That headline is Dr. Judth Curry’s testimony before The House Testimony on global warming yesterday. It had a number of excellent presentations, and you can watch the entire video here.
Some excerpts below, the entire presentation is available for download after the break.
Climate change can be categorized as a “wicked problem.”1 Wicked problems are difficult or impossible to solve, there is no opportunity to devise an overall solution by trial and error, and there is no real test of the efficacy of a solution to the wicked problem. Efforts to solve the wicked problem may reveal or create other problems.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have framed the climate change problem (i.e. dangers) and its solution (i.e. international treaty) to be irreducibly global. Based upon the precautionary principle, the UNFCCC ’s Kyoto Protocol has established an international goal of stabilization of the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. This framing of the problem and its solution has led to the
dilemma of climate response policy that is aptly described by Obersteiner et al.2:
The key issue is whether “betting big today” with a comprehensive global climate policy
targeted at stabilization “will fundamentally reshape our common future on a global scale to our advantage or quickly produce losses that can throw mankind into economic, social, and environmental bankruptcy.”
1 Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber; “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” pp. 155–169, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc., Amsterdam, 1973. http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf
2 http://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/1975/292/2001-Managing_climate_risk.pdf?sequence=1
…
Engagement of climate researchers with regional planners, economists, military/intelligence organizations, development banks, energy companies, and governments in the developing world to develop a mutual understanding about what kind of information is needed can promote more fruitful decision outcomes, and define new scientific challenges to be addressed by research. The need for climate researchers to engage with social scientists and engineers has never been more important.
Further, there is an increasing need for social scientists and philosophers of science to scrutinize and analyze our field to prevent dysfunction at the science-policy interface.
And finally, climate scientists and the institutions that support them need to acknowledge and engage with ever-growing groups of citizen scientists, auditors, and extended peer communities that have become increasingly well organized by the blogosphere. The more sophisticated of these groups are challenging our conventional notions of expertise and are bringing much needed scrutiny particularly into issues surrounding historical and paleoclimate data records.
These groups reflect a growing public interest in climate science and a growing concern about possible impacts of climate change and climate change policies. The acrimony that has developed between some climate scientists and blogospheric skeptics was amply evident in the sorry mess that is known as Climategate. Climategate illuminated the fundamental need for improved and transparent historical and paleoclimate data sets and improved information systems so that these data are easily accessed and interpreted.
Blogospheric communities can potentially be important in identifying and securing the common interest at these disparate scales in the solution space of the energy, climate and ocean acidification problems. A diversity of views on interpreting the scientific evidence and a broad range of ideas on how to address these challenges doesn’t hinder the implementation of diverse megaton and kiloton solutions at local and regional scales.
Securing the common interest on local and regional scales provides a basis for the successful implementation of climate adaptation strategies. Successes on the
local and regional scale and then national scales make it much more likely that global issues can be confronted in an effective way.
=========================================================
Her testimony is available here: Curry_Testimony_11-17-2010
Page 1 of 8
STATEMENT TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Hearing on
“Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response”
17 November 2010
Judith A. Curry
Georgia Institute of Technology
curryja@eas.gatech.edu
I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today on “Rational
Discussion of Climate Change.” I am Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the
Georgia Institute of Technology. As a climate scientist, I have devoted 30 years to conducting research
on a variety of topics including climate feedback processes in the Arctic, energy exchange between the
ocean and the atmosphere, the role of clouds and aerosols in the climate system, and the impact of
climate change on the characteristics of hurricanes. As president of Climate Forecast Applications
Network LLC, I have been working with decision makers on climate impact assessments, assessing
and developing climate adaptation strategies, and developing subseasonal climate forecasting
strategies to support adaptive management and tactical adaptation. Over the past year, I have been
actively engaging with the public (particularly in the blogosphere) on the issue of integrity of climate
science, and also the topic of uncertainty.
