Don’t ever stop talking, Mikey.
Michael Mann says:
In the U.S., of course, we have a Congress right now, we have a House of Representatives where the House Science Committee is run by politicians who don’t even accept that climate change is real. And it is very difficult to have a policy dialogue, a meaningful policy debate in American politics if we have a Congress that doesn’t even accept that the problem exists.
But on April 25, for example, the House Science Committee issued a media release entitled, “Subcommittee Reviews Context and Uncertainty in Climate Change Science,” which stated, in part:
Washington D.C. – The Subcommittee on Environment today held a hearing to provide Members an overview of the most important scientific, technical and economic factors that should guide climate-related decision-making.
Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I believe in the integrity of science. And challenging accepted beliefs through open debate is a primary part of the scientific process. To make a rational decision on climate change, we need to examine the relevant scientific issues along with the costs and benefits and better understand the uncertainties that surround both.
“Affordable, reliable energy is key to a healthy economy. American consumers and small and large businesses all depend on reliable and affordable energy. It is only through sustained economic growth that we will be able to make the investments in research and technology necessary to fully understand and properly deal with problems like climate change. We should take a step back from the claims of impending catastrophe and think critically about what we know and what we don’t know about this issue.”
In his inaugural remarks, President Obama signaled his intention to propose significant, new executive actions and regulatory measures aimed at addressing climate concerns. New Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations restricting greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plant facilities and other sources will likely serve as a centerpiece of the President’s climate efforts. Witnesses today discussed the significant costs of regulatory approaches to limit greenhouse gas emissions, compared to the relatively minor impact such actions would have on the future climate… [Emphasis added]
What part of that sounds like Mann’s slander that the House Science Committee is led by “politicians who don’t even accept that climate change is real”?