"The Congressional Committee on Science, Space & Technology"

[RickG]

"The Committee on Science, Space & Technology" is the Congressional Committee that oversees and investigates program funding and grants for research pertaining to the Earths environment, and climate of the atmosphere, surface and oceans.

As with any science and technology, the best and most accurate information comes from what the consensus of the vast majority of published peer review literature shows, with the explanation of that science performed by the those top credible professionals and researchers in their specific fields. Science is not about democracy or opinion. Science is about facts and understanding those facts. It is a fact that of all the scientific peer review literature that addresses anthropogenic climate change, more than 97% between 1991 and 2013 (Cook et al. 2013), shows in that research that AGW is a fact and needs to be addressed.

With this in mind, why is "The Committee on Science, Space & Technology", so divided party-wise with this issue?

But even more importantly, why is it that when a committee hearing is held on Climate Change, that it is one political side invites the actual top professionals to testify, and the other that invites only climate change deniers, skeptics, and in some case, not even scientists or people who actually work in the area?

 

[bhsmte]

"The Committee on Science, Space & Technology" is the Congressional Committee that oversees and investigates program funding and grants for research pertaining to the Earths environment, and climate of the atmosphere, surface and oceans.

As with any science and technology, the best and most accurate information comes from what the consensus of the vast majority of published peer review literature shows, with the explanation of that science performed by the those top credible professionals and researchers in their specific fields. Science is not about democracy or opinion. Science is about facts and understanding those facts. It is a fact that of all the scientific peer review literature that addresses anthropogenic climate change, more than 97% between 1991 and 2013 (Cook et al. 2013), shows in that research that AGW is a fact and needs to be addressed.

With this in mind, why is "The Committee on Science, Space & Technology", so divided party-wise with this issue?

But even more importantly, why is it that when a committee hearing is held on Climate Change, that it is one political side invites the actual top professionals to testify, and the other that invites only climate change deniers, skeptics, and in some case, not even scientists or people who actually work in the area?

They are so divided because of entrenched ideologies, they must protect. That is politics.

I agree the consensus of well evidenced science should be the guide, but there are some well regarded scientists that do claim climate change is overblown.

 

[Saucy]

Science is very much about theory and opinion. A lot of climate science is projections made on computers about where things might be headed.

As stated above, the science is far from settled that global warming is being caused by man-made sources. I had a friend in another forum post that scientists were seeing global warming throughout the solar system. Other planets also were warmer and had their caps melting and so on.

The earth is constantly on a cycle. Just 10,000 years ago, here in Michigan, there would've been glaciers 2 miles above my head. The earth has been warming and the glaciers melting and retreating since then! The sea levels have been rising since between the industrial revolution. And most of the projections made so far have been wrong!

 

[Belk]

Science is very much about theory and opinion. A lot of climate science is projections made on computers about where things might be headed.

It is? Not that I have ever heard.

As stated above, the science is far from settled that global warming is being caused by man-made sources. I had a friend in another forum post that scientists were seeing global warming throughout the solar system. Other planets also were warmer and had their caps melting and so on.

Is your friend an astrophysicist and did they post data backing up this claim?

The earth is constantly on a cycle. Just 10,000 years ago, here in Michigan, there would've been glaciers 2 miles above my head. The earth has been warming and the glaciers melting and retreating since then! The sea levels have been rising since between the industrial revolution. And most of the projections made so far have been wrong!

According to whom?

 

[Saucy]

It is? Not that I have ever heard.


Is your friend an astrophysicist and did they post data backing up this claim?



According to whom?

Here is one of the articles she shared from National Geographic. Scientists have been noticing Mars' caps have been shrinking along the same lines as the Earth's, so this uptick in temperature on both planets is in correlation with increased solar output by the sun.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.

“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

Our earth has evolved so many different times in its history. There were times it was covered in glaciers and times when there might not have been any ice on the planet. During the reign of the dinosaurs, there was MUCH more carbon in the atmosphere than today and the earth was warmer.