The climate change response challenge
Climate change can be categorized as a “wicked problem.”1 Wicked problems are difficult or
impossible to solve, there is no opportunity to devise an overall solution by trial and error, and there
is no real test of the efficacy of a solution to the wicked problem. Efforts to solve the wicked problem
may reveal or create other problems.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have framed the climate change problem (i.e. dangers) and its
solution (i.e. international treaty) to be irreducibly global. Based upon the precautionary principle, the
UNFCCC ’s Kyoto Protocol has established an international goal of stabilization of the concentrations
of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. This framing of the problem and its solution has led to the
dilemma of climate response policy that is aptly described by Obersteiner et al.2:
The key issue is whether “betting big today” with a comprehensive global climate policy
targeted at stabilization “will fundamentally reshape our common future on a global scale to
our advantage or quickly produce losses that can throw mankind into economic, social, and
environmental bankruptcy.”
1 Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber; “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” pp. 155–169, Policy
Sciences, Vol. 4, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc., Amsterdam, 1973.
Click to access Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf
2 http://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/1975/292/2001-Managing_climate_risk.pdf?sequence=1
Curry – Testimony on Rational Discussion of Climate Change
Page 2 of 8
In a rational discussion of climate change, the question needs to be asked as to whether the framing of
the problem and the early articulation of a preferred policy option by the UNFCCC has marginalized
research on broader issues surrounding climate change, and resulted is an overconfident assessment of
the importance of greenhouse gases in future climate change, and stifled the development of a broader
range of policy options.
The IPCC/UNFCCC have provided an important service to global society by alerting us to a global
threat that is potentially catastrophic. The UNFCCC/IPCC has made an ambitious attempt to put a
simplified frame around the problem of climate change and its solution in terms of anthropogenic
forcing and CO2 stabilization polices. However, the result of this simplified framing of a wicked
problem is that we lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate change and
societal vulnerability.
Uncertainty in climate science
Anthropogenic climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but in
which the magnitude of the climate change is highly uncertain owing to feedback processes. We know
that the climate changes naturally on decadal to century time scales, but we do not have explanations
for a number of observed historical and paleo climate variations, including the warming from 1910-
1940 and the mid-20th century cooling. The conflict regarding the theory of anthropogenic climate
change is over the level of our ignorance regarding what is unknown about natural climate variability.
I have been raising concerns3 since 2003 about how uncertainty surrounding climate change is
evaluated and communicated. The IPCC’s efforts to consider uncertainty focus primarily on
communicating uncertainty, rather than on characterizing and exploring uncertainty in a way that
would be useful for risk managers and resource managers and the institutions that fund science. A
number of scientists have argued that future IPCC efforts need to be more thorough about describing
sources and types of uncertainty, making the uncertainty analysis as transparent as possible.
Recommendations along these lines were made by the recent IAC4 review of the IPCC.
Because the assessment of climate change science by the IPCC is inextricably linked with the
UNFCCC polices, a statement about scientific uncertainty in climate science is often viewed as a
political statement. A person making a statement about uncertainty or degree of doubt is likely to
become categorized as a skeptic or denier or a “merchant of doubt,”5 whose motives are assumed to be
ideological or motivated by funding from the fossil fuel industry. My own experience in publicly
discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has resulted in my being
labeled as a “climate heretic”6 that has turned against my colleagues.
Climate change winners and losers
A view of the climate change problem as irreducibly global fails to recognize that some regions may
actually benefit from a warmer and/or wetter climate. Areas of the world that currently cannot
adequately support populations and agricultural efforts may become more desirable in future climate
regimes.
3 http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/crc-102103.pdf
4 http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/
5 Oreskes, N. and E.M. Conway, 2010: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the
Truth on Issues from Tobacco to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press, 368 pp.
6 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic
Curry – Testimony on Rational Discussion of Climate Change
Page 3 of 8
Arguably the biggest global concern regarding climate change impacts is concerns over water
resources. This concern is exacerbated in regions where population is rapidly increasing and water
resources are already thinly stretched. China and South Asia (notably India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh)
are facing a looming water crisis arising from burgeoning population and increasing demand for water
for irrigated farming and industry. China has been damming the rivers emerging from Tibet and
channeling the water for irrigation, and there is particular concern over the diversion of the
Brahmaputra to irrigate the arid regions of Central China. China’s plans to reroute the Brahmaputra
raises the specter of riparian water wars with India and Bangladesh.
