U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Obama’s UN Climate Pledge Today at 10AM Eastern

Curry-house-testimony
screencap from the web feed today

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

The United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology are holding a hearing today starting at 10am (Eastern) titled The President’s UN Climate Pledge: Scientifically Justified or a New Tax on Americans?  The webpage with link to the webcast is here, and the charter for the hearing is here.

Judith Curry is one of the witnesses.  See her blog post here.

The other three witnesses are:

The Honorable Karen Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Former Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Jake Schmidt, Director, International Program, Natural Resources Defense Council

Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation

Again, a link to the webcast can be found here.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
74 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul
April 15, 2015 6:04 am

I don’t think we (the US) don’t wish him dead, just out of office.
Yea, mostly because Biden is next in line…

Paul
Reply to  Paul
April 15, 2015 6:06 am

Doh, “I don’t think we (the US) don’t wish him dead, just out of office”

Winnipeg Boy
Reply to  Paul
April 15, 2015 6:41 am

Huddle up, here’s the plan…. Obama procedes to head the UN, then kick the UN out of US. Break.

Alex
Reply to  Winnipeg Boy
April 15, 2015 6:52 am

No way. Even Obama isn’t stupid enough to be the head of the UN. He won’t kick the UN out of the US. He wants Ban Ki Moon there. Have you ever seen a more stunned mullet? I’ve never seen a video of him looking like he knows what he is talking about. I just see a man who wants to be somewhere else.

Winnipeg Boy
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 8:58 am

Correct, Obama would not kick them out. But a Repub pres might. Hopefully BO is on board when the ship of fools sails.
And yes, I know, wishful thinking.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Winnipeg Boy
April 15, 2015 7:30 am

No, just defund it and charge them rent/

Reply to  Paul
April 15, 2015 6:57 am

And, it should be noted, Hillary Clinton would continue Obama’s work regarding CAGW.

mikewaite
Reply to  JohnWho
April 15, 2015 2:02 pm

But would she? It is inevitable that her performance , especially on economic matters, will be continually compared to that of her husband. The economic problems that erupted in 2007/8 were building during Bill Clinton’s presidency , but appeared afterwards and I dimly remember that on this aspect his period as president was one of reasonable growth.
Obama’s willing concessions at Paris 2015 will handicap Hilary from day one of her term in office , and she must know that. If she is as smart as I believe that she is , she will prevent the disastrous policies for US ( and ultimately the global) economy that Obama has been threatening.

mikewaite
Reply to  mikewaite
April 15, 2015 2:04 pm

My reply was to JohnWho above , seems to have got transposed during composition. I clearly can’t think fast enough to keep up these days .

Alex
April 15, 2015 6:20 am

Oh dear. John Wilkes Booth is a sensitive issue with the mods even though it has been over 100 years. Perhaps the NSA is watching.
It was meant ‘tongue in cheek.’ Alex- wrist slap.
[True. We do not want to open more doors to even more prejudiced exaggerations. .mod]

Alex
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 6:37 am

to mods
point taken. There is enough crazy out there.

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 8:29 am

The Ford Theater play was 150 years ago last night, Abraham Lincoln died around 7 am this morning 150 years ago. About the time my great father was roaming around Montana after leaving Anglo Quebec to seek his fortune before moving north to Alberta after marrying a Montana lady. Canada wasn’t yet a country. My other great grandfather was working for the “Empire” in India. I have a cobra skin from a snake shot under my grandmother’s crib. Time does fly by … I’ll live in today’s environment any time. Times were hard 150 years ago.

ferdberple
April 15, 2015 6:52 am

Scientifically Justified Tax on Americans
================
a new tax that is being justified by scientific studies paid for by government funds.
This is a win-win model for government. They want a new tax. They cannot justify it. So, they give out scientific grants to scientists, asking them to justify the tax.
Scientists, being the creative bunch that they are, figure out ways to prove that the tax is justified. After all, if you can send a man to the moon, how hard could it be to write a report saying “yes the tax is justified”.
Those scientists too dumb to write such a report don’t get any further grants, and have to retire to become used car salespeople. Ever since NASA changed its focus, from sending people into space, to sending them on missions to planet earth, a Studebaker works just as well as a Saturn V.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  ferdberple
April 15, 2015 9:46 am

“Those scientists too dumb to write such a report don’t get any further grants…”
How about, replace the word “dumb” with the word “principled”?

