Reactions on the Senate hearing

by Judith Curry

I’ve been traveling; first chance I’ve had to collect some reactions to the Senate Hearing.

I was pretty happy with my written testimony when I submitted it; my goal was to provide what I regard as policy relevant evidence/data regarding climate change, to be used as a resource for the Senators.  I also included (as requested) material related the to the ‘dogma’ issue and concerns about the objectivity of federal funding of climate change.

I did not hold out any objective or hope of actually convincing the ‘convinced’ Senators by my arguments, particularly the ones throwing the word ‘denier’ around.

I thought the opening statements by the two Ranking minority members were reasonable, although it seems pretty pointless only to call on the one minority witness.

Udall and particularly Markey were way over the top.  Markey’s statements, and his exchange with me, was a perfect illustration of Dogma versus Data.  Perhaps that was the point of the Hearing, to see how the Democratic dogmatists behaved in the face of actual data.

Senator Cruz seems very much into the Data, and generally knowledgable about the scientific process.  One of his staffers is an avid reader of CE, WUWT and apparently Steve Goddard’s blog.  I was rather surprised that Senator Cruz didn’t moderate closely for time; perhaps he was leaving space for interesting, spontaneous discussion to break out.

It is unfortunate that only one Republican participated (besides Cruz), and that his questions were about energy economics and innovation.  I was totally not prepared for the question on energy innovation, I considered saying that I didn’t have anything to say on that topic, but I actually do have plenty to say.  Unfortunately my thoughts on that topic were not organized, since I haven’t focused on that topic (stay tuned for a future blog post).

Well I hope that Senator Cruz’s staff found my testimony helpful.  In hindsight, I pitched this a little too ‘high’.  And I didn’t really address the main propaganda points from the Democrats:  97% consensus, and warmest year.

My remarks on consensus were more philosophical; perhaps I should have focused on debunking the 97%, and on highlighting the recent collapse of the consensus on dietary fat/cholesterol/heart disease.

Markey’s focus on the ‘warmest year’ highlights the role that warmest year and hiatus has in the politicking and propaganda surrounding climate change.  Warmest year is pretty meaningless in understanding anything, but sure seems convincing to some people (and they don’t seem to understand rate of warming).  This also highlights the power of the hiatus/pause narrative on the other side of the debate, and why Rep. Lamar Smith is investigating the Karl et al. paper.

Actually, in the propaganda wars, Marc Morano’s new movie Climate Hustle does a good job of debunking warmest propaganda (I’ve seen the movie, stay tuned for a blog post on this within the next week).

And finally, Markey referred to the ideology of ‘deniers’.  What ideology could that be?  I don’t think he meant our ideology of data analysis.  Must be something to do with energy.  So an ideology perhaps something like this:  people need electric power and transportation fuel to be happy and safe and to support their economy.  They prefer their power to be secure, plentiful, and economical; all other things being equal, they prefer clean energy to dirty energy. SCARY.

Yesterday, I heard an interview on NPR with Senator Cruz, about climate change [link].

The critical policy relevant issue that emerged from this Hearing is the differences between the global satellite-based record of atmospheric temperatures, versus the  surface temp record.  Stay tuned for a post on this topic also.

Mark Steyn’s article on the Hearing is [here].

p.s.  towards the end of the Hearing, Senator Cruz showed some graphs, I had no idea what they were or where they were from.  Apparently they were from Steve Goddard’s blog.  Any comments I made were regarding general adjustments to the surface temperature record.



396 responses to “Reactions on the Senate hearing

  1. Pingback: Reactions on the Senate hearing | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. the Left is using Climate as a ruse to control MORE ENERGY, MORE resources, more power and more Problems than can possibly be solved manipulating 3% of the Worlds CO2, Earth produces 97%, and the SUN decides Earths Temps, and Solar Activity, not Carbon Based fuels , and lets not forget ALL Humans are 18% Carbon, give or Take, the Result here is to Eliminate 95% of World Population through controls of EVERYTHING, not fixing a Climate that isnt Broken

  3. [The] ever longer lists of people who are beyond the pale – Professor Curry, Professor Christy, Professor Bengtsson, Professor Pielke, Professor Soon, Lord Lawson, the Bishop of Chester, the winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics…


    [Earth’s saviors,] Mann, Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt…

  4. Dr. Curry, you did an excellent job, remaining on topic with facts and avoiding getting entangled in politicking. Kudos.

  5. I think your written testimony is excellent. I’ve been circulating it widely and discussing it. Your influence is growing. What you are doing and achieveing is enormously valuable and important.

    • Seconded.

      • Thirded. Sen. Markey should be ashamed of himself for the way he disrespected you, Dr. Curry. As Steyn wrote, decorum has to be set aside when a US Senator behaves in the fashion he did.

    • “Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.”

      Perfect summary Prof. J

  6. “Senator Cruz seems very much into the Data, and generally knowledgable about the scientific process.”

    I was very impressed by Cruz. I forget the actual point but he added in extra information to correct one witness – or at least ensure it was tied to the evidence. That shows a very strong grasp of the subject.

    Compare him to the bull in a China shop Trump – who might have more popular support at the moment but I’d be scared to have him as a president not knowing what he might say or do on the spur of the moment.

    The best part was this section here:

    I think you did an excellent job explaining the complexity of the temperature measurements and were very balanced in your evidence.

    • “Compare him to the bull in a China shop Trump – who might have more popular support at the moment but I’d be scared to have him as a president not knowing what he might say or do on the spur of the moment.”

      And presumably you are on our side. Our opponents would be even more scared. That is precisely what we need.

      • Our side is not the Republican or Democratic side. It is the Scientific Methods side vs. Ideologue side. It is the attempted equation of skepticism with a particular political belief that is an important source of the tribalism that so thoroughly confounds this issue.

      • Michael Scott – thank you for that.

        If I were an American I would be stuck between wanting Obama care and wanting real science on climate. However, in my judgement if the advice being given to policy makers is corrupt then there isn’t a hope of making good decisions whether Democrat or Republican. That is why there should be utmost impartiality in the advice, something that clearly and unequivocally isn’t happening with the wholesale witch hunt against anyone like Judith Curry who stands up for the real science.

      • Michael Scott | December 11, 2015 at 2:32 am

        Indeed. Skepticism is to climate culture as atheism is to religion. Both only have meaning in opposition to ideology and are not inherently political, despite they may attract political support if the ideologies they oppose ally themselves to political sides. And both have no framework to exist outside of opposition to the respective ideologies.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        andywest2012 | December 11, 2015 at 3:49 am |

        I couldn’t disagree more. Skepticism is the proper frame of mind for any scientist. It has value and meaning in and of itself, and it does not exist in “opposition” to anything except credulity.


      • Willis Eschenbach | December 11, 2015 at 3:55 am

        ‘Skepticism is the proper frame of mind for any scientist.’


        It has value and meaning in and of itself,

        Agreed, as incorporated into the scientific method.

        “and it does not exist in “opposition” to anything except credulity.”

        I should have been clearer. Climate skepticism specifically, has no meaning outside of opposition to climate culture. I.e. it is not a culture or ideology in itself. Likewise religious skepticism specifically, has no meaning outside of opposition to religion. It is not an ideology, it opposes one. Absent religion or climate culture, general skepticism of anything else whereby culture subverts or dominates fact would still exist (or as you note, of anything apparently not credible). Innate skepticism against cultural overdosing, is a healthy defense bequeathed to us by evolution.

      • You guys have a very selective approach to skepticism and a patchy use of it as a tool.

      • Steven Mosher | December 11, 2015 at 5:30 am

        Hi Mosh, I’m not really sure what you mean by ‘patchy’ or how you believe this plus selectiveness applies. However, I have a few minutes while munching my sandwich in lunchtime to say more of what I mean regarding the characteristics of skepticism:

        ‘innate skepticism’ that is an evolved defense against excessive pushing of misinformation, typically in a context of strong culture, is universal. Lewandowsky has a few papers on this, his work before jumping off the deep end into the climate domain and conspiracy ideation is useful stuff (and incidentally fairly mainstream). He calls innate skepticism ‘the key to accuracy’. Interestingly, innate skepticism requires no domain knowledge (e.g. theology or climate science, to use the same 2 examples as above). It is probably triggered by the detectable cultural style of a narrative rather than its content (so a kind of instinctive BS and dogma detector). This is not ‘patchy’ in the sense that it works for everyone and in all domains, but bear in mind that the defense can also be overcome via various means, which creates a topology of the more culturally influenced and less influenced that, rather similar to a map of disease and resistance chasing each other over time and geography, will most certainly look ‘patchy’.

        For folks who acquire knowledge regarding a cultural domain, if they started with somewhat more innate skepticism than cultural bias, they are more likely to be led to informed skepticism. If they started with somewhat more cultural bias than innate skepticism, they are more likely to be led into full orthodoxy. The file linked below shows evidential graphs of this, which effect results in (increasing) polarization of the (increasingly) domain knowledgeable wherever strong culture is in play. The file also runs through a basic 3 step social analysis which shows creationism to be a cultural position, and likewise with *the same* 3 steps, shows the climate consensus to be a cultural position too. This analysis relies upon the very assumption that that social features such as cultural influence and innate skepticism and such, are certainly *not* ‘patchy’ or selective, but universal.

        As Willis notes, skepticism should be an intrinsic part of the weaponry of science, an invaluable aid to finding out how the universe and all within it works. And in many domains (e.g. leading edge physics as represented by the dark matter debate, say), there is not any dominating cultural presence that may systemically suppress or erode skepticism. Or at least I don’t think so, it’s not a domain I visit much. Skepticism here would therefore be mostly of the informed variety, because there is little culture to trigger the innate kind. Hopefully, whatever pros and cons to various positions, these will be argued (mostly) evidentially. Yet unfortunately humans are still very vulnerable to emotive memes and socially enforced consensuses as fostered by cultures (these have been a net evolutionary advantage for most of our history), and hence scientific endeavor can easily be derailed by a strong culture. For instance the powerful mechanism of emotive bias within the climate consensus (the emotion readily self admitted) is rampant:

        None of the above will exclude within climate skepticism: emotive memes, wacky theories and certainly much to be skeptical about, which are all nevertheless not systemically driven by culture and enforced consensus, plus indeed conservative culture trying to leverage climate skepticism for its own purposes in addition to a more noble pursuit of truth. But this is conservative culture, not ‘skeptic culture’, plus is also a leverage that occurs strongly in some countries (e.g. US), but not in others, and as Michael rightly says at the top, attempting to associate climate skepticism with a particular political belief merely amplifies tribalism and polarization.

      • To which I might add that associating the culture of the certainty of climate calamity with a particular political viewpoint, is likewise counter productive. Per Figure 6 in the above linked ‘who is who’ file, there are many democrats who do not believe in this certainty of calamity, and still more who are only in a convenient alliance with climate culture, and show no signs of backing it with any kind of priority relative to other issues. Even within the Democrats, the full adherents of climate culture are in a minority .

      • But you don’t know what I am talking about.

      • I am starting to understand.

        Maybe the best hope we have.

    • “I was very impressed by Cruz. … Compare him to the bull in a China shop Trump ….”

      He’s a Cruz missile!

      • My biggest concern with Cruz – is that he just seems far more clued up than any of the UK politicians. He’d run rings around the UK – which is fine when our national interest coincide – but not so good otherwise.

      • Cruz is more dangerous to the establishment of both parties than Trump. They just aren’t smart enough to realize it.

        Trump is a gadfly who, even if he wins, will lose interest as soon as his run is over. Lord only knows what he really believes in, beside himself.

        Cruz is a true believer, a movement conservative. And if he wins, he will fundamentally change the Republican Party (for the better).

        Trump is by nature a crony capitalist and deal maker. He is exactly like the GOP establishment, so if he wins, they will eventually get what they want from him, at whatever price he demands.

        Cruz they already tried to buy, and failed. He will burn the K Street/Chamber of Commerce crony capitalist house down – given a chance.

        Since their own personal power and careers are all they really care about, Trump is a transitory annoyance, Cruz is an existential threat.

      • “Cruz is more dangerous to the establishment of both parties than Trump. They just aren’t smart enough to realize it.”

        I’ve slowly come to respect Cruz and would if given a chance vote for him. A choice between Trump and Hillary is really no choice at all. Hillary belongs in jail.Trump belongs in Junior High School.

      • GaryM I used to think the same thing about Trump but I have come to believe it’s not correct. For Trump, it’s about winning. He HATES to lose. Look at the fortune he has built. He doesn’t lose often. But in this case it goes deeper. He is genuinely concerned about the country. When his country loses, it is also a loss for him personally. This cuts deep within him. He isn’t going to lose interest, he’s on board to the end. I’m sure he also desires to win the coveted mantle as POTUS. But he isn’t a gadfly. He believes deeply in the productive people of this nation. He thinks the liberal bleeding hearts of this country are destroying it from within. And I agree with him. Why should I be productive at a job when I can have close to same standard of living and far better quality of life by not working at all and letting fed gov support me? Or better yet get a government or academic job where I make a ton of money just throwing conjecture into papers along with the words “climate change impacts”? This has to stop and Trump has the passion to stop it. Cruz would as well I think, but consider, who is the better negotiator? Who will get the best deal for America? Trump by a long shot!

      • You are correct, Tyler. But the “real” conservatives fervently want Cruz. Cruz has a shot. But not much. The “real” conservatives will be disappointed, but will support The Donald against Hillarity. If they don’t, they will be wandering in the wilderness, forever.

      • Can you imagine The Donald holding a hearing , his team doesn’t show up and the room is empty?

    • I’d be scared to have US President who uses faked graphs from disreputable bloggers like “Steve Goddard” and completely ignores all the scientific evidence from reputable science sources. Imagine if he used a lay person blogger’s misinformed uneducated personal opinions when it came to making military decisions?

  7. Dr. Curry – I applaud your courage and appreciate your efforts to bring some level of integrity to the climate “debate”, such as it is. The main issue, however, remains the enormous golf that divides the two sides. There is clearly ideology on both sides, and both sides claim the moral high ground. My one comment after watching the hearing was that nothing was really accomplished. Warmests, such as Markey and Udall are far too invested in CAGW to ever consider any evidence to the contrary, no matter how factual the evidence may be. My impression of your approach to this, and possibly other hearings, is that you have the unrealistic expectation that warmests will actually approach these hearings with, at least the pretension, of an open mind. As this hearing demonstrated, warmists are close minded and will stay married to their dogma. Frankly, I prefer Steyns attack approach to challenge the dogma. And, as you alluded, it wouldhave been useful for more republicans to attend the hearings, particularly Rubio.

  8. Dr Curry,

    I thought your questions in response to Senator Markey were direct, to the point and his lack of answers to you skewered him to the ground where he belongs. For that we all owe you more than many thanks,

    Mark Steyn really put it to the ‘alarmists’ and to Senator Cruz’s credit, it was good he was invited to testify. The parallels between Dr. Michael Mann and Jerry Sandusky were too relevant by far.

    George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

  9. Judith, admit to the senate enquiry that: ”climatic changes” has being constantly used, to con the public about the NON-EXISTENT GLOBAL WARMING! They will find out sooner or later!…CO2 is not a ”global warming gas” global warming doesn’t exist – all the proofs exist!!!

    • Well, that isn’t exactly true.

      However the global warmunists do have some challenges:
      1. Show how 22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 translates into strong warming.
      The best case from a warmunist perspective that can be made is that the ECS is 2°C and a fair estimate is closer to 1°C.

      2. Show a scenario that can reasonably get them over 500 PPM with fossil fuel production peaking around 2040

      3. Demonstrate that the roughly 1/3 of warming (55% increase over real warming) since 2008 for the 1910-2000 period, due to CGAGW or “virtual warming”, has the same effect as “real warming”.

      4. Show that some level of warming, say 2°C or 3°C or 4°C or 5°C or 6°C or 7°C or 8°C or 9°C or 10°C or 11°C will cause harm with “high confidence” that will exceed the CO2/Warming benefits.

      A law requiring “benefit” studies receive dollar for dollar funding with “harm” studies, is needed, since someone is evidently more interested in the harm than in the benefit of warmth and more CO2. When the “benefit” studies have had a few billion thrown at them to match the “harm” funding and we have a dollar value for the global warming benefits, this issue will be ripe for consideration.

      And finally, given the answers to 1,2,3, show that a temperature level with a “high confidence” of net harm is likely.

  10. Judith, you were great. Hindsight is always wiser than foresight. The issues are now more political, less scientific. Per my comments on last two threads here and at WUWT, a convincing debunking soundbite on 97% is essential. It is the rhetorical weapon used to marginalize all skeptics, so needs convincing sound bite countermeasures.
    Second most needed soundbite is surface land sea/ sat temp estimates. Horrible that Titley used Karl, trashed Christy, and no response. I already proposed some possible draft soundbites on the previous thread here. This needs crowd power sourcing. Polishing. Trial runs. No excuses, folks.
    But, am encouraged. The more we engage through you, the more we learn about ‘enemy’ tactics and the more we can prepare for effective counters. Markey calling you a denier, Steyn coming to defense, is a classic example of a strategic enemy line probe. Worked.
    Unfortunately, nothing here was new except our lack of counteroffense preparation. Not the science, the political optics. Markey was rehearsed. Cruz wasn’t. Titley obviously was. Cruz’ witnesses were not. That has to change.

    • Ristvan Absolutely correct. I have taken to inserting the following whenever I see a mention of the 9%
      Where does this oft cited 97% come from. It comes from a paper published by Cook, et. al. You will note that they use the 97% figure as only those who study issues concerning Climate Science, this included psychological and sociological studies, and, who explicitly or implicitly accept the thesis that at least some climate change is caused by human emissions. They looked at 11,944 abstracts from 1991 to 2011. 66.4% of Climate related papers were thrown out because those papers did not think it important enough that they should address even by implication or in passing the human causation of Global Warming. I would suggest that it is not too surprising, that a scientist who thought AGW was important enough to discuss, would believe that it exists.
      Tellingly, those papers which chose to address, if only in passing, the question of Anthropological contribution to Climate Change needed to have passed a rather low bar, namely that humans emissions have caused some small percent of the total warming. The 97% consensus cannot be said to support the idea that human kind is the primary or even significant cause of global warming or that its effects are potentially devastating. While it is true that some in the consensus certainly believe those contentions to be true, they do not make up 97%. They may even be a minority, even a relatively small minority. The authors – who did have that figure – choose not to publish it.

  11. Thanks again Judith. Your ongoing contribution to climate science is of inestimable value. Mark Steyn’s take on the preening and posturing of (some) US senators reminds me painfully of the rubbish that Australian voters currently receive from (many) of our pollies.

  12. Pingback: Mark Steyn and Judith Curry on the Senate hearing | Catallaxy Files

  13. Pingback: The Cruz Climate Hearing | Transterrestrial Musings

  14. Sad that the elected officials don’t apply any diligence to the matter; only postures. The talks in Paris going on now – if the stated objectives (of 6 trillion $ per annum in “reparations”) are actualized – will result in every taxpaying household in the USA being called on to pay $39,000 per year to the cause. And that is simple math – $6 trillion / year – divided by the number of households in the 25 nations with any economic development.

    • The pressures for “reparations” will not let up. The money figures on the table are so big that even in those countries where the rake off is only 10% the current governing elites will become enriched beyond their most glorious fantasies.

      But most of these countries see leakages greater than 15% and some countries, such as Nigeria, see 100% misappropriation for some projects.

      Some years ago I was asked to conduct a post-project evaluation for a USAID project in Armenia that had rehabilitated and constructed washrooms and toilets in schools. I set the condition that I would be allowed to prepare a random sample of sub-projects for onsite visits. I was told that USAID rejected this condition, that the post-project evaluation would be a desk study with no onsite inspections. I withdrew my candidacy when another candidate came forward who was willing to do a desk-only audit.

      So you can see how much due diligence USAID does to protect US taxpayers from getting ripped off.

    • Oh yeah. The shakedown on shaky ground. The UN vision test: how many fingers do you see? (correct ans..= 1)

  15. comments and quotes from the people behind the Curtain

    C3: Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human …‎

  16. Thanks for your testimony!

  17. Judy said, “And finally, Markey referred to the ideology of ‘deniers’. What ideology could that be?”

    He’s absorbed the warmist line that our side is motivated by a free market ideology. “Motivated reasoning,” detected by insightful sociologists, supposedly.

  18. I have to say that Cruz handled himself very well in the NPR interview.

    He’s sharp and he gets it. Too bad he is so widely considered to be a pr–k. Maybe he’ll soften his image as the campaign progresses.

  19. Dr. Curry, you do of course know that you may as well be telling a scientology meeting that their E-meter is faulty. Nevertheless, the information from these events does indeed filter out and eventually hooks into rational people’s brains like photons eventually emerge from the Sun’s photosphere and find a receptive retina. Speaking of which, you were stellar and my profound thanks to you.

  20. Dr Curry

    You’re a tough cookie. A lesser soul would have quivered under the abuse Markey displayed. Markey displays the hallmarks of a bully backed by authority. The well practiced bluster is a product of coached talking points.
    The purpose of the talking points is not to present the truth, but to appeal to emotion and suspend the intellect long enough to distract the listener. It’s a well honed technique typical of rhetoric used to motivate the masses.

    Case in point was Markey’s attempt to twist natural variability as a faith based, God thing at 2:35. He didn’t develop the point and probably remembered it from his coaching. Instead he rushed thru it, no doubt disappointing his handlers.

    The science of natural variability is obviously on your side. Your opponent cannot accept natural variability because it undermines the URGENCY that their initiatives depend on.

    What’s your counter ?

    Every good bully deserves a punch in the nose.
    An effective way to do that is to call out the technique for what it is.

    “Mr. Markey, you are scaring people by incorrectly asserting that the current climate is anything different than man has experienced before”. Is your intent to scare people ?”

    Trap him into admitting that he doesn’t want to scare people, then hammer the theme of natural variability and 3 lines of evidence. Keep it to less than 30 words an explanation, repeat, rinse, repeat.

    Your opponent uses a technique called message mapping as described here

    Like anything in life it can be used for truth or deception.
    I’m sure you’ll use it for good and whooop some ass.

  21. Judith,
    These people like Markey probably did not retain anything 5 minutes after this hearing. I heard double down, triple down, in your face derision. It seems like you assume you have any power in this transaction and it is pretty clear you do not. They have the power, period. Mark did a little better, but someone will need to shout down the Senator and those like him. Markey probably has no clue on the source of the “97 percent” number and frankly doesn’t care, he knows it rings through most of the populace. I would suggest some sort of open letter to Senator Markey clearly describing how laughingly incorrect, or the other side, intentionally corrupt, he is. I don’t think we “deniers” have a chance, we try and be honest, reasonable, armed with data, etc. but when most people regard folks like Markey as beyond reproach, would never lie, is on our side, etc, again , we do not have chance. These people are untouchable, or they would never be THAT arrogant.
    New slogan “you call me a denier, then you are a LIAR”

  22. Dr. Curry — Has any member of Congress ever talked to you about setting up a “Red Team”? (that was discussed in the hearing). Thx.

    • Nope. John Christy has been the main proponent of that.

    • There may not be a red team, but there’s unequivocally a blue team.

      Not only did the left have a political strategy for how to conduct themselves during the hearing, they had a strategy to create headlines before the hearing, and a strategy for after the meeting through dissemination in the media; they probably already had articles written. The science practitioners of integrity proverbially had both their hands tied behind them and voices corraled as a plan before the hearing started. The left has carefully cultivated the 97% meme and they will bludgeon any desenter to within inches of their livelihood and beyond if necessary.

      If Christy has been a proponent of a red team then it’s time to fight fire with fire. The good news is that the U.S. public is mostly already skeptical and therefore starving for leadership on the issue.

      • Uh, that would be “dissenter

      • The incident with the Greenpeace guy going after Dr. Happer seems to have been part of the coordination. RICO anyone?

        Another example of coordination was Senator Nelson contacting Mark Steyn about the “decorum” of the Senate. Steyn’s blog post about his experience on the panel was quite a read about the lack of decorum by many of the senators, in the same way that he eviscerated the judge handling Mann vs Steyn.

      • Yes, erikemagnuson, the Greenpeace incident wasn’t serendipity for the left, it was gratuitous abuse and bullying of Dr. Happer, and an exploitation of the event for headlines. The hearing optics had all the earmarks of running through a tier one PR agency.

        I would really hope a red team could be formed, I completely agree with Rud’s commentary. I would wager Steyn would entertain some involvement as a strategist perhaps and I imagine many more would lend their talents, the team just needs leadership.

        I find it a very serious affair that goes beyond the scope of the climate debate frankly. Don made an interesting sarcastic observation that holds truth when he referred to youth indoctrination to climate in schools as being the “Hansenjugend”; this was how environmentalism started and grew into a religion in Germany at the turn of the 20th century. Steyn made reference to one of the science journals in the hearing that described climate change mitigation as being more important than democracy. That’s startling commentary. Juxtapose this to Eco-radical belief systems, some of whom have involvement in the IPCC.

        Among Eco-radicals, Professor David Shearman comes to mind who was recently discussed here. Professor Shearman is an IPCC assessor who wrote the book ‘The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy‘, from the book; “…we argue that authoritarianism is the natural state of humanity’. They propose the formation of an ‘elite warrior leadership’ to ‘battle for the future of the earth”. He argues that overpopulation and industrialization are causing an ecological disaster and that democracy isn’t up to the challenge, an authoritarian government must be imposed to save us from ourselves.

        When these sorts of sentiments appear in our science journals as commentary, albeit much, much tamer, it makes one wonder just how widespread the perversion is that suggests democracy perhaps should be brushed aside to solve CAGW. We’ve seen this historical path before, it started as a simple movement.

    • There are not enough players for a red team.
      Look. Skeptics can’t even do their own temperature series for the planet.
      That is they had no data vetting by their superior skills to even START the job of explaining natural variation

      • Look, neuro surgeons can’t even do their own phrenological charts.

      • I thought BEST was a skeptic effort?

      • I thought BEST was a skeptic effort?

        Pink team?

      • Steven, a red team doesn’t need volume just quality, possessing the attributes that any worthy scientist must possess; curiosity, rigid methodology, open mind and integrity. That aside, is temperature series a blue versus red issue or blue versus red interpretation? I say the latter, perhaps the red team would say “do better science”.

        Relative to the scale of a red team and the man-hours of delayering the onion of obfuscation; build it and they will come.

      • add …temperature series “data collection” a blue versus red…

      • I thought BEST was a skeptic effort?

        If you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

        Mosher can’t quite conceive many things.

        First, that one shouldn’t decide what to believe by first joining a group.

        Second, that many of us who have made field meteorological measurements, even with advanced digital systems, will never be quite convinced of accuracy because we’ve made and seen errors that affect results, including things as simple as painting a beehive with a different shade of white paint!

        Third, even though there will always be certain amount of uncertainty regarding surface measurements, many understand the general consistency of trends from multiple independent means: various iterations of land based thermometers, various iterations of upper ocean and SSTs, various iterations of balloon based instruments, and various satellite estimates, et. al. There is a warming trend since 1979 in all these independent data.

        Fourth, that scale of change matters. Sure there’s warming. And yes, that’s consistent with models of CO2 forcing. However, the largest backward looking rates of warming are around 1.5K per century. That’s less than Hansen C. That’s less than the AR4 Low End Scenario. That’s comparable to the warming of 1910 through 1945 which was largely ‘natural’.

        Fifth, since rates of forcing have been declining, rates of warming are likely to be declining from these already low rates.

        Sixth, warming at the low end is likely to be a net benefit to humans and other ecosystems.

        Seventh, warming as measured by Global Average Temperature is NOT a term in the equations of motion and may not be a particularly significant term of climate.

        There is more of course, but questions about the dogma of global warming are deep and varied and tend to disprove the excitement many generate regarding the topic. But humans are irrational and we’ll likely continue this charade.

      • Oh God Mosher, you are a cad. The quality of the blue team is so utterly poor that it would take only a few individuals to balance that particular equation.

      • Skeptics can’t even do their own temperature series for the planet.

        You understand why that is a catch-22 strawman you’ve created, right? I’ve seen you mention this same point many times over the past few months and I was hoping you would eventually see its lack of validity.

        It’s a terrible argument. I would advise you not to use it, as it makes you look foolish and biased in a way that I know you are not.

      • Steve is right. In science, data is key. You don’t like all the studies, do your own. See if they look credible against the ones published.

      • Based on the number of adjustments required to support their preordained conclusions, neither can the warmunistas.

      • David Springer

        Mosher means to say skeptics won’t invent a temperature series for the whole planet before 1979. We skeptics, if I may speak for us all, have Roy Spencer of UAH who does a bang-up job of a global temperature series that actually has the precision, accuracy, and spatial coverage to move it out of the giggle space where crap like BEST resides.

      • The trick is SKEPTICS DID THERE OWN SERIES.. years ago..
        two top notch guys… Jeffid and RomanM

        Guess what?

        It was warmer than CRU

        Now of course that effort has been forgotten

        Glad fizzy magic and others fell for it… too funny

        Skeptics red team?

        They cant even find a water boy

      • Steven Mosher: They cant even find a water boy

        I am a water boy for the red team.

      • Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “Look. Skeptics can’t even do their own temperature series for the planet.
        That is they had no data vetting by their superior skills to even START the job of explaining natural variation.”

        You haven’t got the faintest idea what a “temperature series for the planet” means, have you? It sounds sciencey, but, as with most Warmist trumpetings, devoid of any real meaning. I doubt you could express succinctly and clearly the essential differences and relationships between temperature, heat, and energy.

        Playing with your toy models and endlessly reexamining a motley collection of ever changing and inaccurate air and sea temperatures may well be a pleasant hobby. Pointless, but pleasant. Hopefully, it doesn’t cost you as much as some hobbies.

        Here’s a bit of natural variation for you. The difference in temperature between day and night. Or winter and summer. Never identical day to day, or year to year. Antarctica. Ice less to icy, and everything in between. The wind, the temperature, the atmospheric pressure, changing endlessly from second to second.

        Warmists live in denial of fact. They appear ignorant of basic physics, the laws of thermodynamics, the scientific process . . . the list goes on. In many cases, one might conclude that from time to time PhD stands merely for “Piled higher and Deeper”. I presume everybody knows about BS and MS! Before anybody gets too upset, a PhD, (for whom I have the highest regard), passed his opinion to me at one time.

        So, “temperature series”? Both pointless and meaningless, given the largely unstructured, imprecise, and misleading “measurements” on which it is based.


      • Still baffled by the concept of disconfirmation, I see. Keep at it, and who knows, one day you might grasp it and turn into a proper scientist. Until you do, you’ll just have to content yourself with being a “climate scientist”.

      • Silly serfs thought ‘red team’ meant
        Marxist activists on the left
        of politics seeking to get rid of
        evil capitalism for reasons of social
        equity, the Brussels’ opportunists,
        oh you smoothies you, takin’ it on,
        jumpin’ on the political band wagon
        to make a quick buck or two
        (or mebbe more ) from tradin’
        in carbon and dealin’ in power.
        Fergit that silly Schumpeter’s
        take on innovation that trickles
        and spreads to create jobs and
        longer life fer serfs … Silly serf
        ter think such things.

    • Stephen Segrest: Dr. Curry — Has any member of Congress ever talked to you about setting up a “Red Team”? (that was discussed in the hearing). Thx.

      We have several “Red Teams” already: NIPCC, GWPF, the staffs of the House and Senate Republicans (Cruz, Inhofe, Smith, Hunter, etc). A formal government imprimatur for a “Red Team” is not required.

      • Matthew

        Perhaps the word ‘credible’ should have been added to the term ‘Red Teams.’. That is to say ‘credible to both ‘sides.’

        I would personally discount NIPCC outright and consider the GWPF to be largely an advocacy organisation albeit they sometimes come up with good stuff. The Republican team you mention I would not call credible to outsiders, as even I would take their pronouncements with a large pinch of salt.

        By their very nature sceptics are not ‘team’ players. If you gave us 1 million dollars to spend on one peer reviewed project I would hazard a guess we couldn’t even agree the project, let alone the detailed terms of reference.


      • Not sure there are a huge number of scientific questions to resolve.

        What global temperature will be in 2100 is probably not a scientific question because we know that atmospheric motion and consequent temperature is chaotic and unpredictable.

        Psychoanalysis might be helpful for those suffering panic that temperatures have slowly risen and we might ask them to better identify their anxieties so they can dispel them.

        As for political motivations to boss other people around, which seems to be the other process, we can shrug our shoulders and remind them that history is littered with dictatorial governments and that most of the greenhouse gasses are in the developing world which won’t be bossed around by them anyway.

      • climatereason: That is to say ‘credible to both ‘sides.’

        Is that possible? Are Steve McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr, and Judith Curry “credible to both sides”? I don’t think so. If not them, who? Are Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt “credible to both sides”? I don’t think so. If not them, who?

        The closest a team has come to being “credible to both sides” is BEST, but lots of skeptics decided post hoc not to believe them, and find them not “credible”.

        By their very nature sceptics are not ‘team’ players.

        You would exclude from the “team” people who write things like: “That goes beyond anything that can be shown by the data”, and “These 3 studies contradict those 4 studies, but all 7 studies should be summarized in the report, not just the ones you want”.

        I confess I have not read anything by NIPCC in years. Last I read, based on something from them, was a peer-reviewed paper in a major journal. It isn’t the “credibility” of the Red Team that is the main issue, it is the “credibility” of the information that they provide. I have no “credibility” that I know of, but I send short summaries of peer-reviewed papers to my Congressman, rarely, but sometimes. They might regard me as just one more mosquito in the swamp (er, “constituent”), but they are not likely to get this information from the warming zealots, and it may interest them.

        Is even Science Magazine credible to both sides any more? They occasionally publish something contra CAGW, but they are overwhelmingly in favor of disinvesting from fossil fuels. I regularly receive solicitations from AAAS for money to support their efforts against coal and petroleum, solicitations that include the misleading and inaccurate language from AGW alarmists, including the misleading analogies with Tobacco.

      • Matthew

        I wonder if climate science is the only branch of science whereby there would be a discussion as to whether one side finds the other sides scientists credible or even if their would be such clearly defined sides in the first place.

        Are there any scientists that everyone finds credible? Dunno.


      • “We have several “Red Teams” already: NIPCC, GWPF, …”

        I agree, matthewrmarler. Also, data that’s credible to both sides can’t be found relative to ideology, but that shouldn’t be the purpose of the red team IMO.

        To add granularity, although I may be reading somewhat into the interpretation from others, what I think is meant by red team is focused leadership that draws from multidisciplinary talents of skeptics, lukewarmers et al. It would be inclusive of scientists from all disciplines; politicians, commentators, media, intellects, etc., to channel cohesive, crafted, fact based targeted messaging to counter and defeat propaganda, the science isn’t settled messaging. It would not necessarily be used to change minds, but to create synergy, focus and a semblance of a level playing field where science can be evaluated more honestly. I believe the purpose of the red team would be for those that just want good information so they can make up their minds up about policy decisions. Creating policy on fear based propaganda is dangerous, it has to be crushed.

        A team based approach with leadership could leverage fact based communication wherever needed. The left has been using elevated propaganda for years through strategic, multi faceted PR assaults inclusive of Hollywood talent and media of all types; also through education from K-12 to higher education. The skeptics approach has always been ad hoc with generally no overarching focus, it has been pretty much apolitical for years as opposed to the lefts ideological approach, and usually not heard in the din of media. Alternate views and ideas don’t have parity to the lefts media machine or the reach of global politics and those governments financing that’s been driving the memes. Private enterprise dollars and lobbying, as powerful as it is, pales in comparison to the global assault.

      • Several things:
        1. How did conservative get red and the left get blue. I like blue.
        2. Neither the deniers or the warmers are lying exactly but they are working at the upper and lower bounds of what is known. The problem isn’t that they are wrong, the problem is we don’t understand the problem and there is too much uncertainty..
        3.. We don’t need a red team or a blue team. We need purple team. We aren’t interested in fantasy scenarios at the error bounds we are interested in what is likely to happen..
        4. The RCPs need to be rewritten to reflect peak fossil energy in 2040. The people that wrote the 1000+ PPM outyear RCP scenarios need be replaced with people from industry who can provide informed input on future fossil fuel consumption rates. The RCPs need to reflect the declining efficiency of the carbon emissions to atmospheric transfer.

        A better understanding through study of the atmospheric/ocean physics, natural forcings, and the environmental response to more CO2, together with more realistic scenarios will better guide to making future decisions.

        Since the cost of deployment is much higher than the cost of development we would be better served on working on development of new energy technologies and deferring deployment until the “science is really settled” or the systems are justified in their own right..

      • “How did conservative get red and the left get blue. I like blue.”

        1. Ha I know, PA, me too. It’s about as “vast akwards” as it gets from a branding perspective; I suppose it’s an extension of blue state, red state.

        2. “ The problem isn’t that they are wrong, the problem is we don’t understand” I agree here too, but the blue team “thinks” they do understand , “it’s settled”, what have you.

        3. I disagree about a purple team although I like the spirit of the way it sounds. The reason frankly is that I don’t believe some of the debate is about climate to begin with; the science is built over a strata of ambitions, political ideology and religion cloaked under climate science, this is why the debate is so exasperating. The non existent “red team” is talking about science, the blue team sometimes (but not all the time) wants you to think they’re talking about science too, unless the discussion threatens to breach a moat that protects politics; such things as globalist ambition, income redistribution, what have you. If the Democratic Senators were interested in what likely is going to happen they should have probably been more interested in what skeptics had to say that reaffirmation of what they think they already know, a truth seeker doesn’t need a predisposition buttressed. Climate is a “key” to the global “lock” of governance. The blue team isn’t about to share that key, which is essentially power.

        4. “Since the cost of deployment is much higher than the cost of development we would be better served on working on development of new energy technologies and deferring deployment until the “science is really settled” or the systems are justified in their own right.”

        I agree, my broken record example is comparing the 100 year span from when the Wright brothers first flew to today; yet climate soothsayer and prognosticator arguments (warmist scientists) ignore rapid human technological advancement and instead extrapolate into the future as if all things being equal to today, it just isn’t as scary otherwise and who needs cheaper when your trying to redistribute the wealth anyway.

  23. Willis Eschenbach

    Very well done, Dr. J, clear, dispassionate and convincing.

    Keep up the good work,


  24. “Senator Cruz seems very much into the Data, and generally knowledgable about the scientific process. One of his staffers is an avid reader of CE, WUWT and apparently Steve Goddard’s blog.”

    Not the best company, I think.

    It would have been refreshing to see a j’accuse moment against propaganda & dogma from all sides, not just something which gets merged into another dogmatic, propagandistic context.

  25. At approximately [Scottish Sceptic’s post] 1:37:48 I notice a female audibly whisphering, “What!?”. I assume that it is Judith’s reaction. Markey is a piece of work…but they all are. We gets what we elects, sigh.

  26. “My remarks on consensus were more philosophical; perhaps I should have focused on debunking the 97%, and on highlighting the recent collapse of the consensus on dietary fat/cholesterol/heart disease.”

    Hey Dr. C.

    You’re exactly right. That 97 percent number has to be exposed for what it is… fraudulent. It’s the alarmist politicians most damaging talking point. Were I an undecided, new to the debate type, I’d be just about convinced by the 97 percent number. Sure, sure, Galileo was right and everyone else wrong, but it’s a weak response which implicitly affirms there’s a huge, monolithic alarmist consensus.

    Also agree on going after the warmest year lie. It’s another stupid talking point, but very effective…but again, easily debunked.

    I think you did a great job overall, Judith. Many sincere thanks for your courageous work..

  27. “Udall and particularly Markey were way over the top. Markey’s statements, and his exchange with me, was a perfect illustration of Dogma versus Data. Perhaps that was the point of the Hearing, to see how the Democratic dogmatists behaved in the face of actual data.”

    I wondered this. It’s pretty hard for anyone watching the video to come to any conclusion but that Markey was simply reciting dogma.

    “And finally, Markey referred to the ideology of ‘deniers’. What ideology could that be?”

    Formally speaking there is not an ideology of skeptics (‘deniers’), because there has to be a socially enforced consensus for an ideology to manifest in some significant group. There isn’t such for skeptics. That’s not to say that climate skepticism isn’t useful to Republicans in the US, but any ideology introduced via this route is simply standard ‘conservative’, so not ‘skeptic’ and not directly related to climate issues.

    Whereas climate culture with an ideology woven around the certainty of calamity, has both a socially enforced consensus and an existence independent of left-wing culture, albeit in the US climate culture and left wing culture have a strong alliance.

    • The sad part is that neither side is putting the science and the scientific facts before all else. Truth has become a ping pong ball within the bigger political game. Markey can make use of the hottest year claims as proof of AGW since he knows most of the public can’t get beyond the inductive reasoning thought process. A record? Oh, obviously man made. A chart with overall correlation to CO2? Oh, obviously man made. This fallacious logic does not afflict only the general public, there are many of our buddies in here who can’t see the weakness in that thought process. Just more proof in the failure of our educational system. Critical thinking the obvious casualty.

      Wouldn’t it be nice if all 535 members really wanted to understand the full depth and breadth of the science.

  28. If, like Markey, you think the climate is new, then you are yourself new, or you are unable to gather the simplest facts about past events, or you are unwilling to gather the simplest facts about past events.

    Of the three possibilities, none is good. Which is why we really should just obliterate that climatariat. Am I asking so much? It would be cheaper than toppling Middle Eastern governments on behalf of the MB (or whichever Sunni is looking a bit sunny today). That regime “toppling” thing they do is almost as peculiar as the climate “tackling” thing. It’s like we’re living in a bad superhero comic.

    • Are you advocating the beh–ding of Markey General Moso?

      • Colonel Mark, all I’m wanting is the weeding out of all warmies and climate botherers from positions of authority and decision. They can still find work writing for HuffPo, boring students to death, or driving Prius Uber cars. Or something.

        That’s my only demand. Well, I wouldn’t mind a Polish Corridor. And maybe the Sudetenland. But after that…I’m good!

      • OK Generalissimo, I get it. No beh–dings, but neutering is ok.

  29. Hopefully we will have a few more sessions yet in the Senate over the next year. Swings do go one way and then back. So far no sigh of going back but this is a little impedance to the swing.
    Of course nature could do its bit to help by giving us a full blown La Nina at the next talks in 5 years.
    Thank you for your efforts. If you did not nail some points you did very well in presenting the case for more study.
    It is a bit hard to compete with Galileo as well……

  30. Big thanks to Judith conveyed with great respect. Sorry you were it treated as well as you deserved.

    The most surreal moment to me was when Markey accused Judith of believing in magic for doubting whether or not warming was man made. This crazy dichotomy mirrors the right-wrong/black-white/good-bad thinking that dominates so much of the debate. Playing into that can be counterproductive.

    Titely got the benefit of being allowed to carefully explain non controversial science and because of the strong adverserial flavor I’m sure it looked to many observes like those explanations were rebuttals and rebukes to the other panelists.

    Strategies to counter misrepresentations from extreme alarmists should highlight and show agreement wherever possible with the prevailing paradigm. Ie. Emphasize that where the 97% pronouncement is correct that skeptics and many who are labeled as “deniers” actually are part of the 97% agreeing that climate is warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that all else equal more CO2 mans more warming…. From there it is more powerful to point out that it is not correct to say that there is a 97% consensus on things like observed increased extreme events, a greater than 50% contribution from man, energy policy, model projections, …

    The issue of whether or not we are seeing record temperatures may have worked better with some upfront agreement as well. Ie. Start off recognizing that just given natural variation and the warming trend since the last ice age there is a good probability we would see record high temperatures. That leaves one in a better position to stress the very small record if any considering measurement errors and data sets and/or point out the descepancy in model projections as well as uncertainties between natural and man made causes.

    • Quickest way to deal with the hottest temps and natural variability is to take people back to 1940 and how worrying those record temps must have been then.

  31. Trial lawyers with experience know that you have to be strongly focused on your 2 or 3 best ideas to be persuasive (that is pretty much all that human minds not well-versed in a subject can really hold.) In the case of a Congressional hearing, I believe that also holds true.

    However, in addition to focusing on the top 2 or 3 ideas, I believe you also have to be very well versed in the arcane details, which you were. (in order to answer any difficult questions you might receive.)

    One suggestion “stolen” from a comment by Adrian Ocneanu (of Penn State) made at Dotearth one time is that when someone brings up the issue of this or that recent year being the warmest ever, one should state that the earth has been warming for a long time following the end of the most recent ice age. (In terms of what occurred at the hearing, it might be best to focus on last 10 years in the context of maybe 200 years of general warming) In any event this type of Markey statement is very similar to stating that a 25-year-old has reached his tallest height and then stating that the same person at 26 is at the tallest he has ever been as though the 26-year-old had experienced something significant in his 26th year as compared to the previous year or the previous 3 years for instance.

    Because there has been a general mild upward trend in warming for 200 years, for instance, it is no big deal that say the year 2015, was in the context of long-term trends, possibly slightly warmer than 2014 or 2012 or whatever. The temperature trends are more related to the height of an adult human being than for instance, the Dow jumping from 20,000 to 30,000 in one year. However, Markey is deceptively trying to make the “stock market” argument as opposed to the much more accurate human height argument. I would also argue that if there had been no significant human CO2 contributions that it isn’t the least bit unlikely (in light of natural trends) that the year 2015 would be the hottest year or close to the hottest year in the last 200 years. (although in the instance of this hypothetical, the hottest year would be a little cooler than the actual claimed hottest year as discussed by Markey.)

    Whether something is the hottest year or not doesn’t matter nearly as much as whether the climate we currently have is consistent with human prosperity or whether there has been a threatening large jump in a short period of time.

    • I fear that in this game explaining is losing. As I noted above the simple sound bite is “Getting the hottest temps on record is nothing new, it happened before we had CO2, and now its happening with it.”

      • HAS — I think it helps a lot to explain that the highest temperature in 2015, if that is the case, is not anything extraordinary or anything to worry about. You have no choice but to respond to it because the argument is going to be made over and over again.


      • The message that is being given by the “2015 highest temps on record” meme is that it has to be CO2. This is a slogan designed to capture hearts and minds, but has nothing to do with a scientific discussion of climate sensitivity.

        One way to respond to another brand’s advertising is to say “Excuse me sir I think you are simplifying this, it’s much more complex … ” etc.

        But that doesn’t happen in advertising because it doesn’t work.

        Instead one needs to respond by undercutting the sophistry with a simple one liner of your own that brings the fallacy into focus. Simply respond by reframing the argument into 1940s speak giving an example where the claimed simplistic relationship breaks down.

        Force them to explain why that’s wrong.

      • Your on the right path but the one liner is used to seize the high ground that they abuse. See my comment above or somewhere in this thread. By YOU seizing the ground they abuse, it allows YOU to pummel them with evidence of why people are being made to fear what they shouldn’t.

        Doing that to an abuser galvanizes the support of the masses.
        People hate being taken advantage of.
        Feeling like a fool feels like being naked in from of a crowd.
        Very frightening to most.

      • “Instead one needs to respond by undercutting the sophistry with a simple one liner ….”

        How about, “It’s not the warmest in the satellite record.”

      • Geoff Sherrington

        On full frontal before an audience.
        Is it hard?

      • Geoff

        I’ve followed your posts.

        I read and enjoy them. Excellent advice btw to Dr Curry concerning self analysis. Spot on.

        I also think you were spot on concerning lost souls gone astray into groups that destroy things vs build something.

        I’ll stop short on my full unbridled form of humor concerning frontal but suffice it to say I laughed.

        Look forward to your posts.

    • The Roman and Medieval Warm periods were as warm or warmer than now. The Roman and Medieval Warm periods had several hundred warm years when records were set. We don’t have thermometer records so they don’t come into the discussion of recorded history, meaning only this most recent warming phase of a natural cycle that does alternate between warm and cool.

      About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was called the Little Ice Age. It is warm now because it is supposed to be warm now. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it.

      When the oceans are warm and wet, it snows more and that bounds the upper limits of temperature and sea level. When the oceans are cold and frozen, it snows less and that bounds the lower limits of temperature and sea level.

      CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.

  32. JC did a great job, about 2 hours in, in trying to separate out prior to 1950 and post 1950.

    A interesting talking point comes to mind – on several occasions – as I listen to the back and forth with Dr. Titley.

    First – early on, he brings up the infamous red and blue graph of GW w/ CO2 plotted, while blasting the satellite chart of the pause; noting that Christy and team have had to adjust the data set 4 times now — seemingly proof that it’s fallible. Of course the rebuttal, not mentioned in the moment, is that it’s the data in his chart which factually has been adjusted – and very recently (Karl). This is discussed again via Sen Peters at about the 2:50 mark. Sen Cruz should have stated, “we might all note that the graphic being presented is indeed an example of man-made global warming. NASA created most all of it.”

    Secondly – in that same exchange between Peters and Titley, Titley presents how complicated / difficult it is for satellites to create a picture of the temperature (w/o thermometers).

    Degrading orbits of satellites was one of his examples of the complication.

    But – satellites are better for measuring sea level rise? Tides, gravity variations, storms . . . not difficult / complicated?

    • Cruz should have stated, “we might all note that the graphic being presented is indeed an example of man-made global warming. NASA created most all of it.”


    • Yes, and Roy’s latest adjustment to the Satellite record warmed the past and cooled the present.

      Do any of you know that?

      His algorithms and data methods are freely available on the web, right?

  33. Great job, Judith!

    “My remarks on consensus were more philosophical; perhaps I should have focused on debunking the 97%, and on highlighting the recent collapse of the consensus on dietary fat/cholesterol/heart disease.”

    Don’t second guess yourself. You can’t cover everything in one session. That said, the 97% lie is an easy target – it was not a study that used a valid methodology.

  34. Maybe something to keep in mind, in regard to “warmest year EVAH!”

    According to that doyen of hottest years EVAH!, Gavin Schmidt (mathematician, juggler and Saviour of the World), 2014 was about twice as likely NOT to be the “warmest year EVAH!”, rather than the other way round.

    Politicians, psychologists, and plonkers of various types, live in denial of fact, obviously.

    Nobody can measure the Earth’s surface with any precision. Around 70% is covered by sea, the most of the other 30% is covered by a variety of materials ranging from grass, soil, and ice, to cow pats.

    But hey, who cares about measuring the actual surface. An inconvenient inconvenience. It doesn’t matter if we haven’t got actual surface temperatures, we’ll just make some up – no one will know the difference!


  35. Newsflash. The LAT’s finally got it right. A couple days back in an odd piece about financing climate change (I think they mean fighting anthropogenic climate change . . unless they want to fund more climate change?), a paragraph began with:

    “As the Earth warms up because of climate change. .”

    There ya go; it’s climate change which is causing the Earth to warm up – not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

  36. Was it just me, or did Senator Markey seemed to think that the consensus was Galileo?
    Wasn’t the consensus prosecuting Galileo as a denier?

    • I think he was talking about modern consensus about Galileo, not consensus in Galileo’s time. I may read or listen to that again. Consensus, in Galileo’s time, was dictated by the church, not voted on, just like the modern Climate Consensus is dictated by the IPCC and our Rico Democrats and our President and the new Pope in Rome, not voted on by anyone outside the Climate Alarmist Clique.

      • The more I see the Markey piece, the more I see he was caught off guard. He was uttering underdeveloped and disjointed talking points. He’ll go back and practice with his handlers.

        They will continue to pound the fearful drum by twisting risk comms and presenting him as the protector of the helpless.

        It’s testament to the propaganda that they have been able to convince people that things are really bad when they have nothing. Impressive.

  37. Both sides in the Senate Hearing on AGW – Data or Dogma ignored this empirical fact: The Sun is the Creator & Sustainer of every atom, life and planet in the solar system !

    • After watching the entire debate, I am convinced the AGW debate cannot be resolved if AGW doubters accept the same FALSE premise as AGW believers: The Sun is a steady heat source (H-fusion reactor) rather than the pulsating remains of a supernova that birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Ga) ago !

      See: “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002).

      • The pulsar-centered Sun is known to undergo many cyclic changes that influence Earth’s climate, besides the familiar cycles (11 year):

        1. The Hale – Nicholson (22 yrs)
        2. The Gleissberg (87 years)
        3. The De Vries (210 years)

        These well-known causes of climate changes were not mentioned in the Senate Hearing:

  38. I would not want my observation here to be misconstrued, so let me begin by congratulating you on a beautiful performance. If I’d been a ring-side ref during you tiff w/ Sen Markey, I wouldn’t have given you a technical KO, but I certainly would have given you the round.
    The criticism I have may come across as trite, but it’s not. Solid data and clarity are the only two things that can resolve any scientific debate, even if both of these are anathema to political debates. With respect to clarity, more than once when expressing the idea that the earth may be warming but that it’s not all anthropogenic, you referred to the alternative as “natural variation.” I don’t think that’s what you mean.
    Whilst natural variation must surely be taken into account in trying to figure out what’s going on, natural variation is not a cause of anything except long standard of error bars. If the earth is warming today and cooling tomorrow (variation), that must be factored into understanding climate trends and developing rational policy, but it’s not the cause of climate change, and it’s not a synonym for climate change. Perhaps “natural causes” or “natural causation” or (every layperson’s favorite) “Nature” would be a better way to express whatever is the opposite of anthropogenic.
    The other point I would offer is that Mr. Steny, whoever he is, was the only person in the room who saw — or at least spoke to — the real problem: exponential human population growth. Sometimes, as a biologist, I wish everybody would STFU about climate and start doing something about population growth with its attendant unchecked consumption, resource depletion, and waste production, If those issues aren’t addressed and resolved, the species will crash regardless of what the temperature is, what the sea levels are, or how high Al Gore’s cherry-picker reaches.

    • Denis, ” Sometimes, as a biologist, I wish everybody would STFU about climate and start doing something about population growth with its attendant unchecked consumption, resource depletion, and waste production, .”

      With expensive energy and expensive food, the end of times fans will nip that in the bud.


      The above link is a one stop shop for some of the more aggressive NGOs that support smaller pops, lower consumption and resource preservation.

      They have such marvelous articles such as …

    • Both the Principal Godfathers of the CAGW scam, Maurice Strong and Crispin Tickell are of the neo-Malthusian population obsessed clique:

      Mr. Strong is now 80 years old and thus out of the running for the title of CEO of “Earth Inc.,” but it is his environmental nightmares and dreams of global governance that will dominate Copenhagen. This is a man, we might remember, who welcomes the collapse of industrial civilization, and has described the prospect of billions of environmental deaths as a “glimmer of hope.”

      The man who ‘invented’ Global Warming

      So is AGW the most serious threat facing the world today, so far as Tickell is concerned? Well, almost. There is one other threat that he sees as even more urgent than AGW – the human race itself. Specifically, those feckless, irresponsible classes and nations that continue to breed at more than the replacement level of 2.1 children (Tickell, it should be noted, has three children. Considerations of overpopulation do not apply to his class, of course (1)). For him, overpopulation is the driving force behind AGW: we are a cancer on the planet. In language which we would normally expect to come from extremists, Tickell lays out his vision of the rest of the world.
      We are, he believes, “a malignant maladaption in the corpus of living organisms, and behave and reproduce like a virus out of control” (2). We are “infected tissue in the organism of life” (3). “More than ever,” he writes, “humans can be regarded like certain species of ant” (5).The only relief from this that Tickell sees on the horizon is that “it is hard to believe that there will be anything like current or future human numbers in their present urban concentrations or elsewhere. Whether weeded out by warfare, disease, deteriorating conditions of life, or other disasters, numbers are likely to fall drastically. We must, I believe, expect some breakdowns in human society before the end of this century with unforeseeable outcomes” (4). That’ll teach us to pollute his nice clean world!
      Tickell, unsurprisingly, puts it differently. Overbreeding by poorer nations is he claims “the biggest single environmental issue” and was ignored at Rio, thanks to a “tacit conspiracy”, though he forebears to mention any names behind this ‘conspiracy’ (13).

  39. Judith: This hearing was a farce from the very beginning. You knew that, but you participated in it anyway.

    • David A,

      Nice case of the cast iron kettle calling the porcelain tea pot black.

      There is a farce alright. And the farce is with you. Go yo a place far, far away and see if you can find someone willing to pay attention to your yappings.

  40. I’m happy Dr. Curry’s testimony here and before has been captured in the Congressional record and on video. I think she will go down in history as a reasoned voice in a time when Unicorns were imagined to exist everywhere. Mass insanity with no ergot.

  41. Prof Curry, I was impressed by your demeanor and steadfastness. I don’t think much can be expected from a single session, especially not much change in expressed opinion or political stance, but I imagine that you strengthened the resolve of Senators who so far have resisted getting on the anti-CO2 bandwagon. If anyone encounters Sen Markey in the hallway, he or she now knows that he can’t answer any questions beyond superficial factoids.

    • I liked the look and tone of JC’s “Have you read my written testimony, senator?” My thought was, That’s JUDGE JUDY lowering the boom!

  42. Here’s the counterpoint that should be made re the 97% argument. Actually, you should suggest to Cruz (or some other senator) that he submit a bill requesting this (an impartial survey):

    “Those surveys (Doran, Anderegg, Powell, and Cook) have all been conducted by warmists. They have numerous technical flaws. How about this committee asking the NSF to fund an impartial survey? It shouldn’t cost more than $1 million–i.e., peanuts, federally speaking.

    “This survey should not be restricted only to persons who are active in the field. They may be active because CO2-driven warmism is their pet theory, or they have a green bias. It should survey a second group, scientists specializing in neighboring disciplines, who are expert enough to see at least any obvious flaws in the logic or statistics of the consensus position.

    “Only scientists specializing in ‘attribution’ should be surveyed, not those concerned with ‘impacts’ or remedies.”
    A demand for an impartial, government-funded survey should be a major contrarian talking point, whenever the 97% claim is made. The other side cannot credibly object to it. (And it would give the other side a graceful way to back down, if the percentage of those “alarmed” by AGW came back at significantly lower than 97%–more like 67%, or 45%, say.) All the GOP candidates should get on board with this demand.

    This George Mason Univ. poll [run for them by the Harris polling organization in 2007] surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions [than the Doran and Anderegg surveys], below:

    Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:

    “Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
    “Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
    “Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
    “A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

    “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”

    IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after seven more flat years.

    • PS: Another counterpoint to the “97% of scientists believe” claim is to point out that those scientists were not just sitting there being sciency when the AGW hypothesis floated into their ken. Rather, the AGW hypothesis is what attracted them to the field. It fits with the widespread ecological mindset that humanity messes things up when it impacts nature, Second, it appeals to sufferers from the messianic delusion (would-be world-savers, IOW). Third, it appeals to careerists who wanted to get in on a growing field with lots of opportunity to get hired and feted (unlike most other scientific fields).

      They were mostly partisans or poltroons from the get-go, IOW. Naturally, if the warming-threat level is low, their crusade becomes quixotic and their field will shrivel–factors which surely tilt them away from taking a skeptical view of AGW–or even from giving a thought to skeptical objections.

      • Oops–I looked up the definition of “poltroon” and found it was much harsher than what I thought it meant, so I take it back. (I was tempted by its alliteration.) In a pinch, I substitute “pole-climbers.”

      • Here’s the shortest counterpoint to “97% of climate scientists believe …”:

        “AND THEY’VE BEEN 97% WRONG!!”

    • These surveys are flawed because “based on current trends” is the wrong point of departure because “current trends” is the spurious RCP8.5 “business as usual” projection.

      I’m going to keep hammering at this point until you wake up and realize the debate uses false asumptions about the REAL emissions potential.

  43. So, Ted Cruz has a staffer who gets his information at Climate Etc, WUWT and Seven Goddard’s blog. Cruz argued forcefully, with the flimsiest of evidence (consisting mainly of unattributed Goddard charts), for the thesis that surface temperature data sets are fraudulently fudged in order to support the global warming dogma. Judith concludes that Cruz is “very much into the Data, and generally knowledgable about the scientific process.”

  44. I saw the instant replay on Steyn’s site. Judith kicked Malarkey’s arse.

  45. Well, I did watch the full video, yesterday. And I have read both Judith’s and Mark Steyn’s well worth reading written submissions. Needless to say, I admire and commend them both (as well as John Christie, and Dr. Happer too; although I confess that I have not yet read their submissions)

    Apart from being utterly appalled by Markey’s mealy-mouthed monologues and meanderings (as well as the contemptible pre-hearing Greenpeace ambush attempt on Happer) , and having watched and/or read more than a few such proceedings in the last six years, I always find myself leaning towards the “if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear, does it make a sound” conundrum.

    By extension, I suspect that if it weren’t for the various and sundry “media” mavens and modalities in our modern midst, no one would even have a clue that a tree had actually fallen! Well, at least not until future historians (who one fervently hopes will be better and more ethically schooled than the likes of e.g. Oreskes) decide to delve into the records. But that aside …

    View from here is that – regardless of the topic at hand – the actual audience at such hearings is always somewhat sparse. And, to the best of my knowledge, one has no way of knowing what their respective roles might be, nor the extent to which they might – or might not – have absorbed and/or circulated the important messages being conveyed.

    So, the BIG question on my mind, at this point, deriving in large part from my observations above, would be: Is there any modern research (untainted by affiliation and/or climate/global warming/sustainable development belief system) which might shed a reasonably reliable pre-post-modernist light on the actual impact of such hearings?!

    Or is it simply the case that after 40 years of political correctness and Maurice Strong directed and infected (primarily via his baby, the UNEP and/or its many arms, elbows, hands fingers etc) dogmatism and mindless indoctrination – and rapidly declining educational standards – that it may well take another 40 years in this Strong-generated wilderness before the democracies of this world and their establishment institutions advance and/or return to a more sound (as opposed to sound-bite driven) and rational state?!

    P.S. Happy Chanukah to those who celebrate this time-honoured Festival of Light … and an early Merry Christmas to those whose equally time-honoured traditions may well differ:-)

  46. I saw the hearing pieces on YouTube. The presentations were good to excellent, but the Senators seemed disconnected from the material. I’m not partisan, and lately I’ve felt a democratic president was better, because this divides government and keeps it from causing as much damage.

    With that caveat, I think the democrats in that committee are delusional, and need to go to a few Miss Manners sessions. Senator Cruz should be briefed on the ocean energy content data we have available, as well as the differences between the surface & the troposphere. This will allow him to do nuances with regards to global warming.

  47. Congratulations on a terrific performance Dr Curry. I thought this was your best public performance to date. I have some thoughts:

    – I don’t agree with earlier comments that you should “attack” misconceptions Mark Steyn style. I much prefer dispassionate characterisation of the evidence without trying to use it to draw conclusions. To me, that has gravitas and is indicative of objectivity. In general that’s what you do, and did.

    – While senator Cruz certainly seems to be better educated than most politicians on this issues of climate science, I get the impression it is more as a tool with which to beat his political opponents. I really don’t think you should be sucked in to playing that game.

    – For example, the matter of national security and conflating climate with ISIS or religious fanaticism, from the point of view of the science it is utterly irrelevant and I find arguments tying them together from which ever side to be distasteful.

    – Titleys graph could have been countered very easily – “Dr Titley, which part of your graph does the IPCC deem to have been as a result of human activities?”. Since the slope (which is of course the narrative) is so smoothed and almost unchanged from earlier periods of non-Anthro warming argues that whatever caused the earlier warming is also causing the recent warming.

    – I was dissappointed not to hear more from Dr Christy. I think he is an extremely interesting, rational, and objective scientist, and while Mark Steyn was entertaining, he dominated proceedings a bit too much.

    – Mark Steyn is indeed formidable. His support for you during your exchange with Markay was excellent.

  48. Curry;

    “The critical policy relevant issue that emerged from this Hearing is the differences between the global satellite-based record of atmospheric temperatures, versus the surface temp record. Stay tuned for a post on this topic also.”

    Perhaps Curry also can focus on the differences between different MSU/AMSU records. And of course the differences between MSU/AMSU and other satellite-based records. And the match between those satellite-based records and the in situ based surface temperature indices.

    My guess: Curry will ignore that.

    • ehak,

      Perhaps you could inform everybody what the “surface temperature record” actually refers to, in the Warmist lexicon.

      It certain has nothing at all to do with the temperature of the surface of the Earth, but it must relate to something. If not, climatologists would have to fabricate records.

      For all I know, you live in a state of denial. Let me know what you actually mean, if you would be so kind.


    • ehak

      The Senate did not enhance their reputation with this shamelessly partisan matinee performance. I am reminded of the 1988 Congressional hearing that started off this belief that climate change was a state unique to the modern era, when James Hansen -apparently with the help of a hot day and no a/c-started the first chapter of a saga more extended than ‘War and Peace’.

      Was his testimony received in a spirit of genuine scientific enquiry or was it merely part of a stage managed political process?

      Those of us who study these things often wonder why Dr Hansen commenced GISS from 1880, which omitted the warming hump clearly visible in previous ‘global’ temperature reconstructions (the first was made some 200 years earlier) in this case, those created by Mitchell. He writes in 1961;

      ‘The Pentads centred on 1882 was recognised as the first pentad for which all the latitude bands (except the polar extremes) were represented by some data. Consequently temperature changes are shown as departures from the temperature levels of the 1882 pentad’.’

      Not ‘extensive’ data, merely ‘some’ data. Not ‘all’ latitude bans, but omitting those that, because of amplification, are the most important-those at the poles.

      So a start in 1880 involves a lot of guesswork based on very incomplete data and those reconstructions that had almost as much data dating to the 1850’s show that Dr Hansen inadvertently commenced his readings from a distinct dip in temperatures, rather than the hump that preceded it.

      The result; a long upwards trend, instead of one more fairly representing the ups and downs we can observe over a thousand years, with the current warming trend starting around 1700, making Giss a staging post of increasing warmth and not the starting post.

      Do these current Senate hearings have any effect on what appears to have become a political process rather than a scientific one? I doubt it. Both political sides appear to be doing a good impersonation of ignoring each other in a passable imitation of the three monkeys,


    • David Springer

      What you mean to say is the difference between the modern, made-for-purpose global atmospheric satellite temperature records and the doctored, spatially and instrumentally inadequate surface records.

    • David Springer

      ehak… you’re Kyle Hilburn formerly of RSS, correct?

  49. Pingback: Le meilleur résumé de la situation climatique actuelle – MR's Blog

  50. “And finally, Markey referred to the ideology of ‘deniers’. What ideology could that be? I don’t think he meant our ideology of data analysis.”

    I’ve attendend french Speaking Climate-Realist meeting (where is the oil money, it was really cheap conference ;-> )

    one interesting presentation was about the origin of IPCC and the way this academic meme spread over the planet.

    The ideology of climate-alarmism is very clear. it is rooted into deep-ecology, malthusianism, post-modernist catholic guiltiness.
    A good example is the Canadian oil billionaire who lobbied and succeeded in creating IPCC (later he was caught for tax evasion in US it seems?).

    Today there is a generation of radicalized students who are deeply convinced of humanity guiltiness. It spread into the population and propaganda is implemented from kindergarten (my daughter of 6 is already brainwashed at school).

    What is missing is the “Start Trek” spirit, the 19th century spirit of Jules Verne, mixing technology, scientific progress, pacifism.

    in fact the skeptic don’t have a coherent unique ideology countrary to the believers.
    We don’t have a coherent science .
    The conclusion of the conference is that climate is very complicated, and clearly current official science is bad science, bad models, bad practices, bad review, bad numeric, bad morality, bad epistemology, bad logic, … It is just horrific, a pile of 20th century worst practice of science.

    The fiasco of the century.

    (And I know what is a fiasco, I am LENR tech watcher)

  51. Alain, I recently heard Franck Ferrand and guests on Europe 1 speaking about how France inevitably ends up in terrible messes but can reverse things in a very short time. It’s a bit like the good old days of Rugby when les bleus would counter-attack from their own line – and make it work!

    I’m a redneck who is nonetheless a Francophile, and my hope is that France, against all appearances, will be first to rebel against all this slavish self-loathing dressed up as science.

    • France and USA have deep problems, and each of our people can bounce like few can imagine once freed from our outdated elite.

      We both are antifragile population, temporarily stuck in groupthink, but in a different way. Only who should worry of current situation are our elite, because head will fall. question is when. The Berlin Wall was looking eternal one day before it fall.

  52. The “deniers” have several ideologies, often stated here, such as
    1. any attempt to move away from fossil fuels will collapse the global economy or at least the poor will suffer
    2. scientists are only in it for the funding, groupthink, pressure, etc., not on the merits of the evidence itself
    3. leftists just want a world government and use this as a way to gain power for the UN
    They may not recognize that pro-fossil, anti-academic and anti-UN rhetoric is ideological, but it is.

    • David Springer

      It’s not ideological if it’s a not a political, cultural, or religious belief. What you state above in 1-3 are economic beliefs. The relabeling in the final sentence to ideological rhetoric is non sequitur. Try again.

    • Jim D., my state wants to adopt a $2 per gallon gas tax to reduce CO2. My state produces 0.68% of the national output of CO2. I think a lot more than the poor will suffer….so just whose ideology are we goring here, mine or yours (that CO2 legislation will not affect the economy, it would/could actually affect global temp or CO2 in any way, and that the folks in the UN are not lining up for climate reparations??) Please man.

      • Which state is that? Who specifically in your state wants that level of tax, and how much chance is there of that happening, or are you just throwing out someone’s vague idea as a done state-level policy? It doesn’t seem that such an idea is at all rational, unless they want to use this as part of a zero-net-revenue scheme which does aim to help the poor.

      • Jim D, here in the UK we’ve been paying far more than $2 per gallon tax for more than two decades now. And then VAT on top of that.

      • Jim D, here in the UK we’ve been paying far more than $2 per gallon tax for more than two decades now. And then VAT on top of that.


        … I’m guessing that hasn’t led to a breakthrough CO2 free technology for autos in Britain that we just haven’t heard about yet, correct?

      • And that is nothing to do with climate change, nor did it collapse the economy.

      • Jim D, it certainly did the economy no favours whatsoever – and at least exacerbated the recession we’ve just been through – which has left me near retirement age with few assets and little pension to look forward to.
        And it’s done precious little to cut down of CO2 emissions, other than to poison our lungs with diesel fumes.

      • In the interest of saying something nice Jim D, your tap dancing skills are not bad. You neatly danced away from the point with non-topical questions such as
        “Which state?” and ” Who specifically in the state … ” etc. None of which is important. The point is that in at least one state someone is proposing a $2 increase in the gas tax. At today’s price that is almost a doubling of price to the consumer. Will that collapse the economy of that state? Of course not. Will it have any impact on CO2 emissions, let alone climate change or temperature? Again, of course not. All it will do is double the cost of getting somewhere. For me that means anywhere from an additional $30 – $50 dollars a week. Won’t drive me into poverty, but it’s $2500 less a year I have to spend on something else, with nothing in return for that loss.

    • My ideology is different.
      I love nuclear energy because it is cleaner if well made. I would support it if there was not better nuclear alternative than fission.
      I love reuse and recycling, but I criticize “cargo cult” recycling that waste energy. I love energy saving and efficiency increase, but I dislike costly saving that save nothing real but just green wash.
      I love biking in city but have bike route because I know it is more dangerous as it is done…

      I dislike when false things are asserted as true, even if it is fine or useful, not by morality (my morality is efficiency, symmetry and risk management) but because it always finish as a tragedy (if it was not risky I would accept lies). Nassim Taleb is a reference, even if I sometime disagree.

      I dislike centralised or directed economy and government as I know any system can screwup, and if there is only one system and it is screwed up, we are in trouble. I believe in free market, freedom of speech, human goodwill and selfishness, in groupthink and it’s consequence, in greed and ambition, in desire to sacrifice and how horrific it can be, and in the efficiency of the unpredictable to solve the unavoidable. I value maverick and dissenters as required member in a system, whether they are libertarian, republican, communist, green, conservator, democrats, dreamers and fundamentalist provided none take over the power.
      My reference is Hernando De Soto, and Michael Spence.

      finally my ideology is I love people, respect material things (animals, rocks, planets, cars, dikes), and value curiosity.
      Let’s say I’m liberal (French meaning) humanist utilitarian, cornucopean “engineer” trend.
      I want a star trek world, just less military-like, with many captain kirk making trade to prevent wars, because you don’t vaporize a client or a provider.

      Climate memeplex is just an horrific malthusianist meme, desiring to take control on people despite their will, supported by cargo cult science and greenwashing, which is killing freedom and economy.
      Since COP21 here I’m afraid of 1984 George Orwell world.

      My worst fear is that if I bring a solution to CO2, those fascist will refuse it because they are deep-ecologist, and they just want me to suffer, not the problem to be solved.

      I imagine there are many different “ethic” here.

      • I am not saying that everyone has all these ideologies, but the question was asked by JC, so I listed some of the most prevalent ones that I see here.

    • Jim,

      1. there’s no real attempt, just bureaucratic talk and huge waste of money, recources and time. Nobody is moving from fossil fuels.
      2. warmists yes, real scientists not (and many are mislead)
      3. NO. It’s just rich getting richer and poor poorer.

    • Curious George

      Jim D, a nice summary of your impressions. My impressions are slightly different:
      1. “any attempt to move away from fossil fuels will collapse the global economy or at least the poor will suffer.” True, until we get a viable alternative. The only viable alternative right now is nuclear. And I don’t want to drive a nuclear-powered car.
      2. “scientists are only in it for the funding, groupthink, pressure, etc., not on the merits of the evidence itself.” There is a grain of truth in it; scientists need to eat, and that makes them vulnerable to pressure. Why did the Hockey Team redefine a peer review?
      3. “leftists just want a world government and use this as a way to gain power for the UN.” Why are then opponents silenced? What is happening now resembles Germany 1932 – 1939.
      4. “They may not recognize that pro-fossil, anti-academic and anti-UN rhetoric is ideological, but it is.” I doubt it, but UN is certainly ideological; remember when they put Ghaddafi of Libyan fame on the human rights commission? Do you recognize that the “renewable energy’ movement is ideological, not technological? Remember a solar-powered plane currently stranded in Hawaii, maybe completing a voyage around the world in a year or more? What could be more anti-academic than declaring your “science” settled and refusing to debate?

      • 1. Alternatives are being developed, but I see resistance from these people rather than encouragement for those areas of technology.
        2. Scientists know that the truth is what gives them their legacy, and the vast majority are apolitical when they evaluate the evidence before them.
        3. See what I mean. You are in that groupthink that thinks the UN is out to get you. This is an ideology and not based on rational thought.
        4. You added another ideology about renewable energy being somehow in a conspiracy with scientists at universities and governments and the UN to promote all their various industries.

      • Curious George

        Your thoughts are so beautifully general and devoid of any particulars.

    • You can’t have ‘several’ ideologies about something. That makes no sense.

      • Basically ever since the Kantian and Hegelian rationalization of Christianity we have seen a move to displace the will of the individual and install the will of the ‘society’.
        Environmentalism is an attempt to use a common resource (the environment) to lever in on an argument to debunk classic liberalism (which states that the individual goes along with society because it benefits him) and install a force cooperation with ‘society’. The collectivist argument is that the individual is at odds with ‘society’ and must be forced to buckle under.
        Therefore climate non-sensery is simply an extension of the old school messianic Christian/Judaic millennialism and a push towards a collectivist political configuration.
        Which has already been tried and failed miserably.

        THAT is an example of a denialist ideology.

    • I’m not gonna defend what others may think, but your list was interesting enough to warrant some consideration.

      1. any attempt to move away from fossil fuels will collapse the global economy or at least the poor will suffer
      There probably is exaggeration everywhere with this issue.
      However, we do have a pretty good idea that it will cost – or nations would have already done it. And the cost is probably substantial because a carbon free nation could brow beat those of you who believe that it matters.

      2. scientists are only in it for the funding, groupthink, pressure, etc., not on the merits of the evidence itself That Mann guy and the climate gate emails kinda prove it. And yes, of course there’s group think. Now, radiative forcing from CO2 predates all the political stuff raised by the political IPCC people trying to use the issue. But when I read the interview with Manabe that Judith posted a while back, it appears that the movement was in his thoughts. It’s human.

      3. leftists just want a world government and use this as a way to gain power for the UN
      Well, a self proclaimed socialist did setup the UNEP and its child the IPCC – there’s no getting away from that – it’s true. If an institution is political will it ever become un-political?

      The thing is, if ‘global warming’ was an actual problem, shouldn’t it be evident?
      Shouldn’t parents keep there children inside – “Johnny, don’t go out there, there’s global warming – i’ll kill you!”

      It really seems a form of mass hysteria.

      • Re point 3, have you read agenda 21?

      • TE, you are just doubling down on all the ideologies rather than disagreeing. These all represent the divide, and the debate needs to be on the science and the findings, but we get this generalized anti-science and anti-academic stuff instead. You don’t like Mann’s HS, just move on. Try Marcott, Ocean2k, and countless others already seen in AR5. The “skeptics” are being swamped by all these confirming studies, but now just want to blame the scientists instead of the data, while not even trying to do their own studies on this. Use the paleo data if you want to deny what the papers say. It doesn’t carry any weight unless you do. It is just talk.

      • TE, you are just doubling down on all the ideologies rather than disagreeing
        Perhaps they’re not ideologies but facts you’re citing.

        the debate needs to be on the science and the findings
        Great ( I was just responding to the other stuff you raised ).

        What scientific basis do you have for your anxiety?

        Global average temperature is rising, but rising at a rate less than the low end projections ( science ).

        The rate of radiative forcing increase, according to theory, is the cause of warming, so the decline in the rate of radiative forcing since its peak in 1989 should mean a decline from the already less than low end projections going forward ( science, or at least scientific theory ).

        Temperatures may be high but they were higher still in the Holocene Climatic Optimum ( according to proxies ) but humans and ecosystems appear to have thrived through this period. Temperatures were even higher during the Eemian – and humans and ecosystems persisted. Humans evolutionary roots are from Africa, after all.

        Humans do seem to die more during the cold season and die less during the warm season ( science ).

        Increased CO2 does enhance plant growth, enhance crop yield, and reduce water use. ( science )

        Increased CO2 does appear to increase growth of phytoplankton in the oceans, plankton being the base of the oceanic food chain. ( science )

        Global temperature is calculable, but it’s not a term in any of the equations of motion and so far as I know, not a term in any atmospheric calculation ( science ).

        NOAA believes that warming will be most where it’s cold and least where it’s warm meaning less intense climate ( science ).

        There’s basis for that since global warming is supposed to increase absolute levels of water vapor. That process means reduced sensible heat transfer is necessary to reverse imbalances ( science ).

        So, what again were you so worried about?

    • Jim D: 1. any attempt to move away from fossil fuels will collapse the global economy or at least the poor will suffer
      2. scientists are only in it for the funding, groupthink, pressure, etc., not on the merits of the evidence itself
      3. leftists just want a world government and use this as a way to gain power for the UN

      Again no specific quotes from any specific people.

      But what is “ideological” about the claim (1) that electrification will be slower for the poorer people if coal and gas fired power plants are prohibited? Or the claim that replacing nuclear power plants with solar and wind will produce higher electricity prices (slowing other development)? Those are empirical questions about which much data are available for public discussion.

      • MM, I don’t have to quote JC and her Denizens. You read them too, or maybe you ignore them to only read my stuff, which I would admit is a better use of your time.

      • MM, Steyn has talked about collapsing the global economy, among many others on this blog, and the supposed fuel price increases that are not just due to oil fluctuations. Judith has mentioned groupthink, funding, pressure as her very own ideological memes to explain the consensus to herself, and several here plus Monckton, Tim Ball, and right-wing talk shows are very worried about a UN takeover, Agenda 21 and all that. Which of those am I making up?

      • MM, Steyn has talked about collapsing the global economy, among many others on this blog,

        Yes, that’s exaggeration, just like the ideas you have about global warming.

        It’s silly because natural gas is plentiful, the cheapest source of fuel, and the cleanest.

        Simply using the cheapest fuel is best and likely a model for the rest of the world.

      • If the world cut fossil fuel use to prevent any growth of CO2, then I think the global economy WOULD collapse. You have to define the scenario and of course almost no one does that.

        An overnight cut of fossil fuel use by 30% probably would be enough to do the trick.

      • The UN proposals are gradual reductions that take 50+ years to replace fossil fuels, but we still see an opposition to it on economic alarmist grounds, so it isn’t to do with the speed by the look of it, or perhaps those people are just uninformed or misinformed about the time scales being proposed.

      • JimD – this is a toothless provision. In 50 years petroleum will be so expensive, it will phase itself out. That’s why we need to start building nuclear plants to beat the band now. Not later.

      • The global realization that coal needs to be phased out sooner rather than later is also going to help.

      • Jim D: MM, Steyn has talked about collapsing the global economy,

        You exaggerate. You need to quote Steyn exactly. A perfectly reasonable and testable hypothesis is that a rapid redirection of $3 trillion into solar and wind instead of coal and natural gas powered electricity production will reduce global GDP growth by at least 3%. Things like that have been written here. Steyn said in his Senate testimony that it is absurd [this is a paraphrase] for a government that owes $22 trillion to seriously consider giving away $700 billion for for solar and wind in other countries; perhaps that was an “ideological” comment, given that some ideologies think that the bigger govt debt is the better [consider Keynes and his idea of digging holes and filling them up; or Krugman and his idea of declaring war on space invaders–Krugman also wrote that the $800 billion “stimulus” was not enough borrowing]. Even if that is ideological, a perfectly straightforward and testable proposition is that the govt of China can finance its entire military on the interest it receives from owning US bonds–or perhaps the amount is only enough to fund its naval expansion and combat aircraft development.

        Whatever, your inaccurate paraphrases of what people “seem” to you to be writing are worthless. For informative discussion, you need exact quotes or very accurate paraphrases.

        But you are correct on this: you do not “have to” quote JC and the Denizens. You can make up anything you want.

      • Mr. Market is already phasing out coal. It is being displaced by natural gas. None of the quasi-world government “action” is a waste of resources.

      • Oops! That should have been “ALL of the quasi-world government “action” is a waste of resources.”

      • Quote from Steyn circa 2009 “I don’t think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over”, and he quotes himself on this regularly.

      • Jim D: The UN proposals are gradual reductions that take 50+ years to replace fossil fuels, but we still see an opposition to it on economic alarmist grounds, so it isn’t to do with the speed by the look of it, or perhaps those people are just uninformed or misinformed about the time scales being proposed.

        Lots of people say lots of stuff on lots of different occasions. This is from Bloomberg on the Paris deal: Architects of the Paris deal hope that its goals “ratchet up” over time. The ambitions are currently framed in national commitments on emissions by 2030, or in some cases 2025.

        Is that what you meant by gradual reductions that take 50+ years? Is Bloomberg uninformed or misinformed about the time scales being proposed? If yes on the first, you are wrong. And on the second, Bloomberg is not uninformed or misinformed.

        But back to ideology: If 50+ years is the appropriate time frame, is increased government intervention in the energy market required? Here you might have a point: If 50+ years is the appropriate time frame, then the pro-market ideologues would most likely claim that little or no government intervention is required. I, at least, have written that. Over periods of 50+ years, governments and the private sector created the interstate highway system with all the autos on it and the motels and gas station networks; in 50+ years government and the private sector carried us, so to speak, from the DC-3 to the Boeing 787. There are a lot of examples of great achievements by markets in 50+ year time spans.

        Could you quote an authoritative international organization, IPCC perhaps, or the World Bank, proposing a 50+ year transition away from fossil fuels? How about a locally authoritative organization, like say the California State Government proposing a 50+ year transition? The California legislature is requiring a much faster transition.

      • MM, have you not seen any of the proposals for 80% by 2050? (Google 80% by 2050). These are a step beyond the UN agreements, but they have been stated by several major emitters. At that rate full reductions would take 50 years and that would be an ambitious estimate, if anything.

    • Jim D: I don’t have to quote JC and her Denizens.

      You make up stuff as you go along. Not a denizen has written what you attributed to The “deniers”.

  53. So, a hearing on how climate science is dogma rather than data driven used Steve Goddard charts and testimony from a polemicist expert on musical theatre to make the point.   Irony overload anyone?

    Plus it’s hilarious to read a thread with so many nakedly ideological comments complaining about other people’s dogma.  One world guvmint! Warmunistas!

    Judith does seem absolutely determined to exclude herself from all rational debate. 


    • David Springer

      “Judith does seem absolutely determined to exclude herself from all rational debate.”

      The problem with that is it implies there’s a rational debate going on somewhere in the halls of climate science when there clearly isn’t. It’s a political football. Science left the building when Hansen turned off the air conditioning in 1988.

    • So, a hearing on how climate science is dogma rather than data driven used Steve Goddard charts and testimony from a polemicist expert on musical theatre to make the point. Irony overload anyone?

      This is a comment and has some merit.

      Plus it’s hilarious to read a thread with so many nakedly ideological comments complaining about other people’s dogma.

      Given the source this is a self-reflective statement and I see the irony in it.

      Judith does seem absolutely determined to exclude herself from all rational debate.

      No, that is not my read. If anything I suspect or chose to perceive it is an inclusive perspective at work. Again I see a touch irony in the statement.

      In summary

      Irony overload anyone?


      • MWG – Even though Goddards’ chart was a simple average of only stations with no statistical treatment to allow for sparse measurement, I notice the short term variations seem to match the chart with adjustments. If a simple average isn’t valid, shouldn’t we see different “wiggles?”

        How would one remove the trends from both charts in order to do a valid comparison of the wiggles? If the wiggles match, so also shouldn’t the trend?

    • verytallguy,

      You could debate gravity rationally or otherwise. It still exists.
      You could debate CO2 induced warming likewise. It still doesn’t exist.

      Debate, consensus, seductive theory – all are worthless in the face of the smallest, most insignificant fact.

      Wouldn’t you agree?


  54. Psssst, Dr. Curry…careful, Ted Cruz is the only genuine, across the board conservative in the race for president. He is also far and away the most conservative member in both houses of congress. Not to mention, he is extremely articulate.

    (He was elected in part based on an endorsement by Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh is a big fan, coming just short of endorsing him, to give you a clue how conservative he is.)

    You have to be careful actually listening to genuine, articulate conservatives. They tend to undermine the false stereotypes about them that are as pervasive as the “97% consensus” canard. It’s like being a true believing member of the consensus, then actually listening to Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts.

    You never know where that might lead.

    • Gary, As a lapsed Dem in a world of incompetent and corrupt politicians on both sides, I find myself not caring so much about ideology anymore. I’m looking for competence, integrity, and leadership. There was a time in this country…or at least it seems so….when somehow we’d find just the right guy to save our asses. We need another Lincoln, or an FDR, though I’m sure you have plenty of contempt for the latter. Say what you will about the man’s policies, he saw us through the Great Depression and the Second World War by inspiring faith in both our country and his own leadership.

      How far we’ve fallen with Barak Obama and now possibly, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump…

      (aka pokerguy)

      • I’m a pretty conservative person but over the years I have become a bigger and bigger fan of FDR. He was the right man for the right time. He always seemed to be the grownup in
        the room.

        There certainly is something missing in the choices, even though I agree on policy with most of those on the right. The problem is I can’t quite figure out what it is. Maybe it is too much to ask for another Ike or FDR.

      • While FDR was indeed a powerful leader, he was also a socialist. Many of the problems this country currently faces had their genises with FDR promoted policy or executive orders. Thankfully, we did have a congress that was able to keep him from enacting all the things he wanted to do, but he was still able to inflict a lot of lasting damage that too many fail to realize. http://Www.independent/newsroom/article.asp?id=176

      • pokerguy

        As if the current inactive President isn’t bad enough, the candidates from both sides for the forthcoming vacancy look pretty poor from this side of the Atlantic. How Clinton and Trump have got this far is astonishing.


      • tonyb

        IMO the quality of the candidates speaks volumes about the self-indulgent electorate.

      • There is method to The Donald’s madness. Watch and learn.

      • mw grant

        Having travelled to a substantial number of developing countries I do recognise how much they value education as they see it as a way out of poverty that is still present in their society.

        Perhaps in the west, education is not as valued as it could be by the mainstream population and similarly, I suspect that democracy is also taken for granted hence the self indulgence you note.

        Come on America you are (were?) the leader of the Free world. Is this the best you can offer? Are there some exciting sleepers in the pack I need to be made aware of?


      • mw
        You might be on to something. I have been thinking about an indictment of our culture. But which comes first, a public not wanting to face realities or politicians who gain from hiding it from them.

      • Are there some exciting sleepers in the pack I need to be made aware of?

        I don’t think so.

        There is method to The Donald’s madness. Watch and learn.

        Method? For sure.
        Madness? No.
        Watch and learn? ‘What?’ is the rub.

      • cerescokid,

        The leaders and the culture certainly are now intertwined, but that circle has to be cut. It is significant that the perception lingers that ultimately there is government by the people. It may well lead to move action the streets where the probability of a ‘better’ outcome is not so good.

      • ‘to the streets’ oops

      • The point, mw, is that The Donald is being portrayed as a madman. The Democrat lap dog media leads the way and some Republican Lilliputian also-rans jump on the bandwagon. If Trump should falter, they will make Cruz the main madman. Any Republican candidate will be too extreme to be POTUS; war on women, racist, 1%, anti-immigrant…yadda yadda yadda.

        Trump didn’t build a $10 billion dollar empire by making crazy decisions and letting people run over him. He doesn’t allow invaders to come into his buildings and golf-courses and set up housekeeping. The folks are looking for strength and competence, this time. The meek and politically correct need not apply.

      • Tony, I am guessing that your views of what goes in the U.S are mostly influenced by the Democrat lapdog mainstream media. The other side:

        National Review
        Weekly Standard
        Daily Caller

      • Don

        My view of Trump comes years of observing him; from his visit to the UK a couple of years ago when he managed to roundly insult your best ally, From his support of the murderous IRA leader Gerry Adams in the 1970’s who murdered 3000 of my fellow citizens and the way he steamrollered through a fancy new golf resort for millionaires on a previously pristine part of our coast.

        I fully accept he can not be an idiot and that part of his appeal is because he speaks the truth as he sees it and we can certainly do with more people like that in this pc world where people appear afraid to say anything remotely controversial . But that doesn’t mean to say I have to like the guy.

        However, who is the alternative in what appears to be a poor bunch of presidential candidates on both sides?


      • Don,

        The point, mw, is that The Donald is being portrayed as a madman.

        Yes. He is sharp and he has tapped into some legitimate feelings effectively. Perhaps the only response to that from career politicians and their adherents is the ‘madness’ wash. My concern is what else is he bringing to the table? Could he back his bluster if in office? There are many more un-controllables at that level compared to the stage he has played on.

      • Well, I don’t think anybody can make a convincing argument that it is likely that the next POTUS will be someone other than Hillarity, Trump, Cruz, Rubio. Unless Hillarity goes to jail, then you get Biden. Thems yer choices. I think the people will go for the big guy who already has his own jets and helicopters.

      • I wouldn’t argue against that, Don. He is the only one who seems to have tapped something other than ideology.

      • MW

        The Magic of the Man

        Trump’s magic is that he captures your attention. He does this by daring to say the things that your quiet mind thinks. By saying the unsaid, he creates a commonality among the mob members. A bond of quiet thoughts now heard. He simultaneously elevates his credibility (machismo) by saying the unsaid.

        Notice I’ve said nothing about his ability to govern or make money as the title of my post is about his magic.

      • M-dub –

        This was meant for you, but I mis-nested it.

      • knutesea…

        Well stated. Curiously that is the reality of Trump which all of the braying and ideology can not effectively counter.

        Guess he is the best ‘populist’ in the field and yes, the only one with cojones. Also for better or worse there is a perception of only one Trump whereas all of the other wear different masks for different audiences.

        Not saying he should govern…. :O)

        Have we helped from here, tonyb?

      • MW

        Thanks for reading MW.
        Bingo, he is the best “populist” in the field.
        Essentially, he is conducting a crash course in how to attract attention.
        After awhile, people will become desensitized to the attention grabbing antics. His challenge will be to use that attention to introduce an easy to understand and achievable course of action.

      • BTW –

        The whining about how he’s been mistreated by the press is hilarious. He’s deliberately being provocative, saying things specifically to get attention (e.g., traffic at white supremacist sites has spiked), and they report on it. He’s getting exactly the treatment from the press that he’s seeking: publicity.

        What will be interesting to see is what happens when the field narrows and the coverage evens out. Trump seems to have a definite ceiling to his support.

      • M-dub –

        Also for better or worse there is a perception of only one Trump whereas all of the other wear different masks for different audiences.

        His message is crafted to appeal to a particular constituency, but his views have changed between before/after starting to run for office – prolly just a coincidence; :-)

        There is an advantage and a disadvantage to his strategy. The advantage is that it engenders strong loyalty among a particular segment of voters. The disadvantage is that it engenders strong loyalty among a particular segment of voters.

      • Don and tony both make good points. The msm in the US no longer even attempts to be objective. As Rush says, they are little more than clapping seals for any democrat vs any republican. Hillary has been exposed as a pathological liar and a criminal, yet the msm will circle the wagons in her defense while demonizing any republican opposition. As for education, there are many issues. One is that our schools have become little more than leftist indoctrination centers. Standards have been lowered in favor of social promotion – just pass students who should be failed just to keep them moving through the system. All one needs to do is listen to or watch the different man on the street interviews, like Waters World on O’Reilly to realize the level of ignorance of a far too large a portion of the electorate.

      • DM,
        Believe me you can count out Trump already. Team Clinton is after Cruz. They know he’s the nominee:

      • OK, I will start counting. Team Clinton knows all. Like they did the last time.

      • FDR was a disaster.
        If one thinks spending there way out of a depression is smart, try it at home. Same result:bankruptcy.

        “Yet after all this, the grand promise of an end to the suffering was never fulfilled. As the state sector drained the private sector, controlling it in alarming detail, the economy continued to wallow in depression. The combined impact of Herbert Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s interventions meant that the market was never allowed to correct itself. Far from having gotten us out of the Depression, FDR prolonged and deepened it, and brought unnecessary suffering to millions.”

      • J-Person

        One of my replies is in moderation. When it emerges you will see that crossed up the ‘…157’ and ‘…156’ links–answering the former there. My apologies. So here is ‘…156’.

        I do not pay attention to either the whining or gloating. It is all calculated anyway.


    • What Trump has tapped into is media coverage:

      BTW, if he had simply placed the money he inherited into an index fund, he’d have twice as much money has he has now.

      • Joshua:

        There ain’t no flies on him. I think it is fair to say he has befuddled the talking heads and that is entertaining. There must be some interesting bets being made. Funny thing is most folks probably can’t think about the Trump candidacy in a calm state of mind. That complicates their betting.

  55. It comes down to facts about the physical world which were widely accepted till very recently and were never rebutted, just fudged away.

    It’s those simple and uncontroversial facts versus the organised neurosis and self-loathing of the New Class. They should go back to protesting against stickers on apples, or just find some cheaper way to feed their automated indignation.

  56. Watching excerpts of the hearing, I must say that it was a pleasure watching Senator Markey try to lecture Dr. Curry on climate science, after questioning her integrity, and get (and this is intended as a compliment) b*tch slapped for his disrespectful and condescending efforts by both Mark Steyn and Dr. Curry..

    • Markey is an unpleasant lout. Little else.

    • Markey’s ignorance is breathtaking. The best way to get at these guys, at least in the minds of the persuadable public is in my opinion to expose the 97 percent lie. I don’t understand why that so often goes unchallenged. Philosophy of science-y discussions about the dangers of consensus building isn’t going to do it. The number is based on a rigged “study,” and citing Galileo and continental drift and other failures of the consensus implicitly accepts that there is in fact an overwhelming monolithic consensus whereby 97 percent of scientists speak with one voice. It’s breathtakingly untrue, and deeply damaging to the skeptical case.

      Another lie is the hottest year…decade…month…whatever. It too has to be attacked because it’s persuasive to the uneducated public..

      • “I don’t understand why that so often goes unchallenged.” I agree, aneipris.

        This is what I had to say before the hearing took place:

        This hearing was obviously very orchestrated. Based on Dr. Curry’s statements in this thread I believe the 97% meme will be addressed as the debate moves forward.

        My hope is that it’s the politicians that take on the heavy lifting challenge of dismantling the 97% meme to the public, this will only be possible through some sort of red team mentality; but just simple communication in this case. Scientists simply need to educate the politicians on the finer points of the messaging for an accurate, well crafted message. This removes the scientists from the front lines of politics and allows skeptics, lukewarmers, what have you, to present science directly in future hearings instead of first having to wade through the minutia of propaganda that acts as a barrier to more meaningful discussions.

      • Cook, Nuccitelli and al, that 97% connsensuss.

        ‘We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus
        on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-
        reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate
        abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global
        climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4%
        of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6%
        endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were
        uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among
        abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1%
        endorsed the consensus position that humans are
        causing global warming.

        That’s 97.1% of 32.6%, not 97% of 100%. Tsk, mister Cook.

      • “That’s 97.1% of 32.6%, not 97% of 100%. Tsk, mister Cook.”

        Brilliant Beth. And you did it in one simple sentence, not counting the tsk.

        Tsk indeed. I was going to ask how these guys sleep at night, but then I remembered they were saving the planet.

      • Pokerguy, one doesn’t hafta’ be a meteorologist
        ter know which way the wind bloweth regardin’
        tricksy climatologists, qualified ‘expert,’ or
        in Cook’s case, not.

  57. Judith Curry

    You won’t convince senators or anyone with arguments about temperature data. You need, yourself, to understand that correct physics allows us to deduce that surface temperatures are not determined by direct solar radiation, let alone an imaginary combination of solar radiation and radiation from a colder troposphere. What does determine temperatures is entropy maximization which is explained (at this stage) by only one author and you know to whom I am referring and where to read about it. In another 15 to 20 years it will be common knowledge, because the effect of force fields has now been proven empirically to create stable equilibrium temperature gradients.

    • I haven’t peeked but I’m betting that its our friend Mr Cotten, who makes up many aliases along the way!

      • At least he doesn’t make up science, like the fictitious, fiddled physics promoted by warmists and lukes alike who all think the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface (having a mean of about 168W/m^2 like that of an iceberg at -40C) somehow raises the mean surface temperature to whatever it actually is. There’s AU $10,000 on offer if I’m proved wrong – that’s over US $7,000 that will be paid to the first in the world meeting the requirements on the above linked blog. Sit back and watch all the attempts to refute what has been explained there. Here’s what someone who understands physics had to say …

        ” … simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”

        John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

  58. Geoff Sherrington

    You did magnificently well. Thank you.
    Years ago I was appearing before our Australian Parliament for various inquiries , so I have an inkling of the business on a smaller stage in a much more civilised era.
    Your views on climate change are very close to mine, arrived at independently, mostly. Unfortunately, while Ted Cruz might have had an interest in science the dominant theme was political – and political enough for some dirty tricks to be used. It was most rude of that guy from Hawaii to drop in, deliver a prepared speech, pop a Dorothy Dixer to his chum the admirable admiral, then put on his coat mumbling about another appointment.
    It was with relief that I watched the broadcast showing your insistence on being heard. Markey looks as old as me but he has been brought up badly with little of the decorum or good manners of my era, in civilised scientific circles.
    If I was you, I would be content and not worry about self-analysis, if you do.
    You have put down a basis for improved climate science in the USA. History will remember you on that day, kindly.

  59. Does not this repeated congressional testimony satisfy Einstein’s definition of insanity? In the physical sciences, should theory not fit reality, the physics is wrong. In the social sciences, e.g. poli-sci, the converse holds.

    Neither political faction gives a hoot or understands a word about what physics might have to say and, if physics is really your thing, time would be better spent doing what you do best. Judith asserts “the basic mechanism is well understood”. I wonder. I am quite satisfied that prevalent climate “science” is a hodgepodge of sophomoric nonsenses incompatible with 2nd law for nonlinear, steady-state dissipative systems.

    Any attempt to understand what’s involved should stimulate the innate curiosity of a physical scientist. The Navier-Stokes equation, a cornerstone of climatology, does not even incorporate thermal dissipation due to thermal gradients which one might suppose rather relevant to an atmosphere, if not a wind tunnel. How many realize that dissipation is the work essential to keeping a steady-state from relaxing towards equilibrium? And all these feedback amplifiers embedded in the models – exactly where do they draw their power from? Is this linearization really a new mathematical insight for truncating infinite series? Are we seriously asked to imagine our existing atmosphere but a first-order perturbation of a barren, Planck blackbody surface? Is chaos a dead end or an insight? A pot of vigorously boiling water might be considered chaotic, yet it has many steady-state properties we are quite familiar with. Why are the physical properties of a system so often independent of its history? These issues, all relevant to understanding our atmosphere, reduce to matters thermodynamic. To understand the “big” picture, it’s often helpful to start with the “little” fundamentals

    One of the privileges of retirement is the freedom to focus on what one may understand. O tempora o mores!

    • Quondam,

      I’ve discovered that the more I think I know, the less I think I understand. I can’t seem to find anything wrong with just being content while I wait for somebody, far cleverer than I, to understand what I cannot.

      I can just about manage to comprehend what such people write. Mostly.


  60. John Costigane


    There were many unsatisfactory aspects to the hearing but there were important positives for our side. Both Ted Cruz and Mark Steyn have gained from the event. Ted showed a reverence for the Constitution by his respect for colleagues and witnesses, not matched by some in the opposition. Mark spoke out against the tyranny of the alarmist consensus, with no reply from opponents. I will be following both more closely from now on.

  61. “And finally, Markey referred to the ideology of ‘deniers’. What ideology could that be? I don’t think he meant our ideology of data analysis’ – JC

    Probably meant the anti-IPCC dogma.

  62. I see there’s some serious love for Cruz in this thread. So let’s consider this from his recent interview:

    “CRUZ: So let me ask you a question, Steve. Is there global warming, yes or no?

    INSKEEP: According to the scientists, absolutely.

    CRUZ: I’m asking you.

    INSKEEP: Sure.

    CRUZ: OK, you are incorrect, actually. The scientific evidence doesn’t support global warming. For the last 18 years, the satellite data – we have satellites that monitor the atmosphere. The satellites that actually measure the temperature showed no significant warming whatsoever.”

    So, in a political hearing about the question of dogma, we see someone who’s being promoted as a data-sophisticate promoting the idea that a belief that there is global warming is inaccurate.

    No mention that SATs ≠ global warming.
    No mention that we’re looking at a short-term trend in the context of a longer term trend.
    No mention that he’s focused on only one surface temperature measuring methodology.
    No mention that there is scientific controversy as to whether the data he’s reference are more or less accurate than others.

    In short, no due diligence paid to uncertainty at all, and instead what we see is a politician who uses vague and unspecific language, as an advocate, in a larger context of politicizing science.

    And as far as I’ve seen, not one of my much beloved “skeptics” has noted the lack of respect for uncertainty, the spin, the incompleteness. What we get instead is unconditional love.

    Why would people who self-identify as “skeptics” fail to apply the standards of due skeptical diligence to Cruz? Why would Judith fail to note Cruz’s lack of respect for uncertainty?

    Interesting, no?

    • David Springer

      Cruz is correct. For decades the satellite record was held out as confirmation of global warming. The gold standard for 1979 onward. A truly global record unlike any other. Then after the lower troposphere stopped showing significant warming for longer than anyone could credibly explain then rather than admit there’s a problem with the explanation suddenly the satellite record gets thrown under the bus instead. Hilarious.

  63. Judith, Thank you for everything you are doing. One of the issues is getting the main message out more broadly to the general public. This was a good step in the right direction. Unfortunately there was no coverage in the mainstream media, and only the Atlantic and EOS provided neutral and descriptive reporting … and Anthony Waats blog was positive / supportive as expected. The red team so to speak needs to focus on how to communicate the true state of affairs in climate science more broadly to the general public more broadly. How to do it?

  64. Dr. Curry, great job! You are a brave person and good role model. I did not find the words of the Senators useful. Their time would have been better spent prioritizing government spending on science research. What exactly would it take to definitively prove/disprove CO2 models? (hint: a satellite to measure earth’s radiance spectum.) What specific research funding is needed for new energy? (Dr. Curry did touch on this.)

    • Nothing can prove or disprove a model.
      A model has skill. either zero skill in which case it is not every useful or a model can have skill greater than zero.
      Models are IMPROVED not “proved” or “disproved”

      So, until skeptics get busy on improving models, nobody will listen to them.
      They might get invited to “hearings”, but hearings are of little consequence

      • Curious George

        Modelers don’t have any responsibility. They just present us with models, and it is up to someone else to “measure” its “skill”. A notion of a due diligence is not in a modeler’s vocabulary.

      • Steven Mosher,

        The Warmist model has proved to be of precisely no use to man nor beast.

        Maybe money and resources poured into models of zero proven utility, could be better utilised elsewhere?

        What do you think?


      • So, until skeptics get busy on improving models, nobody will listen to them

        I agree that climate changes.
        You theorize that man is making the globe dangerously warm.
        You need to prove that is so if you want my support.
        Your models have been so wrong it’s laughable.

        Now you not only want my support without proof, you want me prove to you that I don’t have to support you ?

        Do you understand how ridiculous that is ?

      • Modelers don’t have any responsibility. They just present us with models, and it is up to someone else to “measure” its “skill”. A notion of a due diligence is not in a modeler’s vocabulary.

        Wrong. Very wrong. Very, very wrong.

      • Mosh.

        Models are IMPROVED not “proved” or “disproved”.

        I agree. Models are tools.

        Here my peanut-gallery-but-modeler-in-other-disciplines impression is that improving models may remain contentious/rocky for a while because of the semi-empirical nature of some components. This is not a problem if one stays in the science arena but is another matter in the policy arena where time is a key uncertainty. Just saying that if I was modeling for policy my approach and priorities for the model(s) would probably be different than if the interest was purely scientific. Listening and/or being heard strikes me as a policy-related problem and not a scientific one. I guess that gets us to goals.

        So, until skeptics get busy on improving models, nobody will listen to them.

        From a practical side–if one can not walk the walk then no-one is going to listen to their talk. That is the gist of your comment (and a little more) to me and I agree.

      • Models may be good tools to help analyze and understand aspects of our climate system, but they should not be mistaken for any type of meaningful representation of the overall climate system, and are completely inadequate for making any policy.

      • Models are validated, and they can fail validation. The GCMs fail validation badly. You can parse this reality with whatever language you like.

      • Models may be good tools to help analyze and understand aspects of our climate system, but they should not be mistaken for any type of meaningful representation of the overall climate system, and are completely inadequate for making any policy.

        I have a difficult time envisioning climate policy decisions that do not entail some use of models. However, models do not make policy–they inform policy. Of course you may protest that here you are writing about GCMs informing policy. So eliminating GCMs what (types of) models would you perhaps use? Or would you shelf the policy decision at this time–clearly a decision for no action?

      • Models are validated, and they can fail validation. The GCMs fail validation badly. You can parse this reality with whatever language you like.

        Fact is models require both verification and validation. Ideally QA requires determination of metrics for V&V prior to model development. So who is parsing? What are you objecting to?

      • Mosher, the person I was replying to.

      • Curious George

        mwgrant “Models are IMPROVED not “proved” or “disproved”. I wish it were so. I found an incorrect physics in UCAR’s CAM 5.1 model. I pointed it out to UCAR. I did not get any thanks for helping. Nothing happened in two years; I don’t check any more.

      • Mw – yes, I would shelve the current models used to inform policy given their complete inadequacy to produce results resembling observed reality. Also, given the spatial inadequacies, the use of min-max readings as the basis for determining global temps, among other things. The simple reality is that we know far less about what makes the climate system tick than what warmunistas claim. On the other hand, we have clear, demonstrable, observed evidence that use of fossil fuels have improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people – people, at least in the west, now live longer, healthier, more productive, and better lives overall, and there is a direct linkage between use of fossil fuels and human benefit. The climatsriate want to stop the progress fossil fuels have enabled based on failed models. That’s all they have, and it is woefully.inadequate.

      • Hi curious,

        Looking at the link provided I suspect you found approximation error associated with semi-empirical submodel(s) [looking at p.136 in the CAM 5.0 Userguide.] Looking at the context in which the community model is provided and the spirit of experimentation it purports to foster, I see nothing alarming in your finding to the point it was developed and reported. However, the existence of approximation error arising from documented structural simplifications is no reason to view a model as disproved–particularly when we at talking about semi-empirical versus ab initio models. That is the very nature of the former.

        I also noted this particular discussion in one reply:

        The latent heat of vaporization is a quantity that is identical in all components of the model (ice, land, ocean, sea ice) and it is a major task to change this since it is used to ensure energy conservation within the whole model system. As CESM is a community model I would encourage you to try and quantify the error with the current approximation and if significant try and correct it across the model. We will discuss this potential problem in our next model development meeting next week and discuss it’s potential priority

        If you think about it, at the time you were most familiar with your specific issue and the responder was asking from more input to help them evaluate the situation, i.e., priorities. Frankly since we a talking about a structural component (and fundamental assumptions in model formulation) things very likely would not change (speculation). Indeed those closest to the formulation of the conceptual model(s) might even have out-of-hand reasons to drop the matter, e.g., conservation of energy, with which the responder was not familiar. So the ball really was in your court.

        In addition noting the purpose of the CAM release–a community model–and the fact that a series of versions with improvements followed the initial release the code series seems to support Mosh’s view of improvement…and improvements involved an active segment of the user community.


      • Barnes,

        I too would give very strong consideration to shelving the present models. Urgency–real or perceived–can not be to over-ride quality concerns. I also agree in tone with most of the rest of your comment. However, I do part ways with respect your default continuance of use of fossil fuels. I think that good policy has come from a formal ‘rational decision process’. It really is a question of maintaining proper governance–a matter of no small concern in the climate debacle.

      • “Nothing can prove or disprove a model.”

        The terminology I hear most in regards to models is “validation” not “prove”. A major part of validation is characterizing where the model generates valid results and knowing why the modeled results are valid or invalid. An example is SPICE, where development took place at the southwest corner of Hearst Ave and Gayley Rd – for the right kind of circuits (linear or smoothly non-linear) where the circuit was properly modeled, the results can be very accurate. Get a few rather nastily non-linear circuit elements and SPICE will blow up. Modeling circuits is a LOT easier than modeling the earth’s climate.

      • David Springer

        “Nothing can prove or disprove a model.”

        Ah. Well then. Let’s list some models that have not been disproven.

        1) Geocentricity
        2) Spontaneous Generation
        3) Flat Earth
        4) Hollow Earth
        5) Alchemy
        6) Phrenology
        7) Astrology
        8) Numerology
        9) Steady State

      • :Models are validated, and they can fail validation. The GCMs fail validation badly. You can parse this reality with whatever language you like.”

        Validation happens in the context of a SPECIFICATION.

        GCMs have no formal written spec.
        That is the problem

        I will make it simple. I come to you as a customer and I say
        Build me a model that will predict the next years weather to within
        1 degree C

        Your model is validated against my SPEC.. it may compare poorly to reality, but tests are against a SPEC.

        So I look at GCMS and they predicted .2C of warming and we only saw .1C of warming.. THAT’s a home run success! given the complexity of the system

        ask anybody who was doing big ASIC design before the advent of new tools and models.. ask them how often chips were built with shitty models.. I know,,, we will speed bin the parts

      • Sounds like you would advocate for funding of research that isn’t CO2 centric?

      • Mw – I have no problem moving away from fossil fuels provided there is a viable alternative. At this point in time, nuclear is the only viable alternative to power the grid – wind and solar are not. Yet the climatariate is force feeding the non-viable alternatives that, like pretty much everything else in our lives, are not even possible without fossil fuels. So, yes, for now my default position is to continue to use fossil fuels given the overwhelming net benefit they offer to mankind. That is irrefutable.

      • I should add that we should be transitioning to nuclear sooner than later, but we need to remove unnecessry regulatory impediments for that to happen.

      • Right model are to be improved or replaced by better in real life.

        The reason is streetlight effect, because people prefer a bad model to admitting they ignore.

        Another is that model are done to be useful, but useful in what ?
        is it in predicting the future or in justifying a policy.

        a religion (all the non-true religion ;-> ) have a goal, it is both to pacify the society for the good of all, and to support the elite and system for the good of the powerful. Transiently one religion may be modified , created, to support a revolution, a change.

        here we are in that situation, where this religion, and the miracle that support it’s credibility, is supporting a revolution of malthusian and anti-growth , and to support the greenlaundries,

        so the model works, they predic nothing, but justify the policy.

        on the opposite solar model, seems to have better impact, like predicting when jet stream are locked, or slight change in temperature, but this is not practically useful for people in power…

        even the farmer make no use of temperature prediction over a year or a decade.

        however green energy can make billion with climate scare, and green politicians can get power from that scare.

      • Roger Murphy

        Sounds like you would advocate for funding of research that isn’t CO2 centric?

        Not sure who ‘you’ is here, but as for me, my consideration of ‘shelving’ the present models would not be to eliminate or discredit the use of models [including GCMs], but would be to get models with a certain level of formal QA pedigree in place. I would want to facilitate that process.

        Also I make a clear distinction between models used for research and models used to inform decision-making. The goals and contexts in these two areas can be quite different. For example I view time/timing as a key uncertainty in numerous elements of the policy process. In a simulation model it is more a simple parameter.

        To be clear in my previous comments I am not reflecting in any way on model content, i.e., what should be in any given model—conceptual or implementation. I am thinking about the modeling and decision processes.

      • Validation happens in the context of a SPECIFICATION.

        GCMs have no formal written spec.
        That is the problem

        I envy and appreciate your brevity.

      • SM,

        The GCMs do not fail validation because they fail to predict the current temperature. They fail validation because of the following, as a start:

        The NH and SH albedo are nearly identical, but the GCMs fail to recreate this thermodynamic reality.

        The model variance is far larger than the observed variance. As Dr Brown has pointed out, this means the model dissipation dynamics are badly wrong.

        The models do not accurately recreate the fundamental thermodynamic responses of the real climate system. That is why they fail validation.

        For public policy purposes we would be far better off with no information about future climate except past climate than the wrong information produced by the GCMs.

      • Curious George

        mwgrant – thanks for your response, and your quoted NCAR reply “I would encourage you to try and quantify the error with the current approximation and if significant try and correct it across the model.”

        So much for improvements of the model – go and do it yourself. Does the model work realistically for 40 hours, 40 days, 40 weeks, 40 months, or 40 years? We don’t know, but we are confident that our projections for year 2100 are sound.

        I am not familiar with internal workings of NCAR – is CAM 5.1 a volunteer, unpaid work? Do volunteers pay for running the Yellowstone supercomputer for repeated runs of this model? (I suspect I am that involuntary volunteer).

      • @dougbadgero
        for public policy purpose you are right that no model is better than bad model.

        but basic psychology says we prefer imagined prediction from real ignorance.
        You see the same phenomenon in Thomas Kuhn description of Paradigm shift opposition.
        As long as there is no theory that explains the anomalies, and the usual observations, better and wider than the current theory, academic prefer to believ their theory works and anomalies are errors.
        Once there is a theory that works, or usefulness in the new observations, acceptance grows quickly.
        This is not scientific, this is human.

        I connect this preference for imagined prediction to real ignorance with the axiom of Roland Benabou about Groupthink
        that people optimise their estimated wealth, not their real wealth.

        this is why when facing evidence of a broken model, they simply reject the evidence.
        however if you bring them a model that works better and allow them to value all their investment at better value than today, they will accept it.

        you cannot convince someone he have worked for nothing, invested in snakeoil, that he is stupid and gullible, if you don’t pay him back in money and pride, higher than what he lose.

      • Curious George

        NCAR contractor is a nonprofit and except for interns (if any) those who work on the code are more than likely paid employees. After all it is a national research facility.

  65. Part of the alarmist strategy is to label climate dissent as denial and have it viewed on par with anti-vaxxers and other “anti-science” positions. Although I don’t think it was said explicitly some of the Senators seemed to be speaking as if that were their starting assumption.