The IPCC AR4 WGII makes two statements of particular relevance to the water situation in central
and south Asia:
“Freshwater availability in Central, South, East and South-East Asia . . . is likely to decrease
due to climate change, along with population growth and rising standard of living that could
adversely affect more than a billion people in Asia by the 2050s (high confidence).”7
“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the
present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps
sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely
shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”8
The lack of veracity of the statement about the melting Himalayan glaciers has been widely discussed,
and the mistake has been acknowledged by the IPCC.9 However, both of these statements seem
inconsistent with the information in Table 10.2 of the IPCC AR4 WG II and the statement:
“The consensus of AR4 models . . . indicates an increase in annual precipitation in most of
Asia during this century; the relative increase being largest and most consistent between
models in North and East Asia. The sub-continental mean winter precipitation will very likely
increase in northern Asia and the Tibetan Plateau and likely increase in West, Central,
South-East and East Asia. Summer precipitation will likely increase in North, South, South-
East and East Asia but decrease in West and Central Asia.” 10
Based on the IPCC’s simulations of 21st century climate, it seems that rainfall will increase overall in
the region (including wintertime snowfall in Tibet), and the IPCC AR4 WGII does not discuss the
impact of temperature and evapotranspiration on fresh water resources in this region. The importance
of these omissions, inconsistencies or mistakes by the IPCC is amplified by the potential of riparian
warfare in this region that supports half of the world’s population.
A serious assessment is needed of vulnerabilities, region by region, in the context of possible climate
change scenarios, demographics, societal vulnerabilities, possible adaptation, and current adaptation
deficits. A few regions have attempted such an assessment. Efforts being undertaken by the World
Bank Program on the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change to assess the economics of
adaptation in developing countries are among the best I’ve seen in this regard. This is the kind of
information that is needed to assess winners and losers and how dangerous climate change might be
relative to adaptive capacities.
7 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-es.html
8 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html
9 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf
10 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-3.html#10-3-1
Curry – Testimony on Rational Discussion of Climate Change
Page 4 of 8
Climate surprises and catastrophes
The uncertainty associated with climate change science and the wickedness of the problem provide
much fodder for disagreement about preferred policy options. Uncertainty might be regarded as cause
for delaying action or as strengthening the case for action. Low-probability, high-consequence events
in the context of a wicked problem provide particular challenges to developing robust policies.
Extreme events such as landfalling major hurricanes, floods, extreme heat waves and droughts can
have catastrophic impacts. While such events are not unexpected in an aggregate sense, their frequency
and/or severity may increase in a warmer climate and they may be a surprise to the individual locations
that are impacted by a specific event. Natural events become catastrophes through a combination of
large populations, large and exposed infrastructure in vulnerable locations, and when humans modify
natural systems that can provide a natural safety barrier (e.g. deforestation, draining wetlands). For
example, the recent catastrophic flooding in Pakistan11 apparently owes as much to deforestation and
overgrazing as it does to heavy rainfall. Addressing current adaptive deficits and planning for climate
compatible development will increase societal resilience to future extreme events that may be more
frequent or severe in a warmer climate.
Abrupt climate change12 is defined as a change that occurs faster than the apparent underlying driving
forces. Abrupt climate change, either caused by natural climate variability or triggered in part by
anthropogenic climate change, is a possibility that needs investigation and consideration. Catastrophic
anthropogenic climate change arising from climate sensitivity on the extreme high end of the
distribution has not been adequately explored, and the plausible worst-case scenario has not be
adequately articulated. To what extent can we falsify scenarios of very high climate sensitivity based
on our background knowledge? What are the possibilities for abrupt climate change, and what are the
possible time scales involved? What regions would be most vulnerable under this worst-case scenario?
Weitzmann13 characterizes the decision making surrounding climate change in the following way:
“Much more unsettling for an application of expected utility analysis is deep structural
uncertainty in the science of global warming coupled with an economic inability to place
a meaningful upper bound on catastrophic losses from disastrous temperature changes.
The climate science seems to be saying that the probability of a system-wide disastrous
collapse is non-negligible even while this tiny probability is not known precisely and
necessarily involves subjective judgments.”
