House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge

by Judith Curry

I will be testifying before the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology on April 15.

The Hearing is titled The President’s UN Climate Pledge:  Scientifically Justified  or a New Tax on Americans?  The Hearing web page is [here].

Committee Chair Lamar Smith has written a Hearing Charter, which provides a good overview of the history of the UNFCCC treaties.

The witnesses testifying are:

Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

The Honorable Karen Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Former Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Jake Schmidt, Director, International Program, Natural Resources Defense Council

Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation

I have not previously come across any of these individuals, but their bios all look interesting and I look forward to their testimony.

Three of the witnesses are invited by the Republicans – the three females (!!!)

This Hearing is before the full Committee (I have testified previously before this Committee, but only to the Subcommittee on the Environment).

JC testimony

Well I’m obviously not going to give away what I am going to say before the Hearing (somehow this is the custom, I’m not sure why).  But here are some reflections on the process of preparing this particular testimony.

I wasn’t notified of the Hearing until Wed April 1.  I was on travel at the time, so I effectively had 8 days to prepare the written testimony (I submitted it on Sunday).  Basically, you need to drop everything and work on the testimony.

In preparing to write the testimony, I read my previous 4 testimonies (since 2010; listed on About).  I also read about 20 previous blog posts that were on topics relevant to what I planned to write about (the collection of previous blog posts is an extremely convenient reference source for this).

I’m very pleased with what I eventually came up with for my written testimony.  I learned a lot about writing for an audience such as this from my WSJ editorial experience [link].  I feel like I’m finally finding my voice on this issue.  Will see how it is received, I’m not very good at judging my own stuff.

The Committee asked for a one page summary of main points, which I haven’t previously been asked to provide.  Roger Pielke Jr always puts ‘take home points’ on the first page of his testimony; I’ve liked what he does but never did it myself.  It was a very interesting exercise to do this, and not simple.

Oral testimony has always been my greatest challenge; I am not a dynamic speaker.  This was compounded at the Senate Hearing last year, when my oral testimony went significantly over time and I got ‘hammered.’  The comments on the blog post were very constructive [link] and I appreciate them.  Well I can’t promise ‘exciting’ verbal testimony, but I do promise ‘short’.

Well I’m running out of time in terms of preparing for my trip (I’ll be traveling pretty much all day tomorrow to get to DC; no I am not flying from Atlanta), so I need to cut this short.

The Hearing will be Webcast (starts at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time), which will also be archived.  I will post my testimony sometime on Wed.

198 responses to “House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge

  1. daveandrews723

    Maybe the cherry blossoms will be in full bloom when you get there.,, much later than usual. Clear evidence against global warming. Good luck!

  2. JC,

    That’s fantastic. Your profile and influence is increasing exponentially.

    • Thanks Peter, I definitely remember your comments on my previous testimony, and they were very helpful

    • Don’t forget to mention Pareto Principle (application to pragmatic, effective, realistic, achievable GHG emissions constraints policies) :)

  3. “I feel like I’m finally finding my voice on this issue.”

    Judith,
    It’s been my experience s a writer that a strong voice flows naturally from a strong sense of identity. It’s not something that can be faked. In fiction it’s largely a matter of talent. In the real world it’s a function of confidence. Been a faithful Climate Etc. denizen since nearly the beginning, and there’s no question you’ve become steadily more confident…and more willing to take a principled stand. I feel privileged to have been around to see it.

    Admire you greatly. Knock ’em dead.

  4. When they leave the hearing, they should be mulling over the graphs of the previous warm periods and questioning in their own minds how this one is any different.

    • Having listened to your interview on the radio show a few months ago, you should have no qualms about whether you are a dynamic speaker. You were terrific.

  5. Thanks, Judith, for your time and your testimony, and the voice you provide for those many of us that are truly skeptical of the science driving a major policy decision. Yes, the cherry blossoms around the Tidal Basin are late this year and were near peak this weekend from the photos friends have posted, so take time to wander around after your work is done.

  6. Judith,Godspeed. You will do well. And do not hesitate to tell them ‘Judith”s Army’ (a Masters golf reference to Arnold Palmer) follows close behind.

  7. I’m happy to see you get more coverage and exposure. Congrats.

  8. George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

    Couldn’t think of better person to present such testimony. Reading your convictions on this blog site, I’ll know you will speak with conviction and do it well.

  9. Danny Thomas

    Amazing life experience. Good for you. Hope you get to meet and shake hands with Rep. Raul Grijalva so that he can put the person with the label.
    All the best!

  10. Dr. Curry, I hope you explain that we are in an ice age on our way to an ice free future. Hasn’t the average global temperature been 70F for billion of years?

    • gallopingcamel

      My understanding is that the present average global temperature is 288 K or 64 F.

      That is much warmer than it was 25,000 years ago and much cooler than 50,000,000 years ago:

      If you believe in an ice free future you are either smoking something pretty powerful or you believe people like Archer & Ganopolski:
      http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/archer.2005.trigger.pdf

      It would be wonderful if there was any real hope that CO2 would defer of prevent the next glaciation that will decimate mankind. We could save the world simply by buying a bigger gas guzzler or encouraging more Al Gores to fly Gulfsteam jets.

      • Gee that green part down on the right of the chart looks cold. Brrrr. Would like to get out of that climate.

      • Gee that green part down on the right of the chart looks cold. Brrrr. Would like to get out of that climate.

        That green part, down on the right is our current paradise.
        We are still in an ice age, a wonderful phase of the ice age, and we will stay in this wonderful ice age, just like the small warming and cooling periods of the past ten thousand years. We have the right ocean levels and ocean currents to keep the right amount of warm water flowing in polar oceans to regulate the temperature cycle in these same bounds.

  11. Congratulations! Hope your message gets through.

  12. Avoid putting a moral at the end. The WSJ, for example, apparently insists on this and it always sounds stupid.

  13. stevefitzpatrick

    Judith,

    What I learned about technical presentations is:
    1) Tell ’em what you are going to tell ’em (‘objectives of the talk’).
    2) Tell ’em ( substance of the talk).
    3) Tell ’em what you told ’em (summary of key points/observations/conclusions).

    No need to worry about repeating yourself….. for non-experts, that is usually good!

    • Steve, after that I’d work with my “sales guy” on what were the maybe 3 points I wanted them to remember once they walked away, since that’s about all most people who listen are going to remember.

    • I was taught to use the same technique with company management and politicians. When following an opponent in a series of presentations it’s also useful to say something nice about the preceding presentation, or refer to it in a nice way. And if one of the committee members starts falling asleep you got to raise and then lower your voice.

  14. curryja, enjoy the day. Looking forward to reading/hearing your testimony.

