By Ralph Schwartz
Doug Ericksen called in the past hour to discuss my recent blog posts about climate change, Don Easterbrook and reporters deciding what’s legitimate and what’s not.
“I don’t understand why, in the view of the media, if there’s someone you may not consider to be accurate, then it’s heresy or not justified,” Ericksen said.
My post Thursday suggested former WWU prof and climate-change denier Easterbrook’s appearance before Ericksen’s Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee might be a waste of time, because Easterbrook’s science is false. Today, I quoted Sen. Kevin Ranker’s thoughts on Easterbrook’s upcoming testimony.
Ericksen says he’s all about equal time, so I will be too. Here’s what the Republican senator from Ferndale had to say about welcoming Easterbrook to the committee:
“If I got a guy who’s going to come in and show me (temperature) charts that are cooling rather than heating … that’s kind of interesting and relevant if what he’s saying is true,” Ericksen said.
After all, he said, as chairman of the committee he had Gov. Jay Inslee in for an hour to discuss his bill, SB 5802, which would form a working group to find ways to meet carbon emission reduction goals. Also, Ericksen said, Sen. Ranker had an hour to present a bill about ocean acidification (increased carbon in the atmosphere is dissolving in the ocean, increasing the acidity and threatening shellfish).
“Let’s bring in people with different points of view,” Ericksen said. “I want everybody to have a fair shot to make their point in committee.”
After Easterbrook’s presentation, the thrust of the committee’s work on climate may need to move away from the consequences of a shrinking snowpack to “how to deal with food production” on a cooling planet, Ericksen said.
Ericksen described himself as a “climate agnostic” who wants a “clean environment.”
Barring a conflict, I plan to watch Easterbrook’s testimony. He is scheduled to appear in the E, E & T Committee at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26. It should be streamed on tvw.org.
Snowpack?
(Repeated, I know.)
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/cascadessnowpack.htm
How did things at the Herald get so messed up that a lifelong politician has to remind a journalist of the value of the marketplace of ideas?
@ Scott…you are just too funny, kudos, encore, what a wit…so the marketplace of ideas also flies over the cuckoos nest….priceless
Mr. Ericksen would have a point if only facts didn’t intrude into his agnosticism.
Presenting facts is a tricky business since they can be manufactured to resemble real ones at a moment’s notice.
My favorite is conflating weather with climate which is understandable given that man is a short-term thinker and a cold and snowy day seems to indicate a lack of warming.
That’s why there’s no marketplace of ideas in climate science unless it’s to question impacts of actual observations – facts – and even then a myopic man can nullify nearly everything as still unseen and unproven.
The science of climate change, unlike an election, is not resolved by a ‘most popular’ vote of the public. In scientific journals, it’s the most watertight explanation for the changes we are observing that wins. Public opinion does not change the science, it only changes our response to it.
Climate change DENIER? I heard Easterbrook speak once, and he knows climate changes, he just thinks there’s more to it than the simplistic, blame CO2 for everything part. He says it’s getting warmer. If anything he seems extra thoughtful about twists and turns it might take, and the effects of change.
He killed Ranker’s ocean acidification bill out of spite, according to Ranker, for political reasons. And who is the climate scientist who has explained the view of the vast majority that CO2 emissions are causing long-term warming, the existence of snow notwithstanding?
Is Easterbrook trained as a climate scientist?
He is geologist, and while a scientist, not one trained in climate trends, except perhaps climate changes of long ago…
… perhaps a “geostitute” to support Mr. Ericksen’s stalling tactics…
“I stick my finger in the air.
For climate science, I shall not care.
If cooler today than once before,
I obviously know more than 95% of climate scientists on the planet.”
Whew. Been a while since I’ve written a poem. Obviously need a little more practice.
I applaud all displays of artistry in print.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
I like to think that my poetry is to haiku what climate science denial is to logic and reason.
This entire Easterbrook kerfuffle is just a prime example of the absurdity that is the so called credibility of Erickson.