Today is the occasion of "one hell of a hearing," as Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee has another go as the subject of "Allegations of Political Interference with the Work of Government Climate Change Scientists." WaPo has the following folks testifying:
- Philip Cooney, former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality;
- James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
- George Deutsch, former public affairs officer for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
- James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality;
- Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
E&E News (sub. rqd.) provides the background you need to understand why this one could be a doozy:
The hearing comes after committee leaders resolved a long dispute with the administration over the lawmakers' requests for documents they say show Cooney and his former colleagues at the White House Council on Environmental Quality edited scientific reports on global warming to emphasize uncertainty.
...
Monday's hearing will be Cooney's first appearance before Congress to discuss his work as CEQ chief of staff, a post he resigned in June 2005 after reports surfaced about his editing of federal climate reports. He now works for Exxon Mobil Corp.
...
Lawmakers will also hear from Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who made headlines last year when he accused political appointees at NASA of preventing him from speaking to the media about climate research.
The resulting controversy sparked reports of scientific suppression at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies. It also led to the firing of former NASA political appointee George Deutsch, the news office aide who issued the gag order against Hansen.
Deutsch and University of Alabama climatologist Roy Spencer, who is affiliated with several industry-funded think tanks that question the science behind global warming, round out the witness list for next week's House hearing.
You'll recall that while Cooney slunk off in well-advised silence, George Deutsch kept talking, and demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that he is dumb as a box of hair.
So Cooney will be forced to talk, Deutsch will almost certainly say something stupid, and if we're good boys and girls, Santa Spencer might just bring us some intelligent design crankery to go with his climate crankery.
Amidst these Lilliputian ideologues strides James Hansen, whose name will appear in history books as surely as theirs will be absent even as footnotes. Hansen's not exactly a shrinking violet.
Only Connaughton fights on the side of boredom, which usually has the upper hand at these hearings. This one should be worth watching (on C-SPAN2, at 10 a.m. EDT). I hope someone records it.
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
While scientists fight over BPA studies, Congress could just act
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Comments
View as Flat
Benny Big Eye Posted 12:13 am
19 Mar 2007
Would it possibly be because Roger has become the goto guy for the right-wing? Well, his testimony from the last hearings is prominently displayed on the Web page for the Republicans.
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/hearings/Testimony ...
So it appears that the answer is....YES!
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
egbooth Posted 2:19 am
19 Mar 2007
There is always uncertainty with science. There are no absolute and exact answers when dealing with climate change. The contrarians and denialists always use this point to their advantage (like Cooney did today) but where Hansen completely missed the mark was in directly addressing this issue of uncertainty. Yes...there's always uncertainty associated with this issue but the degree of uncertainty is the critical issue. It is very clear (in all of the recent NAS and IPCC reports) that the degree of certainty with regard to human-induced climate change is very high (the recent IPCC report quantified this as 90% certainty).
We all make decisions everyday based on somewhat uncertain data (<100% certainty). But that doesn't freeze us from making informed decisions. The same should be true for much larger policy issues such as climate change. It drives me absolutely crazy that people like Hansen couldn't make this point today. This was an excellent opportunity to make this point and it was completely missed.
Permalink
wedjr Posted 4:50 am
19 Mar 2007
That Congressman Issa was able to put forth the notion that mitigating greenhouse gas emissions would cost the nation 350 billion dollars and that it was repeated as gospel by others. This is the company line: that the cost of solving the problem is worse than the problem itself. It flies in the face of even the White House's own emphasis on investing in technological solutions and finding markets for them, what Connaughton called a "windfall" for California.
That nuclear energy is emissions free.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:54 am
19 Mar 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink