Here is the content of Dr. Curry’s verbal testimony:
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability that are caused by variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale ocean circulations.
Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change. This includes
- The slow down in global warming since 1998
- Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide
- Climate models that are predicting much more warming than has been observed so far in the 21st century
While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. However this simple truth is essentially meaningless in itself in terms of alarm, and does not mandate a particular policy response.
We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:
- The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century
- Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.
- Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution
- It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.
The inadequacies of current policies based on emissions reduction are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events largely unadressed, whether caused by humans or natural variability.
The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.
The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.
We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.
- We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.
- As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.
- Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.
This concludes my testimony.
Her testimony can also be downloaded here [House science testimony apr 15 final].
Seems completely sensible to me. Don’t panic and don’t allow ourselves to be stampeded by those pushing doomsday scenarios and claiming the science is “settled” based on the output of faulty climate models.
Michael Mann to Twit that Curry is a “Koch-funded climate denier” in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Yes, he’s already called this superb scientist and wholly admirable woman “anti-science.” Would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
… but there is a bevy of highly paid consultants out there just “chomping at the bit” to solve this poorly defined problem.
From the same folks who brought you ISO-9000 and ISO-14000, comes solutions for problems we haven’t even thought of yet.
From my experience with ISO9001, all it means is that you implement a written procedure, follow the procedure, and document that you’ve followed the procedure. There’s no requirement that the procedures actually be effective or useful or that the end product is of any particular quality or purpose. It is effectively a bureaucratic endeavor.
“From my experience with ISO9001…”
Your “product” can be junk, but to pass it has to be well documented and consistently junk.
“A system to ensure you make exactly the same mistake every time”
Oh yes, ISO 9000 the paperwork system that tells you how to make documented junk.
Reminds me of people who develop things like perpetual motion machines, and who trumpet that they “have a patent”.
Patents only tell you that nobody else has thought of that yet.
Not that they actually work.
If you don’t have a procedure, or aren’t following the one you have, you are guaranteed to be making junk.
MarkW
April 16, 2015 at 11:21 am
If you don’t have a procedure, or aren’t following the one you have, you are guaranteed to be making junk.
Soooo, does that mean that everthing made before ISO was junk ? You must have processes and procedures that are known and understood by the people operating them, but really, do I need to write them down and then pay someone € 1000s to read them and ask if my team remembers them?
The basic premise here is that standardization of work leads to better and more repeatable quality of the product (or service) that you produce. Without a system that warrants repeatability, it is most likely that your product will demonstrate varying levels of quality. This is certain to affect your business.
ISO9001 is a management system that can help you with achieving standardization of your work processes.
A good example of how ISO9001 does this can be found in one of the six mandatory procedures: these are documented processes you MUST have under ISO9001. One of them is control of non-conforming product. The idea is that an organization articulates how it deals with product that does not meet (customer) requirements. How do you determine that a product is non-conforming? What do you do, if you find that a product is non-conforming with requirements? How do you make sure you do this in a repeatable way? How do you keep such parts separate from good product?
Another good example from the manufacturing area is the requirement that you make only observations of relevant and specified parameters with calibrated measurement equipment. [Nothing] bureaucratic here either: if you make observations with non or poorly calibrated equipment, one has no idea about the true performance of your product.
There is [nothing] bureaucratic about this.
It is possible to achieve this without ISO9001. And there are many quality management standards in the world that aim to achieve similar objectives.
In the end, it is up to the organization to implement ISO9001 as they see fit. Surely, there are compliance audits. In my experience, such audits are very useful to test the effectiveness of your systems. It helps if you pay for very experienced certification bodies to do the audit. And yes, many organizations go overboard and end up with massively bureaucratic systems. But this is not required nor intended by the standard.
It is what you make of it!
Last time I had anything to do with ISO9000 and its spawn, it also required continuous process improvement. So it is true that you can, today, have a well-defined set of processes that will still allow you to produce low-quality products, but you are also supposed to be seeking improvements in your process, thereby (it is assumed) improving your products.
Computer controlled robots can help you with achieving standardization of your work processes.
But if you are unable to hire people smart enough to manufacture a product or hire people who strive to do their best at doing their job of producing a product ….. then all the paperwork in the world won’t help you any ….. except to inflate your production costs and decrease your profits.
Her thinking is way too intelligent for the alarmist crowd. And finding “reasonable and intelligent people” among them… well, difficult at best.
Agreed, they will hear LALALA, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming, LALALA.
Alan Watt — I agree with what you said
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Michael Mann is a misogynist … where is Australian ex-PM ju-LIAR Gillard when you need her? She said she’d call out misogynists wherever she sees them.
Well said, Dr. Curry. I wonder what, if any, treatment the MSM will give her remarks? I’m willing to bet it will be …silence.
Of course, it does not fit their total support of the progressive agenda.
I think I’d fall over dead it this were covered in the NYT’s. Ain’t going to happen.
I just wonder what progressive is in alarmism? We should stick to windmills and bicycling sounds more regressive to me. ‘Progressive’ would be solutions that actually work.
Seems to me like some news organizations get cornered (willingly or not) on certain issues where they, or their parent company, adopt “policies” towards social issues that govern how specific subjects are treated in the media by default. Of course, the special interest pressure groups that instigated said policies in the first place are always helpfully there later on to help “guide” these “policies” as they “develop” and “evolve” and “mature”.
Interesting point you make, PiperPaul … once the MSN adopts a “policy” they are unable to be impartial commentators to events.
http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-tax
Why not include the whole session rather than just JC’s contirbution?
Would not want anyone to suggest that WUWT is not fair and objective would we?
😉
Mike, do you have any evidence that WUWT is not fair and objective, or are you just throwing invective because her testimony rather destroys the CAGW meme? (And I do mean “meme”, because there’s nothing but conjecture from that camp–the one that’s ANYTHING but fair and objective).
re RockyRoad April 16, 2015 at 5:26 am
Thanks for the rant Rocky, as is sadly typical in comments here you read into my comments lots of things that were not there and start assuming that you know what my position on AGW is and start refuting what I did not say.
The committee called four witnesses and listened to all of them
J.C. was clear and concise, Ms Harbert was also very good and spoke better than Curry ( but wouldn’t know that because of the blinked coverage here ) and even if you don’t agree with what others say, if you just listen to those that agree with your own world view, you will remain uninformed in your own little echo chamber.
In the past WUWT has been very good at presenting information from many sources. It is a blattent omission to present just the testimony of one witness at the hearing. I don’t know why that was done. It does not look good whatever the reason. Which is why at least a link to the full hearing should, IMO, have been included.
Mike,
As I sure you realize, many in the rest of the main stream media are now refusing to publish any evidence that does not support AGW alarmism.
We eagerly await your chastisement of the LA Times et al.
@Mike –
WUWT provides a link to all of the session here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/15/u-s-house-of-representatives-hearing-on-obamas-un-climate-pledge-today-at-10am-eastern/
Can’t be any more fair and objective than that, can we?
WUWT has now highlighted Dr. Curry’s contribution in this thread.
Nothing wrong with that.
You are more than welcome to start your own blog and highlight whatever portion of whatever you think is worth highlighting.
In the interim, peddle your Trollware elsewhere where, perhaps, you won’t look so silly.
I read the testimony from the NRDC representative, if it were posted here it would be torn to shreads in minutes. His testimony is pitiful. It’s full of unsupportable statements that can be refuted with data in a few mere mouse clicks. There’s no data or charts, just a short handwaving appeal to emotion and various other logical fallacies.
Just like the warmist blog posters I see all over the web.
The issue we deal with 20 times a day, is that we are inundated with with media coverage of CAGW. My national, tax payer funded, news outlet won’t tolerate speakers who defy CAGW. And most of us have tackled the scientific material head on. We understand in general terms the technology, the physics, the politics…what more. So it’s not that we selectively ignore diametrical views, we are well aware of them to point of nausea
Like we haven’t heard their same talking points over and over and over again? Do they have anything new this time?
Did Ms. Curry say something you have not heard before?
Mike says “Why not include the whole session rather than just JC’s contirbution?”
