inform policyย decisions.โ€

Rep. Smith, taking a brief break from his harassment of climate scientists and his issuing of subpoenas to groups looking into what Exxon knewย about human-caused climate change, hosted this hearing to โ€œMake scientific debate greatย again.โ€

GOPย Picks Three โ€œExpertsโ€ Representing Fringeย Views

From the outset, it was clear that for Smith, โ€œscientific debateโ€ means amplifying the voices of fringe scientists with views that are less threatening to his many fossil fuel funders.

โ€œBefore we impose costly government regulations, we should evaluate scientific uncertainties and ascertain the extent to which they make it difficult to quantify humans contributions to climateย change.

Far too often, alarmist theories on climate science originate with scientists who operate outside the principles of the scientific methodย โ€ฆ

The scientific method welcomes critiques so theories can be refined and it avoids speculation about distant events for which there is no hard proofย โ€ฆ

In the field of climate science, there is legitimate concern that scientists are biased in favor of reaching predeterminedย conclusions.โ€

You neednโ€™t have looked farther than the list of panelists to realize that this would be less a discussion about the scientific process, and more of a platform for the slim minority to air often debunked theories that cast doubt on the mainstream climateย science.

Besides Dr. Mann, the other three experts will all be familiar to DeSmogย readers:

โ€œThe witness panel does not really represent the vast majority of climate scientists,โ€ said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat. โ€œVisualize 96 more climate scientists that agree with the mainstream consensus โ€ฆ 96 more Dr.ย Manns.โ€

Dr. Mann is the lead author on the peer-reviewed paper which first published the famous โ€œhockey stickโ€ graph, representing global temperature data over the last millennium. The graph shows a recent spike in temperatures corresponding with the Industrial Revolution and burning of fossil fuels. Dr. Mannย has also contributed to the United Nationsย Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)ย reports.

The hearing itself got heated at times (Dr. Curry had warned, after all, to โ€œget your popcorn readyโ€), as committee Dems and Dr. Mann bemoaned the fact that that Science Committee had been reduced to a political sideshow, and not a platform for the advancement of legitimate scientificย inquiry.

โ€œEven in this committee on science, Republican members have postulated unique theories about climate change,โ€ said ranking Democrat Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. โ€œIt saddens me really that the majority members of Congress and of this committee in particular, consistently ignore the thousands of scientists around the world who maintain mainstream science views and instead repeatedly call in a handful of preferred witnesses โ€”who are here today โ€” over and over again toย testify.โ€

When asked about skeptical climate scientists being โ€œbulliedโ€ by others who share mainstream views, Dr. Mann argued that the real threat was attacks on climate scientists by politicians likeย Smith.

โ€œThe attacks against scientists by individuals and groups, many of which allied with fossil fuel interests and fossil fuel front groups, have a lot of goals. One of which is to silence researchers,โ€ said Dr. Mann.ย โ€œIf every time you publish something you are worried about having to respond to endless FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests and receiving thousands of emails and being called to testify, obviously thatโ€™s very stifling. The intention is to cause scientists to retreat. Itโ€™s meant to send a chilling signal to the entire researchย community.โ€

Smithโ€™s Experts Tell Him What He Doesnโ€™t Want toย Hear

The hearing did include some notable moments that didnโ€™t involve the airing of fringe climate science theories. Dr. Curry made a strong and impassioned case for the need to preserve and even increase funding for climate observation systems, which are threatened by President Trumpโ€™s so-called โ€œskinnyย budget.โ€

โ€œObserving systems โ€” ocean and satellite โ€” is money very, very well spent,โ€ said Curry. โ€œI urge you to support continued funding ofย these.โ€

Dr. Pielke, Jr. also told Smith and committee Republicans something they likely didnโ€™t want to hear, suggesting that Congress seriously consider a carbon tax of 2-3 cents per gallon of gas, which would โ€œraise billionsโ€ for important climate-related programs. Texas Republican Rep. Randy Weber called Pielkeโ€™s carbon tax proposal โ€œutterย blasphemy.โ€

Main image: Dr. Michael Mann, speaking in October 2016.ย Credit:ย Karl Withakay,ย CC BYSAย 4.0

picture-7019-1570723309.jpg
Ben Jervey is a Senior Fellow for DeSmog and directs the KochvsClean.com project. He is a freelance writer, editor, and researcher, specializing in climate change and energy systems and policy. Ben is also a Research Fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. He was the original Environment Editor for GOOD Magazine, and wrote a longstanding weekly column titled โ€œThe New Ideal: Building the clean energy economy of the 21st Century and avoiding the worst fates of climate change.โ€ He has also contributed regularly to National Geographic News, Grist, and OnEarth Magazine. He has published three booksโ€”on eco-friendly living in New York City, an Energy 101 primer, and, most recently, โ€œThe Electric Battery: Charging Forward to a Low Carbon Future.โ€ He graduated with a BA in Environmental Studies from Middlebury College, and earned a Masterโ€™s in Energy Regulation and Law at Vermont Law School. A bicycle enthusiast, Ben has ridden across the United States and through much ofย Europe.

Related Posts

on

Victoria Hewson called the 2050 ambition a โ€œhuge own goalโ€ while working for a Tufton Street think tank.

Victoria Hewson called the 2050 ambition a โ€œhuge own goalโ€ while working for a Tufton Street think tank.
on

Ahead of a city council vote, Resource Works launched an influence campaign with stock submissions for restaurant owners, hospitality workers, and residents.

Ahead of a city council vote, Resource Works launched an influence campaign with stock submissions for restaurant owners, hospitality workers, and residents.
on

Ahead of the November 29 election, dairy producers tell Irish government to step off the โ€œtreadmillโ€ of unsustainable milk production โ€“ and share a more holistic vision.

Ahead of the November 29 election, dairy producers tell Irish government to step off the โ€œtreadmillโ€ of unsustainable milk production โ€“ and share a more holistic vision.
on

The head of the CO2 Coalition tells DeSmog that Wright agrees carbon dioxide is โ€œnot the demon molecule, itโ€™s the miracle molecule.โ€

The head of the CO2 Coalition tells DeSmog that Wright agrees carbon dioxide is โ€œnot the demon molecule, itโ€™s the miracle molecule.โ€