Get PJ Media on your Apple

Chairman: UN, White House Climate Reports ‘an Excuse to Control the American People’

Congress should “focus on good science, rather than politically correct science," says committee leader.

by
Bill Straub

Bio

May 29, 2014 - 4:49 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

WASHINGTON – The chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology charged Thursday that reports from the United Nations and the White House on the threat of global climate change “appear to be designed to spread fear and alarm” in an effort to provide the Obama administration with “an excuse to control more of the lives of the American people.”

Speaking at a hearing designed to examine the process utilized by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in developing its assessment of climate change, a report slated for release in October, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) asserted that the group’s goal “is an international climate treaty that redistributes wealth among nations.”

“Serious concerns have been raised about the IPCC, including lack of transparency in author and study selection, and inconsistent approaches to data quality, peer review, publication cut-off dates and the cherry-picking of results,” Smith said.

The chairman also derided the National Climate Assessment, a White House report assembled by 300 noted scientists that found the nation already is experiencing the effects of global climate change and warned that the situation is likely to worsen.

Smith said the administration is using that report to promulgate new greenhouse gas regulations on the nation’s power industry – expected to be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday – that will “stifle economic growth and lead to hundreds of thousands of fewer jobs each year.”

“The administration’s regulatory agenda will hit workers and families hard but have no discernable impact on global temperature,” Smith said.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the committee’s ranking member, countered that the real objective of this hearing wasn’t to study the IPCC’s methodology but “to try to undercut the IPCC and to cast doubt on the validity of climate change research.”

“The reality is that the IPCC assessment is unprecedented in its scope and inclusiveness,” Johnson said. “The United States, along with 194 other nations, has arrived at a rigorous and open process that yields the most comprehensive and objective assessments of the scientific literature relevant to understanding climate change and its associated risks. We need only look at the results of the previous assessments to realize how much the IPCC has contributed to our understanding of climate change.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produces reports under the auspices of the United Nations but does not conduct its own original research or monitor climate or related phenomena. Rather, the IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature.

In 2007, the Nobel Peace Prize was shared by between the IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore, a climate change activist.

In its most recent assessment, its fourth released in 2007, which involved people from more than 130 countries, including about 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, the IPCC concluded, among other things, that global warming “is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.”

What’s more, the report concluded that most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is “very likely (greater than 90 percent probability, based on expert judgment) due to human activities.”

Johnson noted that the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing on IPCC methodology in 2011 and the same criticisms were raised.

“Ultimately, however, those claims were shown to be unfounded,” she said. “Yet here we are again.”

Top Rated Comments   
“there have been occasions where government interventions, by causing omissions, have diluted IPCC findings.” We call that lying.

“present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve.” We call that manipulation.

'those who deviate from views sympathetic to claims of climate change can find themselves ostracized.' We call that intimidation.

Other than the lies, distortions and coercion everything's peachy.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (29)
All Comments   (29)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Exactly right. House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that though he doesn’t feel qualified to “debate the science” of climate change, he does know that the Obama administration’s efforts to mitigate the problem are bad for the country. He said that even though he is ignorant on the issue of global climate change, he would oppose whatever the President put out because he know that it would be wrong. The is a sterling example of the logical fallacy of motivated reasoning and another example of how climate change deniers are trying to use politics to change what they can't prove in scientific discourse.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
The very existence of these hearings, important as they are, illustrates the sad fact that almost by definition the "crisis of global warming" is a political entity and not a scientific one. The projections based on climate models have uniformly failed to reflect real world measurements. Trends at the very core of the AGW theory are nonexistent. When Oppenheimer makes unfortunate use of the term "consensus" in his remarks, he reveals his own sad abandonment of rudimentary ethical standards.
Testimony by Pielke, Botwin and Tol have a completely different feel, and are worth perusing. To get insights into the politically driven as opposed to scientific nature of the current embarrassing state of climate science, one can go to wattsupwiththat.com and learn so much you will never hear from the mainstream media, much less our current Parliament of whores in DC.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”--Mencken

Mencken was a pretty sharp guy.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
And that cuts BOTH way from Tea Party to totalitarians.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah. Tea partiers became concerned enough with the empirical evidence of crashing home values and crony capitalism (bailouts) that they started a political movement to try to rein in those issues.

While in the case of green fascism, Leftists use non truths and exaggerations to spin up support for their "not quite there yet" global warming nonscience.