    Cheers.

    • Yes–if it isn’t fun it isn’t worth it. You get the chance many of us would love to have–to speak your views to humans like yourself who have influence more of us would love to have. It’s a treat–except it really isn’t, as you’ve earned it through hard work and exercise of integrity. Enjoy.

  15. And please do not say agian that we know the physics that causes global warming, we do not.

  16. Repeat, wrong

    And please do not say again that we know the physics of global warming, we do not.

  17. All the best Doc!

    Remember to turn down the AC temp when you get to the room. (Somehow I think there is some sort of custom with the thermostat too) ;-)

  18. You’ll do great. Tell them the truth as you see it. Nuance doesn’t work in these settings.

  19. Somewhere in your oral or written testimony, I’d like to hear/see your favorable opinion on “Fast Mitigation” (methane, smog, HFCs, dark soot). Its absolutely fine to talk about “problems”, but its also important to give at least one example of a mitigation effort that you feel looks promising. Your opinion on Fast Mitigation shows “Good Faith” to the folks who incorrectly label you a Naysayer.

  20. Richard a. Jensen, PhD Biomedical Scientist

    An excellent choice. I’m not a climate scientist but I know how to evaluate data. I’ve been following Climate Etc. since the outset and have learned much. You might point out that natural sources will keep providing CO2 regardless (thank you Tim Ball) and the junk science of Lysenko in the USSR and the racial hygiene crowd in the Reich provide unfortunate evidence of the malignant effects of ideologically driven scientific BS. That’s what global warming is. It may take a while and people will die but eventually the truth will emerge. Sadly, you can count on it and you can count on POTUS trying to smooth talk his way out of culpability, should he still have a say in this. God speed, Dr. Curry, you can make a difference in
    D.C and thank you for all you’ve done with Climate Etc.

  21. gallopingcamel

    Hopefully someone will point out that “Carbon Mitigation” is an example of the inverse Robin Hood principle…………by which you rob the poor and give to the rich.

    Finally this truth has dawned on a major political party in the United Kingdom:
    http://euanmearns.com/tories-place-energy-policy-at-heart-of-manifesto/

    If the Tories win on May 7 it may encourage politicians in the USA to start talking sense about energy policies.

    • ::grin::
      ====

    • Bulls-eye!

    • Don’t forget to check out the date on that article ;-) But this one is for real:

      The Hunt For Global Warming: Southern Hemisphere Summary

      • euanmearns commented
        Interesting work.
        I went about in a different way though, I used the stations previous day’s values as the “baseline”, and looked at the trends in min and max temp separately, as well as yesterday’s rise and last night’s fall.
        What I found is that there’s even less of an increase in temps, when comparing stations to it’s self there’s no warming indistinguishable from 0.0F +/- 0.1F
        I also look at the rates of change, those have shown some movement, but they look to have crested.

        Judith, You should do a post of the differnt type of warming that could be happening and then what is happening.
        Here’s what I mean:
        Min/max temps don’t change, but it get’s warmer in the morning than it use to and stay warmer longer, the average temp is higher.
        Min/Max both go up the same amount, average temp goes up, but night time cooling is an exact match to warming.
        Annual Min/Max are the same, but it gets warmer in the spring, stays warmer into the fall, the average goes up.
        Annual min/max goes up but the seasonal change stays the same.
        etc….

        And so on, so 4 different types of warming, all show up as an average increase, all could have a different root cause.

        But let me note that the real surface data shows nightly cooling is slightly more than previous day’s warming, and the rate of temperature change over the season has been changing each year.

      • Ooh, yes, interesting clues to mechanisms. Will you explain the change in the rate of temperature change of the season more?

        Heh, as the magnitude of the derivative rises, so does the task of naming the numbers.
        ===============

      • kim commented

        Ooh, yes, interesting clues to mechanisms. Will you explain the change in the rate of temperature change of the season more?

        I have more project as time permits, I’m adding a calculated daily solar forcing for each station location, figure the difference between the input and the surface response tells us what’s the sky might be doing.

        Heh, as the magnitude of the derivative rises, so does the task of naming the numbers.

        I have some skills, coming up with names is not one of them, there are too many ways to name the same thing, and very little to judge which is better, so they all end up as a mis-mash of all of the different possible names but with no coherency between them.

  22. The invite was certainly late and you had to drop everything to put your written submission together. The topic is certainly about strength of the science behind the climate change agenda of the POTUS and this could elicit some bad press from the AGW crowd, who seem to be under represented at the hearing.

    My thoughts on the science is that there is insufficient evidence of any discernable global trend either way in the climate but that regional impacts will undoubtedly need to be watched for and measures taken to ameliorate any adverse effects on vulnerable communities.

    The proposed carbon emissions reduction policies for the US seem to be unsupported by current climate observations and the the use of the GCM’s in their present state for the purposes of prediction seems to be unjustified in the light of their overall divergence from these observations.

  23. David L. Hagen

    curryja
    Congratulations. Look forward to reading your testimony.
    Highly encourage hearing Murry Salby’s latest 17th March 2015 lecture . Salby addresses the uncertainties involved in anthropogenic emissions. He provides an upper bound for anthropogenic emissions to 33% of total emissions.

  24. How exciting! I’m sure you’ll do a great job Dr. Curry.
    I’m so looking forward to reading it!

  25. Dr. Curry, Please add my congratulations for the honor and best wishes

    To repeat a note on a previous post, If a summary is 1,000 words or less, I can get in a local daily paper Over 50,000 hard copies, plus what is online.

    It is, of course, AGW leaning under local pressure.

  26. This will need stronger, effective testimony, such as:

    Barack Obama: I will no longer take the Boeing 747 AF1 to California to raise money and play golf while Michelle and our daughters fly AF2 to Aspen to ski. Instead, we will take a fully Secret-Service-secured Southwest Air 737 to the Aspen airport, where Michelle and the kids will depart, and I will fly to Palm Springs, then pick them up on the way back. These planes will have 60 regular passengers, 100% vetted by TSA to be safe, to make the flights per-person energy efficient.

    For our Christmas vacation, we will no longer fly the 747 to Haawaii. We will get a comparable tropical vacation by going to Cuba; we’re going to enlist volunteer Team USA rowing members to take us in a replica Roman galley from Key West to Havana, and back. The oars people will be comprised of 50% women Olympians.

    For our Martha’s Vineyard vacations, we will take the train, in a private car, with our dogs, and the rest of the train filled with regular, TSA-vetted passengers, then board a bus to take us to the island.

