DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Leading Climate Scientist at a House Science Tech Committee Hearing

This is priceless.
Rocks are committing suicide all over the place. I thought it was fat people swimming in the ocean or whale farts

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/r...-sea-level-rise

Republican lawmaker: Rocks tumbling into ocean causing sea level rise

By Scott Waldman, E&E NewsMay. 17, 2018 , 9:10 AM

Originally published by E&E News

The Earth is not warming. The White Cliffs of Dover are tumbling into the sea and causing sea levels to rise. Global warming is helping grow the Antarctic ice sheet.

Those are some of the skeptical assertions echoed by Republicans on the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee yesterday. The lawmakers at times embraced research that questions mainstream climate science during a hearing on how technology can be used to address global warming.


A leading climate scientist testifying before the panel spent much of the two hours correcting misstatements.

The purpose of the hearing was to focus on how technology could be deployed for climate change adaptation. But the hearing frequently turned to the basics of climate science. Many of the questions by Republicans and Democrats alike were directed to Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts and former senior adviser to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said he was bothered that established climate science has not been questioned more by the committee, which has accused federal climate scientists of fraudulently manipulating climate data and subpoenaed their records.

"I'm a little bit disturbed by, No. 1, over and over again, I hear, 'Don't ever talk about whether mankind is the main cause of the temperature changing and the climate changing,'" he said. "That's a little disturbing to hear constantly beaten into our heads in a Science Committee meeting, when basically we should all be open to different points of view."

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the committee, entered into the record an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that claimed sea levels are not rising because of climate change, a view that rejects thousands of scientific studies. The piece was written by Fred Singer, who is affiliated with the Heartland Institute in Chicago, Illinois, which promotes the rejection of mainstream climate science.

"To solve climate change challenges, we first need to acknowledge the uncertainties that exist," Smith said in his opening remarks. "Then we can have confidence that innovations and technology will enable us to mitigate any adverse consequences of climate change."

At one point, Smith showed a slide of two charts that he said demonstrated how the rate of sea-level rise does not equal the sharp spike in the consumption of fossil fuels. When Smith pointed out that rates of sea-level rise have only increased slightly compared with the rate of fossil fuel use, Duffy pointed out that his chart was from a single tide gauge station, near San Francisco, and that sea levels rise at different rates around the world. Smith did not show rising atmospheric CO2 levels or temperatures, both of which have climbed steadily in recent decades as emissions have increased.


“Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up.”

Representative Mo Brooks (R–AL)

"The rate of global sea-level rise has accelerated and is now four times faster than it was 100 years ago," Duffy told Smith in response to the charts.

"Is this chart inaccurate, then?" Smith asked.

"It's accurate, but it doesn't represent what's happening globally; it represents what's happening in San Francisco," Duffy said.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) questioned Duffy on the factors that contribute to sea-level rise, pointing out that land subsidence plays a role, as well as human activity.

Brooks then said that erosion plays a significant role in sea-level rise, which is not an idea embraced by mainstream climate researchers. He said the California coastline and the White Cliffs of Dover tumble into the sea every year, and that contributes to sea-level rise. He also said that silt washing into the ocean from the world's major rivers, including the Mississippi, the Amazon and the Nile, is contributing to sea-level rise.

"Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said.

Duffy responded: "I'm pretty sure that on human time scales, those are minuscule effects."

Brooks added that Antarctic ice is growing. That was true a few years ago, and scientists say it does not disprove the theory of global warming because different factors affect the Arctic and Antarctic rates of melting.

"We have satellite records clearly documenting a shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheet and an acceleration of that shrinkage," Duffy said.

"I'm sorry, but I don't know where you're getting your information, but the data I have seen suggests — " Brooks said.

Duffy answered: "The National Snow and Ice Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."

"Well, I've got a NASA base in my district, and apparently, they're telling you one thing and me a different thing," Brooks said. "But there are plenty of studies that have come that show with respect to Antarctica that the total ice sheet, particularly that above land, is increasing, not decreasing. Now, you could make a different argument if you want to talk about Greenland or the Arctic."