I can see how they're the same, yeah.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
The IPCC represents the consensus of scientific thought on global climate change. While any consensus has the potential to be wrong, it is much more likely to be right than opinions outside the consensus. If Representative Smith feels that his information is more correct, he should submit it to a peer reviewed climatology journal for validation.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
The IPCC does not represent any consensus, it only reflects the consensus of one minor group. It has been wrong and intentionally wrong on every point, study and finding. Since no one is allowed by the Catastropharian Thermalgeddons to enter anything into any publican, they now qualify as fascists.
.
The 'consensus' you like to quote is as follows: a study that claimed that a consensus 97% of all publications supported a catastrophic climate collapse. It was found that only .03% of the 12,000 publications made any claim.
.
Therefore, your consensus is actually 3%.
.
For example, a recent study of the Antarctic by geologists stated that glaciers are collapsing. ABC, NBC, MSM and YOUR politicians made the claim that it was imminent, due to climate change, unstoppable and would cause ocean to rise by 14 feet.
.
The study actually says this process started naturally 10,000 years ago and will continue for another 10,000 years and raise water by 4 ft..half the width of a finger nail per 100 years. Idots in media thought the study said meters so changed it to 15 ft.
.
Even the IPCC said it wont happen UN IPCC AR5:
“Taking all these considerations together, we have medium confidence in model projections of a future Antarctic SMB increase, implying a negative contribution to GMSL rise (see also Sections 13.4.4.1, 13.5.3 and 14.8.15).”
.
But what is in the WHITE HOUSE report? That you, Florida and 50 million refuges will be under water in 5 years....never mind they claimed we would be under water by 2012.
.
I know., you cant read long science reports and prefer the bumper shtick hype.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are wrong. The consensus of those with the the expertise to evaluate changes in the environment is that the environment is warming up and that there is a great likelihood that the changes are due to man's actions. No viable theory is free of areas where the data doesn't fit. That doesn't invalidate the theory, it only points out area that are in need of additional study. However, when the bulk of the data does fit, then the theory is usually accepted as is the case of the current climate models. If you (or Representative Smith) feels that your ideas are correct, submit them to a peer reviewed journal for validation.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Republicans also have a habit of seeing UN plots in strange places.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are "converting Denver into a United Nations community."
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Where are the 50 million climate warming refugees that you predicted for 2012?
Or perhaps the 25 hurricanes a year with 7 of them being Cat4-5 that didn't happen?
Or perhaps the quadrupling of tornadoes that didn't happen?
Or the outbreak of tropical diseases that would ravage the Earth..that did not happen?

Are you prepared to lose your job so some guy in La Ceiba Honduras can have it instead? So kind of you.

Ask Hank Johnson why Guam has not tipped over yet from the climate refugees?

A committee is policy exploratory. A science review board consists of the scientists. So far, fascists hand pick the SRB and only give them select questions with a yes/no answer.
Fascists like you sit on sidelines and snicker instead of addressing issues.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
There are 45.2 Million forcibly displace people world wide. Lets see what did happen. Texas and California had the driest point in some 500 years. Texas is having its second worst drought on record. An uptick in the avg number of forest fires in west and Alaska. The spread of the emerald ash borer. The worst flooding in a century has occurred in Bosnia and Serbia this past week. At the same time, a record May heat wave has affected Estonia, Finland, Belarus, and northwestern Russia.The BBC reports the United Kingdom has had its wettest winter since records began in 1910. Separate records for England and Wales show this season has seen more rainfall than any winter since rain-tracking began in 1766. The oceans are becoming more acidic This is just scratching the surface.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ah, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. They have such lovely quotes from republicans on the committee such as "[a]ll that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell."( R-Georgia Paul Broun) Clearly these people are scientific experts and we should give their opinion weight.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is a reasoned critique to be made of climate change alarmism and the nanny state, but the Bible-thumping goobers and swaggerers only permit the other side to say, "look, we are opposed by literal "knownothings."
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
I smell UN agenda 21.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
The key to uncovering this vast fraud is the kind of outcomes they keep throwing out there - always dire. The atmosphere doesn't operate that way, it constantly seeks equilibrium.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Indeed. Equilibrium is Nature's foundation. A natural tendency not counterbalanced by some other mechanism would have destroyed the Earth long ago.

The warmistas' core assertion is that Man is not part of Nature and is capable of "upsetting the balance." Evidence for that proposition is absent...which doesn't keep them from repeating it. If prior Chicken-Littleisms have taught us anything, it should be skepticism of those who predict imminent catastrophe...especially when their grounds consist of a lot of tendentious simulations based on data that's largely kept secret and seems to need "adjustment" to yield the the results they need for their trumpetings of doom.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, one way or another we are taking all the stored carbon, burning it, and releasing it into the atmosphere (at this particular time in the context of whatever other cycles are happening.) It is possible that we are preventing the onset of a "natural" ice age and/or setting up a very warm base upon which future "natural" warming can build. Certainly there have been huge ups and downs in climate over the eons, but it is safe to say, isn't it, that we have never had the "human" release of CO2 on anything near this scale, EVER before. I agree that there is enough doubt and wiggle room so that I do not have support a draconian cut in fossil fuel emissions right now, but it is not difficult for me to believe that my grandchildren, but the time they cash in their chips will have seen some warming climate stuff that will let the warmists garner their 51%. But then, no one really wants to give up anything, so it will take some clear and protracted crises for us to take real action, a climate 9/11, something far beyond a hurricane Sandy.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
A true no brainer....
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
The chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology charged Thursday that reports from the United Nations and the White House on the threat of global climate change “appear to be designed to spread fear and alarm” in an effort to provide the Obama administration with “an excuse to control more of the lives of the American people.” SNIP

This just in: water is wet.

7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
Can't be said enough. Shout it from the rooftops. Sheeple are being brainwashed and subjugated by our government and MSM. That you merely see the truth as obvious does not counteract the narratives spun by the fascists.
7 weeks ago
7 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All