    Al Gore: I’m opening my Montecito house to share with 20 UCSB and SB Community College students. They will grow organic fruits and vegetables in the back and front yard, for us to eat, and to sell at the weekend farmer’s market. I will no longer emit vast quantities of CO2 flying by private jet, but will do video conferencing.

    All members of the IPCC who have left Sasquatch-sized CO2 footprints flying first class and private jets to Rio, Copenhagen, Bali, and Lima have signed a pledge to teleconference the Paris 2015 meeting, because they no longer wantt to give the blatant, true impression that they fecklessly produce vastly more CO2 than the little people whom they purport to be speaking for, who must accept
    CO2 cutbacks.

    Leonardo DeCaprio: I’m selling all my multi-million dollar residences. I’m moving to a fully-functional 600 sq foot sustainable condo in Santa Monica, and I’m buying a super-sustainable 240 sq foot apartment in New York, because I need to set an example, in standing for the need to reduce C)2 production. Also, I may attend another World Cup, and host parties on a boat. But next time, I’m sailing on a 50 foot sailboat, and helping man the manually-powered winches . No more renting a 400-foot motor megayacht that burns a $400,000 tank of diesel. I believe leaders in the fight against global warming need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

    All these voices for C02 reduction are committed to set righteous examples for the little people to be inspired by and follow.

    caugh/sard

    We will no longer fly

  27. John Smith (it's my real name)

    It will be interesting to see what posture the democrats (if any show) take with you since your are one of the 7 deniers
    you might experience a bit of rough weather
    of the 100% anthropogenic sort
    I mean, if they are human :)
    lots of really great restaurants in DC
    I fondly recall 3 am eggs benedict at Au Pied De Cochon

  28. Planning Engineer

    I echo all the kind thoughts, congratulations and well wishes and add a hearty thank you.

  29. Judith:
    Judith:
    And yet, sadly, whatever you say will eventually be accepted as being wrong. I have given you the real reason for climate change–which has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses, and which you have unscientifically chosen to ignore.

  30. Given the question in the title: Scientifically Justified or a New Tax on Americans? I think I would opt for scientifically justified. Judith should too. However, I don’t think this committee would like either answer.

  31. Judith, They picked you for a reason remember that. You’re the best!!!

    Good Luck,

    Philip

  32. Enjoy DC where even the cherry blossoms defied Pres. Obama’s 8-April claim of human-caused global warming by refusing to reach peak bloom in 2015 until April 10, which is well past the April 4 average since 1921 (as has been the trend over the last 3 years) and contrary to inferences in a report filed by the Smithsonian years ago that earlier peak bloom dates was evidence of global warming. Interestingly, original research shows that the average peak bloom dates in Washington DC have not changed by a single day over the last half of the 20th century.

  33. Just try not to giggle if Rohrabacher or Sensenbrenner bring up their favorite climate subject, Mars.

  34. All the best in Washington Judith, I look forward to reading and watching your analysis of the science as you understand it.
    Andrew Bolt can’t believe the current President’s mad reason for his belief in CAGW and Hillary’s equally stupid ideas.
    It seems that the then smoker Obama blamed a warming climate for his daughter’s asthma attack and silly Hillary thought that a warmer Alaska allowed race contestants to throw away their gloves. Just a pity about the savage frost bite.
    Boy what a pair of intellectual heavyweights you have at the pinnacle of the democrat party. Gawwwd help you.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hillary_matches_obama_for_mad_global_warming_stories/

  35. One lesson I’ve learned in my numerous times of public speaking is not to believe the reaction my subconscious thinks I’m getting. A preacher once told me the heartiest praise he sometimes gets comes from a guy who sat there like a corpse throughout.

    Trust your material … it will win the day.

  36. You will do great, Judith. Relax and enjoy. There’s no way you could get in any trouble up there. Look at Gruber and Lerner, both still walking the streets free as birds.

  37. JC,

    I hope this is not too late:

    The Committee asked for a one page summary of main points, which I haven’t previously been asked to provide. Roger Pielke Jr always puts ‘take home points’ on the first page of his testimony; I’ve liked what he does but never did it myself. It was a very interesting exercise to do this, and not simple.

    Richard Tol has a good technique too. He explained tweeting forced him learn to say everything he needed to say in 140 characters. He sends out a description of the key point of each lecture to his students before the lecture. He uses the technique at the start of each chapter in his book climate economics https://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/. For example, see his ‘Tweet Book’ a the start of Chapter 1, p3 here:
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JRpCBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&dq=richard+tol+climate+economics&lr=&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=richard%20tol%20climate%20economics&f=false:

  38. It’s practice for your confirmation hearing in 2017
    ;-))

  39. Just go all out and say what a complete twerp Obama is :) And don’t take any nonsense from the committee, remember, THEY SERVE YOU, you don’t serve them.

    • I would also take time beforehand to watch Prof Murry Salby’s latest presentation, available via WUWT. Human CO2? Urrr, No!

  40. Clean air act has an impact on clouds in Northern Hemisphere giving us more sunshine. And warming! Aerosol has an impact neglected by many.
    Declare war on aerosols, global war!
    China and India’s population will bee grateful!

  41. Rick Adkison

    Good Luck Dr. Curry! Look forward to hearing and reading your testimony.

  42. Dr. Curry, I think this may be too late to influence what goes on, but I rewrote a comment I have been making about the APS statement and this whole controversy. I stuck it in my blog because it’s the only way I can hang it for people to see it, but it isn’t a post, it’s a separate page….

    http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/p/message-for-us-congress.html

  43. John Costigane

    Judith,

    Good luck.

    On a different related note, I mentioned your name alongside the concept of Paradigm Shift in an email to Victoria Derbyshire of the BBC. I cannot explain it but the wartime tune ‘Over There’ comes to mind.

  44. Say hello to grijalva for us. Followed by a slap upside the head.

  45. Would you be testifying before congress if you didn’t have the blog?

    • I testified 3 times before I had the blog. I do know that a number of congressional staffers do follow the blog

      • I’m glad to hear that. Much moreso after you left the door to the blog unlocked for anonymous comments while announcing you’d be travelling all day today.

        Thanks!

  46. Dr. Curry, so pleased you will again be a voice of sanity on the national stage. You are my hero!

  47. “Three of the witnesses are invited by the Republicans –” – JC

    So not another pointless, poltically partisan piece of theatre. That’s a relief.

    • David Wojick

      Theatre yes, pointless no, unless you think democratic process is pointless. The point is to hear some representative expert voices from both sides. Perhaps you have a better way?

      • > unless you think democratic process is pointless

        Democracy does not rest on congressional hearings, more so when they are organized around a loaded question.

        ***

        > Perhaps you have a better way?

        Approval voting may deserve due diligence:

        In Mathematics and Democracy: Designing Better Voting and Fair-Division Procedures (Princeton University Press, 2008), Steven Brams, a professor in New York University’s Department of Politics, shows how social-choice theory and game theory could make political and social institutions more democratic. Using mathematical analysis, he develops rigorous new procedures that enable voters to better express themselves and that allow disputants to divide goods more fairly.

        Brams, a leading authority in the use of mathematics to design decision-making processes, is also the author of the recently updated The Presidential Election Game (Yale University Press, 1978; A K Peters: 2008), which employs game theory and decision theory to demonstrate why certain campaign strategies are more effective than others.

        In Mathematics and Democracy, one of the procedures that Brams proposes is “approval voting,” which allows voters to vote for as many candidates as they like or consider acceptable. There is no ranking, and the candidate with the most votes wins. The voter no longer has to consider whether a vote for a preferred, but less popular, candidate might be wasted.

        Brams has authored Theory of Moves, and is the co-author of The Win-Win Solution: Guaranteeing Fair Shares to Everybody and Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution.

        http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2008/01/17/nyu_professors_mathematics.html

      • Ooh, Version2.
        ====

      • I’ve a fondness for republics. Many have lasted longer than most democracies.
        ========

      • David,

        I’m not sure I’ see this as anything terribly important to the “democratic process; partisans inviting views they expect to argee with, and invitees tending towards the activist/advocate/self-promoting kind, all in a not very accessible format.

        And “both-sides”. Very Escher.

        Maybe ‘democratic processes’ would be better served by an arrangement where the NAS would select some speakers to adress the relevant issues.

      • Danny Thomas

        Michael,
        Taxes aren’t relevant? Or the science part?

      • David Wojick

        Michael, democratic policy making is an advocacy process, where each side makes its strongest case. NAS is not qualified to make this selection, or perhaps you would rather that NAS made the laws? As for two sides, ours is a two party system. Perhaps you have a better way? Just your party?

      • Well, David, I almost wrote ‘was and will be again a two party system’, but I agree ‘is’ is apt. You just can’t tell it by reading the newspapers.
        ==================

      • David,

        that’s a rather anaemic view of democracy.

      • I am sure our trolls were whining about the politically partisan theater of congressional hearings, when the Democrats controlled the agenda. By the way, why didn’t the Democrats do something about CO2 catastrophe, when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?

      • Don Monfort commented

        why didn’t the Democrats do something about CO2 catastrophe, when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?

        They were busy with that sciency MIT guy, what was his name? Oh Gruber, that’s it. They were busy working on our healthcare system.

      • > Perhaps you have a better way?

        Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort
        to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

        http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

        ***

        Seems that David’s still a consultant for the Heartland Institute:

        https://www.heartland.org/david-wojick-ph-d

      • Kim is correct. https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/13/house-hearing-scheduled-on-presidents-u-n-climate-pledge/#comment-693495

        Madison, James. “The Federalist No. 10, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.” The Federalist Papers, November 22, 1787. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.htm

        “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

        “There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”

        “It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire,….”
        “The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. …” “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.”

        “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Pg 133.

        “The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.” Pg 135

      • David Wojick: On the matter of “democracy”: The right to vote is termed “suffrage”. There are conditions: a citizen, age (no two year olds seeking lollipops), not a convicted felon (with limitations).

      • It takes all kinds. Some people have two names and don’t mind it being known that they are consultants to one or more institutes. Some people are anonymous blog characters who in a previous life may have been somebodies, but they are now only visible to the world as navelgazing, nitpicking nonentities.

  48. David Wojick

    Margo Thorning specializes in economic analysis of proposed laws and regulations, from an impacted industry perspective. She has been a leading figure in this domain for several decades. Her take should be interesting (and quantitative).

  49. If emissions are reduced to zero, does the climate stop changing? If not, what will happen, and why? Do the Senators know? If not, why not?

    Good luck!

    • @ Zipper

      “If emissions are reduced to zero, does the climate stop changing? If not, what will happen, and why? Do the Senators know? If not, why not?”

      The question that NONE of the folks who are demanding immediate action to ‘stop climate change’ are willing to answer.

      If we enact EVERY mitigation policy that the climate experts are demanding how will the climate in 10, 25, 50, and 100 years be different from the climate that we would experience over the same time frame if we simply obtain the energy REQUIRED to maintain our civilization from whatever sources are cheapest and/or most convenient?

      In what way is the climate obtained from strict control of ‘greenhouse gasses’ better than the climate obtaining from ignoring greenhouse gasses and is the amount and kind of ‘betterness’ sufficient to justify the societal upheaval that would (will) occur if we sharply curtail our use of fossil fuels?

      The demands for taxing and regulating energy production and consumption are unending; the answers to the obvious questions as to why we should tax and regulate and whether the taxing and regulating will have measurable efficacy in ‘stopping climate change’ are unforthcoming.

      • All CAGWmunists should have to spend a week camping out in a frozen meat locker with no fossil fuel camp stoves or heaters. They can have all the frozen meat they can eat. We’ll discuss climate change and the global warming crisis after they emerge from the ice world simulation. They can do it, even the Neanderthals did it, and they never even studied calculus!

      • Bob Ludwick,

        Once again you nail it. +100

        Does anyone know of a Bob Ludwick of the CAGW persuasion who can compete?

  50. What a cool honor. Were counting in you!

  51. The POTUS has something in common with all other humans: he has no idea of what the climate will be like 1, 10 or 100 years from now, and no means of ascertaining such information. All anyone can do is engineer for the worst while hoping for the best. This may not always be the case, but it has been the case till now. And it is presently the case.

    Why have a hearing when there is nothing to hear?

    • “Why have a hearing when there is nothing to hear?”

      Or when the audience is deaf…

    • patmcguinness

      “Why have a hearing when there is nothing to hear?”

      Why conduct science if the ‘science is settled’?

      I’d be interested in having a ‘hearing’, invite all the ‘experts’ and asking only one question : “Do you have an open mind on the topic and if so what data would cause you to change your views?”

      The answer guides what we fund research-wise.
      If the experts don’t express any interest in new data, good oppty to decide they dont need research funding.

  52. In addition to pointing out all the uncertainties that I would guess you will once again explain, it would also be good to point out that increased levels of Co2 may actually be a good thing given that green things do better while using less water with more Co2. And, that a warming world may actually be a good thing as well.

    Anyway, congratulations. We can only hope that your voice of reason will start to break through the great wall of consensus.

    • Quite. We need to do all we can to prevent catastrophic mitigation.

