Judith Curry

will be testifying before Congress tomorrow (if she can get out of Reno). Given that the Democrats are in charge of the House now, it looks like it will be a hostile audience. I wonder who invited her?

[Thursday-morning update]

Her post-testimony thoughts:

In 2003 or so, I hired Kim Cobb at Georgia Tech. During my later years at Georgia Tech, we disagreed on A LOT of things.

But I will give credit where it is due:

Kim walks the talk in her personal lifestyle: vegetarian, rides bike to work, solar panels, minimizes flying etc. Very few climate scientists do this.
She genuinely wants climate solutions, and is prepared to work with energy companies and Republicans. VERY FEW climate scientists do this.
Here is excerpt from the first paragraph of her written testimony:

“My message today is simple: there are many no-regrets, win-win actions to reduce the growing costs of climate change, but we’re going to have to come together to form new alliances, in our home communities, across our states, and yes, even in Washington. There are plenty of prizes for early, meaningful action. These include cleaner air and water, healthier, more resilient communities, a competitive edge in the low-carbon 21st century global economy, and the mantle of global leadership on the challenge of our time. I’m confident that through respectful discourse, we will recognize that our shared values unite us in seeking a better tomorrow for all Americans.”

She discusses adaptation, innovation, energy efficiency, land use practices, as well as CO2 emissions reductions.

Compare her recommendations with my closing recommendation (slightly modified on the fly, from what was given in my previous post):

“Bipartisan support seems feasible for pragmatic efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather events, pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures, and land use practices. Each of these efforts has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. These efforts provide the basis of a climate policy that addresses both near-term economic and social justice concerns, and also the longer-term goals of mitigation.”

Is it just me, or is there common ground here?

The no-regrets angle is key here. Richard Lindzen reminded me that ‘no-regrets’ used to be the appropriate framework for climate policy.

It’s now almost a decade since I proposed that we come up with a regret matrix. I’ve still never seen one.

One thought on “Judith Curry”

  1. The problem is that for many AGW alarmists, it isn’t about finding solutions or small scale actions with measurable results. For many it is about punishment, forced sacrifice, and control over other humans based on a moral framework where measurable results are not as important when compared with the virtue of the actions taken.

    Under a framework like this, regret over loss is a virtue as it shows the significance of sacrifice. An imposed sacrifice shows the divine right of those who are in control. That the leaders don’t live under the system they create shows their special place in the social justice hierarchy because you can’t have justice without punishment, without judges, and without rewards.

    Kim puts forward a unique position but it is also a dishonest one as it seeks to hide the intentions and effects of social justice co-opting AGW. There could be some common ground but very little in the long run, especially if one side thinks they are making changes to improve life in general and the other thinks they are making changes to advance social justice and other dubious quasi-religious cultural marxist impositions on society. Cooperation would have to focus on measured outcomes rather than motivations but that is a relationship that will not last when outcomes are viewed as secondary to doing the “right” thing.

Comments are closed.