Environmental

Climate Science Hearing Devolves into “Food Fight”

In a somewhat combative hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space, and Technology Committee on March 29, scientists with varied views on the subject of climate change debated how the research of climate change skeptics should be handled by the scientific community.

The hearing frequently descended into personal attacks between the four witnesses and at times, even attacks against the chair of the committee, vocal climate skeptic Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). At one point, the interactions of the witnesses were described as a “food fight.”

The topic of the hearing—“Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method”—set up a discussion of how the scientific method has been applied to climate science, but what followed instead was a heated debate about if climate change is real and how climate change skeptics in the scientific community are treated by the mainstream. At times witnesses were called bullies and climate deniers by others on the panel.

The witness panel, consisting of three climate skeptics selected by the committee’s Republicans, and one climate scientist representing the mainstream climate science community, debated the propriety of criticizing each other’s work. The skeptics complained that they have been bullied and “demonized” by the mainstream because of their research and questioning of the consensus that climate change is real and caused in large part by human activity.

Two of the three skeptics pointed directly to criticism from the minority’s witness, Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. “You heard some of that today, including being called a denier in his congressional testimony,” Judith Curry, president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said.

Mann defended his criticism of the other panelists, stating that reviewing the work of others is part of the scientific method.  “We can’t dispute the facts, and it doesn’t matter the individual personalities of scientists, each of whom are human beings and have their own personal flaws. If that mattered, it would be a problem. The scientific process works because that doesn’t matter. Regardless of how good or bad a person you are, your claims will be independently tested by other scientists,” he said.

According to Mann, the claims made by the other panelists do not line up with the scientific facts of the matter, and that is why they have been criticized. “Do I challenge him publicly when he says things like that?” Mann said of the claims of fellow panelist Roger Pielke Jr., a professor in the Environmental Studies Department at the University of Colorado.

“Of course I do. Is that appropriate? Of course it is.”

Some Agreement to Be Had

While much of the hearing centered on the disagreements of the panelists, there were a couple of spots of common ground. All of the panelists agreed that funding climate science is important, though the skeptics placed more emphasis on a need to fund observational efforts, like satellites, as opposed to grants for research based on what they believe to be the false premise of manmade climate change.

All of the panelists also agreed that there is uncertainty surrounding the issue of climate change in general, from how much of a role man has played, to how much temperatures have increased, to how sensitive climate models are. However, there was disagreement as to how much that uncertainty matters in policymaking issues.

Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.) stated that uncertainty is not an excuse for inaction when the stakes are high. “Most of us carry insurance on our homes even though we’ve probably never lived in a home that’s burned to the ground,” she said. “At some point, we have to go with consensus for the time being, as we continue to research, and I would say that is the prudent course.”

Pielke seemed to agree somewhat, telling the committee that it would have to take action, perhaps in the form of regulating substances that contribute to climate change, before they have absolute certainty. “Scientific uncertainty is not going to be eliminated on this topic before we have to act,” he said. “If we want to improve energy technology, energy innovation, for reasons of competitiveness, for air pollution benefits, for energy access around the world, we have plenty of justification for the U.S. to be a leader.”

Composition of Panel Questioned

The makeup of the witness panel proved to be a major sticking point for several committee Democrats, as well as Mann. Throughout the hearing, it was mentioned several times that the composition of the panel did not represent the larger scientific community.

“For every one scientist who disputes the fact that human activity is driving climate change, there are 17,352 who acknowledge human activity is the main driver of climate change. We have a handful of scientists here in this room today who are skeptical about the human role in climate change. There are tens-of-thousands more credible trained scientists out in the world standing up for the scientific fact that humans are the major driver of climate change,” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said. “It is notable that those tens-of-thousands of scientists are represented here solely by Dr. Mann.”

 

Abby L. Harvey is a POWER reporter.

SHARE this article