Republicans Nix Global Warming Committee

|

A better location than Copenhagen in December

The U.N. Cancun climate change conference convened on Monday, and on Wednesday the Republican leadership decided to get rid of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming created by soon-to-be-former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2007. Politico reports:

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) made official what many had already expected – the GOP majority will axe the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Pelosi created in 2007.

"This hearing will be the last of the select committee," Sensenbrenner announced.

Republicans intend to investigate climate change issues at the Energy and Commerce Committee where chairmanship is hotly contested among Rep. Joe Barton (Tex.), Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.), Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (Fla.).

Note: I will be covering the Cancun climate change conference beginning next week.

NEXT: New Site Format

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ron
    We don’t have to worry about any AGW flooding because God promised not to flood the Earth again.

    It’s in Genesis as was helpfully pointed out by one of the GOP congressmen frontrunning for the Committee chair.

    1. Accepting the reality of AGW does not, in and of itself, justify a “Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming”.

      Abolishing the “Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming” does not equal AGW denial.

      But you knew that.

    2. I suppose the best way to fight one religion is with another.

      1. Because reliance on Genesis and reliance on the statements of most major professional scientific organizations in the relevant fields are the same thing!

        1. Faith is faith whether it be on a book or a guy in a lab coat. Whatever AGW is, it ceased to be science a long time ago. And any doubt of that ended when the climategate e-mails were released. Now it is just a millennial cult with its adherents giving fervent prayers that mother earth will some day soon punish man for his wicked ways.

          1. CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

            1. Shakes fist in anger from his wheelchair!!

          2. Because the idea that more heat-trapping gases might trap more heat is ludicrous, I tell you!

            1. Even for cultist, the AGW people really bring a high level of discourse on the subject don’t they?

              1. Yep, nothing’s as sophisticated as arguing that the worldwide scientific consensus is wrong, and ignorant fucktard oil shill Republican congressman and an ignorant fucktard FOX News teevee hosts are right!

                1. Oh I don’t know. I think that it is at least equally sophisticated to expect that such scientific consensus should be derived from using pure scientific method without the manipulating of data to get preferred results, the subverting of the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers have no access to publication and, the conspiring to prevent the release of unfavorable scientific information subject to Freedom Of Information laws. Yeah, that is actually very much more sophisticated indeed.

                  1. Exactly right, Ice, and the fact that all parties involved in the alleged wrongdoing you’re referring to have been completely exonerated no fewer than five times only makes their crime against science all the more nefarious a conspiracy!

                    1. They have been exonerated by the same peer review process they corrupted. The e-mails speak for themselves. Only cultists like you discount them. But, then there is no amount of rational arument or facts that will get you to change your mind. That is what makes it a cult right?

                      And yelling obscenities and scream “oil” and “fox News” is such a persuasive form of argument.

                    2. They have been exonerated by the same peer review process they corrupted. I cannot possibly be wrong. The cherry-picked e-mails speak for themselves. Only cultists like you us discount them scientific reality we don’t like. But, then there is no amount of rational arument or facts that will get you us to change your mind our minds. That is what makes it a cult right?

                2. Idf: But what about all those previous scientific consensuses (consensi?) that were wrong in the past? For details see my column, “Scientific Consensus Redux.”

                  1. I dunno, how far in the past? There was a point before oil shill congresstards and FOX News teevee people existed, I suppose. They wouldn’t have been around to offer their own version of reality to take the place of those wrong scientific consensuses if we go far back enough.

        2. Because reliance on Genesis and reliance on the statements of most major professional scientific organizations in the relevant fields are the same thing!

          the major scientific organizations say the oceans will raise about a foot over the next one hundred years…

          Which is the same amount it raised over the past 100 years.

          On a side note here is a funny gif showing how we adopted to a rising ocean over the past 350 or so years.

          http://wattsupwiththat.files.w…..mation.gif

          Yes MNG you are a fucking idiot and your fear mongering only exposes it for all of us to see.

          1. Note: over the past 350 years the water around NY has risen 1 meter or about 3.3 feet.

            Funny how people who didn’t have the internet let along the combustion engine were able to adopt without much problem.

    3. God did leave open the option to destroy the Earth with mindless chicken littles and their insane schemes.

      1. What is that Marxist saying about history repeating itself first as tragedy and then as comedy?

    4. Re: MNG,

      We don’t have to worry about any AGW flooding because God promised not to flood the Earth again[.]

      We don’t have to worry about any AGW flooding because AGW is a myth, just like the Universal Flood story is a myth, except AGW has a different Bible and priests: Whereas on the former, a superbeing flooded the Earth, the latter contends that humans are superbeings that can flood the Earth… somehow.

      1. Could you provide a citation for that?

  2. There’s no Committee on Unicorns, so this makes sense that we don’t keep committees for bullshit nonsense like this.

  3. The GOP does something right!

    The chances of them fixing real problems? Not so much…

  4. In Vermont the climate changes four times a year, we deal with it.

    1. I’ve heard the third climate change of the year in Vermont is particularly pleasant.

      1. The 3rd? Is that the one where VT is under 50ft of ocean, or the one where it’s covered by a glacier?

        1. You do know that ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ was not a documentary, right?

        2. In some years you can go from 100 degrees above to 50 below. Nature just shrugs it off, animals, trees keep right on going.
          Yet, somehow 5 degrees fahrenheit over 100 years equates to doomsday. Right.

          1. That’s a very good point. In Minneapolis, just over the last 15 years, I have experienced 40 below and 110 above. That’s a 150 degree swing and yet the oaks planted on my street back in 1969 are still there. and so are the squirrels and sparrows.

            1. Hey, throw in wind chill and we’re talkin 200 degree shifts.
              Maybe sea level is rising, but it won’t wipe out entire species and I sure as hell don’t want to be taxed so that some New York waterfront property owning billionaires can get a government funded bailout ( figuratively or literally).

              1. You rang?

            2. But if it stopped raining/snowing those trees would die and all the birds would fly off.

          2. Yet, somehow 5 degrees fahrenheit over 100 years equates to doomsday. Right.

            the rate has only been 0.14 degrees centigrade per decade over the past 30 years.

            If you do the math that is only a 1.4 degree increase.

    2. In Texas the climate can change four times a month.

      1. Or three times a day. Coldest I have ever been in my life was in Texas in February. It was like 89 degrees and humid during the afternoon and then at about 10 o’clock at night the wind went to the North and the temp dropped to the upper 30s in a matter of minutes.

  5. http://voices.washingtonpost.c…..l_ban.html

    Meanwhile. Obama continues to make war on the economy and the nation’s wealth.

  6. “Note: I will be covering the Cancun climate change conference beginning next week.”

    Una cervesa por favor!

  7. Rep. Joe Barton Barton? Hmm. Here I thought his middle name was Linus, not Barton.

    1. T: Fixed. Thanks.

    2. The rep so nice they named him twice!

  8. AGW alarmists should applaud this move. One less House committee means a little less hot air being spewed forth into our fragile atmosphere.

  9. I just got back from Cancun…security was extremely present. I would guess, with no exageration, over 1000 federales were patrolling both the Hotel Zone and the Riveiera Maya. Checkpoints were everywhere.

  10. Note: I will be covering the Cancun climate change conference beginning next week.

    Seems like you could have wrapped that into the cruise for everyone, don’t you think?

    1. Hey, he’s bringing back Sombreros and snow globes for everyone, so STFU.

  11. “Note: I will be covering the Cancun climate change conference beginning next week.”

    As a AGW religionist, Ron, shouldn’t you just be calling in?

  12. Great blog entry here by Walter Russell Mead on the colossal and embarrassing waste of time and money that Bailey is going to be taking part in.

    1. The UN never has a conference in Newark, or Schennectady…

      1. Or Sioux Falls.

        1. In Cancun the biggest threat is Global bureaucrat Beer Warming.

    2. It is only a waste of time if you don’t need anywhere to fly your private jet to or don’t enjoy conspicuous consumption in the name of saving the world.

      1. The U.N. has apparently still never heard of GoToMeeting!

  13. One committee down thousands to go.

  14. The simple fact that this U.N. bullshit is going on in Cancun makes me doubt the integrity of these dipshits.

    1. Yes! And wasn;t the last one on some south pacific island?

    2. “The simple fact that this U.N. bullshit is going on in Cancun makes me doubt the integrity of these dipshits.”

      prepositional phrase extraneous.