      • Lost opportunity costs compound. We’ve already harmed following generations.
        ============

      • Damages are ongoing despite complaint. Judge Gaia’s still enrobing herself.
        ============

      • @ KenW

        “Quite. We need to do all we can to prevent catastrophic mitigation.”

        Exactly! Well put.

        I have often said that ACO2 driven CAGW poses an existential threat to civilization.

        Not because of any measurable, detrimental effects of ACO2 on the ‘Temperature of the Earth’, however defined, but because of the political actions that have been and continue to be implemented citing the dire consequences of ACO2 as justification.

  53. Geoff Sherrington

    Telling a good joke can be relaxing for all.
    I was once introduced to a meeting by a pollie who told the audience that ‘ … Sherrington was a mean person, so mean that he would demand a bacterial count on the milk of human kindness…. ‘
    That is not a joke, but you get the drift.

  54. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

    Curry:

    Well I’m obviously not going to give away what I am going to say before the Hearing (somehow this is the custom, I’m not sure why).

    I predict that the committee will learn that Dr Judith Curry believes the following propositions:

    1) climate change is a very ‘wicked’ problem,

    2) climate science is fraught with uncertainties,

    3) notwithstanding propositions 1) and 2), we can all rest assured that no harm will come from atmospheric C02 concentrations not seen for tens of thousands of years, and that are increasing at a rate not seen since the last global extinction event.

    4) Anyone who takes a position of disagreement with 1) 2) and 3) – especially if they reference IPCC reports – is an irresponsible advocate who has been ‘made stupid’ by climate change.

  55. …notwithstanding propositions 1) and 2), we can all rest assured that no harm will come from atmospheric C02 concentrations not seen for tens of thousands of years, and that are increasing at a rate not seen since the last global extinction event.

    Speaking for the trees, if we were planning a mission outside the solar system we’d want lots of CO2 to grow healthy plants for our journey to the stars–e.g., growers keep CO2 levels at 1,000 to 2,000 ppm in Earthly greenhouses, are at about the level you’d find in a lecture hall full of students and pretty much what has been normal over most of Earth’s 550 million year history. Plants begin to die below 150 ppm. The Sahara wasn’t always a desert. Dr. Will Happer testified before the U.S. Senate that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”

    • The sun and the biome conspire to nearly irreversibly sequester carbon. If man did not exist it would be useful to invent him.
      =====================

  56. Judith,
    My experience as a trial lawyer for what is worth. When people are exposed to new ideas, they can only hold two or three ideas in their head. So, I believe making clear your top two or three points is very important.

    In addition to actual trial experience, this was driven home to me in one day during the seminar on a complex subject that was not related to my practice. After about six minutes, I realized I would never understand the subject and had no interest in it, & I simply turned it all off.

    However, I believe your task is more complicated than explaining science to people who do not have a good understanding of it. I think you must also provide explanations that will hold up to very focused examination later on by very knowledgeable people who will examine your testimony very closely over the next few months. Combining the simple with the scientifically accurate explanation is not easy, but it is very useful. I am sure that your testimony will be very helpful. Good luck.

    JD

    • “…focused examination later on by very knowledgeable people who will examine your testimony very closely over the next few months. ”

      Political operatives will deconstruct her testimony and fabricate talking points to undermine it.

    • “When people are exposed to new ideas, they can only hold two or three ideas in their head.”

      They remember beginnings and endings.

      “What was that one in the middle?” – from A Fish Called Wanda

    • thanks JD. i’m probably trying to make too many points, but I think they are simple ones. We’ll see how it is received.

  57. Points that matter:

    Freeman Dyson
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/

    Q: Is humanity’s effect on the climate large or small?
    A: Overall, it appears to be small.

    Q: Big-picture, is it harmful or helpful?
    A: The CO2 we’ve emitted so far has increased food production, augmented our forests, and enhanced biodiversity.

  58. Listen to their questions carefully.
    Keep your answers brief.

    • In a parody of the “Point-Counterpoint” segment of the news program 60 Minutes, Curtin portrayed a controlled liberal viewpoint (à la Shana Alexander) vs. Dan Aykroyd, who (in the manner of James J. Kilpatrick) epitomized the right wing view, albeit with an over-the-top “attack” journalist slant. Curtin presented the liberal “Point” portion first. Then Aykroyd presented the “Counterpoint” portion, sometimes beginning with the statement, “Jane, you ignorant slut,” to which she replied, “Dan, you pompous ass.” The recurring segment has been discussed in an article on “How to Respectfully Disagree” in The Chronicle of Higher Education. ~wiki

  59. Just watched a Natural Resources Defense Council video freebie on the freebie propaganda antennae station. (I am travelling north towards home on my snowbird route an there was little else available at that remote campground). I was absolutely flabbergasted to see the Natural Resources Defense Council claiming that global warming was going to cause asthma. Apparently global warming causes increases in ozone which causes increases in smog, which causes asthma. Being an asthmatic myself I was so stunned to see such a pile of total garbage with no basis in fact whatsoever that I nearly threw my inhaler at the TV. What about cold induced asthma? What about snow mould induced asthma? I suppose now there is no point in doing anymore research on asthma since no matter what we do, global warming must be fixed first. Knock em dead there Judith and maybe someone will actually listen instead of running around screaming about how the sky is falling.

  60. It’s good to know that our Congress will be able to hear a reasonable point of view on AGW. Best o’ luck.

  61. I wish the best of luck for you. I think you will do a great job – you are getting better at this. Keeping it short and highlighting the main points in the beginning sounds good to me.

    Regarding presentations, no listener is ever disappointed when the presentation ends early. :)

  62. Eddie’s been telling you all this.

    Washington should think about this, also:

    The IEA has identified shifting energy consumption in China, the most populous nation with 1.4 billion people, as among the reasons global carbon dioxide emissions was flat last year.

    • Was their urge to reduce coal use from concern more about particulate pollution than from CO2 emission?
      ===================

      • So, China emissions fell for 2014, but you may recall they had the high profile meeting in October of 2014. They didn’t cut CO2 emissions by choice, rather they agreed to cut because they knew emissions were already falling.

        China is exhibiting the same factors which have led to declines in all developed nations.

        Namely:
        1. Economic development which means more efficient use of energy.
        2. Economic development which means education and empowerment for women who choose to have fewer children.
        3. As a result of 2 above, a demographic profile that features aging and declining population.

        These factors are at work world wide.

        The take away from the article is not about China so much as flat emissions.
        Flat emissions mean declining rates of forcing.
        Declining rates of forcing mean declining rates of warming.

        The disaster is over. Go home folks, there’s nothing to see here.

  63. We trust you to be truthful and objective. You have earned the right to speak on my behalf. Lot’s of Texans on the committee, including several of our local Congressmen who are primed to hear your wisdom on this subject.