Earlier this year, NASA researchers determined that Antarctica's ice loss has accelerated in the last decade. More broadly, sea ice extent at both poles set a record low last year. Scientists are racing to better understand the changes occurring in Antarctica because much of its ice is land-based, meaning it could drive sea-level rise around the world as it melts.

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) said scientists said in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling, a popular talking point of climate skeptics and the subject of a fake Time magazine cover that has become a meme. Duffy corrected him and said that was essentially an outlier position at the time and that scientists long ago determined that humans were warming the planet.

Posey also asked how carbon dioxide could be captured in permafrost in the periods before humans existed. Duffy told him that it was from non-decayed organic matter. Human activity is now causing the Arctic to warm and thaw the ground, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere, Duffy said.

Posey then asked about theories related to warming being beneficial for habitats and to people.

"What do you say to people who theorize that the Earth as it continues to warm is returning to its normal temperature?" Posey asked.

"Look, if you want to characterize a temperature above today's temperature as normal, you're free to do that, but that doesn't mean that's a planet we want to live on," Duffy said.

"I don't want to get philosophical; I'm trying to stay on science here," Posey said.

"I'm not getting philosophical; I'm getting extremely practical," Duffy said. "I'm being extremely practical — if we let the planet warm 2 or 3 degrees, we will have tens of meters of sea-level rise, and the community where I live will essentially cease to exist."

Posey responded: "I don't think anybody disputes that the Earth is getting warmer; I think what's not clear is the exact amount of who caused what, and getting to that is, I think, where we're trying to go with this committee."

Correction, 5/17/2018, 12:35 p.m.: A previous version of this story mischaracterized a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, which claimed climate change is not the cause of sea-level rise.

how does displacement work?

From your article...

Posey responded: "I don't think anybody disputes that the Earth is getting warmer; I think what's not clear is the exact amount of who caused what, and getting to that is, I think, where we're trying to go with this committee."

There you go. Now that is a reasonable discussion based on known facts. The earth is warming and we don't know why. What can be done?

The original inhabitants of America crossed the Bering Sea on foot, today it is hundreds of feet under water. What ya think? Coal fired electric Bear Skinning plants did that?

Curious as to what level of scientific consensus it would take for some folks to accept them as "known facts"...

Oddly enough, Trump is in a position right now to do tremendous good... if Trump came out after this committee and said, "Yep, I'm convinced. Human activity is definitely affecting the earth's climate." Millions of doubters would become the most ardent environmentalists the world has ever seen... because he, with zero scientific background, said so.

See, I'm a bit of a doubter myself as to how much impact we are having.. but what I do recognize is that solar power is cleaner than burning coal or gas.. dumping our crap in the water is bad... cutting down old growth forests is bad... those aren't even about "science", those are common sense.. the other thing I know is that God commands us to use, BUT CARE FOR, the planet... so whatever we can do to keep it cleaner, is not just the right thing to do, its Biblical...

We don't have enough FACTS to say Global Warming is man caused.

After all the crying on these Boards about Trump being a liar, you are the first to call on him to lie.

The worlds science community could take all of the known facts on global warming, roll them up, and beat you upside the head with it... The most recognizable FACT in all of this is that some people will never believe it because they don't want to.

And yes, if Trump could "lie" for something positive and get his minions to start believing it.. then I'd be for that.

Sorry but this guy is old enough to have been fooled by the worlds science community more than once.

My fave...

Smithsonian had the wrong head on the Brontosaurus for years and years. Try telling the worlds scientists that and you would have been thrown against the wall like a handful of Primordial soup!
Today they tell us the darned thing never even existed!

So you go ahead and follow science like it is your religion but I will wait for the proof.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me!

I too post on the internet because I do not believe in science.

I think the police should be abolished because sometimes they arrest an innocent person.

Fool me once...

