Representative Ralph Hall (R-TX) is set to become the new chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology when the 112th Congress convenes in January. As a ranking member of the committee, Hall has been an outspoken critic of the scientific theory of climate change. He's also been vocal opponent of comprehensive federal clean energy and climate legislation and EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
"There is growing concern and evidence that scientific data, from which global warming theories emerged, has been manipulated, enhanced or deleted," according to Hall's official House website. Like many skeptics, Hall wants to believe that the emails stolen from the researchers at the University of East AngliaClimate Research Unit (CRU) in 2009 contain information disproving the theory of anthropogenic global warming. He's wrong.
The work carried out by the CRU represents only a small fraction of the ever growing scientific literature on climate change. In his website and book "The Discovery of Global Warming," Spencer Heart traces the the origins of theory of anthropogenic climate change back to the 1890's. Like any good science, this theory has withstood more than a century of rigorous research and study.
Furthermore, numerous reviews of the emails stolen from CRU scientists indicate that they did not actually manipulate scientific data. Three separate inquiries have reached that same conclusion, according to Newsweek. That piece news clearly hasn't made it to Hall's desk in Washington.
Hall recently told Politico that he is open to believing global warming is real, but first he wants to see the proof behind the pudding. He plans to convene hearings aimed at uncovering the "real facts" about climate change. This has been done before, as Hall should know. After all, he's been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1980. Was he asleep at wheel for the past thirty years? As a ranking member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Hall has had ample opportunity to question the steady stream of scientists and experts that have provided testimony on the issue of climate change over the years. If he wasn't paying enough attention to ask questions, it's hardly the fault of climate scientists.
Caption: Representative Ralph Hall (R-TX) gives his opening statement at a recent committee hearing on climate science. Photo from the website of the House Committee on Science and Technology, public domain.
Article ©2010 David Anderson for Gather.com. All rights reserved
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 73
Absolutely - skepticism is crucial to science & scientists. Those who try to pose skeptical postures as inappropriate, weaken their own prospects.
Liberal-Progressive (political) interests 'militarized' a range of scientific fields, long ago. Now, Conservatives are shelling their battle emplacements. Oh wow - who would ever imagine.
"No no! This is a scientific field! Please - no politics, now!"
Good luck with that.
What Climate Gate "revealed" was that scientists are human beings with emotions. Like anyone, they take pride in their work and are prone to over reacting when criticized publicly. This stands in stark contrast to the general view of scientists as emotionless "Mr. Spocks".
Conservatives have done a brilliant job of stealing progressive talking points, making a few adjustments, and then aiming them back at the same liberals that have been using them for decades. For years, for liberals have bemoaned the strangle hold of "big oil" over the U.S. economy. Now Tea Partiers rant about how the "all powerful" Al Gore and clean energy industry are bent on banning fossil fuels for their own profit. It's almost laughable!
Academia tends strongly to be Liberal, even Lefty. Earnest, conservative young people come get their hardcore science degrees ... and discover that they are not fully welcome in the intellectual world they trained in.
But pretty soon, they discover like-minded communities in the military, and industry, etc. And there they go.
Are they lesser scientists, because they have an emotional & temperamental make-up that is not appreciated by the Green Party ... but finds a comfortable home at Boeing?
Are they fumble-fingered mathematicians, because they happen to appreciate the logic of fiscal conservatives ... and gravitate to Wall Street?
The liberals tend to run-off the conservative-type science personalities ... and over time, appear to have acquired the impression that such members of the intellectual community ... don't exist.
There will be an awakening.
Well yes, true and well said. At the same time though, politicians can also go the opposite extreme and be just as stuck in a maladaptive mode. That is, they can hide behind ambiguity in science in ways that amount to denial of it. Here in Utah, for example, politicians say the magic words: "the science is not settled" and then it's merrily onto business as usual, namely making Utah the next Alberta in terms of oil sands development.
The point I keep trying to drive home here in Utah is that "the science is not settled" doesn't work for you anymore. It has worked like a dream to marginalize the tree huggers, but it's not going to work with the bankers. The bankers need a level of confidence in what the regulatory environment is going to be and what the market is going to be in order to pour billions of dollars into energy projects. When that changes every couple of years or so, any sort of coherent energy policy is impossible. Which is exactly why the U.S. today lacks a coherent energy policy, which it urgently needs.