Your question is not optimum. One does not need reasons for not doing things; instead, one needs a reason to do something. The proper question therefore is what reason exists for reposting an entire session when you can just link to it (as you did).
“Would not want anyone to suggest that WUWT is not fair and objective would we?”
I do not understand “won’t we would we” questions. You are free to suggest whatever it comes into your mind to suggest. Wanting someone else to do the suggesting for you seems a bit lazy.
“Fair” is a word primarily used by children and the liberal left, and it typically means “you have something I want”.
“Objective” is a word that is used when the observer’s bias matches the source’s bias and thus seems to have no bias.
Mike
That’s a reasonable suggestion but very time consumming to implement. JC has a very unique position in the climate science community. It is that position that makes her testamony the stand out and worthwhile publishing video. There are some people here that don’t agree with her at all or in small part but she is the more interesting person in climate science and at the congress at the moment.
So Mike, I suppose you will be advocating that all views should be heard, in all the blogs and in the various mainstream media outpourings etc,etc of the very one sided Alarmist view. That would be good. Why don’t you nip over to Skepsci and suggest they should be listening to the Sceptics. There’s always plenty of the Alarmist stuff given space here on WUWT. I think you should acknowledge that.
Eamon.
Yes, I agree. WUWT is a one of very few climate sites worth reading. That is why I consider it worth commenting if standards appear to slide.
I was not meaning that the article should have reproduced all witnesses submissions verbatim, simply that the links at the end should have included the hearing where all submissions can be found.
It appears very blinkered and deliberate to feature JC text and a link to her written submission and not a word of the witnesses.
Since this article is almost a direct reprint of JC own blog post where she DOES provide links to other witnesses, but without the links, it makes that omission even more pointed.
I’m a great supporter of Dr Curry but there were other, very competent witnesses that merit at least a link.
Obviously the many posters decrying my comment have not even bothered to look at the hearing web site or the submissions made by the other witnesses but just fire off the usual flames here and toddle off elsewhere.
If they had they would realise that I was pointing to the very good presentations by other sceptical speakers and the poor performance by the single warmist.
Mike,
“Thanks for the rant Rocky” is sneering sarcasm. And you have no clue what constitutes a rant.
“as is sadly typical in comments here you read into my comments lots of things that were not there and start assuming that you know what my position on AGW is and start refuting what I did not say.”
That’s gratuitous denigration of the commenters here.
“Would not want anyone to suggest that WUWT is not fair and objective would we?
;)”
There, you combine sneering sarcasm with gratuitous denigration of WUWT. Complete with snide emoticon.
Now you marvel that readers interpret your two lines as hostile.
My own take is that you’re unpleasant and uninteresting. I don’t care if you’re a warmer or a slayer.
Ms Curry gives me hope that science isnt totally corrupt.
There are always some honest people. The real question is what price they are made to pay for their honesty.
Michael Palmer
Yes! Well said! Yours is the best comment in the thread so far.
Richard
I managed to watch the 2 hour long testimony / hearing. Dr. Curry was in good company with Dr. Thorning and Ms. Harbert. Mr. Schmidt tried hard and was the go-to from the LH side of the bench but he overused China when trying to make his case. The point was made that the US’s contribution to the emissions number as outlined in the Kyoto agreement has been met and that the US is the only nation to have done so. It was also noted that only a few (13?) nations have submitted (for the Paris meeting Dec ’15) their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) by the March 31st ’15 deadline. The economic damage associated with meeting the proposed US reduction numbers was spelt out in no uncertain terms given that 20% of low wage earners paycheck already goes to paying for power. It was noted that doubling the cost of energy with the ongoing chase to renewables is going make their situation worse with no discernible improvement in the environment but at great harm to the low wage families and the economy. (But who care when it is for the common good – let them eat cake.)
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive10
H/T for the post yesterday with the link to the hearing.
Ms Curry said,
“While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming.”
This is an unproven statement, Globally; but it is a true statement, Locally. I finally found proof of humans influencing LOCAL climate: the major cities producing Urban Heat Islands. Almost all temperature data records were by airports, by urban areas, i.e., Local regions. That data shows warming! The RSS and UAH Global data sources show “constant Global temperature over the last 17 years”.