Dude, you've been fooled so many times it probably feels like a house landed on you.

Dude, it is quickly becoming a scientific fact that when Liberals got nothing, they go personal.

Scientific fact that people would rather mock someone for confusing a paleontologist and a climatologist than explain the differences. Especially when that person is a bad actor.

Reality bites.

Global warming is a farce. The planet has warmed since the end of the last ice age.

First problem: Who determined what the proper, stable temperature should be, and when? This planet has been fully covered in ice, partially covered in ice, and completely without ice. Which is best? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of sunken cities all over the world. I'm sure those people thought they were building in a good spot too.

Second problem: Global warming scientists have been proven many times to have manipulated their data to come to a preordained conclusion. Why should we believe them now? This is a political fight, not an environmental one.

Problem three: What is the solution to this imagined problem? The environmentalist whackos want us to all move back to stone age life, with the exception of a chosen few to rule over us. Sounds like a great idea if you have the money and political clout to be chosen. Has anyone that believes this crap come up with a solution? Ask those who allowed the electric companies to go all solar how much their bill is now. Better find that magic pixie dust soon.

So let me get this straight... you're a rock falling into the ocean kind of a guy...

[quThe worlds science community could take all of the known facts on global warming, roll them up, and beat you upside the head with it... The most recognizable FACT in all of this is that some people will never believe it because they don't want to.ote] [/quote]

Now to take the other side. You can point out that the earth has warmed and cooled on its own. Yet some folks want to ignore those facts. YET some folks want to ignore that and will never believe it because they don't want to.

Only if you're talking about very large landslides causing megatsunamis. You'd need a whole bunch of rocks to raise the oceans any perceptible amount.

j/c

Every action has an equal or opposite reaction. We simply can't continue to trash our land, water and our air and not expect bad consequences. No matter what anyone thinks about global warming the above statement is true.

People, and especially our government need to quit making excuses to trash our planet for profit.

i couldn't stop laughing at this thread, and then Erik, sure enough, straight up killed me. look at this nonsense:



environmentalist: we need to use natural gas and other clean energy sources to make sure we pollute the planet less, which requires using new tech and innovation.

Erik: THEY WANT TO BRING US BACK TO THE STONE AGE

He said quite a bit more than that... as a matter of fact, his first two points summarize the issue quite well. Lastly, he's talking about climate change and you are replying about pollution. It's possible to be in favor of reduced pollution without believing in man-made climate change.

our pollution is linked to man made climate change, amongst other things.

so i completely stand by my comments. Erik's solution has always been to do nothing because the issue doesn't exist whatsoever.

if you believe that, fine.

i don't. so please post to somebody who actually buys whatever it is you're trying to sell.

"How do scientists know we're not supposed to live in 120 degree heat year around?"
*as I sit in my 70 degree office cubicle*

When your leaders figure out that mass shootings are caused by too many doors, sea levels rising are due to rocks, and that hurricanes are destroying cities because of gay sex... It's time to stop putting idiots in charge of stuff.

lol yea, i personally enjoy the conservatives spin when a natural disaster hits.

hurricanes are hitting because of the gays!!

I think it's funny when they rail against the gays only to be caught later being closeted gay cruising the airport washrooms.

I'll post however I wish. His first two points were irrefutable...as you've now proven.

What's the right baseline? The sample size is incredibly minuscule. Scientists HAVE BEEN busted skewing the "results" to meet the desired outcome. That hurts the cause more than anything a non-believer could say. What is the solution to something that may or may not be a problem?

Of course pollution is tied to climate change...when the climate chnage argument gets shot full of holes...the believers switch to pollution because only the believers want clean air & water.

When you post nonsense, no one will actually refute it. They just laugh at you for it.

You do realize that air pollution is what is said to be the major cause of climate change, right?

When someone has a different viewpoint that cannot be refuted...first insult their source of information...then insult their intelligence...if all that fails, say something ridiculous to destroy the debate. Well done.

