Judith Curry’s Testimony

Congress had some follow-up questions:

1. President Obama has warned that, “for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.” He said we must “choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it is too late.”

A. Is there an overwhelming judgment of science or any science, showing that the President’s regulatory actions will prevent the threat that he is so concerned about?

If you believe the climate models, then President Obama’s INDC commitment (total of 80% emissions reduction by 2015), then warming would be reduced by 0.011 degrees Centigrade, a number that was provided to me by Chip Knappenberger of CATO using the MAGICC model with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.0oC http://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-temperature-rise-averted-vital-number-missing-epas-numbers-fact-sheet. If the climate models are indeed running too hot, then the warming would be reduced by an even smaller number.

2. We have heard a lot of doomsday scenarios about what will happen if we do nothing on climate change. However, there has been less attention to what the results of any actions we take to combat climate might be.

A. Suppose we cut all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Would this avert the supposed catastrophic impacts?

Eliminating all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would reduce the warming by 0.014oC (as per the EPA MAGICC model). This is an amount of warming that is much smaller than the uncertainty in even measuring the global average temperature.

3. Dr. Curry, what happens to academics who step out of line on climate change?

A. Why would experts be afraid to question climate change orthodoxy?

The censure of scientists disagreeing with the IPCC consensus was particularly acute during the period 2005-2010. As revealed by the Climategate emails, there was a cadre of leading climate scientists that were working to sabotage the reviews of skeptical research papers (and presumably proposals for research funding). Further, scientists challenging climate change orthodoxy are subjected to vitriolic treatment in news articles, op-eds and blogs, damaging the public reputation of these scientists. I have heard from numerous scientists who are sympathetic to my efforts in challenging climate change orthodoxy, but are afraid to speak out or even publish skeptical research since they are fearful of losing their job.

Since 2010, things have improved somewhat especially in Europe; I think this has largely been due to reflections following Climategate and the fact that disagreement about climate change is not as starkly divided along the lines of political parties (i.e. the issue is somewhat less politicized). In the U.S., with President Obama’s recent pronouncements about climate denial and climate deniers (as anyone who does not agree with the consensus) has increased the toxicity of the environment (both academic and public) for scientists that question the IPCC consensus on climate change.

There’s a lot more.

21 thoughts on “Judith Curry’s Testimony”

  1. It is cool to see the climate models be used against the doomsday cultists.

    “Eliminating all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would reduce the warming by 0.014oC (as per the EPA MAGICC model). This is an amount of warming that is much smaller than the uncertainty in even measuring the global average temperature.”

    Devestating…

  2. Eliminating all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would reduce the warming by 0.014oC

    That’s a bit like arguing that it doesn’t make any difference whether I throw trash out my car window, since my not doing so would only reduce the total amount of roadside litter by a minuscule percentage. Of course, if each individual looked at the question that way there’d be trash everywhere.

    See also: the categorical imperative.

    1. Your pathetic straw men again …

      I find it hard to believe that you really are that stupid, Jim. My guess is that you are lazy.

    2. The proper analogy is that if each individual capped the amount of trash they throw out the window or even if each individual reduced their littering by 20 percent.

      Of maybe some individuals, by their wealth, social standing, or self estimate of their worth to society kept on throwing barrels of trash out the window of their Prius but paid some homeless guys a pittance to pick some of it up or some poor guys driving junker cars to drive around in summer with the windows rolled up.

      There would remain very little impact on what the sidewalks and streets looked like.

      1. The analogy was offered that just because China and India are emitting a lot of carbon (trash tossed out the car window) doesn’t mean that the US should be emitting carbon (littering in the same manner), even if the impact on the number of farmers who need to pick up beer cans off their property frontage with the road is slight.

        I countered that even by the standards of the folks who believe that consuming fuel is “litterin'”, they have no plan to stop “tossing trash out the window”, only a plan to toss slightly less trash. Or their plan is to continue to litter with abandon (cough, Albert Gore, Jr., cough) but to pay some poor schlubs, tax some poor schlubs, or force some poor schlubs to stop driving at all.

