The U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Power has scheduled a hearing featuring testimony from several prominent climate scientists, including IPCC Working Group II co-chair Christopher Field, Richard Somerville, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr., Francis Zwiers, and others. The collision between climate science and the dismal political realities of the nation’s capital continues. Not to be missed – by students of science and politics alike.
Climate Science Watch will cover the hearing in a subsequent post.
The hearing, held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is scheduled to convene at 10:00 a.m. on March 8 in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is open to the public. Opening statements, witness testimony, and a live (and presumably to be archived) webcast will be available online at http://energycommerce.house.gov/.
WITNESS LIST (In alphabetical order)
Dr. John R. Christy
Director, Earth System Science Center
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Dr. Christopher Field
Director, Department of Global Ecology
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer
Director, University of Michigan Biological Station
University of Michigan
Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
Senior Research Scientist,
Cooperative Institute for Research in
University of Colorado at Boulder
Dr. Donald Roberts
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Dr. Richard Somerville
Distinguished Professor Emeritus,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
Dr. Francis W. Zwiers
Director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium
University of Victoria
Victoria, British Columbia
Joe Romm at Climate Progress did a post in advance of the hearing, as usual well worth reading: House GOP line up the usual disinformers for climate science hearing, John Christy and Roger Pielke Sr., plus a DDT-booster!.
We’re inclined to share Chris Mooney’s general obervation on DeSmogBlog about the theater of such hearings, at least in the current political context (“So Now They Call in the Scientists?”):
My view is that it’s certainly better to hear from scientists than not to hear from them—but “science fight” hearings are rarely very enlightening. Some members of the media, the Congress, and the public are able to parse the flurry of claims and counterclaims. But most walk away with the impression that there’s a big “debate” and a lot of “uncertainty.”
So I guess my conclusion is, “two cheers” for the latest hearing. With so much climate skepticism and denial in the current Congress, it’s probably the best you are going to get.
On the other hand, while hearings often tend to be more a matter of political positioning from the members’ viewpoint, rather than really meaningful science education, we’d say the hearing will provide valuable information about the current state of communications between scientists and members of Congress. Students of science, politics, and the science-politics nexus will find much to learn in watching it.
Earlier CSW posts featuring some of the witnesses at the hearing:
Roger Pielke Sr.