 

[Belk]

Here is one of the articles she shared from National Geographic. Scientists have been noticing Mars' caps have been shrinking along the same lines as the Earth's, so this uptick in temperature on both planets is in correlation with increased solar output by the sun.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says



Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

Our earth has evolved so many different times in its history. There were times it was covered in glaciers and times when there might not have been any ice on the planet. During the reign of the dinosaurs, there was MUCH more carbon in the atmosphere than today and the earth was warmer.

Thank you. It appears the theory is pretty controversial and does not have much support.

 

[mark46]

The possibility that mankind has an effect on the climate is a Russian hoax.

Scientists are simply using alternative facts when they say that 15 of the warmest years have been in the last 16, and the all the records being set each year.

Just as was the case scientists said that fluorocarbons caused effects on the ozone layer, they are simply being political.
===========

You must understand that those who support the president are a unique force. They have their one facts. They define the world as they wish.

"The Committee on Science, Space & Technology" is the Congressional Committee that oversees and investigates program funding and grants for research pertaining to the Earths environment, and climate of the atmosphere, surface and oceans.

As with any science and technology, the best and most accurate information comes from what the consensus of the vast majority of published peer review literature shows, with the explanation of that science performed by the those top credible professionals and researchers in their specific fields. Science is not about democracy or opinion. Science is about facts and understanding those facts. It is a fact that of all the scientific peer review literature that addresses anthropogenic climate change, more than 97% between 1991 and 2013 (Cook et al. 2013), shows in that research that AGW is a fact and needs to be addressed.

With this in mind, why is "The Committee on Science, Space & Technology", so divided party-wise with this issue?

But even more importantly, why is it that when a committee hearing is held on Climate Change, that it is one political side invites the actual top professionals to testify, and the other that invites only climate change deniers, skeptics, and in some case, not even scientists or people who actually work in the area?

 

[RickG]

Science is very much about theory and opinion. A lot of climate science is projections made on computers about where things might be headed.

That is a common misunderstanding about science and how it actually works. Science has nothing to do with opinion. Science is based on facts. Facts that are testable and repeatedly verifiable through observation.

As stated above, the science is far from settled that global warming is being caused by man-made sources.

Quite the contrary, I suggest sourcing the link in the OP which provides the full peer review paper (Cook et al. 2013), which shows that more than 97% of published research addressing AGW shows it to be factual. Understand that that paper is not an opinion, they actually sourced and reviewed all they papers they could find addressing AGW to see what they said. Additionally, they contacted as many of the authors of those papers as possible and asked if indeed their research endorsed AGW? Not only was the 97% confirmed, it actually increased.

I had a friend in another forum post that scientists were seeing global warming throughout the solar system. Other planets also were warmer and had their caps melting and so on.

Unfortunately there is a plethora of global warming denial information throughout the internet and other sources. Ask yourself, what would cause all the planets in the solar system to warm at the same time? Its quite simple, it would be the sun, thus we would expect to see measurements of the suns Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) to be increasing. Satellites have been measuring TSI since 1978, over the past 39 years TSI has been decreasing. This information doesn't come from blogs or the media, it comes from the actual scientific source that measures it: welcome to pmodwrc, the World Radiation Center.

The earth is constantly on a cycle. Just 10,000 years ago, here in Michigan, there would've been glaciers 2 miles above my head. The earth has been warming and the glaciers melting and retreating since then! The sea levels have been rising since between the industrial revolution. And most of the projections made so far have been wrong!

I gather the cycles being mentioned are Milaknovitch Cycles, and yes those are natural cycles due to variations in the earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession; I'm quite familiar with them. Actually, the current cycle beginning some 6,000 years ago is a cooling cycle, yet we are not only warming, but warming at a rate faster than seen in any of the paleoclimate-proxy's going back 800,000 years. As for projections made so far for sea level rise being wrong, it is important to quantify those projections. Climate models, including sea level rise, are a number of scenarios based on "what if scenarios". That is why model projections are often misunderstood, and sadly misrepresented by AGW skeptics/deniers as well. The fact is, of the mostly likely model scenarios, those is that in their data projections that actually match what has occurred, have underestimated sea level rise, (Allison et al 2009).