NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

State of Fear vs Senate Committee

Michael Crichton made some very intelligent testimony at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing yesterday, pointing out why audits and replication of climate studies are essential to effective policy making. He makes reference to the hockey stick in the UN IPCC Report, and the inability of Canadian scientists to replicate the study, and other climate studies claiming unprecedented global warming.

Perhaps more interesting to us here in California was Senator Boxer proving she does not understand science or climate change. At one point she claims hurricanes are caused by global warming, though leading scientist say it is not so.

Here is a link to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Hearings video and audio. You will need some RealPlayer software, which is free to download from the Committee web site. Go to minute 41:20 to hear Michael Crichton, 31:00 for BoxerÂ’s embarrassment.

To read comments on the testimonies go to Climate Audit.

Click here for a private e-mail comment. For public comment select comments below.

4 Comments:

Blogger steve frisch said...

Did I hear you right, Michael Crighton, the esteemed author of Congo, Sphere and The Jurassic Park testifying to the US Senate on global warming?

Was he on a book tour promoting his new NOVEL?

Thought ya'all might like some commentary from a Brookings Institute fellow:

http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20050128.pdf

Thu Sep 29, 09:25:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Russ Steele said...

Steve:

Crighton is a Doctor and he pointed out how medical tests verify data, using double blind studies, with the results evaluated by a third party. He recommended that global warming data, which is used to make policy, should be validated and verified by a rigerious audit conducted by a third party. So far climate studies are accepted on face value, without any audits. He pointed out that many key global warming studies cannot be replicated by third parties. Nor, is the global warming data, that was collected using federal funds, publically available. He suggested that congress should correct that situation.

He was not promoting his book. It was never mentioned. Look at the video, he was promoting the auditing of global warming studies.

I am mystified why global warming scientist are hording their data? Why they refuse to be audited? What are they hiding? Congress should ask them face to face, these studies were conducted with public money, our tax dollars. Now these unvalidated studies are being used to make environmental and economic policy. Policy that could sink California's economy!

Thu Sep 29, 10:31:00 PM PDT  
Blogger steve frisch said...

All right...I was being abit snooty about Doctor Crihton....I know is is a graduate of Harvard....a doctor...has written extensively in his novels about the pifalls of arrogant science..... and a pretty smart guy.

But he does have a new book out,called State of Fear, that promotes the idea that global warming is a hoax.

And his testimony in front of the Senate is largely based on the research he did to write and publish that book, a science fiction book.

Crihton was there beacsue Senator Inhofe, the chair of the committee, wanted some star power to deny the existence of global warming.

If your readers would like to read a few scientific critques of Crihtons book go here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

In your comments questioning the veracity of other scientific study, you are relying upon the tesimony and impressions of a person thoughly untrained in the particular science that you wish to examine.

In addition you agreed that climate data "should be validated and verified by a rigerious audit conducted by a third party. So far climate studies are accepted on face value, without any audits."

By stating it this way you imply that all climate data is done without audits or is unverifyable, which is simply not true. Only some climate data has been done without audits, as you have pointed out in numerous previous posts.

Most data on climate change is readily available, including individual test results.

I agree with you that data done with public funding should be publically available, however the point that the data is not all publically available does not diminish the results of the hundreds of other studies showing the existence of and impacts of global warming. You are in essence saying that because these few studies are unaudited then all studies are worthless.


I would ask you also to consider the evidence of your eyes. which I know will be critqued for being unscientific, but which is pretty compelling.

Look at the historic photos of glaciers in Glacier National Park ....in 30 years all of the Glaciers in the Park will be gone...as will the glaciers in the Central Sierra Nevada, which I have personally witnessed shrinking and have compared to historic photos.

Look at the loss of ice on the Greenland Ice shelf, the repository of one eighth of the world fresh water, shrinking dramatically.

Look at the loss of Antartic Ice shelfs.....

What you really want to say is that people are not responsible for global warming.

You do not want to acknowlege that we have a responsibility for environmnetal cconsequences.

Instead of changes necessary to combat the effects of global warming being harmful to the economy we could get ahead of them, create exciting new industries for our people, lead the world in new technologies and changing habits to effect change.

But that would mean we would have to consume less carbon.

And that would be antithetical to people who believe that the goal of business is to make people great big fat lazy stupid consumers who spend money until the earth explodes.

Just a thought.

Fri Sep 30, 07:12:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

An excellent Mike Davis article may help Russ see the position of the global warming scientists a bit more clearly. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=8876

Sat Oct 08, 06:07:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home