I read her statement as meaning that whatever humans are doing that influences the climate, that influence is overall in the direction of warming. Sounds reasonable to me.
This doesn’t mean that the human induced warming is either measureable or detectable.
Or harmful.
If it isn’t measurable or detectable, then the idea that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming is neither clear nor does it have any scientific or logical meaning. It is nothing more than conjecture.
I recently had a rep from EPA on site visit tell me that this stream, near an elementary school and down slope from a Super Fund site, still had trace but unmeasurable amounts of some contaminant. I replied, “what the hell does that mean”?
I read her statement of opinion to mean, humans are a cause of warming, but I don’t know or can’t tell how. More money required to support this position. Data in support of the statement anyone?
Bruce Cobb
April 16, 2015 at 7:51 am
If it isn’t measurable or detectable, then the idea that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming is neither clear nor does it have any scientific or logical meaning. It is nothing more than conjecture.
Well, not necessarily. I mean “measureable or detectable” with our current technology and not in the manner you describe which I agree would not seem either scientific or logical.
@jlurtz
Give us (and her) a break! Quote the whole passage, not the “disagreeable” fragment. She said:
(emphasis mine).
Denizens on her site went a bit over the top about that too. Many skeptics believe that humans have contributed some warming – in a variety of ways (UHI, land use/misuse, river redirection, dams, adding aerosols, gases and particulates to the atmosphere, etc.). You should re-read Fred Singer’s post about naysayers giving skeptics a bad name.
“(UHI, land use/misuse, river redirection, dams, adding aerosols, gases and particulates”
True, true, all true. But these are all local effects. When we are talking about GW, AGW, or CAGW, we are talking about global effects. And that is a hugely different matter. The world really is a big place after all. It is a matter of scale with orders of magnitude difference. Whenever we are talking about global anything, I think we do a great disservice when we mention any local effect without a proper qualification.
At least regionally, irrigation and slash-and-burn should also have measurable effects.
Try the same plot, but with RSS!
For the 18 year period, Mar 1997-Mar 2015, UAH shows warming of 0.066C/decade. This is only a third of the IPCC projections of 0.2C/decade for the early 21st century.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,0,0,1,48%5D
Sorry, that should read:
For the 18 year period, Mar 1997-Mar 2015, UAH shows warming of 0.096C/decade. This is only half of the IPCC projections of 0.2C/decade for the early 21st century.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,3,1,217%5D
My earlier comment used HadCRUT figures.
She is correct to state that humans are influencing the temperatures such as a small extent by landscape changes. However she likely did not include the major effect of more urban stations versus rural or the “adjustments” – cool the past and warm the present as has been documented here and elsewhere.
Take a guess at what will happen once ENSO flips to negative conditions.
Do the same here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
You will find that the trend is 0.101+/-0.180C/decade. Could be warming, could be cooling. Error margin is too large to say one way or the other. Loosely speaking, it looks pretty flat to me.
Constant? Nothing is constant in weather or climate.
Within statistically significant criteria it does.
UHI and many effects caused agricultural modifications to landscapes are “warming” effects, so what she said makes perfect sense. The issue lies in whether these real anthropic effects contribute significantly to the global climate regime.
Finally? Seriously?
For 40yrs or more local weather forecasters in Boston would ALWAYS point out that the night time lows in the city would be 2-8 degF higher than the rest of the state. This has been known for many decades.
The odd thing, is that they don’t see UHI effect as the only real warming problem we can actually make a dent in remedying!
Because there’s no money in it. Always follow the money, and always weigh their “ideas” by how much money can be controlled/influenced by implementing the idea.
I have said this before, but I will say it again. Due to the pause in GW (which none of the computer models, predicted and the only explanation is the highly improbable “heat disappearing into the oceans”) does it not seen sensible to remove funding from climate scientists and use the money to fund thorium and fusion reactors research. The atmospheric temperature could be monitored by existing satellites and if the pause ends, review the situation. Wrecking the world’s economy and driving the most vulnerable in our societies into fuel poverty is a huge price to pay for what is only speculation
Why remove funding from one to pay for the other? That just isn’t the way thing are done. Pay for everything. We just have to print more money, that’s all.