  64. Good luck Dr Curry.

  65. John Smith (it's my real name)

    words seldom uttered inside the Beltway
    “we don’t know”… thanks to Rumsfeld for clarification
    “legislation won’t help”
    no problem is too ‘wicked’ for the best and the brightest
    we are nails and they are carpenters

  66. The imposter sock puppet has been very active, i think i have deleted all comments. Need to turn registration back on for now

  67. Judith Curry

    I can’t help thinking: what do you need from us?

    Then, I recall you have: The Week In Review whereby you can pick topics on which we can comment, addressing or not, something for you to think about.

    Have a good time. I really mean that.

    • You can’t imagine how much stimulation I get from comments on the blog (well some, maybe 20%). Trust me, I am not doing all this for altruistic reasons and to keep Denizens entertained :)

  68. Slightly OT, but interesting developments re APS statement:

    In the spring of 2014, Koonin’s drafting committee produced a statement that attributed equal weight to human influences and natural variability as a driver of climate change, according to a source who declined to be named.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-battle-over-meaning-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/

    Which is pretty much the argument I made

    • curryja commented

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-battle-over-meaning-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/
      Which is pretty much the argument I made

      This statement

      That would be disputed by many climate scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that it is extremely likely that human activity has been the dominant cause of global warming since the 1950s.

      Is absurd based on surface data, the dominate source of changing surface temps since the 50’s appears to be the Ocean’s “hot” spots, and currents moving around.

      But this gets to my earlier question, what kind of change in average temp are they counting?

    • Thanks Judy
      The update on the Dr Koonin APS statement issue is illuminating. A few critical aspersions in the SciAm article but in general it apprears you and Christy and Linston convinced the objective and skilled observors of your point of view. Too bad they made him resign.
      Scott

    • Lindzen not Linsten

    • David Wojick

      So Koonin was forced out by the “passionate” warmers. Good to know. One wonders if SciAm knows what they are saying?

  69. David Springer

    Bad Andrew | April 14, 2015 at 1:39 pm | Reply
    RTA,

    It’s from ’08. But still… yikes.

    Andrew

    ——————————————————————-

    What were you replying to?

  70. Judith, yes your presentations have gotten better over time. You will do a great job.

  71. The GISS land and ocean temperature anomaly for March 2015 is said to be .84C, which makes the 8-month anomaly ending on March 31, 2015 .75C.

    As.84C indicates, the AMO is going negative. Tell congress all about the AMO and the stadium wave and .75C.

  72. I hope one of the Committee members will ask about the recent NYT article discussing how the California drought is not unprecedented. I was pleasantly surprised they wrote what many have been saying all along. Leave it to this fine rag to eventually get it right.

  73. Well have a good time and at least play tourist. But I am just cant stop seeing the irony of it being TAX day.

  74. Judy: I trust you are asleep by now, but I would also endorse the point raised by Tom @ 11:19 am above about listening to their questions carefully and responding briefly and directly – leave the caveats to the end of your response. Of course, most of their questions will be of the self-serving “aren’t I smart” type, like Ted Koppel’s used to be. If you disagree (or agree) with their statement posed as a question, simply say that and provide the most memorable evidence that supports your position. Crispness will buttress your credibility.

  75. rogerknights

    “The Committee asked for a one page summary of main points, which I haven’t previously been asked to provide. Roger Pielke Jr always puts ‘take home points’ on the first page of his testimony; I’ve liked what he does but never did it myself. It was a very interesting exercise to do this, and not simple.”
    This summary-first organization is what got Hansen the world’s attention in 1988, as opposed to its inattention to his testimony in 1986 & 1987, according to a 15-page PDF titled, “Accommodating Climate Change Science: James Hansen and the Rhetorical/Political Emergence of Global Warming.” It’s at http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=comm_fac&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D1987%2BJames%2BHansen%2B%2528senate%2Bor%2Bcongress%2529%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26oe%3DUTF-8%26oq%3D1987%2BJames%2BHansen%2B%2528senate%2Bor%2Bcongress%2529%26gs_l%3Dheirloom-serp.3…180915.185153.0.186790.2.2.0.0.0.0.134.244.0j2.2.0.msedr…0…1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..2.0.0.r9VXqV6umww#search=%221987%20James%20Hansen%20%28senate%20or%20congress%29%22

  76. St Jude, how she lights up a room!

    Apropos submissions, a call ter action fer those from the
    land down_under. The guvuhmint is callin’ fer submissions
    from Oz cits regardin’ post 2020 emissions reduction
    targets. This serf is scratchin’ out somethin’ regardin’
    fossil fuelled energy efficiency that freed us serfs from
    slavery.

    http://joannenova.com.au/

    • Thanks Beth. i didn’t know about that. It’ll keep me off the streets for the next 9 days.

      Very important this. International help most welcome. See this excellent submission by Irishman Pat Swords on our Senate’s inquiry into wind farms:

      “To: Committee Secretariat
      From: Pat Swords, BE CEng FIChemE CEnv MIEMA,

      I would like to take this opportunity to make a submission to your Australian Senate Committee. I am actually an Irish citizen, while I have worked very extensively Internationally, I have not actually been to Australia. However, I am both a Fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers and a Chartered Environmentalist and extremely familar with the legal, technical, financial and environmental problems associated with wind energy.

      As an attachment to this Submission I would like to include two documents for your consideration. The first is a very recent article in the Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, entitled: ‘In sowing the wind, how Ireland could reap the whirlwind’ – a case against Irish wind development(s). The article is also free for download at the link below:
      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02646811.2015.1008847

      What the article explains in its abstract is:

      On 1 July 2010, Ireland gave an ambitious pledge to convert a significant share of electricity generation from conventional to onshore wind generation. This pledge was designed to support a legal obligation to reach a 16 per cent share in renewable energy consumption by 2020. More recently, buoyed by the apparent success of the initial policy, the Irish Government indicated its intention to explore the potential for a wind generated electricity export market. However, problems are evident that threaten these ambitions as Ireland’s wind policy and most of its commercial wind developments (namely those constructed before 2011) are open to legal challenge for having breached EU law. Although the case law that supports this proposition will be considered solely in relation to the threat it poses to Ireland’s wind policy and developments, the jurisprudence has broad-ranging implications for renewable energy across the EU, and for environmental lawyers and policy-makers in all 28 of the EU’s Member States.

      In other words, as the Article written by some of the foremost legal experts in Ireland concludes, “what is apparent is that a large potential for lawsuits exists”. Indeed, the article references the work completed by myself in bringing a legal case successfully against the EU at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UNECE) legal tribunal in Geneva, which found that the EU had failed in its renewable programme to provide the necessary information to the public and ensure active public participation in decision-making. Which is also a breach of Community law.