When a comprehensive decision analysis includes plausible catastrophes with unknown probabilities, the
policy implications can be radically different from those suggested by optimal decision making strategies
targeted at the most likely scenario. Weitzmann argues that it is plausible that climate change policy
stands or falls to a large extent on the issue of how the high impact low probability catastrophes are
conceptualized and modeled. Whereas “alarmism” focuses unduly on the possible (or even impossible)
worst-case scenario, robust policies consider unlikely but not impossible scenarios without letting them
completely dominate the decision.
In summary, the IPCC focus on providing information to support the establishment of an optimal CO2
stabilization target doesn’t address two important issues for driving policy:
• reducing vulnerability to extreme events such as floods, droughts, and hurricanes
• examination of the plausible worst case scenario.
11 http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/20/pakistan-on-my-mind/
12 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074347
13 http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3693423/Weitzman_OnModeling.pdf?sequence=2
Curry – Testimony on Rational Discussion of Climate Change
Page 5 of 8
There are no “silver bullet” solutions
Xu, Crittenden et al.14 argue that “gigaton problems require gigaton solutions.” The wickedness of the
climate problem precludes a gigaton solution (either technological or political). Attempts to address
the climate change problem through a U.N. treaty for almost two decades have arguably not been
successful. The climate change problem now walks hand-in-hand with the ocean acidification
problem, the link between the two problems being the proposed stabilization of atmospheric CO2. The
proposed solution to the wicked climate problem and ocean acidification in terms of stabilization of
atmospheric CO2 has revealed and created new problems in terms of energy policy. Energy policy is
driven by a complicated mix of economics and economic development, energy security, environmental
quality and health issues, resource availability (e.g. peak oil), etc.
Even if climate change is not the primary driver in energy policy, the climate-energy nexus is a very
important one. Not just in the sense of anthropogenic climate change motivating energy policy, but
weather and climate are key drivers in energy demand and even supply. On the demand side, we have
the obvious impact of heating and cooling degree days. On the supply side, we have oil and gas supply
disruptions (e.g. hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico) plus the dependence of hydro, solar, and wind
power on weather and climate. What is perhaps the most important connection, and one often
overlooked, is the energy-water nexus, whereby power plants requiring water for cooling compete with
domestic, agricultural, industrial, and ecosystems for the available water supply.
The complexity of both the climate and energy problems and their nexus precludes the gigaton “silver
bullet” solution to these challenges. Attempting to use carbon dioxide as a control knob to regulate
climate in the face of large natural climate variability and the inevitable weather hazards is most likely
futile. In any event, according to climate model projections reported in the IPCC AR4, reducing
atmospheric CO2 will not influence the trajectory of CO2 induced warming until after 2050. The
attempt to frame a “silver bullet” solution by the UNFCCC seems unlikely to succeed, given the size
and the wickedness of the problem. The wicked gigaton climate problem will arguably require
thousands of megaton solutions and millions of kiloton solutions.
Moving forward
Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a looming future threat from anthropogenic
climate change. Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an
existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation. It is now up
to the political process (international, national, and local) to decide how to contend with the climate
problem. It seems more important that robust responses be formulated than to respond urgently with a
policy that may fail to address the problem and whose unintended consequences have not been
adequately explored.
The role for climate science and climate scientists in this process is complex. In the past 20 years,
dominated by the IPCC/UNFCCC paradigm, scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious
scientific and political debate, where the issues in each have become confounded. This has generated
much polarization in the scientific community and has resulted in political attacks on scientists on both
sides of the debate, and a scientist’s “side” is often defined by factors that are exogenous to the actual
scientific debate. Debates over relatively arcane aspects of the scientific argument have become a
substitute for what should be a real debate about politics and values.
14 http://www.spp.gatech.edu/faculty/marilynbrown/sites/default/files/attachment/Gigaton%20Problems
%20Need%20Gigaton%20Solutions.pdf
Curry – Testimony on Rational Discussion of Climate Change
Page 6 of 8
Continuing to refine the arguments put forward by the IPCC that focus on global climate model
simulations projections of future climate change may have reached the point of diminishing returns for
both the science and policy deliberations. Further, the credibility of the IPCC has been tarnished by the
events of the past year. It is important to broaden the scope of global climate change research beyond
its focus on anthropogenic greenhouse warming to develop a better understanding of natural climate
variability and the impact of land use changes and to further explore the uncertainty of the coupled
climate models and the capability of these models to predict emergent events such as catastrophic
climate change. And far more attention needs to be given to establishing robust and transparent climate
data records (both historical and paleoclimate proxies).
