And what the hell does "the huge benefits of society from affordable energy" have to do with the science? What to do is a policy question, not a science one, and the "huge benefits" of pollution should not enter into the evaluation of what the likely effects of climate change are.
1. There are plenty of places to publish junk science. This is all somewhere like Cato needs to keep arguing that climate change isn't real and that is enough to convince half of the lawmakers. Even if the science is bad, it can easily influence policy.
2. You can make this argument until the end of time. When have we done "enough" research on alternative hypotheses? Never, of course. We can keep on demanding more research and put off emissions regulations indefinitely.
I mean look, I could argue that gravity isn't really A Thing and that on some planets stuff floats in the air and it's really difficult to ever touch the ground. Prove me wrong! Ha - you can't! Congress should give me money to fund my research - think of the potential payoffs!
> “One way to aid Congress in understanding more of the climate issue than what is produced by biased ‘official’ panels of the climate establishment is to organize and fund credible ‘red teams’ that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise,” said witness John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, in his prepared testimony. “I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very different conclusions regarding the human impacts on climate.”
It is pretty clear for this scientist's choice of words ("biased 'official' panels", "I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very different conclusions") that he has no intentions of approaching this in an unbiased manner. I get the impression that he has an agenda, and he will force the facts to agree with him.