      It is increasingly clear that the population of rural Ireland are not going to stand by and have more than three thousand wind turbines and several thousand kilometers of new high voltage lines built around them, for a programme which is completely dysfunctional and unnecessary. As such there are an increasing amount of legal cases now entering the
      Courts, despite the very high financial barriers to access to justice. Indeed, the only reason as to why the EU’s renewable programme has proceeded as far as it has, is that time and time gain the necessary legal procedures related to assessment and democratic accountability were by-passed. Simple populism and slogans triumphed the legally required evaluation and public participation in decision-making.

      Sadly, when one looks at the balance of what has been achieved with the more than €600 billion of capital investment in wind turbines and solar panels to date in the EU Member States, then the answer is essentially squat zero. More information on this can be found at the article below and attached prepared by myself and entitled “Clean energy, what is it and what are we paying for?”
      https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/clean-energy-what-is-it-and-what-are-we-payingfor/

      Regards

      Pat”

      See the two attachments to his submission (Submission No 253 here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions )

    • Beth,

      Here’s my initial thoughts: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/the-simple-trick-to-solve-the-impasse-in-the-climate-debate-have-one-tell-the-australian-govt/#comment-1700376

      The simple trick to solve the impasse in the climate debate — have one (Tell the Australian govt).

      1. Commit to participate in a legally binding and verifiable international agreement that ensures no carbon leakage and that Australia’s industries are not disadvantaged by the agreement.

      2. Countries like USA commit to reducing the cost of technologies essential to reducing global GHG emissions – e.g. small modular nuclear power plants and low-emission transport fuels produduction from seawater and cheap electricity (from nuclear power plants).

      3. Emissions reductions to be economically beneficial, not a net cost. This can be done, but the US and EU are preventing it.

      • Peter,
        A serf will git back ter u.

      • I’ll develop this thought a bit further.

        The US voters elect a president who is pragmatic, knowledgeable and surrounds himself with responsible, rational, business wise, strategic thinkers, as distinct from the sort of people Obama has surrounded himself with: protesters who have spent a lifetime protesting against nuclear power, cheer leading for renewable energy and just about every other economically irrational policy imaginable.

        Then lead the US citizens and the other influential countries in the IAEA to remove the ridiculous impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear electricity.

      • Then lead the US citizens and the other influential countries in the IAEA to remove the ridiculous impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear electricity.

        Now, I do wish we’d do this, and get rid of the Obama crew, but even after his absolutely horrible presidency, I heard one of my sisters still thinks Hillary would be a good President. Now I love my sister, and I use to think she was reasonable smart, but this makes me question that, plus what about all those other idiots!

      • Peter Lang commented

        2. Countries like USA commit to reducing the cost of technologies essential to reducing global GHG emissions – e.g. small modular nuclear power plants and low-emission transport fuels produduction from seawater and cheap electricity (from nuclear power plants).
        3. Emissions reductions to be economically beneficial, not a net cost. This can be done, but the US and EU are preventing it.

        Why would the US do any of this? I’m all for the development of small low cost nuclear power generators, I don’t even mind my taxes to fund research, and I think the US needs to go on a Nuke power building spree, but you can buy our tech at market prices, why would we bear the burdens and then give it away?
        Aus want’s a nuclear industry, have at it, but don’t expect us to do it and then just give it to you.

      • Micro6500

        Why would the US do any of this?

        Because the US President, Obama, want’s the world to cut back on GHG emissions and is doing all he can to force them to damage their economies. If Obama wants this, he should allow it to happen so it doesn’t damage other economies. US would also benefit (from the productivity increases lower cost energy delivers).

        I’m all for the development of small low cost nuclear power generators, I don’t even mind my taxes to fund research, and I think the US needs to go on a Nuke power building spree, but you can buy our tech at market prices, why would we bear the burdens and then give it away?

        The market prices are hugely inflated by 50 years of irrational, unjustified, legislative and regulatory impediments to low cost nuclear power. Professor Bernard Cohen estimated regulatory ratcheting had increased the cost of nuclear power by a factor of four to 1990 http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html . I reckon regulatory ratcheting has increased the cost by at least another factor of two since 1990 – i.e. a total increase of a factor of eight.

        Aus want’s a nuclear industry, have at it, but don’t expect us to do it and then just give it to you.

        I am happy to keep using whatever is the least cost energy. If the US President demands poorer countries and smaller economies reduce their GHG emissions, the USA needs to allow innovation and competition to develop the technologies without being impeded by legislation and regulations that are grossly inflating the cost. The US is the world leader in nuclear power technology, has the greatest ability to unleash massive innovation, has the most influence on the other influential members of IAEA, and is the de facto world regulator or nuclear power designs.

      • Peter Lang commented
        Let me first start that I’m a child of the Jetson’s, The Time Machine and SeaView.

        Because the US President, Obama, want’s the world to cut back on GHG emissions and is doing all he can to force them to damage their economies. If Obama wants this, he should allow it to happen so it doesn’t damage other economies. US would also benefit (from the productivity increases lower cost energy delivers).

        IMO, he should be ignored where legally possible.

        The market prices are hugely inflated by 50 years of irrational, unjustified, legislative and regulatory impediments to low cost nuclear power.

        Agreed, see my opening comment.

        I am happy to keep using whatever is the least cost energy. If the US President demands poorer countries and smaller economies reduce their GHG emissions, the USA needs to allow innovation and competition to develop the technologies without being impeded by legislation and regulations that are grossly inflating the cost. The US is the world leader in nuclear power technology, has the greatest ability to unleash massive innovation, has the most influence on the other influential members of IAEA, and is the de facto world regulator or nuclear power designs.

        I want to go to Home Depot and buy a nuclear battery that will power my house for 10 years for about $1,500, where even $500 of that cost goes to the smart guys who created it, that’s what has made America what it use to be. They can sell all they want anywhere in the world, save the world from the mythical warming crisis.

        But the reality is that will likely never happen, because it will be far too easy to extract the fuel and strap it to a car bomb.

      • micro6500,

        But the reality is that will likely never happen, because it will be far too easy to extract the fuel and strap it to a car bomb.

        That bit is not correct. It’s a furphy.

        The practicality is that there is a UN climate meeting in France in December 2015. Obama and EU are putting pressure on other countries to commit to reductions in their GHG emissions. The US and EU demands would severely damage these countries’ economies and slow global growth. That means keeping people in poverty longer.