(mod sez I need a sarc tag) /s
thing s/b things
I take it you live in UK?
No, live in the good ol’ USofA where the Nat’l Debt now exceeds GDP.
“Wrecking the world’s economy and driving the most vulnerable in our societies into fuel poverty is a huge price to pay for what is only speculation”
1. Make a poster.
2. Hang on wall.
remove funding from climate scientists
=======================
If some of the hundred billion or so dollars spend on climate science had been spent instead to strengthen the flood protection around New Orleans, at least the US would have gotten some value from the money.
Instead the US public policy relies on climate science that would have us believe that all we have to do is stop burning coal and there will never again be any hurricanes, and thus no need to strengthen flood defenses.
Instead the US public policy relies on climate science that is worried about sea level rise of about 1 inch a decade, when the east coast gets hit with storm surges of 20 feet during major storms. Does it really matter if the storm surge is 20 feet today or 21 feet by 2100? If your seawall is only 6 feet tall you have a problem that has nothing to do with CO2.
.
Amen.
Andrew, if energy can remain a free market commodity, without excessive or prejudiced taxation and government control, then the market potential of each energy source will drive it’s development. I agree though, that thorium power should be a higher govt. funding priority than wind and solar, primarily from my “bird and critter preservation” perspective.
Plus, i shudder to think of constantly looking out my home/car window at the hardware it would take just to assimilate coal plants.
Balanced, well organized, reasonable, and with a needed dose of science/modeling limitations. What more can you ask.
Resourceguy on April 16, 2015 at 6:10 am
– – – – – – – – –
Resourceguy,
Your assessment of Curry’s verbal testimony before Congress is well put, and I concur with the essence of it.
John
And I concur with your concurrence, John.
Use of the words “verbal” as against “oral” are tricky. I think this was her oral testimony. The word “verbal” doesn’t always work as the opposite of the word “written.” … especially when there are lawyers in the room. A lot of thought was put into this testimony. She boiled things down very well. In this debate people rarely discuss how much is not know or maybe even unknowable. “Wicked Problem” is a nice way to put it.
The other word she used was ‘hubris’. The ancient Greeks wrote lots of myths that demonstrated the folly of hubris. Sadly, I think the modern world has totally forgotten those lessons.
We have lots of ‘experts’ who are willing to make wild predictions. They’re wrong about half the time. Somehow there are no consequences for being wrong and misleading people. I say bring back the Greek Gods and re-instate some real penalties for hubris.
“Wicked problem” is an actual term of art. I recommend reading the Wiki entry (with the usual caveats). It’s very interesting and informative.
Our friends on the alarmist side, especially, should learn about “wicked problems”.
Wicked problem. I have a new phrase. Thanks for the Wiki heads up. I learneded sumpin new today.
Me to 🙂
I think she puts up an excellent case. But why parrot the manufactured fear-based terminology?
“…addressing the risks from climate change.”
She’s up against some well-funded and well-connected heavyweights here. Perhaps a new scriptwriter might be worthwhile to engage with more passion. Who the hell understands ‘wicked’ in scientific terminology?
“Wicked problem” may be a term of art, but in the context of a House hearing run by scientific ignoramuses it might be a good idea to use it once for the jarring effect, then later reference the problem as “formidable.”
BTW, has anyone else noticed that Dr. Curry’s blog now requires logging in with WordPress, Twitter, or Facebook? I wanted to congratulate her after watching to video of the hearing, but I’m not going to submit to Facebook tracking to do so.
Nutso, she instituted the policy because there was an assumed identity problem. She has since reversed it.
Thanks, ristvan, glad of that.
Commenting is still restricted. See no explanation why.
Mike, I have only read the transcripts, not viewed the video, but if you think Ms Harbert was “very good and spoke better than Ms. Curry,” she must have the unusual ability to make reading the phone directory sound interesting,
It should be clear to any reasonable observer that the IPCC has exaggerated global warming by at least a factor of two and so there is no cause for alarm and panic.