Paul Mackey
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
April 16, 2015 1:04 am

@Boulder Skeptic..
Hear Hear!!

george e. smith
Reply to  ferdberple
April 15, 2015 11:16 am

No particular point to make, but “The Honorable Karen Harbert.”
So just what currently is it that makes her “The Honorable”
I thought “the honorable” were mostly judges or some such, or members of Parliament.
We don’t have a Parliament.
Now I freely accept she probably is honorable; but what is with “The Honorable” ??

Saint
Reply to  george e. smith
April 15, 2015 11:20 am

Harbert was formerly an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Energy. That’s a Senate-confirmed position, and thus “The Honorable.”

ferdberple
April 15, 2015 6:53 am

In the future, one can expect all sorts of scientific reports proving that all sorts of taxes are justified. Those scientists wishing to continue receiving government funding will write the reports rather than lose their jobs in a tight economy. The formula is simple. Show that something is bad, and the government then has an excuse to tax it, to try and prevent it.
Since everything we do has some harmful effect, this allows the government to tax everything. For example, exercise. Millions of people are injured, some even die, every year from exercise. As such, a peer reviewed scientific study showing the harmful effects of exercise will eventually give rise to a tax to prevent exercise related injuries and deaths. If you look, you probably can already find just such a tax.

Alex
Reply to  ferdberple
April 15, 2015 6:57 am

ferdberple
Chill. We got it

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 8:34 am

Unless you’re a new moderator, let the man speak.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 15, 2015 8:44 am

ferdberple,
Research produced by, or subsidized by, the Federal Reserve is the example par excellence of your thesis.
While the FED must remit any profit over 6% to the Treasury, all research and research subsidies are considered expenses (before profit is calculated). Thus the FED basically has unlimited funds available to produce a blizzard of opaque papers, bristling with awe-inspiring mathematics, all of which attempt to justify the unjustifiable: the regime of irredeemable currency. In other words, the FED ‘proves’ that the FED must persist.
And given that the FED is one side of the coin of government check kiting, in which Congress approves deficit spending, the Treasury issues bonds to paper over the deficit, the FED issues notes collateralized by the bonds, and the bonds are redeemable in FED notes, one can clearly see that the incestuous ‘research’ is at the heart of the matter.

Reply to  Max Photon
April 15, 2015 9:52 pm

Very interesting, Max. I never knew about the “over 6%” being remanded to the Treasury.

April 15, 2015 6:58 am

“Alex
April 15, 2015 at 6:52 am
No way. Even Obama isn’t stupid enough to be the head of the UN.”

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Alex
Reply to  JohnWho
April 15, 2015 7:13 am

Obama would have more respect as an ex president of the USA. There is no way he would run for UN secretary. Even he knows that that is for losers. We have an ex prime minister in Australia who fancies himself for that job. Affectionately known as’ crud ‘ (Kevin Rudd – Krud). As someone who was kicked out of office then I would go for that job. Obama is a different kettle of fish. I don’t need data. Commonsense is sufficient.

logos_wrench
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 7:27 am

I don’t know Obama fits the criteria. He’s a moron and his policies turned the U.S into a third world country. The head of the U.N is usually some third world moron so there you go. The man fits the bill.

Alex
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 7:36 am

logos_wrench
You could be right. I’m not in a position to define what is crazy. There is enough crazy going on in the world to befuddle a sane man.

timg56
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 2:41 pm

I don’t know Alex. It might seem like a perfect job to him. Not too demanding, keeps him in the spotlight, and possibly the only opening he might get. I’m seriously wondering what he might do after leaving office. Don’t see a lot of options for him, as he really hasn’t shown much in the way of competence. I foresee President Obama ending up as a member of several boards, preferably ones that offer some financial compensation or perhaps at a university. That’s well suited to someone who has exhibited more talent for lecturing than for leading.

Brian H
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 4:12 pm

tim;
And universities have lotsa teleprompters.

lee
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 8:05 pm

I see Obama heading to the Rockefeller Foundation or similar.

Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 9:56 pm

I could easily picture him as wanting such a position. All of those many foreign bureaucrats would be bowing and scraping before him. He would eat that up, and i would bet money on that. If I had any money to bet, that is.

Chris
Reply to  Alex
April 16, 2015 10:21 am

“I don’t know Obama fits the criteria. He’s a moron and his policies turned the U.S into a third world country.”
By what specific criteria is the US a third world country?

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  JohnWho
April 15, 2015 9:17 pm

You all got it wrong. His wife Michelle Obama is going to run for president. He wants to be first black dude.