    I will provide a link to one of many articles/blogs comparing the two. Has anyone writing anything on how they are different? If good rebuttals are not available it may be valuable to develop such. Unchallenged presumptions can be very strong. Along with addressing the 97% meme, the basic presumption of non-science may be the major front for advancing the public dialogue.

    • Part of the “skeptics” strategy is to label dissent as “alarmism” and have it viewed on par with Jihadis, McCarthy, Lysenko, Nazis, religious fanatics, and any number of other rhetorically effective pejoratives. Although it hasn’t been statedexplicitly by all the people testifying at the hearing, it has been said explicitly by Judith, Spencer, and Steyn at least, and certainly its seemed that the “skeptics” testifying were using such implications as a starting assumption.

      • Joshua

        If there is a ‘skeptics strategy” it is simply to prevent the implementation of expensive and ineffective actions to reduce CO2 emissions. This seems to have been quite effective.

        Those that wish to implement those types of actions have many similarities to the fanatics you wrote about. They want others to accept their views regardless of the lack of evidence to support their position.

        Joshua–there is no reliable evidence to support the notion the more CO2 will result in a worse climate for any particular nation or the world overall. Warming sure. A worse climate–nope.

      • Joshua

        If there is a ‘skeptics strategy” it is simply to prevent the implementation of expensive and ineffective actions to reduce CO2 emissions. This seems to have been quite effective.

        Those that wish to implement those types of actions have many similarities to the fanatics you wrote about. They want others to accept their views regardless of the lack of evidence to support their position.

        Joshua–there is no reliable evidence to support the notion that more CO2 will result in a worse climate for any particular nation or the world overall. Warming sure. A worse climate–nope.

      • j – I know you do not like the term alarmist. I have tried to be sensitive to that and not describe individuals as alarmists. There is however a strategy, well documented and often articulated that people need unambiguous information with a strong sense of urgency in order for them to collectively act in a rational manner. It’s argued that scientists need to speak with a clear voice and avoid the qualifiers that scientists typically use. Viewing the positives, it seeks to provide needed focus and avoid confusion. But a negative of the strategy may be stifling worthwhile debate. An outgrowth of this strategy is to quash dissent as it sows confusion. Manifestations of this approach include the argument that the debate is over, calling minor disagreements denialists, calls for Rico prosecution, settling through consensus, marginalizing dissenters and such. Whether or not anyone thinks this strategy is needed or not, employed fairly or unfairly or for the net good or net harm – inherent in the strategy along with creating focus is crushing dissent.

        A skeptical strategy does not inherently have the problems you describe. Those persons may be employed by people you label as such, but it’s not core to a skeptical approach. (I am describing a strategy whose goal is alarm, you are not describing a strategy for the goal of skepticism but more of an offshoot of a tribal mentality from people self-labeled as skeptics.) The inherent criticism of a skeptical strategy could be that by it’s nature it causes a lack of focus but not what you purport.

        Ignoring which is the “good” tribe and which is the “bad” tribe and whichever strategy as employed is more honest, needed, worthwhile or has the better adherents – at their core the strategy of pushing alarm and the strategy of pushing skepticism boil down to one approach wanting more discussion and the other less.

        I will agree being overly careful and seeking extreme certainty and continually wanting additional details can be counterproductive and skepticism can be a bad thing even sticking to the inherent qualities of skepticism. But you should see the other side that promoting excessive clarity and enhancing fear has it’s flaws as well.

    • If there is a ‘skeptics strategy” it is simply to prevent the implementation of expensive and ineffective actions to reduce CO2 emissions. This seems to have been quite effective.

      Those that wish to implement those types of actions have many similarities to the fanatics you wrote about. They want others to accept their views regardless of the lack of evidence to support their position.

      Joshua–there is no reliable evidence to support the notion the more CO2 will result in a worse climate for any particular nation or the world overall. Warming sure. A worse climate–nope.

  66. Dr. Curry, thank you.

    Some of these people need to be beat of the head with the natural range of variability until they can admit they cannot identify co2’s contribution to climate change with any reasonable statistical significance or confidence.

    What makes me sick is people claiming the know what the science says and the scientists think without any formal education on the subject. They think they understand the science, when all they actually understand are things that agree with their pre-existing beliefs developed under a malformed psychological condition.

    Post-modern science is going to kill us.

  67. It rained last night before going to bed. Not much though. It also rained during the night; the rain didn’t wake me up but I knew it fell because everything was wet in the morning. However, after making a few necessary adjustments, it turns out that it didn’t actually rain at all. Maybe this weekend it will rain — sporadically, possibly, not sure: I haven’t seen the adjusted data yet.

  68. miss curry, markey opinion is irrelevant, but it should not be you to answer him but scientists on his side… where are they ? For honest people who agree with ipcc it should be a shame to let dummies use pointless arguments to advocate their point of view…

    it is not about what scientists say it is about what they don’t.

  69. I’m afraid that there does seem to be an “ideology” prevalent among mainstream warming skeptics. It manifests often as Market Fundamentalist, American Exceptionalist, Pro-Nuclear. It’s really quite apparent.

    As with other aspects of the fake left/right paradigm, many of the issues are supported by both camps. They just have different rationales and the same agenda (a new generation of nuclear power plants etc).

    Judith is generally more focused on just AGW climate science, but I was disappointed to learn that she feels that Diego Garcia should become a marine preserve (rather than being returned to the people it was stolen from). This is the type of ideology that has no place in the discussion of climate.

    • I’m afraid that there does seem to be an “ideology” prevalent among mainstream warming skeptics. It manifests often as Market Fundamentalist, American Exceptionalist, Pro-Nuclear. It’s really quite apparent.

      The timeless trick of the man in the paper suit (conman) is to create a series of seemingly unrelated common points of interest. Some low hanging fruit are race, gender, religious affiliation, where you went to school, profession, my father knew your father, blah blah.

      It creates a zone of comfort in the brain which initiates trust. Once the brain switches to WANTING to trust, it begins to suspend critical thinking. Btw, if you really want to see experts teach this, take a course taught by Jesuits. They are the sworn defenders of the Papacy and teach it probably better than anyone. In fact, Obama’s last speech writer was a gifted graduate. I’m not picking on the POTUS, he’s just the latest example of rhetorical excellence.

      Since the science for alarmism (urgency) is weak, its strength has to be the con. The critical mistake a skeptic makes is to forget that it is not HE who has to prove alarmism (urgency).

      You’ll note that all 3 of your “ideologies” identified are geared towards dragging the skeptic into problem resolution. A skeptic who allows an alarmist to drag them into problem resolution when the problem has not been validated is being successfully tricked. The skeptic allows this mostly because they are human and want to be seen as being capable of discussing reasonable solutions (common points of interest). Sadly, that good nature is abused by the alarmist as they shift to problem solving and never have to account for the unproven urgency.

      • I see your point, Naomi Klien tries to sell AGW “action” as “anti-capitalism” to her socialist following. Meanwhile, skeptics fold libertarian economics into their retorts. And AGW is not an economic system question.

        Better to avoid being side tracked.

        Do we really have to express opinions about GMOs while discussing AGW?

        AGW is hardly even an environmental issue (co2 not actually being a pollutant), but skeptics feel the need to burden themselves with anti-environmentalist outbursts.

      • Thanks for reading and replying.
        It’s incredibly hard work to be present in the line of fire and not be seduced by our own desire to belong, be liked, be seen as reasonable.

        It’s exhausting and can cause PTSD.
        I hope Dr Curry has a close circle that cares for her.

      • Aletho says, “And AGW is not an economic system question.”

        No, but CAGW is. The cost of mitigating the production of CO2 is enormous–it’s what’s holding up the agreement in Paris right now. As Monckton says, anything affordable is inadequate; anything adequate is unaffordable. Actually, there is one affordable and adequate option–some form of nuclear power.

        Those are very relevant counters to the warmist claims that a non-nuclear, renewable-powered world IS affordable. We are not going outside the bounds and into ideology in making those points against their claim.

        I agree however that there is too much unnecessary, or at least strategically unwise, political commentary by our side, especially on WUWT. I said so long ago both in a comment or two there and in my guest thread there, “Notes from Skull Island.” (I said there that if Big Oil were behind contrarian blogs, it would pay moderators to snip such commentary, which alienates much of the public.) But it’s asking too much of a mass of people for them all to restrain themselves–only tight moderation could do that. Which WUWT can’t afford; its moderation is all voluntary.

      • How economical is nuclear for Fukushima or Chernobyl?

        Of course it’s economical if you ignore the costs. How much is just one year of provincial agriculture worth? How about lost fishing? How many thousands of sarcophagi will need to be built over how many millennia?

      • PS–I meant to say, “It’s moderation is all voluntary and over-worked.”

      • Aletho talks about the “costs” of Chernobyl and Fukishima and asks what is the cost of provinces agriculture. I guess the answer depends on whether you want to use reality or myth.

        aletho the cost of Fukishima is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the tsunami. I’ll bet it isn’t any greater than the cost to Japans economy from shutting down all of their nuclear generation. Which might explain why they are starting them up again.

  70. In answer to the insolubility of the crushingly expensive and disastrously counter-productive non-problem of global warming — and, given that AGW is nothing but a hoax based on theory that is motivated, invented and maintained by an evergreen government-education alliance to push a Leftist socio/political and ideological agenda — even outvoted college-educated Republicans may soon join the unrepresented productive in America in coming to realize that Donald Trump may be the only true, dues ex machina.

  71. Judith, just a quick note to say thank you for appearing before the senate and thank you for sticking up for yourself.

  72. I think the summary by Senator Cruz demonstrates that he is a great man:

    Finally a scientific literate leader.

    By the greatest irony one can imagine – skepticism – the greatest trait within science, was turned into name-calling, and even attempted made into an illegal act, by certain proponents of United Nations climate theory.

    The second greatest irony is that, by its charter, United Nations was supposed to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character.
    By it´s climate theory United nations has created an international cultural problem by enforsing unscientific principles upon, and endorsing unscientific principles by, its so-called scientific body: IPCC. The economic problem is evident by the vast amount of resources being misdirected towards the climate theory, while these resources could have been used to solve real problems – by known causes – within the charter of United Nations.

    The third greatest irony is that by Human Rights, Article 21 (3),” the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage..” While the United Nations bureaucrats are non-elected individuals having personal agendas to change the world based on their personal ideology. Like Christina Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change:
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,”

    A functional way of reasoning – a moderns scientific method – must be instated.

    By inductive reasoning many possible explanations can be provided for any series of events. However, most of these explanations will be wrong, many will be harmful. Knowledge on the other hand is characterized by the ability to repeatedly predict a particular range of outcomes for a particular range of conditions. The predictive power is proportional to the range of events which is prohibited by the theory and inversely proportional to the range of events allowed by the theory. A theory is corroborated by the severity of the tests it has been exposed to and survived, and not at all by inductive reasoning in favor of it.

  73. I live in New Mexico. Tom Udall is one of our buffoon senators. He is a Progressive all the way.

    I have some lobbyist friends who sell windmills and solar junk. They host fund raiser dinner parties for him several times each year. They invite wealthy limousine liberals who pay for the privilege of dining with swine. I have never been invited.

  74. NOAA and NASA have adjusted the past to make
    the present appear hotter, and thus supposedly demonstrated that in fact there is no such “pause”. As a result, public opinion, which no longer trusts the Big Climate enforcers to tell them what the climate will be like in 2050, now no longer trusts them to tell them what it was like in 1950. ~Mark Steyn

  75. Thanks Judith, you are as tough and brilliant as highly-compressed carbon. :)

  76. Dr. Curry,

    I watched the whole proceedings carefully. It is sad that it took Steyn, doing what I would call a very Canadian attempt at civility and refusal to stand by while another was villified by a powerful person, to demand you have the ability to respond.

    Markey had not read your written submission. He didn’t care – in fact, he probably preferred not to have done so. Plausible deniability means later he can say his staff didn’t provide it to him in time (we’ll fire somebody for that!).

    The difference between senior American political power and that of authoritarian regimes elsewhere in the world appears to be the understanding that power over bureaucratic and regulatory actions is far, far more efficient and effective than simply threatening someone’s life. Ruin them financially, make them dance in the judicial streets and put them in social disrepute at the level of the President. They are no longer a concern.

    The Cruz non-debate was an eye-opening incident. I don’t know how warmists would see it – perhaps their heroes slaying the dragons. But I see it as a terrible indictment of our supposed democratic, one-right-for-all, way of life.

    By the by, my experience in life tells me that when one his foolish, the response of those in the know is bafflement or amusement. When one is right but not following the script, the response of those in the know is anger – they recognize that their position and power are threatened and they have no good defense. What I saw from the Democrats with you et al was anger and reflective attack. They ARE threatened by what you both say and stand for: the ability and duty of the ordinary person to determine what is “really” going on and make decisions on that basis.

    • “It is sad that it took Steyn, doing what I would call a very Canadian attempt at civility and refusal to stand by while another was villified by a powerful person, to demand you have the ability to respond.”

      Hmm, that made me think of another title for the hearing: “Dogma or Decorum?”

      • It was also interesting reading Steyn’s column where he mentioned that he received a message from Bill Nelson, a Florida democratic senator warning him thate he was obligated to respect the decorum of the senate. He goes on to describe that decorum as senators wandering in and out of the hearing, offerring their 4 minutes of blather before lobbing softball questions to their favored witness, then leaving before a response can be given. I find this type of “decorum” to be alarming. It demonstrates how a hearing can be held where nothing is heard since apparently, too many senators only want to hear themselves speak and have no interest in listening to anyone else.

  77. Really an insightful statement. they should just publish the hourly recorded temperatures and average them. Then once those are trended the adjusters can propose all the changes they desire. At some point the data will catch up. Dr Titley claimed satellites have been changed 4 times as opposed to almost continuous changes to historical measured thermometer readings. He did not mention that.

    The historical temperatures are so changeable not one or only the low information voter believes NOAA, NASA or BEST.


  78. With regard to Mark Steyn’s article on the Hearing is [here].

    There is this quote: “Markey: Again it is climate change. We had a hundred and ten inches of snow in Boston last year with measurements of water 21 degrees warmer than normal off the coast of Massachusetts.”

    Matt G checked into this here:

    Matt G
    December 11, 2015 at 11:56 am
    No SST’s off Boston were 21 degrees above normal even if Fahrenheit was used. Around the coast up to around 8 degrees F, but further away where the Gulf stream is placed it was around 12 to 14 degrees F above normal.

  79. The Senate Hearing demonstrated how effectively false propaganda is communicated to the public even when challenged by very talented scientific opponents.

  80. The exchange between Judith Curry, Mark Steyn, and Senator Markey will likely be remembered as one of those compelling moments in which the alarmists and their extremist environmental accomplices lost control of the debate. In terms of theater, nothing is more dramatic than witnessing a respected scientist (backed by a talented polemicist) force an ideological windbag to confront the shallowness of his beliefs.

    Markey, to his credit, did not flee the room. But he probably should have.

    • Ancient Chinese philosophical writings off-handedly make casual mention of “the inferior man.” That was Markey, an innately mass man. Judy in response was a natural aristocrat.

  81. Pingback: “My remarks on consensus were more philosophical; perhaps I should have focused on debunking the 97%, and on highlighting the recent collapse of the consensus on dietary fat/cholesterol/heart disease.” Reactions on the Senate hearing | Climate

  82. JC says “Senator Cruz seems very much into the Data”. Well, only the limited data that supports his view, and even that dataset no longer does. What he ignores is data such as the surface land temperature record in Judith’s own testimony and the ocean heat content that show that the world has been continuously warming in the last few decades, contrary to Cruz’s statement that the warming has stopped for 18 years, which he seems to believe is a true statement.

  83. Apologies to all who got caught in spam or moderation, I’ve been traveling with sporadic internet access.

  84. Let’s call 2075, the second half of this century. That is 60 years from now. By then, I think just about everyone can agree the price of oil will be at least $100 and probably closer to $200. So, here is the goal WRT fossil fuel use from COP21. From the article:

    FOSSIL FUEL GOAL — Says nations should work toward “a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.” That means that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels must be equal to those absorbed by planting trees and the facilities capturing carbon for permanent underground storage.

    We will probably be there before 2075 due only to limitations on petroleum. The only spoiler might be coal, which we will still have enough of to flood the sky with CO2.

    OTOH, by another 20 years, people will be laughing at the Chicken Little global warming alarmists, so all of this won’t matter anyway.

  85. Dr Curry.
    Thank you for your excellent testimony. It is extremely difficult
    to present facts in a forum that is designed to highlight emotions.
    Ed Markey (once upon a time my Congressman) is a formidable
    politician who presents arguments his constituents want to hear.

    Note to Joshua and Jim D an others.
    Satellite data as opposed to land or ocean data is the dividing line
    between CO2 warming and all others. The focus on the satellite data
    is because if any observed warming of land or oceans were caused by
    CO2 it would be first visible in lower troposphere. Since it is not
    observed any other warming cannot be due to CO2.

    We don’t deny warming or climate change. We deny it is all due to CO2
    therefore justifying the massive “investment” in wind and solar.

  86. I did watch the entire thing. The skeptics team may be remembered by the clash with Markey similar to the army hearing when one witness asked Sen McCarthy, “Sir do you have no decency?” Sen Markey belongs w him.

    As the climate change moves to little ice age II, this clash will be remembered in conjunction with the Paris nothing hysterical claims.

    “The exchange between Judith Curry, Mark Steyn, and Senator Markey will likely be remembered as one of those compelling moments in which the alarmists and their extremist environmental accomplices lost control of the debate. In terms of theater, nothing is more dramatic than witnessing a respected scientist (backed by a talented polemicist) force an ideological windbag to confront the shallowness of his beliefs.”

    Dr Curry, you may have lost some position at Georgia Tech and friends among the colleagues in climate science establishments but have ensured your place in historical records. A classic clash of civilization vs dogma.


    • Scott

      Did you see my reply to you re sea levels?


      • tonyb
        Thanks. I saw the first reply but not the second till your reminder. thanks for that. I process these data fairly slowly and have become more skeptical as more information is modified. My Moshpit comments were related to your logical and good faith efforts to communicate to all sides and his snide aggressive criticisms of you. Dr Curry and the anti team do such a powerful job of communication with science and logic. Your support for the ethical scientists on both sides and willingness to engage with all parties is admirable.
        regards, Scott

  87. Over on the “Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma” thread, Jim D and I have been having an extended conversation concerning how best to go about the task of significantly reducing America’s own greenhouse gas emissions.

    As I understand his position, Jim D believes that public spending on green energy technology combined with incentives for promoting green energy investments should be the focus of any government-sponsored plan for achieving the steep reductions in GHG emissions which climate change activists are demanding.

    For myself, I believe that it is impossible to reach President Obama’s goal of an 80% reduction in America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 unless the US Government puts a stiff price on carbon and takes direct action to limit the supply, availability, and consumption of all carbon fuels.

    In my opinion, all of the specialized regulatory tools needed to decarbonize America’s economy by the Year 2050 can be developed using existing provisions of the Clean Air Act, provisions which can be fully enabled through a formal declaration by the President of a carbon pollution emergency.

    Here is short summary of the conversation we have had so far over on the other Climate Etc. thread:


    Jim D:

    I think Obama still holds out hope that Republicans will see the light, but I don’t believe he has the tools that you outline anyway. He needs policies that will last beyond his administration, and the EPA is the way that is being done as you may have noticed. He can’t direct stimulus money where he would like to. That takes congressional acts. He can work with other nations to get the global reductions needed, and he is. I think he has done as much as he can in the existing US political climate.