I will also repeat (until the message sinks in) that LENR (aka cold fusion) is now proven beyond reasonable doubt. A 1 MW plant, built by Industrial Heat LLC,is now at the start of a one year trial in a customer’s factory. So there is reason to believe LENR will largely replace fossil fuels over the next 1 -2 decades.
Really?
No.
We’ll know before year-end, when the details of the trial run are released.
Industrial Heat LLC bought the rights to serial fraudster Andrea Rossi’s snake oil show the “E Cat.” See this report here http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Andrea-Rossi-Energy-Catalyzer-Investigation-Index.shtml
Their investigation didn’t show anything proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Except that Rossi is a fraud, and a pathetic one at that.
Dave, you are wrong. There were multiple demos of the original low temperature E-Cat that probably hundreds of people witnessed. The only one who has cried foul is Krivit who owns the blog you linked. There is another one shutrossidown I’m surprised you didn’t quote.
The later development, the Hot Cat, has been tested by Elforsk (Swedish equivalent of our EPRI) twice and recently replicate twice by Dr. Parkhomov is Russia. Current Science has published this special LENR section . http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions&featid=10094
There are some 1,700 papers at http://www.lenr-canr.org.
The revival of interest in LENR is largely due to Andrea Rossi. You would do well to find out more before making those ad hominem attacks that display your bias and ignorance..
Proven Scam
http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-ecat-industrial-heat-llc-conclusions-drawn-from-the-n-c-radiation-protection-report/
Some people have too little to do but make idle speculations. It is true that Rossi said it will take hundreds of million dollars to implement LENR widely. It will probably take more than that. It is a stretch to say that proves Industrial Heat is looking for this money as part of a scam. You can’t invest in Industrial Heat. I would if I could.
See photos of the 1 MW plant nearing completion ~ 3 or 4 months ago. http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant
The plant started a one year trial about 3 months ago. Does that sound like a scam?
Judge Tom Darden for yourself. Here is a link to his presentation at the current ICCFS19.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/14/tom-dardens-speech-on-lenr-at-iccf19/
Not sure what to make of this. The man has been ‘done’ in the past in connection with a bankruptcy, but I’m not sure if that means we should regard him as a liar as well. Notably, most of the reports of his shady past surface on renewable energy sites. Which, in view of the renewables guys’ blanket opposition to fusion of any kind is a bit like asking Michael Mann for a snow forecast. The main point, i think, is that other independent researchers say they have produced similar devices, for example the H-Cat.
Unlike Pons & Fleischmann’s complex and painstaking method of demonstrating LENR, the device is quite simple and its performance should be easy enough to prove or refute. The thing I don’t understand is, if it is energised by heat and generates several times more heat than the input, why does it not undergo thermal runaway? I could forsee something like that being very hard to control.
From Rossi’s reports, comments, warnings, and device size, I think they did have great difficulty in controlling the E-cat. I also think they’re getting better control of it, I suspect IH’s involvement has made big contributions on the control side.
Parkhomov’s attempts at replication are interesting, this may help IH focus more on productizing things. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/27/parkhomov-report-thread-agp-speaks-at-seminar-in-moscow-mar-26/
Living in Germany, for the past 5 years but also lived in many other countries, ( work) I have come to the conclusion that we as humans lack intelligence .because we vote like sheep, politicians the world over are idiots, and we still give them the power to ruin our lives, any Russians out there ? Putin is the worlds richest man ! Obarnswister ( if it is true ) just paid $38 million for a hideaway in Hawaii, Argentina, North Korea, Cuba, and don’t even think about religion !
George says “because we vote like sheep”
Those that say “we” vote like sheep. You do not speak for me.
It is not “clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming”. Dr Curry should watch replacing one set of unfounded claims with another.
It is clear that humans are influencing local climates in the direction of warming via groundwater depletion, UHI, and land use changes. It is the future effect of CO2 increases globally that is still debatable.
…and that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the sound of logic, common sense, intelligence, knowledge and integrity.
Brava, Dr. Curry!!! Well done !!!
Dr. Curry is completely right, in my personal opinion, to state that government policies are going to have little if any return.