        The Australian Government has requested citizens contribute their suggestions on what GHG emissions targets the Australian Government should offer to commit to beyond 2020. It’s pointless making a silly suggestion because it will just be rejected. So, I am trying to make a constructive suggestion.

        The Australian Governments request and two page briefing is here: http://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Issues_Paper_greenhouse_gas_1.pdf

        Submissions close 24 April. Any suggestions?

      • One of my comments is in moderation, so I will try to give you a simple answer.
        1 Go Nuke.
        2 Ignore anything that comes out of our Presidents mouth.

        I truly wish you good luck in crafting something that has meaning, and isn’t thrown out.

        But I don’t expect that once we figure out the impact of Co2 it is going to be a problem. But if we can really go nuclear the non problem still won’t be a problem and we’ll be on our way to being able to power a space faring race, which requires that everyone(well except those who would rather not) on Earth lives in a first world society.

      • Peter Lang | April 15, 2015 at 10:06 am |

        micro6500,

        But the reality is that will likely never happen, because it will be far too easy to extract the fuel and strap it to a car bomb.

        That bit is not correct. It’s a furphy.

        I’m not saying it’s happened, though I do think I remember someone collecting 1,000’s of smoke detectors, but whatever tennis ball sized fuel is use if it isn’t in a building sized block of solid concrete, someone will learn how to remove the fuel, crush it as required and pack it next to a car bomb.
        And ignoring my feelings on this one way or another, I don’t expect any security person in the western world to think that’s a good idea. It’s a shame, bigger sized plants that are secure maybe, though if proliferation gets out of control they’ll already have nuclear materials, maybe it won’t make any difference.

      • micro6500

        It’s a furphy. Weapons grade materials have to be made in dedicated reactors that produce the right ratios of isotopes and and specizalised equipment to separate the materials to make weapons. If it was easy N Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Libya, al jazeera, would have done it long ago. Light Water reactors do not make weapons grade material.

      • Who said anything about weapons grade?
        I didn’t.

      • OK,

        I misread your comments. You said:

        but whatever tennis ball sized fuel is use if it isn’t in a building sized block of solid concrete, someone will learn how to remove the fuel, crush it as required and pack it next to a car bomb.

        That’s not realistic. It would have been done long ago. The facilities needed and the costs would be prohibitive, and the consequences minor. If you think differently then provide authoritative sources to demonstrate it – not just nonsense out of Greenpeace and the like. Let’s not argue about such waht ifs that are continually thrown up by the anti-nukes. It’s such a massive waste of time and plays right into their hands. Instead highlight that nuclear power has demonstrated over the past 60 years it is the safest way to generate electricity of all: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

      • I’m not talking about more big plants, I’m talking about Small power sources that don’t exist. So there is no definitive anything on them, but no one had used a passenger jet as a cruise missile before, but that didn’t stop them from doing it.

  77. Best of luck today! But, I doubt you will need it. From my wife and daughter: “You go girl!”

  78. Pingback: U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Obama’s UN Climate Pledge Today at 10AM Eastern | Watts Up With That?

  79. Pingback: U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Obama’s UN Climate Pledge Today at 10AM Eastern | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  80. Just feel I should point out that a “new tax on Americans” could be “scientifically justified.” The two are not mutually exclusive.

    So, I have to conclude that this hearing is biased heavily from the start, which is to be expected in a Congressional venue. The implications this time are that “new taxes” are somehow scientifically invalid. That accords well with the ideology of the Republican party, but it has nothing to do with science.

    Just sayin…

  81. Just to be really clear – having read some of the political ranting in previous comments – the question posed should be, “…scientifically justified, or not scientifically justified?”

    Whether it would constitute a new tax or not is a separate question irrelevant to the scientific validity of the policy. Unless, as I said before, you take the position that all taxes are scientifically unjustified.

  82. Bravo Dr. Curry!

    Outstanding job once again!

    I must say I was equally impressed with the 2 others who provided fact based testimony. They had their fact based ducks in a row for certain. The other fellow, well,,,, not so much about facts,,,,, just falsified talking points once again.

    I believe we are turning the corner in climate science (probably a “U” turn).

    Mark this day in the calendar as the day “science” prevailed in climate science, finally.

    Regards

    Ed

  83. Brava, Judith. Well done.

  84. Dr. Curry,
    Presentations before Congressional committees always seem to bring out the best in you.
    This was an excellent and powerful presentation that contains a lot of meat. Several readings are required for me to properly digest all of this banquet. I have bookmarked it for future reference. Congratulations!

  85. Another class act, Dr. Curry.

    I contrast your well-tempered use of fact and logical extension of fact with this quote from Thomas Friedman in the NYT just one year ago:

    Let me put this in personal terms. Your son or daughter has a disease. And you go to 100 doctors. 97 out of a hundred say, “This is a cause and this is a cure,” and three percent say, “This is a cause and this is a cure.” It’s like 97% of experts say this. 3% say that. And, conservatives say, “I’m going to go with the 3%.” That’s not conservative. That’s Trotskyite-radical…

    A Pulitzer Prize winning author reduced to political shilling by the use of false data, emotion-tugging (what, no puppies?), logical fallacy and hyperbolic slander in one brief quote. But this is what honest scientists like you are up against today.

    Thank you for braving the storm. I hope that every sincere scientist and engineer will one day gather the intestinal fortitude to step forward and demand that the debate shall occur in the realm of knowledge and reason, not Alinsky’s playing field of ridicule and disinformation.

    • Tom Scott (@sciguy54) commented

      I contrast your well-tempered use of fact and logical extension of fact with this quote from Thomas Friedman in the NYT just one year ago:
      Let me put this in personal terms. Your son or daughter has a disease. And you go to 100 doctors. 97 out of a hundred say, “This is a cause and this is a cure,” and three percent say, “This is a cause and this is a cure.” It’s like 97% of experts say this. 3% say that. And, conservatives say, “I’m going to go with the 3%.” That’s not conservative. That’s Trotskyite-radical…
      A Pulitzer Prize winning author reduced to political shilling by the use of false data, emotion-tugging (what, no puppies?), logical fallacy and hyperbolic slander in one brief quote. But this is what honest scientists like you are up against today.

      And if your son or daughter had been suffering from a bleeding ulcer, the 97% were in fact wrong!

      • patmcguinness

        That 97% fallacy gets a lot of reuse, doesn’t it? I mean, we could make the point (again and again) that science doesn’t work by consensus. Or we could make the point that sometimes a ‘science’ paper is garbage, by pointing how full of garbage the Cook et al 97% paper was.

        Then again this is the New York Times, and ” the use of false data, emotion-tugging (what, no puppies?), logical fallacy and hyperbolic slander in one brief quote” is par for the course there.