Regional planners and resource managers need high-resolution regional climate projections to support
local climate adaptation plans and plans for climate compatible development. This need is unlikely to
be met (at least in the short term) by the global climate models. In any event, anthropogenic climate
change on timescales of decades is arguably less important in driving vulnerability in most regions
than increasing population, land use practices, and ecosystem degradation. Regions that find solutions
to current problems of climate variability and extreme weather events and address challenges
associated with an increasing population will be better prepared to cope with any additional stresses
from climate change.
Hoping to rely on information from climate models about projected regional climate change to guide
adaptation response diverts attention from using weather and climate information in adaptive water
resource management and agriculture on seasonal and subseasonal time scales. Optimizing water
resource management and crop selection and timing based upon useful probabilistic subseasonal and
seasonal climate forecasts has the potential to reduce vulnerability substantially in many regions. This
is particularly the case in the developing world where much of the agriculture is rain fed (i.e. no
irrigation). It would seem that increasing scientific focus on seasonal and subseasonal forecasts could
produce substantial societal benefits for tactical adaptation practices.
The global climate modeling effort directed at the IPCC/UNFCCC paradigm has arguably reached the
point of diminishing returns in terms of supporting decision making for the U.N. treaty and related
national policies. At this point, it seems more important to explore the uncertainties associated with
future climate change rather than to attempt to reduce the uncertainties in a consensus-based approach.
It is time for climate scientists to change their view of uncertainty: it is not just something that is
merely to be framed and communicated to policy makers, all the while keeping in mind that doubt is a
political weapon in the decision making process. Characterizing, understanding, and exploring
uncertainty is at the heart of the scientific process. And finally, the characterization of uncertainty is
critical information for robust policy decisions.
Engagement of climate researchers with regional planners, economists, military/intelligence
organizations, development banks, energy companies, and governments in the developing world to
develop a mutual understanding about what kind of information is needed can promote more fruitful
decision outcomes, and define new scientific challenges to be addressed by research. The need for
climate researchers to engage with social scientists and engineers has never been more important.
Further, there is an increasing need for social scientists and philosophers of science to scrutinize and
analyze our field to prevent dysfunction at the science-policy interface.
And finally, climate scientists and the institutions that support them need to acknowledge and engage
with ever-growing groups of citizen scientists, auditors, and extended peer communities that have
become increasingly well organized by the blogosphere. The more sophisticated of these groups are
challenging our conventional notions of expertise and are bringing much needed scrutiny particularly
Curry – Testimony on Rational Discussion of Climate Change
Page 7 of 8
into issues surrounding historical and paleoclimate data records. These groups reflect a growing public
interest in climate science and a growing concern about possible impacts of climate change and
climate change policies. The acrimony that has developed between some climate scientists and
blogospheric skeptics was amply evident in the sorry mess that is known as Climategate. Climategate
illuminated the fundamental need for improved and transparent historical and paleoclimate data sets
and improved information systems so that these data are easily accessed and interpreted.
Blogospheric communities can potentially be important in identifying and securing the common
interest at these disparate scales in the solution space of the energy, climate and ocean acidification
problems. A diversity of views on interpreting the scientific evidence and a broad range of ideas on
how to address these challenges doesn’t hinder the implementation of diverse megaton and kiloton
solutions at local and regional scales. Securing the common interest on local and regional scales
provides a basis for the successful implementation of climate adaptation strategies. Successes on the
local and regional scale and then national scales make it much more likely that global issues can be
confronted in an effective way.
Curry – Testimony on Rational Discussion of Climate Change
Page 8 of 8
Short Biography
Judith Curry
Chair and Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332-0349
curryja@eas.gatech.edu
Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the
Georgia Institute of Technology and President of Climate Forecast Applications Network
(CFAN). Dr. Curry received a Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of Chicago in
1982. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, she has held faculty positions at the University
of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University. Dr. Curry’s research interests span a
variety of topics in climate; current interests include air/sea interactions, climate feedback
processes associated with clouds and sea ice, and the climate dynamics of hurricanes. She is a
prominent public spokesperson on issues associated with the integrity of climate science, and has
recently launched the weblog Climate Etc. Dr. Curry currently serves on the NASA Advisory
Council Earth Science Subcommittee and has recently served on the National Academies Climate
Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Dr.