        Rand, who are you calling stupid?

    3. Interesting, science refutes your climate alarmism to which you respond with the deontological moral imperative to implement your plans anyway regardless of them not fixing the things they are claimed to be intended to fix.

      “since my not doing so would only reduce the total amount of roadside litter by a minuscule percentage.”

      No, it is saying that eliminating all greenhouse emissions in the USA won’t lead to any measurable differences in temperature.

      A better analogy is that in order to reduce landfill use we could end all littering in the USA by making it punishable by death and not see a measurable impact in the amount of trash processed by waste management companies. Do we really need to threaten people with death for littering if it won’t solve the problem it was intended to?

      Are you going to claim it was the warmest year on record with a fake statistic that is well within the margin of error again?

    4. Wrong again Jim. The proper analogy would be everyone throwing trash out their window and the total amount being what one person might throw out.

  3. I think Jim is basically right, it doesn’t make sense here to look only at the US contributions. But it’s not quite the same as the guy throwing trash out his window. CO2 emissions are heavily driven by a small number of really big countries. The US is an important contributor, and it’s impact here is still miniscule. China and India and (eventually) Africa are far bigger players, and they aren’t going to change just because the US does. They are going to do what they need to bring their people into the 21st century. That will involve a lot of CO2 emissions for quite a while.
    So yeah, Jim is right in principle, but the net result of the US action is going to be pretty much nothing in terms of limiting temperature rise.

    1. What principal is Jim using? The burning of strawmen? The analogy is stupid. He might as well claim that exhaling of CO2 is equivalent to throwing trash out the window. It is the same analogy, it is equally stupid (unless you think all animals are polluting and what of plants consumption of CO2?), and it misses the point.

      The models are not showing a variance outside the margin of error. When models variance is within margin of error, they are deemed to show no significance. Jim’s regular argument is these models should set policy. Why make policy for something that isn’t significant? That point isn’t dismissed by using a moronic analogy.

    2. they aren’t going to change just because the US does

      No, but they are less likely to change if the US doesn’t. Reducing global emissions requires global action, and global action is much less likely without US participation.

      1. Unlike Obama, Biden, Kerry, Jerry Brown, and Al Gore, they aren’t stupid. What the US does will have no influence whatsoever on what they do. They (unlike the fools just listed) will look to the economic interests of their countries.

        1. What the US does will have no influence whatsoever on what they do.

          You’ve backed yourself into defending a ridiculous proposition. Of course U.S. actions have influence on other country’s decisions, just as other countries’ actions have influence on our decisions. If every other industrial country abandoned all efforts to limit carbon emissions it would be politically much more difficult for U.S. politicians to sell limits here. Conversely, the deeper cuts those countries make, the easier it is to justify U.S. cuts. It’s a classic collective action problem.

  4. I think you are all mistaken, and Jim makes an important point.

    If we can reduce global temperature in 2050 by 0.012 degrees C by cutting our emissions in half, achieved by throwing all Democrats into mass graves to eliminate their continued use of CO2, isn’t the temperature reduction worth the cost? And indeed, what cost? We get to keep all their stuff, and they die happy knowing they’re deaths helped save the planet. 🙂

    On the downside, the real estate market will take a hit due to all the vacancies, but we’ve had real estate collapses before and made adjustments.

    By the way, 0.012 C is the temperature a mile to your north, on average, as the temperature goes up about 1C for every 90 miles you move from the tropics.

    1. That’s unfair George, I mentioned that one could take the view that animals pollute. But I do see that perhaps Jim might have had a corollary.

      Yes, I see it now. Having Democrats standing around breathing “That’s a bit like arguing that it doesn’t make any difference whether I throw trash out my car window, since my not doing so would only reduce the total amount of roadside litter by a minuscule percentage.” Sucks to be a Democrat, but if we want a cleaner environment, they have to go. Do it for the .012C!

Comments are closed.