Even if humans were making a substantial contribution to warming of the planet through CO2 emissions, the presumption that something can be done about that is amusing. There are 7 billion people on the planet – together North America, Europe, and Japan comprise roughly 1 billion people. Even if every one of that billion were to decrease CO2 emissions by 50%, ( a billion electric cars and a solar panel on every house?) it would be offset by the increasing emissions of the remaining 6 billion as their level of industrialization increases, their energy use expands, and their lives improve.
It is not realistic to believe that the comfortable countries of the West can go to India, China, and Africa and tell those populations that they can’t have better lives. Giving the poor in those countries wind turbines and solar panels might suffice for supplying power for subsistence farmers, but those sources are not going to supply adequate power for industrialization – and telling them they can’t industrialize is, well, shouting at the clouds. The only question is how it will happen. Since they have neither the funds, technical abilities, nor the approval of the West to build nuclear plants, they will have to rely on the cheapest sources of energy for electricity generation. As coal fades from use in the West, it becomes cheaper for export. Deny them coal, and they will use oil. Their development cannot be stopped and, frankly, it would be wrong to try to do so.
+1
Return and cost are clearly not related to the point of the exercise. It is all about emotion and over reach.
Though, a related issue is that if everyone in China decided to buy a car, the world would not have enough fossil fuel to keep them all going for very long. Sooner or later that situation will arise, and therefore we need to be looking-into replacements for fossil fuels that do actually work, and which provide more than the intermittent trickle of power that renewables give.
You did great Dr. Curry and I LOVE your look. You look like one of us, the people, working people who do not have consultants or personal assistants or chauffeurs or chefs. You’ve placed yourself in a most admirable place in history; one of the lone voices of reason and science in a sea of foolishness. History will be very kind to your Dr. Curry, I am so thankful for you and your courage to speak truth to power.
Imagine the world of the late 21st Century when Governments start to believe that PRODUCING MORE CO2 has benefits to the environment. Then “warming” a cooling Earth, then increasing all plant life on earth and planktonic life in the oceans – thereby creating more food and oxygen on the planet.
Imagine a world where nations arguments no longer revolve about MORE CO2, but where they argument is who will PAY for it’s generation? Imagine the arguments turned upside down. Then those arguments will be that “developed” nations should pay for more as they are wealthier.
Imagine that this scenario is at least as likely as the IPCC’s……….
If the forecasts of a cooling planet for the next 3 decades due to the loss of solar activity workout – maybe not that hard to imagine.
I think is was last year that Dr. Curry mentioned that it was a good thing she had tenure. She probably stirred up another hornet’s nest with yesterdays comments as well. It might get interesting on the warming blogs for the next few days. After all she is sort of breaking their rice bowl.
I am not a scientist, nor do I “study” it, although I had an early love of science before it became obvious that science believes the world can be digitized, a belief I can’t share. You can simulate something with mathematics, true, but I don’t believe you can ever define it. Just my point of view, To me, then, the following quote is problematic –
“While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. However this simple truth is essentially meaningless in itself in terms of alarm, and does not mandate a particular policy response.”
In the long history of the planet, there have been many periods where the planet warmed and the planet cooled. In many of those periods, to and by far greater amounts than we see today – or so it appears according to science. That I can accept since it isn’t exactly defined by mathematics. Given that simple fact, then, it is NOT clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. Yes, humans ARE affecting climate via what we do in respect to land and resource management, but it is NOT an undeniable fact that we are causing warming beyond the active release of thermal energy into the biosphere. It is a supposition only, and no amount of modeling or data massage and torture can “prove” that we are “causing warming” by any other means. That warming exists and that what we do “might” cause warming in some manner, might well be true, but it is NOT undeniable that we might, in fact, not cause warming beyond the thermal release.
—————————————–
•Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.