Curry is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union.
.
For more information:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/
http://www.cfanclimate.com/
http://judithcurry.com
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree with those who challenge the characterization of climate change as a “problem.” It may be a problem, but until we can parameterize the problem, and determine exactly what the outcomes will be, then it’s nothing but speculative talk based upon incomplete science. Applying the precautionary principle at the scale that is being envisioned by government and NGO bureaucrats would be brazenly premature at this stage.
That is why I’ve advocated (and will continue to advocate) a comprehensive engineering-grade study of the purported problem to be financed by the US government that will, presumably, quantify what is going on in the climate and conclude whether there is any need for alarm. The studies produced so far appear to be wholly lacking in comprehensive accuracy and efficacy. Climate science is evolving, but it’s no where near the level of professionalism and trustworthiness to be the foundation for imposing radical changes in human behavior across the planet.
“Since 97% of climate scientists believe that AGW is real”.
It is also scientific fact that they all have webbed feet too! Citation: Disney Studios, California! :-))
“Engagement of climate researchers with regional planners, economists, military/intelligence organizations, development banks, energy companies, and governments in the developing world to develop a mutual understanding about what kind of information is needed can promote more fruitful decision outcomes, and define new scientific challenges to be addressed by research. The need for climate researchers to engage with social scientists and engineers has never been more important.”
These ADW guys have been so steeped in academia with their Marxist jargon, that even when they are trying to be objective, they come of sounding like Marxists. The problem with Marxist vocabulary is that it encapsulates Marxist concepts, which restrict thought to a Marxist world view. Any solution produced in a Marxist world view will be a Marxist one.
“Securing the common interest on local and regional scales provides a basis for the successful implementation of climate adaptation strategies. Successes on the
local and regional scale and then national scales make it much more likely that global issues can be confronted in an effective way.”
Reminds me of the Cultural Revolution, start at the local level with brain washed children.
er…wow….I do not think there is any doubt now that Judy Curry, if not in the Lindzen camp, is certainly standing in the doorway, leaning in, having a chat…
I expected her to reveret to previous years, give a bit of of a fence sit maybe. But she just said, if I undestand correctley…”nothing to see, nothing to worry about particuarly, keep an eye on it but look to more pressing problems and don’t waste any more money on it”.
Am I wrong….thats what I would take from her testimony anyway.
Roll on Ben Santer!
Curry for President!!!
eadler says:
November 18, 2010 at 7:05 am
Hey Anthony, maybe he got it from here? An unbiased news source or course:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/97-percent-scientists-man-causing-climate-change.php
It is a wicked problem because both higher temperatures and more carbon dioxide cause increased plant growth–upon which human lives (and endangered animals) depend.
The average temperature globally is 12 degrees C (54F) and the maximum temperature possible globally (if the 600 million year proxy-determined fossil record is interpreted correctly) is 22 degrees C (72F). Ask any farmer which temperature his crops do better at.
More CO2 has been proven in hundreds of studies to mean more plant life.
There is profound danger in the BELIEF in catastrophic AGW. If we really do ameliorations–and they work–the result will be catastrophic to the human race because it will sharply reduce the carrying capacity of the planet, which means it would cause extinctions. Yes, extinctions. Harm to the human race is ALSO harm to Earth’s other creatures.
–Esther Cook
@ur momisugly eadler
“The stakes are high. Since 97% of climate scientists believe that AGW is real , and e approximately 50% believe the IPCC got things right and 20% believe the IPCC understated the scope of the problem , common sense dictates that doing nothing is clearly not the right course,….”
========================================================
Did you read what you wrote before posting? Your first two statements are counter intuitive, but I’ll slide on that for now. 50% ? That implies the converse also! 50% believe the IPCC got things wrong, and 80% don’t believe the IPCC understated the scope of the problem.
50% is not an impetus to do any thing other than study more. Have you heard of the law of unintended consequences? Doing something when it isn’t clear what is necessary to be done is insanity and invites horrible consequences, especially if the action is undertaken on a global scale. Try again, use some logic this time.
Belief in CAGW is also causing ecological damage right now by misinforming people as the the consequences of their actions. This was posted on WUWT yesterday:
1. Keith Battye says:
November 16, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Here in Zimbabwe our GDP per head is lower than it was in 1951 and our electrical power usage for the entire country of 12 million people is 1500Mw. Consider also that our liquid fuel consumption is around 1m liters a day and you can see how far we have to go to improve lives.
The disastrous corollary to this is that deforestation is massive and accelerating because wood as a fuel is “free”. In the last 10 years approximately 60% of our forests have been burned to cook food and to provide poor light after dark.
Widespread rural electrification coupled with upgraded power generation ( we have billions of tons of coal and huge natural gas fields that have not been exploited) would improve lives and stop deforestation. Instead my government is disinvesting in power and starting to pass laws to combat global warming with particular reference to CO2.
It seems we have chosen poverty over development.
—
Note that this is a devastation of the actual environment to prevent imaginary harm.
Bob Shapiro — This kind of language really is not helpful. In choosing to read a prepared statement, a scholar risks sounding… scholarly.
WTF? It was concise and accurate. The **only** problem in the climate world is getting information across such that rational policy can be achieved rather than the constant screeching between “doom and gloom” vs “it’s a hoax.”
For those of you too lazy to read: Dr. Curry is correct; climate change *is* a “wicked problem” as per her definition, where she’s describing the nexus of incomplete science meeting policy requirement. She goes on to say that the blogosphere isn’t full of knuckle dragging luddites who resist climate change by way of oil money, religion, or being uneducated fools. She says that this (hubristic) belief by academia re what constitutes skeptics is incorrect, that true skeptics with something useful to say are generally pretty well educated professionals. The “wicked problem” essentially is that the educated professional class — the very people with enough science education to grasp the issues and help drive policy at the grassroots level — tend to be skeptical. If you can’t convince the educated people with science, you certainly aren’t going to convince Joe Sixpack.
wow. curry’s presentation is a really impressive intellectual tour de force.
i could make a list of good things about it but i will just say…i am impressed!
RockyRoad says:
November 18, 2010 at 8:43 am
I don’t know why Judith uses the terms “megaton and kiloton solutions”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Heh, Rocky its a beautiful play on words! It is conveying the destructive potential of the proposed solutions without outright stating or going into detail. Its and appreciative form of wordsmithing. And it does, indeed play on the imagery of the words for people our age. If I didn’t think that most of the people she was talking to were practically brain dead, I’d say that form of communication was very effective.
an not and.
and 97% of doctors believe in taking Lipitor first, rather than adjusting you diet first…….
latitude says:
November 18, 2010 at 9:44 am
and 97% of doctors believe in taking Lipitor first, rather than adjusting you diet first…….
and 97% psychologists believe peoples personal problems can be solved by office visit therapy. 97% of shoe salesmen believe people should buy shoes. and 100% of the scam artists think you should just trust them instead of asking pertinent questions!
I think we don’t have a climate problem at all let alone a wicked Climate problem.
All we have is a bunch of scaremongers with with a wicked political agenda that will kill scores of people, our economy and our freedom.
Hoax off, please.
Judy, dear, it’s NOT A PROBLEM because global climate disruption or whatever you call it is a COMPLETE FRAUD.
Guess what? The climate isn’t changing. Not by natural or artificial forces. It’s not changing. NOT CHANGING.
All you Big Heads can bray all you want about it, but climate change on any human lifetime time scale is a chimera. The climate you are experiencing is the same one your grandparents experienced.
But we all know the hoax will live on, because far too many people are making far too much money on this scam. Judy is just another practitioner of World’s Oldest Profession.
Precautionary principle:
If I live next to a river that I know at some point “might” over-flow, what should I do?
According to the IPCC precautionary principle, I should as the whole town and all levels of government to move the river elsewhere or whatever engineering solution that some bright mind could come with. Of course, such solution will cost many billions of dollar and will move the problem elsewhere. Or using real precautionary measures, I could just move, lift, or… prepare for the worst and plan sand-bags and water pumps. This would cost next to nothing compared to what they propose.
Smart people adopt precautionary solutions for local problems, the warmists want to impose global solutions for hypothetical local problems. When a car is coming to hit you, you just move out of the way, you don’t ban all cars of the roads.
EADLER:
“Repeat a lie, often enough, loud enough, and LONG ENOUGH and MOST people will believe it to be true.” Attributed to Gobbles, but actually he stole it from another party I understand. But then the attribution to good old Heinrick has been repeated often, and for a long time…
Climate change was, is, and will be inevitable. The only “Wicked” bit was selling the idea that it was all due to human consumerist activity. Whilst that may be some small component, there are many other threads in the warp and weft of climate theory which need to be documented and researched before it can really stand up as grand theory.
Kudos to Judith for opening the door to the “wicked problem” discussion! However, her definition is a bit lacking. In public health, we deal with wicked problems all the time, here’s the algorithm:
—
“Wicked problems possess a number of distinctive properties that violate the assumptions that must be made to use the problem solving methods of tame problems. Wicked problems:
* cannot be easily defined so that all stakeholders agree on the problem to solve;
* require complex judgements about the level of abstraction at which to define the problem;
* have no clear stopping rules;
* have better or worse solutions, not right and wrong ones;
* have no objective measure of success;
* require iteration-every trial counts;
* have no given alternative solutions-these must be discovered;
* often have strong moral, political or professional dimensions.”
Many in WUWT (myself included) believe that the catastrophic climate change scenario is wrong. However, the “wicked problem” becomes dealing with various segments of the community and getting everyone on the same page, policy-wise.
BTW, as I predicted, the US EPA is going to force carbon reduction through mechanisms of the Clean Water Act.
Please see:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5i3qm9yVwwqVi4MyKkN4RO-eIS2mw?docId=5153701
eadler:
It is true that climate change is a difficult problem for mankind to grapple with. The stakes are high. Since 97% of climate scientists believe that AGW is real , and e approximately 50% believe the IPCC got things right and 20% believe the IPCC understated the scope of the problem , common sense dictates that doing nothing is clearly not the right course, even though their is uncertainty.
Indeed, the climate is going to change and doing nothing will probably not be the most rational response. But where the rubber meets the road, China and India have rationally decided that the ipcc Climate Scientists’ alleged cause [fossil fuel use] of the alleged CO2CAGW disease is instead the cure to their actual disease, being underdeveloped.
Perhaps Climate Scientists should reflect upon why that was their decision?
Followup, here’s the actual EPA memo:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/oa_memo_nov2010.cfm
Global warming is out, acidification is in. Watch for this.
RockyRoad — I don’t know why Judith uses the terms “megaton and kiloton solutions”
CO2 emissions are in tons.
Clearly she’s saying that one doesn’t solve anything by targeting the gigaton (worldwide) level, which is stupid: even if policy lowers emissions in country X, countries Y and Z are still emitting. One cannot create worldwide diktat, and even the most absurd and draconian US policy wouldn’t solve anything if (e.g.) China and India are emitting in place of the US.
Overall she’s making the point that ruining western economy in the name of carbon holiness is a ridiculous direction to take — i.e. *IF* CO2 turns out to be the problem the climate scientists think it is, the only workable solutions are those that are locale specific, hence megaton and kiloton. She reckons lots of smaller realistic “fixes” can work. An example would be if the US (and/or the west in general) were to embark on a program of replacing fossil fuel electricity generation with 3rd/4th generation nuclear facilities. Due to political unrest and/or concerns of proliferation it may not be a great idea to hand nuke technology to the Sudan, and so on. A solution that works in the US isn’t necessarily the same solution for the Sudan.
As far as I’m concerned this was a fantastic presentation because it spells out how and why ruining western economy as per what many AGW doom and gloomers would like to do still solves absolutely nothing, hence their recommendations are the stupid path to take. She’s handed the US Congress the club to beat eco-nazis with, and tellling them where and how to smack them. This is a big WIN.
I hate to cite wikipedia, but it gives some more background on the meaning of “wicked problem”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem