Discussion thread: reactions to House Hearing

Posted: April 16, 2017 by oldbrew in climate, opinion

The more open discussion of actual climate issues, the better for everyone.

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Climate Feedback has interviewed a number of scientists regarding the recent House Hearing on climate science.

View original post 1,305 more words

  1. Richard111 says:

    Only got about half way down the post when I lost my concentration.
    Ah, well.
    Hope one day to read a rational discussion on the fallacy of ‘back radiation’ from radiative gases in the atmosphere without reference to temperatures in Timbuktu.

  2. Richard111: You left out the best part: “Backradiation” that is supposedly equal to the incident sunlight.

  3. suricat says:

    I ‘don’t go there’ oldbrew. At the time of reading Judith’s thread there were 356 responses! I don’t/can’t have/spare ‘the time’ to ‘read through all of those responses’!

    Needless to say that I’m with the ‘red team’. Computer simulations are ‘rubbish’ IMHO (lack of graphic definition and ‘prophetic’ prediction of ‘one off events’).

    A ‘radiative analysis’ may help us to comprehend part of ‘Earth’s radiative budget’, but ‘evaporative convection’ and ‘cloud analysis’ gets in the way of our understanding of ‘surface temperatures’ (and thus, ‘climate’ per se).

    I don’t know what else I can add, unless its a small comment about CCN and vapour pressure. 😦

    Best regards, Ray.

  4. oldmanK says:

    You may find this on WUWT thought provoking, particularly the comments. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/10/catastrophic-meltdown-of-canadian-ice/

  5. Dr Curry speaks of science debate. But when you see this out of the opposition, you know the other side is not about having such a debate: “Citing a flurry of inaccuracies and misleading statements at a recent hearing on climate science, Vice Ranking Member on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) this week submitted a collection of scientific rebuttals to false or misleading statements made in that hearing. The rebuttals were written by scientists and experts who observed the hearing, including Harvard professor and “Merchants of Doubt” author Naomi Oreskes.


    Don’t get me started on the world of hurt Oreskes’ credibility is in: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=4195

  6. oldbrew says:

    Yes, propaganda war rather than science debate, which is one of the problems that needs addressing – but I suspect it won’t happen any time soon.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Date: 20/04/17 Kenneth Richards, No Tricks Zone

    New research papers suggest Northern hemisphere temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were as warm as recent decades.

    – – –
    ‘The reconstructed long-term variability exceeds the pre-industrial multi-decadal to centennial variability in four state-of-the-art climate model simulations.’

    Comment: ‘state-of-the-art’ climate models are not all they’re cracked up to be by any means.