This bullet speaks to the truth, and is more supportive of the realistic point that “natural causes” cause climate change and in particular, warming, not humans. Our effects on “climate” will be localized to the areas that we mismanage the land and water resources. We can, as an example, cause drought to be worse in California because we don’t manage resources with a true eye to environment, and that can change the local climate. Will that affect other areas as well? I would say yes within the continental confines, but will it affect Europe? Not likely in any measurable way, yet there will be those that will say so.
now the question is am I a skeptic or a denier, and I have no problem using the terms since neither is a label, in my mind, that carries with it some vile connotation. I say skeptic since a skeptic would be waiting for undeniable proof that this “climate change” is somehow different from every other instance of climate change in the historic record.
All good advice but will likely be drowned out by the Global Warming Industry propaganda campaign. Because Global Warming is really just the proxy being used to actually implement the global wealth “adjustment” plan outlined in the UN Agenda 21.
The problem with Agenda 21, like all progressive fairness based campaigns, aka Socialism is they all the suffer the fatal flaw of someone creating wealth and others coveting wealth but unable to create it.
So they dream up plans to appropriate, sorry, “spread the wealth around” to satisfy their internal political agenda.
And then one day they run out of other people’s money to grab.
Hear hear …
If AGW is a “proxy,” its a proxy for population reduction, not wealth redistribution. The wealth is not intended to be moved from where it is – the elitist 1% – it is intended to reduce the number of poverty level people so they can live on the resources that will be allocated for that purpose.
Fred – I subscribe to the USEPA “Press Releases” as part of my work related requirements. Today, a Press Release came into the inbox, regarding a reset of the EPA’s “Environmental Justice” program, based upon successful EJ efforts through the year 2014. The new effort is labelled “EJ2020”.
Link: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ej2020/ – all a part of the Agenda for the 21st Century…….
Brilliant: now lets define “environmental justice”, “Partners” and “Overburdened Communities”.
* Deepening environmental justice progress in EPA’s programs to improve the health and environment of overburdened communities.
* Collaborating with partners to expand our impact in overburdened communities.
* Demonstrating progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities.
More disinformation leading to more “you owe me” and transfer of so called wealth. Didn’t I just read our debt exceeds our total GDP?
While we are on this subject: Why is the EPA involved in Environmental (read Social) Justice? More hype and more boondoggles hidden under a cloak of mealy mouthed rubbish. Is there anyone with control of the purse strings listening to this tripe?
As is often the case lately when I read another great piece by Judith Curry, I reflect back on this wonderful post by Willis from 2010. I even suspect Willis may deserve some credit for helping Dr. Curry in her forming her views, but of course only Dr. Curry would be able to comment on that.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/judith-i-love-ya-but-youre-way-wrong/
Thanks for that reference… boy does post that bring back memories.
Just went through it links and all. Quite a “debate”. My hat off to both parties. Rational, reasoned and no rancor. What a treat. 🙂
Cowabunga, Area Man. I just reread that! Willis pounded her like Muhammad Ali did to so many in his prime. That was a ripper – and it pretty well summarizes my anger and vehement disdain for “climate science” (trough-feeding hogs, whores, or commies, with a handful of real, stand-up men and women trying to be true to their profession and intellects). Thanks for the reminder.
What I really appreciated about Willis’ piece was that it didn’t seek to attack her personally, but rather to truly HELP her understand. I can’t help but think it had a very positive effect on Dr. Curry, but again only she would be able to comment on that.
A beacon of light and courage!
I believe this is the key point:
Dr. Curry is asking us to set policy and perform actions considering the outcomes.
Progressive thought considers only the inputs.
It is easy to leave “real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events largely unadressed” if you presume the consequences going in and never test results.
Or if “testing results” consists of cherry picking anecdotes to “prove” your point, even if they
need to be fabricated.
Unlike many, I should think that dr. Curry’s students are getting the education they are paying for.
Dr. Curry,
Clear, comprehensive communicating, using rock solid principles and verifiable facts of meteorology and climate.
Thanks to Dr. Curry for stressing that “climate change” is not a synonym for “catastrophic global warming requiring ineffective solutions that require surrender of individual liberty and redistribution of wealth.”
And contrary to supposition on her blog, I think Dr. Curry used just the right number of “OK?”s with the proper emphasis to produce a response of “OK” from Rep. Beyer.
I hope she changes her mind and turns OFF the registration requirement on her blog.