Not wanting to waste time refuting you =/= I cannot refute you.

Question though: Did you type all that in an air conditioned room?

Yes...I understand that climate change "science" includes air pollution as part of the climate change argument. But the client change argument has enough holes in it that we could say ANYTHING that exists will contribute to climate change...like cow flatulence.

How much air pollution was on the planet when the planet began to thaw out after the Ice Age?

Maybe climate change - actually man-made climate change - is real...maybe not. But if clean air & clean water can be tied to it, more people will buy into it. But the science itself has a lot of flaws and none of these scientists have come up with a real, viable solution...other than to throw more money at it.

you can certainly post however you wish. and i will continue laughing at you for it.

his first two points were irrefutable? according to who? you?

there hasn't been a discussion where i haven't disagreed with Erik with just about everything he says. it's not my fault you decided to play captain save him because i disagreed with his entire post.

i simply highlighted the part of his post that had me absolutely dying. sorry it triggered you.

Ok.

Yes I am sitting in an air-conditioned house. Everyone in my family except for me have allergy issues that make the alternative unbearable for them. I also just cut my grass with a gas-powered mower and did so before sundown.

Is your computer plugged into an electrical outlet?

I don't believe that is correct. We all know one thing for sure. For each action there is an equal an opposite reaction. So if the action is continuing to pollute the planets air, what reaction do you think there is? Nothing?

And secondly, real and viable solutions are there. Using cleaner energy and forcing business to cut back on pollution. Wind, solar and natural gas combined with electric are all viable and helpful tools to help cut back on polluting our environment yet some keep promoting coal which is an antiquated resource which will never return as a main energy source. There is no excuse at this time to use an energy source that just billows pollution into our environment. Some industries simply go by the wayside with improvement just like the horse and buggy. Well, unless you're Amish. lol

Hey look, I'm not some tree hugger myself. But I do believe God gave us this planet and he expects us to use our brains to protect it and care for it. As such I promote doing everything we can to keep it clean. I'm also not saying that man made climate change is as prevalent as some of the fringe is saying it is.

However, I do know that if we continue to trash our planet, future generations will pay for it. It won't be pretty and everything we do that harms it will come back to bite us in the azz.

As with most things I believe the truth lies squarely somewhere in the middle.

Always with your head burried. Most environmentalists want no fossil fuels used. That includes natural gas. Tell me something, if this global warming crap is true, then why have so many of their prominent scientists been caught faking their data? Everyone from Michael Mann, to nasa, to noaa, to the ipcc have put out false data, their computer models don't work, and lucky rich people are getting richer in this farce.

I wasn't trying to calculate your carbon footprint. I was just trying to understand how you believe humans don't know what a viable temperature is for Earth, yet you and your family have reached a consensus on what sounds like a viable temperature for you guys.

Now I agree with you that now, we do not need to live on the coast to be economically viable. And Congress has a horrible insurance scheme that keeps people on the coast, despite how environmentally dangerous it is. That's a discussion for another day though.

I know what a viable temperature is for ME...but have no idea what is a viable/"correct" temperature for the planet. I don't know how one could conclude such a thing with statistics that have been reliable for maybe 100 years out of maybe 3,000,000,000+ years. Temperature is not the issue in my house...it's allergies.

I yelled at my lawn mower today when it shut down, it listened better than you do.

As always it's somewhere in the middle.

Yes the earth has weather patterns and changes often. There was an ice age before polution... Yes politicians are making much more to do about this than it merits.


Yes science says we do affect it with heavy pollution over the past 300ish years. Of course we should do what we can to stop it.

The problem becomes this...do we fart into a whirlwind at our own peril. Do we continue to hold outselves to unreasonable standards of environmentally friendly restrictions while places like China agree to the same restrictions....don't follow them and nothing is done to penalize them. That is exactly what was happening with the Paris Agreement. We spend more money on producing the same products because we follow the rules when no one else does.

It's a tough call and both sides that are dug in either way are wrong.