And here we go

According to Science Insider:

Representative Ralph Hall (R-TX) has staked his claim to the chairmanship of the House Science and Technology Committee

Hall announced his intention to run the Committee while saying:

We must also conduct strong oversight over this Administration in key areas including climate change, scientific integrity, energy research and development (R&D), cybersecurity, and science education. Over the past few years the unprecedented growth of the Federal government and the creation of multiple new and duplicative programs occurred without having first assessed the effectiveness and success of existing programs.

Let the show trials begin!

Hall’s current position on climate change is utterly predictable:

I am alarmed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Obama Administration are forging ahead before Congress has finalized any legislation, and are taking further steps to promote Federal regulations of carbon dioxide. There is growing concern and evidence that scientific data, from which global warming theories emerged, has been manipulated, enhanced or deleted. The IPCC data was used by the EPA as part of the data that went into their endangerment finding. This is especially problematic since the endangerment finding will most likely be used as the basis for a regulatory regime in the U.S.

Recent events have uncovered extensive evidence from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England, which involved many researchers across the globe discussing the destruction, alteration and suppression of data that did not support global warming claims. Leaked email exchanges detail attempts to alter data that is the basis of climate modeling. These exchanges reveal actions that constitute a serious breach of scientific ethics.

Regulations based on the EPA’s endangerment finding could undermine economic growth and destroy American jobs. It is irresponsible for the Federal government to tax energy consumption and put more Americans out of work.

According to OpenCongress, Hall was “one of the largest recipients of oil money” during 2000-2008, and “voted in favor of big oil companies on 82% of important oil-related bills from 2005-2007″. He received a score of 0 during each of the last three Congressional sessions from the League of Conservation Voters.

Bonus Trivia Fact [Via Wiki]: Hall “is the oldest serving member of the House of Representatives and the oldest member of either House of Congress.”

About these ads

7 responses to “And here we go

  1. TB, didn’t you know, voters wanted change in this election. The Obama administration was totally unwilling to prosecute wrongdoers from the Bush administration. And Congress did silly things like investigating oil companies whose rigs blew up and polluted the Gulf of Mexico. The voters wanted to change all this.

    What we really want is active investigations into scientists for things like, say, an email leak from a foreign country that has already been investigated and cleared several times over. Now that would be a real barn-burner! Move us forward as a country and all that. Real progress.

  2. I’m not sure why Texas&Oklahamo politicians seem so determined to make China the leading country in the world, but they are doing their best.

  3. Because China wants to buy all that oil?

  4. I’m not sure why Texas&Oklahamo politicians seem so determined to make China the leading country in the world,

    Well, some people care more about their own position in the US than the US’s position in the world.

    an email leak from a foreign country that has already been investigated and cleared several times over.

    Now we just need Obama the compromiser-in-chief to sign an executive order to bomb CRU back to the Stone Age. The Earth may be frying, but at least They Now Know Who Is Boss!

    frank

  5. Cross posted from Curry’s blog. Big question is will she answer?

    “Dr. Curry,

    Perhaps a more appropriate title might have been “Ending the assault on science and scientists by “skeptics””.

    Anyhow, that brings me to the point of this post. As you know there are already musing about holding McCarthy-like interrogations of climate scientists by Republicans and Tea Party ideologues. These are indeed scary times, although your actions of late may have saved you experiencing the wrath of Barton and Inhofe. Time will tell.

    You volunteered recently that you have been contacted by a politician/s. You allowed Mosher to post an (illegally obtained) email. So now I am going to ask you, very nicely, in the spirit of transparency and openness, to post a legally obtained email (or emails) that you received from the politician/s. Feel free to obfuscate their details, and name their name/s.

    Many of your readers here have been demanding investigations against climate scientists, so your position on such is pertinent. So your role in these developments is relevant and should be a matter for the public record given what is at stake and given that tax payers money will be used to fund any such interrogations.

    Additionally, please answer these questions, again as unambiguously and clearly as possible:

    1) Do you condone plans by Republicans and Tea Party representatives to launch investigations against climate scientists?
    2) If yes, do you plan to do to prominently condemn such actions and what do you intend to do prevent them from happening?
    3) If no. Why so?
    4) If no. Do you plan to assist in any way the people launching and executing the investigations against your peers?
    5) If such interrogations go ahead, do you agree that they should include interrogations/cross examination of climate scientists from both the “skeptical” (e.g., Christy, Spencer, Lindzen) and the “warmist” sides?

    If such a horrid inquisition does go ahead, it will not herald the end of the war, if anything it will just make matters much, much worse. I fear the likes of Inhofe will only be content when a “warmist” climate scientist is physically hurt or worse.

    Again, I am interested only in your position on this. Thank you.”

  6. So jc’s been invited by the minority party for this one.
    In company like Alley, Santer and Cullen, I wouldn’t be surprised if her remarks are a bit more muted than they are on the blog.

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/10/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-%e2%80%9cbig-table%e2%80%9d/

  7. Huff Post quotes the governor of NewJersey, Chris Christie…

    Chris Christie Skeptical That Global Warming Is Caused By Humans

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/chris-christie-global-warming_n_781494.html

    Mankind, is it responsible for global warming? Well I’ll tell you something. I have seen evidence on both sides of it. I’m skeptical — I’m skeptical. And you know, I think at the at the end of this, I think we’re going to need more science to prove something one way or the other.
    […]
    So, I go to be honest with you, I don’t know. And that’s probably one of the reason’s why I became a lawyer, and not a doctor, or an engineer, or a scientist, because I can’t figure this stuff out. But I would say at this point, that has to be proven, and I’m a little skeptical about it. Thank you.

    H/T to Stoat and David Appell.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s