Some examples :
-Salomon Kroonenberg : "Climate has changed before without human interference"
-Bas Van Geel : "The past 10 years temperatures decreased"
-Hajo Smit : "Galilei ..."
-Meanwhile Labohm was yelling something about "a pain in the ass"
And of course there was the insinuating AGW is some sort of worldwide complot.
That aside, the most important conclusion of the day probably is that politicians should not ask a level of knowledge science cannot provide. With a close second conclusion politicians should learn a bit more about how science works, MP Helma Neppérus p.ex. (the MP who asked for the hearing) clearly doesn't understand how peer review works...
In the line of the subject "politics vs science" an interesting new report was published (unfortunately in Dutch only) by the Rathenau Institute which takes a closer look at the interaction between science, media and politics : Ruimte voor klimaatdebat
A remarkable find is that while in most important Dutch newspapers & magazines the percentage of skeptic articles is below 20%, there's one clear outlier with a magazine in which the skeptic view is (over)presented in 54% of the articles (while the other 46% do present both the neutral as the warming view...). Of course this magazine is Elsevier with its science-editor Simon Rozendaal.