At some point, politicians need to come out from hiding behind the science is not settled and make the danged call. If the science is not settled, it needs to be. Uncertainty is bad for business.
How to get to settled science. Of course, it will never to be settled with complete utter absolute certainty nor need it be. One practical suggestion: lend your support to NASA's CLARREO project, which won't eliminate uncertainty but could dramatically sharpen up the picture. Currently, CLARREO has no definite launch date. It should. The public should light a fire under that project and get it moving.
Not only is uncertainty around the climate issue bad for business, it's already today now costing the economy more than carbon cap and trade would. That is, if we had carbon cap and trade in place today and could be confident it'd be a stable policy for the next few decades, with some corrections along the way but broadly stable, that would enable money to pour into energy development at a much higher level than today, which is exactly what the country urgently needs.
What do you want to bet on it?
Climate change was to science and journalism, what abusive priests were to religion. History is not being kind to condemning my kids to DEATH BY CO2 for 24 years. Get ahead of the curve and drop the CO2 and start environmentalism anew. Now is the time to bring the news editors to justice for leading us to a false NEOCON-like false war against a false enemy. -Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate control instead of population control. The news editors are the real one’s responsible for the CO2 mistake. Scientists not only polluted the planet with their chemicals, they also produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, strip mining technology, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change.
That's happening regardless because they will use such cheap labor - even child labor.
We can profit from it if we develop the new clean alternative energy that they will need to modernize without polluting themselves to death.
and to get free countries to give up more freedom.
There is no freedom when nature has been destroyed.
Oh piffle. If you are not willing to accept the science by now, you never will. He's what, 75 years old? He gets to die before things get ugly, climate-wise. Lucky him.
Take the money out of the global warming scheme and you will see people flee this scam in droves.
Scientists study data on the global average temperature. Having a few record cold days does not skew the average much. Those cold days get factored into the calculation and the numbers still show warming.
I don't think anyone including Representative Hall questions Climate change the record is clear and unquestionable that our planet's climate changes, it is the theory of man made global warming that is questionable and the science that you suggests that makes it so clear is anything but "clear".
"Spencer Heart traces the the origins of theory of anthropogenic climate change back to the 1890's."
You even misrepresent Mr. Hearts publication "The Discovery of Global Warming," as a validation of AGW when in reality it is as his title indicates a history, a time line of how we came to understand the changes in our climate as of the last hundred years or so.
The theory of global warming is that as man has continued to increase the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere the planet's temperature will continue to increase, the temperature of the last decade flies directly in the face of that theory as we have continued to increase the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet's temperature has not risen.
If Mr. Heart's book was indeed a validation of AGW it certainly wouldn't have included this tidbit,
"1960
Downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s is reported."
So again, even though man had been increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere since the mid 1800s, in direct contradiction to the theory of global warming, man discovered in the 60s that the planet had been cooling for nearly 20 years.
"Three separate inquiries have reached that same conclusion,"
Well what should you expect?
They were investigated by their own, by the same organizations that benefited from their research, by the same organizations who blocked FOI requests claiming to not having the data, yet surrendering said data when faced with a court order.
"The Climategate Whitewash Continues"
"Climategate gets whitewashed!"
If you are interested in other than a global warmists taking of the climate gate issue and the white washing that has taken place I suggest looking a little deeper.
"A Climatology Conspiracy?"
"The Global Warming Court Battle"
Any real and true investigation of the theory of man made global warming is about to begin, and it will include a look at all of the science not just the science "approved" by the IPCC!
It turns out that climate scientists were correct to state that the world was cooling in the 1970's! The part of this story that skeptics "conveniently" overlook is that this cooling was caused by man made S02 emissions and regulation solved the problem.
Climate scientists accept that C02 is not the only factor impacting climate. For example, they accept that volcano eruptions that block out sunlight can temporarily disrupt global warming. This is why I say that the science behind anthropogenic climate change has been put to the test for more than 100 years and has passed the test.