    3. Everyone knows the U.N. Climate Change Conference is a party conference.

  15. How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
    None, but they DO have consensus, that it WILL change?
    Climate Scientists are to science, what abusive priests are to religion.
    Scientists not only polluted the planet with their chemicals, they also produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, strip mining technology, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change.

    You amateur arm chair climatologists where too funny.
    Believers didn’t care about the planet, they hated humanity. Why else did they wish and hope and pray for the end of the world so easily and so flippantly? Why didn’t you respond with happiness at climate gate, Al Gore, Glacier Gate and 24 years of no crisis for any of us to experience?
    I’m a real liberal. I don’t give my kids CO2 death threats, just to get them to turn the lights out more often. Real liberals question, challenge and doubt authority, not bow to it like climate cowards. You remaining Doomers are now a fringe part of progressivism. Don’t believe me? Ask another Liberal if they think THE END IS NEAR? At least admit that “unstoppable warming”, “fatal consequences” and a “catastrophic climate crisis” are all death threats, not concern for clean water, new energy and celebrating the accomplishments of Rachel Carson’ s environmental movement of a half century ago.
    Put the politics aside. Drop the CO2 and start environMENTALism anew, for our kids sake.

  16. Note: I will be covering the Cancun climate change conference beginning next week.

    You poor baby…

  17. Sorta kinda off yet on topic – neat piece from the Atlantic that talks about medical scientific research – and how badly it sucks. Not too much of a stretch to consider what that means wrt “peer reviewed climate science”

    1. Research into medicine has little in common with research into things like physics. Please make at least some effort to understand the basic science involved in climatology.

      1. Yeah climate science is worse. It involves sophisticated statistical work but climate scientists are never profesional staticians. It also involves sophisticated computer code but climate scientests have been revealed by the climategate e-mails to be horrible code writers. And worse still, experts from those fields are not a part of the peer review process.

        Yet, we are suposed to take the results of their models as gospel even though the statistical calculations involved haven’t ever been reviewed by professional staticians and the computer code has never been reviewed by computer programers. It has all been reviewed by other climate scientists of varying degrees of proficiency and all with their careers staked on the models producing an affirmative result.

        The whole thing is a joke and an insult to real science.

        1. Please provide evidence that climatologists are terrible code writers and do not understand statistics. I’ve got news for you: EVERY scientist has a background in statistics.

          Your argument is nothing more than pure assertion.

          1. Having a background in statistics is not the same as being a professional statistician. And read the climate gate e-mails. Most of them relate to their inability to write basic code or do statistics.

            Below is a recent example when actual professional staticians look at the work done by climate scientists.

            http://www.e-publications.org/…..m=63ebfddf

            1. John,

              The Mcshane and Wyner paper has long been debunked as fundamentally flawed due to repeated methodological errors. That the paper cites the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Gore movie as primary source material should amply demonstrate that.

          2. I would also encourage you to read the emails. They admit they cannot recreate past temperatures accurately. If you cannot do that, you can’t establish that the current warming is anything out of the ordinary. And that is game over.

            1. Yah! One should definitely proportion not knowing what one is talking about inversely to one’s certainty.

              1. Sigh.

                This is very simple.

                We know what the climate was twenty years ago, right? So we can start our models with that climate. Since the models are programmed so accurately, they should be able to give us last years climate with a high degree of accuracy.

                They can’t.

                Either something is seriously wrong with the models(as the climategate emails state) or the weather is apparently completely different from the weather we’re actually experiencing.

                It’s really not that hard.

  18. I firmly believe that global warming/climate change is one of the paramount issues of the 21st century.

    I also firmly believe that nothing will be done about it until Memphis is a major American seaport.

  19. I also firmly believe that nothing will be done about it until Memphis is a major American seaport.

    Memphis is 86 meters above sea level….the sea is rising at a 3 mm per year rate.

    Lets say at 85 meters of sea level rise it will be a seaport.

    85 meters is 85000 mm

    It will take 28,334 years for the ocean to reach Memphis.

    Of course by that time we will probably be in the next Glaciation. Memphis will be tundra and the sea will be a few miles east of the mile think block of ice that will be covering New York City.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.