    Beta Blocker:

    Massive public spending on alternative energy resources will not by itself get us to where we need to go in aggressively reducing America’s own carbon emissions, because Americans will not give up their addiction to carbon fuels unless they are compelled to do so.

    International treaty or no international treaty, even a Congress controlled by Democrats will never put a price on carbon or take direct action to limit the supply and availability of carbon fuels.

    If carbon dioxide is indeed a pollutant when present in excessive concentrations in the atmosphere — which the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon says that it is — then by law and by past precedent the Clean Air Act is the appropriate means for controlling all of America’s own greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of their source.

    The Clean Air Act provides a sound legal basis in existing environmental law for developing all of the specialized regulatory tools which will be needed to achieve President Obama’s goal of an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050.

    Based on a presidential declaration of a carbon pollution emergency, the EPA would invoke Section 108 of the Clean Air Act first to establish a NAAQS for carbon pollution and then to develop an integrated regulatory framework for implementing a series of anti-carbon regulatory actions enforced by agencies of the federal and state governments.

    The integrated regulatory framework would directly and indirectly limit the supply, availability, and consumption of all carbon fuels; and it would include a corresponding system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.

    As long as the regulatory framework developed by the EPA distributes the socio-economic burdens of decarbonization fairly and equitably among all classes of GHG emitters, there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t survive the inevitable legal challenges made to it in the courts.

    Unless the President and the EPA Administrator step up to their responsibilities as defined in the Clean Air Act and begin to regulate all sources of America’s carbon emissions, not just those of the electric utility industry, then America’s own GHG emissions will never be reduced to the extent that climate activists are demanding.

    It’s just as plain and simple as that.


  88. I saw a few minutes of the testimony at WUWT when Dr. Curry & Mark Steyn were responding to being called deniers. I thought that Dr. Curry’s self-control was commendable. Sen. Markey appealed to authority (debunked 97 percent) & basically called her a heretic, then tried to paint himself as Galileo standing up against medieval church dogma. I was stunned by that grotesquely twisted analogy, and the warped logic behind it.

  89. Brian G Valentine

    I would have told Markey, “i don’t care if you like it or you don’t like it, I don’t care if you believe me or you don’t, and I don’t care if you like me or you don’t – that’s the way it is, and exactly none of your nonsense is going to change it, and you can do with that information what you like.”

  90. Adm Titley on Sen Cruz’ NPR interview

    The science, the factual components of this are several. One that the satellite is in fact not measuring temperature it measures basically microwave returns. It turns out as I mentioned in the testimony, it is actually not rocket science but it is a lot harder to convert that into temperatures. The people who have done that before have in fact had numerous errors, which had to be corrected by independent analysis. And as those errors are being corrected that satellite data in fact shows more and more warming.

    But even if you say, accepted the data that Sen. Cruz presents at face value, he is actually averaging parts of the atmosphere that we know are cooling. The top of the atmosphere, the stratosphere is cooling, while the bottom is warming. So if you average, just anybody if you take +1 and you take -1 and add them up together, what do you get, you get zero.

    Then he takes this very, very specific 18 years. He is very much on message with his 18 years. Why. Because he is starting from a point that we had a huge El Nino in 1998 and he is connecting it to today. So a question that you could ask Sen. Cruz is if there are these natural variations and you started from a very high El Nino its amazing sir that your data in fact does not show a decrease. If we were just having natural ups and downs this where a down would be. So why didn’t we get a down. Why have we had we have so many years, what is it 10 of the last 12 years of being some of the warmest on record. It doesn’t sound like no global warming, it sounds like we had a very high plateau and now 2014 and 2015 we are going back up the staircase again. That is how climate changes. It doesn’t change in a nice straight line you have ups and downs but the downs are now flat and the ups are really up.

    • Brian G Valentine

      uh huh. I would also like to learn why an increase in temperature difference between upper and lower atmosphere, if true, would not result in an increased rate of heat transfer by any mode from lower to upper atmosphere

    • One that the satellite is in fact not measuring temperature it measures basically microwave returns. It turns out as I mentioned in the testimony, it is actually not rocket science but it is a lot harder to convert that into temperatures.

      That’s not really significant – thermometers are ‘measuring’ volume or electrical resistance, or some such. Microwave emissions from O2 molecules are just as apt an indirect temperature. Now satellite reconstructions are complicated. But there are numerous ‘corrections’ and adjustments to all the temperature measurements. This is an empty statement.

      The people who have done that before have in fact had numerous errors, which had to be corrected by independent analysis. And as those errors are being corrected that satellite data in fact shows more and more warming.

      Incorrect. There have been corrections which both increase and decrease
      the resulting trends for various periods. To hear TItley tell it, corrections were continually ongoing and only acted to increase the resulting trends.

      But even if you say, accepted the data that Sen. Cruz presents at face value, he is actually averaging parts of the atmosphere that we know are cooling. The top of the atmosphere, the stratosphere is cooling, while the bottom is warming. So if you average, just anybody if you take +1 and you take -1 and add them up together, what do you get, you get zero.

      The lower tropospheric trends are negative which don’t include the stratospheric signal. Further, most of the lower stratospheric trends were negative for the period of record ( 1979 ) but are flat since Pinatubo resolved ( 1995 or so ), so this wouldn’t apply to trends since Pinatubo anyway.

      Then he takes this very, very specific 18 years. He is very much on message with his 18 years. Why. Because he is starting from a point that we had a huge El Nino in 1998 and he is connecting it to today. So a question that you could ask Sen. Cruz is if there are these natural variations and you started from a very high El Nino its amazing sir that your data in fact does not show a decrease.

      There is a negative trend in the MSU LT data ( for both UAH and RSS ) since 2001 – no Pinatubo then. Fifteen years is not eighteen years, and the signal is noisy, but that’s what it is.

    • I was going to point out eli’s little hop by where he lays a string of rabbet pellets, but TE, trapped, skinned and roasted the little rodent before I had a chance.

      Stick to Chem 101 Professor Halprin.

    • Well, Dr. Titley was recently in charge of NOAA so he pretty much a true believer

      The “Scientists & identity-protective cognition” would suggest he is hopeless biased.

      Now let’s get to his statements.

      1. satellite is in fact not measuring temperature
      Well, the processing for the surface data is about as complicated as the satellite processing. Perhaps the surface data isn’t measuring temperature either. Further – the surface is homogenized – apparently on the assumption it is milk. If the surface temperatures are actually stew, homogenizing them will give a greyish brown gruel.

      2. he is actually averaging parts of the atmosphere that we know are cooling
      The claim that if it averages to zero it is actually warming is quite bold.

      3. Then he takes this very, very specific 18 years. He is very much on message with his 18 years.
      It looks like Cruz will be on message for 20 years in 2017. How long before the very specific doesn’t matter? A very very specific 30 years? A very very specific 40 years? When is enough, enough?

      4. If we were just having natural ups and downs this where a down would be. So why didn’t we get a down.
      Current climate trend isn’t a lot different than the leading edge of the MWP. The rising edge of the MWP (850 AD) didn’t have a lot of down to it.

      Where does this misbegotten claim that cooling would be expected come from? It is historically unjustified and irrational.

    • David Springer

      “One that the satellite is in fact not measuring temperature it measures basically microwave returns.”

      Specious misdirection. A glass thermometer doesn’t actually measure temperature. It measures thermal expansion of a liquid. A newer thermometer doesn’t actually measure temperature. It measures the voltage across the junction of dissimilar metals (themocouple). Infrared thermometers don’t measure temperature they measure electromagnetic radiation just like satellite “thermometers” measure electromagnetic radiation where the only difference is in the frequency band of the radiation.

      Titley might be able to fool the unwashed masses and other dumb bunnies but anyone modestly conversant in basic physics and modern technology shouldn’t be fooled.

  91. Is it Senator Markey or Malarkey?
    “We have met the enemy and he is us.” att to Pogo

  92. First, Kudos to Judith for standing up to an emotional attack. Fortunately, free speech is still allowed in the US, though given the attacks on it that might not last, what, with RICO coming down on skeptics, and the pain of the “judicial” process coming down on Mark Steyn.

    To all those who feel Climate Science is real, happening, and caused by humans, imagine a world in which people like Judith and Mark Steyn are not allowed to have their voice. Imagine a world in which the unthinking Markey’s can take their ire and really put the screws on you, using one tool or the other. Oh, it is innocuous when they are on your side, first making you a pariah, then disallowing you to publish, more is using RICO to threaten you, and finally coming for you in hoodies in the middle of the night because you expressed an opinion the President wants to suppress at the time. Meanwhile, you are giving them power, and that power is absolute, and can be used indiscriminately.

    Power is not your friend, and blows with the populace wind. Be careful who you give it to.

  93. My observation is that you did very well when you challenged Markly.
    In general I think the MOST important things to get across to the UN-educated is:
    1) 97% consensus is a fraud.
    2) Science societies CAGW claims are NOT views of members, and thus also a fraud.
    3) The fact that warming has been created from cooling thermometer readings a shown by Ted Cruz’s chart.

  94. Steyn didn’t help much in Judith’s defense, yelling about alligators at the pole (last time CO2 levels were higher) and the LIA (last time CO2 levels were low). Not sure where he was going with that, but he was ignored by all and not challenged on it, probably thankfully for him.

    • Jimd

      Yes, he should have shouted about the MWP when co2 was low AND the LIA when the co2 level was…er, exactly the same. How did that happen?


      • Invoking Milankovitch would have sufficed for that trend between MWP, and the prior warmer period, and LIA, but I am not sure if the skeptics are very keen on Milankovitch cycles because they almost never mention them.

      • jimd

        Are you seriously invoking milankovitch to explain the difference between the extreme warmth of the last phases of the MWP around 1190 and the first phases of the extreme cold of the LIA around 1210?

        Generally people think of them operating over many thousands of years and often tens of thousands, to explain such events as Ice ages. So your explanation is certainly novel.


      • Kinda’ ‘Around the Universe in Eighty Days’ Milankovtch. )

  95. It’s hard to take seriously anything a Cruz committee would do until he takes a position on evolution and age of the Earth.

    For some reason he reminds me of the character in the Dead Zone – the one who holds up a baby to protect himself from a shooter.

    • When did you stop beating your wife?

    • David Springer

      I can’t take seriously anyone who talks about their experiences experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs. Flashbacks much?

      • Only the good kind.

        Cruz is on his own trip- an ego and power trip. A complete demagogue.
        He says he believes in Genesis – so much for science. But probably he really doesn’t. More likely lying to his base.

        The hearing was grandstanding nothing more and I can’t believe any scientist – skeptic or otherwise – would buy into it.

    • Cruz has his “issues” but after Obama and as a choice vs Hillary”…….no contest!

      • Actually the current view among liberals seems to be that Cruz would be easier to beat than Trump.

        The guy is even divisive among Republicans. His only real accomplishments are ginning up phony government shutdowns.

        At any rate, since he is leading in Iowa, he will probably succumb to the Iowa curse and won’t be nominated anyway.

      • The liberals don’t know sh-t! They think Hillary is a shoo in. I care as much about what liberals think as I do about what the GCMs say about RCP8.5 and I was born a liberal.

      • Sorry you don’t like the low oil prices, the run up in the stock market, the declining year to year debt, the low unemployment rate, the lack of any 9/11 disasters, the absence of foreign wars that kill or main a couple thousands Americans and a couple hundred thousand people in the other countries, the fewer people without health insurance…

        I am certain you will be rewarded with the opposite of all of that if your wishes come true.

      • James Cross,

        “It’s a chilling reality – one often overlooked in annual mortality statistics: Preventable medical errors persist as the No. 3 killer in the U.S. – third only to heart disease and cancer – claiming the lives of some 400,000 people each year. At a Senate hearing Thursday, patient safety officials put their best ideas forward on how to solve the crisis, with IT often at the center of discussions.” – Healthcare IT News, 2014.

        If 400,000 people die in the US each year from preventable medical errors, maybe some of the money poured into Climatology, (achieving nothing), could be used to save lives. Or maybe not. Climatologists seem intent on killing us all, by taking all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. It seems quite mad to me. What do you think?


      • Bring it on James Cross. Oil prices are low because of liberals? Give me a f–king break. The debt is declining because of liberals? Give me a f–king break. How do you stack up Paris and Fort Hood and San Bernadino on your scale of terrorism und the Big O?

        This next election is the big one and all you got is an old tired former first lady who has a history of lying and cheating and covering up everything from her husband’s extra-marital affairs to her scandalous handling of Libya. Unless you want to count the lefty Bernie.

        I’ll take what’s going on today on the Republican side over the liberal fac–st manifesto any day of the week.

      • And Cross is still hasn’t proved he’s not beating his wife

      • Mike Flynn

        Nothing new about that. Ever heard of Ivan Illich and Medical Nemesis?

      • Mark,

        The President is responsible for Paris? Give me a break.

        The Bush years began with a tax break that ballooned the deficit. We got anemic job growth and it was mostly in the public sector. We got unpaid for wars that were disasters. The years ended in a disaster.

        You want more of the same?

        Take a look at the record on job growth of Republican and Democratic Presidents since Ford.

      • James Cross,

        You would make a good alarmist climate scientist as you don’t know the difference between correlation and causation.

      • Even the authors of the study admit it’s pure coincidence, but when you believe government creates jobs you’ll grasp at any straw. Anyone with even a minimal understanding of macro economics realizes that most federal policies take years or even decades to have any effect on the economy..

      • We are pretty far OT so no more after this for me.

        Mark, you don’t seem to have a problem assigning causation to Obama for Paris and San Bernardino. Pretty big stretch.

        And chuckrr – it plays both ways if you want to go with that. By your argument, Reagan’s job growth wasn’t the result of his policies either.They must have been the result of Carter’s policies but Bush I’s record must have been the result of Reagan’s policies.

        I admit that things are a bit more complex. There are large macro-waves of technology and economy that government policies can either ride or get swamped by. Clinton job growth, even with increased taxes, was heavily driven by new technology – the Internet, first and foremost. And George W.’s poor job growth, even with tax cuts, was in part of a natural downturn from the Clinton years just as Obama’s job growth in part a recovery from that. Perhaps not so different from climate after all.

        But what that really says is that mantra about cutting taxes can’t always be the best policy and doesn’t guarantee anything as far as future economic growth whereas sometimes government spending – the stimulus, for example – really does spark something to help bootstrap us out of what was an near Depression.

      • James Cross | December 15, 2015 at 5:18 am |

        And chuckrr – it plays both ways if you want to go with that. By your argument, Reagan’s job growth wasn’t the result of his policies either..

        I’m not going to address the other misstatements but this one is simply wrong. The civilian workforce participation rate from the BLS:

        The rate increased sharply in 1984, clearly demonstrating the benefit of Reagan’s policies over Carter’s.

        In fact if you assume economic performance was inherited from the previous 4 year administration, Carter was a disaster. Clinton looks surprisingly bad via the 4 year delay rule and he had an internet revolution driving his numbers artificially high (no thanks to AlGore or manbearpig).

      • The economy was first severely constricted by Paul Volcker, and then Paul Volcker slowly lifted those restrictions. Starting in 1978 I tripled the manpower at our factory. Volcker showed up in 1979. In 1980 I had to lay off 60% of them. When interest rates for consumer loans hit record levels, people suddenly decided they did not need luxury goods. So Carter picked Volcker because Carter liked Volcker’s plan to fight inflation, and Reagan kept him because… Volcker was widely considered to be a highly successful inflation fighter and the force behind a growing economy.

      • PA

        I can’t let this go by.

        Workforce participation has nothing – ZERO – to do with this argument but it something conservatives love to bring up. The argument is about job growth.

        You need to understand what your graph means.

        There are two big population groups involved with your graph.

        1- The workforce – people who are working and people who are looking for work
        2- People not in group 1

        So as people retire they move from group 1 to group 2. Did you ever read anything about the Baby Boomers?

      • PA

        Also, I wasn’t making the 4 year argument. chuckrr was the one claiming that government policies required years or decades to cause an effect.

        That may be true of some policies but taxation and spending are likely to have a pretty immediate effect. Reagan hit the sweet spot of an economy with inflation wrung out of it, the initial oil price rises factored in and adapted for, a tax rate that probably was too high, and an economy that poised for a major uptick.

      • Get serious. It ain’t all about the baby boomers. Have a look at the labor participation rate by age, gender, etc.

      • I will help you. Younger weed smokers working less, older folks working more.

      • Don,

        Not sure what I am supposed to gather from your link but the Baby Boomers were a large population cohort. That caused the workforce participation rate to increase dramatically as they came into their 20s and 30s and entered the labor force (with more women than previous cohorts). It peaks with that cohort in its 50’s and 60’s.

        Participation of younger people will naturally decline in the future as more people delay entry into the workforce for schooling and training. Participation rates (not absolute numbers) will increase for older adults because more people will be in good enough health to continue to work You can thank Obamacare for that. :)

      • You are supposed to see the freaking numbers. The participation rate of older folks is up. They have to work to take of themselves in retirement. This ain’t Greece or France, yet. Your baby boomer excuse for low participation is BS. Do you have any more dumb questions?

      • Don,

        Try fact check if you are having a hard time grasping this.

      • We have another yimmy, here. Couldn’t you find something on huffpo? Everybody knows there aren’t any facts on the so-called factcheck propaganda site. Look at the BLS and Census Bureau numbers. Do you think there are more so-called baby boomers/people of retirement age than there are working age people? Look at a pyramid chart of age distribution. Use your little lefty head for a change.

        Younger people are not getting jobs. Look up the record number of 25-29 out of the work force. Going for Phds, yimmy? They can’t find decent jobs, or they are just freaking Obama voting deadbeats. Period.

      • James Cross

        I think James is all crossed-up. Citing a phony narrative written by Farley on factcheck if phoolish. Farly never met a Republican he didn’t dislike. Don is correct, you gotta use the BLS for LS – that’s why they call it BLS.
        There are many people who want and need jobs but can’t find them. Some go on disability – I know a few – and others collect SS – I know some of those also. Others, especially older people, take very low paying jobs, like greeting people in retail stores. The under-employment rate is too high. Light industrial employment has taken a big hit. Tech is doing well but older people tend not to get past the “team fit” stage. H1B’s are going strong. Obama has done nothing to fix this, only to accelerate it. Enjoy the ride!

        Mr. Cross do have dem talking points down – he good at that.

      • James Cross…changing tax rates have some fairly quick effects but more long term effects Now please explain to me how lowering tax rates negatively impacts job growth….short term. …which is how this all started.

      • He seems to have run off, justin.

        I can answer that, chuck. Higher taxes gives the gubmint the funds to hire more union Democrat voting gubmint workers. And since they need 4 gubmint workers to do the job that one private sector worker could perform, there is a multiplier effect.

  96. Senator Markey’s behavior is the reason there are skeptics among laypeople. Careless hyperbole, alarmism, and the fact that their solution is to make life generally more miserable for a large subset of the population aren’t exactly the best way to endear people to a cause, especially people who think for themselves.

    I thought the hearing was great, even with some missed opportunities. You were great.

  97. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #209 | Watts Up With That?

  98. Commentary: After the Paris pact, thoughts on the Ted Cruz climate change hearing
    By David W. Titley

  99. Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    I am a bit tardy posting Dr. Judith Curry’s retrospective on her December Senate testimony. I recommend also following her link to Mark Steyn’s thoughts on that day.

    Dr. Curry–Thank you for your courage! Mark Steyn’s points about the Senate being more theater than constructive policy debate are spot on.

  100. Pingback: Final 2015 Statistics (Now Includes December Data) | Watts Up With That?