If we are going to be so critical of scientists, we should be also be willing to take a look at the skeptics who question the science. Why do they ignore the fact that man made S02 pollution contributed to global cooling in the mid-20th Century? Why do they ignore the fact that regulation solved this problem?
In their last report the IPCC gave the likelyhood of greater than 90% that it was mans output of CO2 that is the cause of Global warming. and for you to suggest that SO2 pollution could stymie such a nearly absolutist position that the small amount of Man produced CO2 just goes to show how wrong the global warmists science is in regard to the forcings of CO2.
Your argument as to the reason for the "mid-20th Century" cooling serves to bolster the science realists argument that there are a lot more involved in global warming than just CO2 as the IPCC suggests.
Again, feel free to have an open mind but please do some fact checking before rushing to conclusions. There's nothing wrong with asking questions about the science. There is something wrong with skeptics misrepresenting what scientists actually say in order to score political points. Scientists have already taken a hard look at many of the supposedly "new questions" raised by skeptics and answered them. That's why the public should also hold skeptics accountable for doing their research before making baseless accusations.
A regional phenomenon is far different than a global trend in warming. I'm just citing an article based on the science.
"... deal with facts instead of narrow minded ideology."
I believe that I am presenting the facts and providing citations to back them up. Skeptics need to do the same and try look beyond their own "narrow minded ideology."
Did Antarctic Region Experience Medieval Warming? Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms It Did?
"A Millennial-Scale Climatic Oscillation in the Southern Ocean"
"The Medieval Warm Period in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA"
Sorry David,
But when you only listen to what you are told by the global warmists you miss out on a lot of science and research that contradict what they say.
Where was this shown?
Non-denialist Congressmen on the committees should take advantage of the hearings to directly ask the denialist and "skeptic" scientists whether they believe the planet continues to warm and whether human activity plays a major role. Get them on record under oath. Every single one of the skeptic scientists will repeat what they have already said many times - the planet is warming and human activity, in particular CO2 and other GHGs, is the major reason for that warming. Every single skeptic scientist has admitted this - Christy, Spencer, Michaels, Lindzen, have all admitted that human activity is most likely the reason for the continued warming.
Luckily the non-scientist frauds that the Republicans have had at previous hearings - the fake Lord Monckton and his fake graphs come to mind - won't be showing up because scientists have shown scientifically how these lobbyist-funded disinformers have provided false testimony intended to mislead Congress.
Scientists need to continue to make sure the public gets the accurate reflection of the science and not let the professional denialist lobbying industry intentionally disinform the public like they have been doing.
So as the science continues to demonstrate that the planet is warming and we are the reason why, the politicians continue to do nothing because people like Ralph Hall don't want to upset the big oil companies.
BTW, 2010 is now the hottest on record.
Reuters) - This year is set to be among the three warmest since records began in 1850 and caps a record-warm decade that is a new indication of man-made climate change, the United Nations said on Thursday.
The years 2001-10 were the warmest 10-year period.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS05M20101202
Dr. Spencer is a LIAR in that he quit his NASA job in "Protest" for stifling him BUT he quit during the Bush administration. He claimed that he was told what he could and could NOT say, YET on his own blog he said that NEVER happened.
WTF???
A scientist who does NOT believe in evolution?
Spencer has worked for the Heartland Institute, an organization that has received substantial funding from Exxon-Mobil, and for the George C. Marshall Institute, another organization that has taken money from Exxon-Mobil.
Spencer authored a paper in 2003 that claimed to show cooling in the troposphere – proof that global warming was bogus. A couple years later, when colleagues examined Spencer’s work, they found it to be filled with statistical errors. When dealt with correctly, the statistics showed that the troposphere had actually warmed – evidence that global warming is not bogus.
Were those errors or out and out LIES!!!!
Who would take this charlatan seriously???
On another note, his FAKE claims of the troposphere cooling are STILL treated as gospel by the denialists. Once a LIE infects the brain of a denialist only a lobotomy will dislodge it.
Gawd I wish the denialist would bring me REAL proof!!I am getting sick and TIRED of researching nothing but LIES!!!