House Republicans Plan To Put Climate Science On Trial

The incoming chairs of key House committees are climate change deniers, and have called for investigations on climate change science. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the incoming chair of the House Science and Technology Committee said during a recent interview with Dallas Morning News:

 “I’m interested in the truth on that…There are a lot of people who believe that a lot of decisions were made on the false statements of others. I’ll try to find out who those others are, and ask them to come before the committee,” he said. “And if they don’t come before the committee, well, we might subpoena them.”

Hall said of the BP oil spill, in a fit of insensitivity, “As we saw that thing bubbling out, blossoming out – all that energy, every minute of every hour of every day of every week – that was tremendous to me. That we could deliver that kind of energy out there – even on an explosion.”

Rep. Fred Upton (MI), the incoming head the House’s Energy and Commerce committee, participated in a panel which challenged the scientific consensus that humans caused climate change in January 2010. Upton said there is “no real science” that supports climate policy, and called for hearings:

“All of the steps Americans were going to take, businesses and individuals, the added costs that we were going to incur — Consumers Energy told us just because of cap-and-trade, energy costs would rise in Michigan by almost 40 percent by 2020. Are any of those incurred costs actually going to impact the rising temperature of debate? The answer was no. No matter what we did between now and 2050, it, it, there was no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise that some predicted. And that’s why we do need hearings.”

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, Upton called the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plans to regulate greenhouse gases “an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs — unless Congress steps in.”

Rep. Darrell Issa (CA), the incoming chair the Oversight committee, has called repeatedly for hearings on climate change science. “For me, settled science starts out with settled raw data, then people negotiate and discuss and hypothecate from that data,” Issa said. “If the raw data’s in doubt, then the idea that we have settled science doesn’t exist. I want settled science.”


William G.
William G5 years ago

If you want science then accept the findings of geologists instead of climatologists. You'll find changing temperatures is the norm if man is present or not. Basing GW only on the last 130 years would be akin to determining gas mileage by driving around the block.

There is an agenda to the "climate change" instigators and it is called control. Al Gore sits on the board of Apple and look at what we've just learned about their tracking our every move. It all fits people. Well at least the snakes will like the way you smell.

David Wolfanger
David Wolfanger5 years ago

Scott, being anti-science and pro-ignorance is a sure way to disaster. Take your ignorance platform to a third world dictatorship, they extol the virtues of magic there.

Scott M.
Its wonderful e5 years ago

martha, your comment
"I blame the stupid voters, because there have always been snake-oil salesmen, ready to make their fortune"

I love it, dont you realize that GW is the snake oil they are selling you? You don't do you??

Scott M.
Its wonderful e5 years ago

Why in the world does anyone need to review the science, after all they told us the climate is changing, just pay them the money they want and shut up.

Believe them, after all why would they lie...We dont need to see any proof

PS: its such an obvious scam, I cant help but be sarcastic, I understand why the people making millions off this scam support it, I dont understand how anyone with half a brain believes this GW scam..

Martha Eberle
Martha Eberle6 years ago

We're already well behind the eight-ball, and now these stupidos want to delay recovery still further.

I used to think one needed a modicum of intelligence to be elected by a whole lot of people, but now I know ANYONE can go to Congress for a term (and get a lifetime retirement for it, by the way). Ever since the Tea Party (and some of their populist ideas have basis), nuts have been elected, who know nothing about the pertinent issues, they should be versed in. I blame the stupid voters, because there have always been snake-oil salesmen, ready to make their fortune.

Scott Vonwolf
Scott haakon6 years ago

Morgan Getham is right! There will always be climate change! We may be in for some warming but why is that so feared? We know the this planet does go through climate changes! Fortunately it is not a new Ice Age!
We humans need to roll with the punches nature gives out!
Greenland returns to it's pre-16th century lushness. Climate change did in the settlements there. Now reclaimable that is what happens. Green is a mis-nomer! It is using the resources
effectively! There is no pastoral utopia!

Niculescu Bogdan
Niculescu Bogdan6 years ago

even on the 25th hour the skeptics still refuse to accept scientific facts

Leo M.
Leo M6 years ago

Darrell Issa is in my district (San Diego 49th) I would like to hear from other people in the area who are interested in protesting his offices locally.

We need to rock the sleepy town of San Diego if we are going to get his attention.

Morgan Getham
Morgan Getham6 years ago

As examples of the changes that might affect the debate on climate change, for example, it appears that contemporary models do not adequately account for the following factors which have come to light within the past several months:

1. The effects of the percent variability in insolation, which it turns out is larger than was previously believed. Data from its short term and long term trends must be re-evaluated in the models.

2. The effects of aerosols in the atmosphere has apparently been a much larger unknown that has been assumed. New satellite data is just now becoming available that will allow this to become more accurately included in the models.

3. Very few of the models apparently have tracked and adequately accounted for the effects of deforestation worldwide and in certain specific sensitive areas. This has been an ongoing issue since the end of the mini ice age, but has escalated during the same time frame as the climate change. It seems that this variable is not really recognized in most climate models.

Like many weather models, it seems quite likely that climate models will, at least to a certain extent, display a "sensitive dependence on initial conditions", so that making changes in a few important variables can significantly change some specifics of the results.

Morgan Getham
Morgan Getham6 years ago

First, there IS no such thing as "settled science". That's a contradiction in terms. Go listen to the terms of the Evolution vs. "Creation Science" debate ... It's only SCIENCE if it can be challenged, disproven, and changed. Anything else is more akin to a religious dogma. Which, I'm afraid, is very much like the way the partisans in this issue are treating their theories.

The main issues that the Republicans want to explore is, what is the scientific thinking not only on the overall subject, but more specifically on the likely impact of any action that can be taken by this country to make a change. THAT is the relevant question that faces lawmakers. They are, of necessity, more pragmatic than dogmatic. It is their job to take a look at the evidence as to what the PROJECTIONS of future implications of the current trends are. Now everyone involved admits that these are based on mathematical models which involve a LOT of "leaps of faith" in their assumptions. They then should be looking at how much change in these effects the models say would take place if the United States were to mandate certain steps. They then have to look at the immediate and long term economic impacts of these proposed changes, and weigh them against the value that the proposed changes will make.

Those seem like perfectly reasonable goals to me.

People in this country, on BOTH sides of the political debate, need to tone down their rhetoric and begin to reach understanding