5 ms·

Here you can see the problem of these congressional committees: they hear from a few people on one side, and a few people on the other, completely unaware that

Here you can see the problem of these congressional committees: they hear from a few people on one side, and a few people on the other, completely unaware that the few denialists they've heard from are basically all of them (Curry and Christy are pretty infamous), whereas almost every other scientist disagrees. They should have to sit through 97 witnesses who agree with the consensus for every 3 who do not- that is the only way to really understand it.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Here you can see the problem of these congressional committees: they hear from a few people on one side, and a few people on the other, completely unaware that the few denialists they've heard from are basically all of them The committees (largely their staffs) choose who is going testify, and they absolutely know this. To the extent they pretend not to, that's because they are trying to use the hearing for propaganda purposes.
maxxxxx 10y ago
Hearings are not held to get a neutral point of view.
ItsDeathball 10y ago
To be in line with the science, or at least the study [1] that 97% number comes from, they would have to sit through 33 witnesses who believe the planet is warming and humans are at least part of the cause, 66 witnesses who have not stated an opinion either way, and 1 witness who isn't sure but leans towards no. Also, Curry and Christy would be part of the 66 "consensus" witnesses, having acknowledged that the planet is warming and humans are part of the cause. It sounds like they've managed to get Republicans to consider funding climate science by proposing an adversarial set of studies focused on "how much" rather than yes or no. 1: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article