April 15, 2015 7:02 am

“The President’s UN Climate Pledge: Scientifically Justified or a New Tax on Americans?”
Well, it would be another tax on Americans.
Scientifically justified? Absolutely not.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  JohnWho
April 15, 2015 5:09 pm

Let’s keep in mind that as long as Republicans control the House there will never be such a tax.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 15, 2015 6:58 pm

Hey as another Tom in Florida I know, news fro D.C. does get down here. I hate to say it, but Obama does a lot of things that The House should never go along with, but they never stop him.

Mike McMillan
April 15, 2015 7:28 am

Charles Dudley Warner once said that “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.”
Well, Mr Warner, meet Barack Obama, a politician who plans to do something about the weather.
With a tax.
And you all doubted me when I said Obama must have a triple digit IQ.

Alex
Reply to  Mike McMillan
April 15, 2015 7:41 am

0.90
Is that triple digit? I’m not good with math. I am as clever as Obama?

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Alex
April 15, 2015 3:55 pm

No. Yes. No.

Wally
April 15, 2015 7:33 am

Anyone else take note of the hockey stick in the graph of fossil fuel emitters provided?
No alarmism?
No call for taxation?
or just crickets…..

April 15, 2015 8:00 am

I watched until I heard the same old, same old, then checked out. (greenhouse gases causing rising sea levels, more droughts, more precipitation, warmer climate – etc. etc.) – and the b___ch was supposed to be a scientist, at least was on the committee.

April 15, 2015 8:13 am

Watching the hearing now. Great Job Dr. Curry! Terrific courage displayed by you. Long live science and long live the people who defend science and the scientific method!

Steve Case
April 15, 2015 8:48 am

Thanks for the heads up – I listened to the last hour live.

ECB
April 15, 2015 8:50 am

Excellent testimony given by Dr. Curry. It is plainly obvious that having the Republicans in charge is changing the direction towards more/better science, and less alarmist propaganda.

ossqss
April 15, 2015 8:59 am

What a welcome sight this meeting was. There is an obvious shift in the climate science paradigm happening. The talking points meme is no longer taken for granted as fact. In fact, science is now prevailing, finally.
Bravo to Dr. Curry and the other 2 witnesses (3rd guy, not so much, as he simply regurgitated falsified meme’s again). They did a wonderful job providing focused and factual information to the committee.
I am truly hopeful the turning point is upon us in the climate sciences. Once government funding is scrutinized in this sector, I believe the velocity of skeptics coming out of the background will be overwhelming.
Please consider joining the effort if you have not. Your voices can and will be heard!
http://theoas.org/

Mike McMillan
April 15, 2015 8:59 am

The hearing just ended. Nothing unexpected.
Schmidt of NRDC was the only warmist, and made a few scripted misstatements.
Harbert and Thorning were pretty explicit about how badly the new climate policy was going to trash the economy.
Judith Curry was right on target.
Rep Lofgren of California read off the list of standard sky is falling, increased hurricanes, worse droughts, rising sea level, etc., etc. An Oregon Rep said ocean acidification was ruining the fishing.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Mike McMillan
April 15, 2015 6:47 pm

What ruined fishing was the effort to keep river water inside the confines of a river bank. So all the side streams that were turned into irrigation ditches were fish screened and gated off. The result? No more spawning in year round irrigation ditches.
Idiots.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 15, 2015 10:02 pm

The salmon and the steelhead declined shortly after the new fangled fish radar was developed in the late 1960s. It was all down hill after that as the factory fish fleets were able for the first time to follow the salmon in their long journey around the Pacific Basin. I used to be an avid fisherman. I stopped fishing for them in the late 1970s as it was so sad to see such a large decline.

Mike Maguire
April 15, 2015 9:15 am

Dr, Curry is an excellent communicator. All her comments were based on authentic, fundamentally solid meteorology and climate science.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Mike Maguire
April 15, 2015 9:57 am

But she still hasn’t done anything about her hair.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
April 15, 2015 12:30 pm

Is this a sexist comment? Couldn’t be. You’re a woman. I’m told only white men can be sexist. Hopefully you graded the male witnesses’ hair styles somewhere in this thread as well.
This comment, while likely meant to be funny in this case, unfortunately typifies the US populace and our inability to focus on what’s important.
Sorry, just getting tired of how ludicrous this whole ACC circus has become.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
April 15, 2015 4:33 pm

I responded to a comment on Dr. Curry.
The tonsorial pluses and minuses of other witnesses are available upon request.
Appearance matters, in case you haven’t noticed, which is why politicos spend so much on what might appear trivial grooming.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
April 15, 2015 4:57 pm

If I were to testify before Congress, I’d probably want a new hairdo. But not obtrusive. I’d want listeners not to be distracted by my new do or lack thereof, as in Dr. Curry’s case, apparently.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
April 15, 2015 6:49 pm

For freakin out loud. Really??? Hair???????

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
April 15, 2015 8:02 pm

Like Mr. Rogers, we like Dr. Curry just the way she is.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
April 15, 2015 10:05 pm

Compared to what she looked like in her last appearance, this is an improvement. She looked a touch bedraggled in the last video I watched, when she was in front of that Senate committee. Her appearance her looks fine.

Glenn999
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
April 16, 2015 7:20 am

you go girl. let’s hear the goods on the doo.

ossqss
April 15, 2015 9:21 am

Replay available here.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/61136995
You may have to move the video progress bar to 32:30 or the on video clock to 10:07 if it does not start at the beginning upon clicking.
Well worth watching.

rogerknights
Reply to  ossqss
April 15, 2015 10:45 am

That link got mer a “not available” message.

Brian H
Reply to  ossqss
April 15, 2015 4:16 pm

Me too.

Charlie
April 15, 2015 9:43 am

Where can i find this on the web? Is it worth watching?

Charlie
April 15, 2015 10:05 am

Mrs Lofgren was a peach. A big one. I stopped counting the lies after about 10

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Charlie
April 15, 2015 4:35 pm

Zoe is not a Mrs. Lofgren. That’s her maiden name. Her husband is a Mr. Collins. It is my impression that they are childless.

commieBob
April 15, 2015 10:45 am

Here’s a link to a transcript of Dr. Curry’s testimony: link

ossqss
April 15, 2015 10:55 am

It appears the hearing has been archived and is no longer available on Ustream. It should be accessible now via the link under the webcast box on the right. When clicked, it started to download. I would suspect it will be on YouTube soon also. It is a sizable file that has not completed downloading yet for me.
http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-tax

Reply to  ossqss
April 15, 2015 3:45 pm

Click on the video on the right side of the page.

bernie1815
April 15, 2015 11:31 am

I just finished listening to the hearing. Ms Harbert, Dr. Thorning and Prof. Curry were excellent. Ms Harbert, in particular, showed complete mastery of the details and was very clear on the negative consequences of the WH’s commitment to emission reduction targets. I thoroughly enjoyed Judy’s polite but firm slap down of Rep Beyer’s sophomoric attempt to suggest contradictions in her testimony. His performance was pitiful.
Jake Schmidt from the Natural Resources Defense Council was far less impressive. His testimony was largely hand-waving and fuzzy and full of inaccurate generalizations.
Overall, however, I came away depressed at both the process – nobody, for example, pinned Mr Schmidt down – and the shallowness of almost all the Representatives on both sides of the aisle. The ranking member Ms Johnson had no clue and simply repeated standard tropes. Only the engineer, Rep. Westerman, introduced something on point.

Eliza
April 15, 2015 12:57 pm

Outstanding presentation by J Curry http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-tax I expect a 10% democrat shift just from this testimony

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Eliza
April 15, 2015 4:30 pm

I thought that you stomped off in a huff, never to return.
That’s OK. I did, too.
Do you mean Dumbocrap or Republican shift?

April 15, 2015 2:20 pm

This is an exciting time in the USA. Today’s hearing strengthened the Republican side’s position, with the Democrat minority view represented. This was for public consumption and helps prepare for the upcoming State -v- EPA showdown.
Judith Curry provided a reasoned scientific perspective, appreciated by skeptics. ignored by the committed but hopefully reaching the general viewing public.

April 15, 2015 3:49 pm

Curry ripped Rep. Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat up on his contention that her testimony was “just full of internally conflicting facts and opinions.”
Source: Daily Caller:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/15/skeptical-climate-scientist-dismantles-dem-lawmakers-alarmism/

April 15, 2015 7:53 pm

Judith Curry was interviewed on the Mark Levin radio show today.

April 15, 2015 8:56 pm

I watched Dr. Currys testimony and I wonder if she should still be classified a a “lukewarmer on wuwt”
I think she gave great testimony, and she should be commended…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 15, 2015 8:59 pm

I wonder how she would classify herself…

April 15, 2015 9:02 pm

Obama is out of it – what the hell are you talking about him in the UN?? Never been proposed or discussed.

%d bloggers like this: