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].
On second thought, “ineffective” should read “counterproductive.”
Measured, reasoned and sensible which only means one thing. Alarmists will be calling for her incarceration any time now.
Curry’s testimony for all its good points, still did not give a fair reading of what we are dealing with. There is considerable evidence that modest warming and higher CO2 are actually beneficial: greening of the planet, substantial uptick in agricultural yields.
There is the LIA to tell us that a 1.5 to 2C of cooling below where we are now is very dharmful. Some play down the cold and say it was the wars and the plague that reduced Europe’s population by as much as 40%. The plague was actually during the first half of the 1300s – it came from Asia and was really still in the MWP when it developed. The warming proponents invoke volcanic aerosols (for 400yrs???). Volcanics don’t appear to have been particularly concentrated during that period, but let’s not argue. Let’s agree that a degree or more of cooling (which takes us back to only the end of the LIA!) is not good for us: cold creates crop failures and kills directly all by itself. Appealing to wars as the main reason for the deaths is a bit much to swallow. Surely wars would end long before 40% of the populations OF BOTH SIDES were killed!!!
Anyway, Curry gets only 50% marks from me. She even talked about the “wickedness of the climate change problem”. How is that going to be interpreted by law makers who largely believe this in a different context?
Gary,
The wars, famines, plagues & other calamities of the LIA (c. 1425 to 1860, to nearest five year interval) were arguably caused or worsened by the cold.
True, the Black Death first hit during the latter stages of the MWP (1347, et seq), & its toll was aggravated by the large population made possible by the warmth of preceding centuries. But outbreaks of the plague recurred, especially during the war-torn 17th century, the depths of the LIA (coinciding with the Maunder Minimum). Late in the LIA, during the early and mid-19th century, new plagues arose, such as cholera.
The MWP of course was not uniformly warm. The Wolf Minimum (1280-1350) interrupted the party, so the Black Death struck Europe during the upswing from the low of this solar minimum. The last gasp of the MWP was the global warm spell from c. 1410-25.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/1400ad.htm
The LIA can be seen as three solar minima–the Spörer (roughly 1460-1550), Maunder (1645-1715) & Dalton (1790-1820)–in “rapid” succession, separated by warmer intervals, all superimposed upon a natural terrestrial cooling cycle.
It’s hard to separate the cause of the 17th century megadeaths from war, famine, disease & cold. In the pre-Columbian Americas however, population crash was largely famine induced by climatic deterioration, IMO. Then came war & disease from Europe.
The written testimony is even more satisfying than the verbal testimony. It’s encouraging to know that it is a part of the Congressional Record. It includes a bunch of little gems like this:
“The information cascade of climate change as apocalypse is impeding our ability to think rationally about
how we should respond to climate change, and acts to narrow the viewpoints and policy options that we
are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, weather disasters and
national security. Should we be surprised when reducing CO2 emissions does not ameliorate any of these
problems?”
A strong, highly educated and intelligent woman, speaking her convictions in the face of overwhelming, unjustified and unscientific consensus is just . . . . so . . . darn . . . sexy.
Sorry, couldn’t help it.
Anyway, good work Judy! Glad someone ‘inside’ the climate science community still has common sense and conviction.
If all climate scientists rationalized like Judith Curry they wouldn’t be able to raise much money. Not a criticism, just an observation.
The error bars (ranges of known inaccuracies) in the instruments used for measuring past and present global average temperatures are such that even the “consensus”-conjectured warming effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere cannot be measured to any degree of reliability.
What Obozo et alia are ramming up the national tochus doesn’t even approach what’s execrated in clinical medicine as “treating the lab results instead of the patient.”
I initially found her statement (quoted above) my only scientific point of disagreement with Curry’s testimony, but on reflection I now do agree with it. She is saying that humans are influencing the direction of warming, which I think does not mean that humans will necessarily always results in causing warming. I think she is saying, if all things in the Earth Atmospheric System remain constant then human activity (if unaffected other expected co-changes by the natural influences) may cause warming. I think she is being very Lindzen-like in her above quote.
On a non-scientific point she made in her testimony, I think she needs to rework the use of the concept of ‘wicked problem’ and its meaning. ‘Wicked’, prima fascia, has way too much implication of lack of moral and ethical behavior.
John
It is an important point, all things are not equal. Isolating one process in a complex system and pretending the other processes are static is useful for understanding that isolated process, but it’s role in the system will be poorly understood until the system is understood. Climate science blindly jumped to conclusions like the blind man who when presented with an elephant examined the tail and then concluded elephants were a type of snake.
Trunk, Snake, Tail, Rope
JC has put a good summary together, cool and to the point – very professional. It is devoid of emotionalism, exaggeration and sensationalism. In a world where these characteristics are an expected part of getting one’s point across the impact of her comments will be less than they should be.
Great testimony by Dr. Curry. Great comments above, too. One idea: since the “heating” of the world is being driven by some dozen or two thermometers located above or near the Arctic Circle, why don’t Anthony and his “bad thermometer!” sleuths, sleuth out which and where they are and show how badly they are sited, etc., and why they don’t represent diddly in the great northern apex of this planet, thus allowing us to cool that raging northern “red spot” back down to a cool greenish or bluish spot. They (the alarmists) need to have their toys taken away one by one.
This is what we humorously get from an alleged pro-science White House, a policy that may reduce temperature by a whole degree by about the year 5015, right about the same time Star Trek transporters, telepathy and lunar colonies are common and hot vacation spots on Mars are where celebrities go.
More seriously this demonstrates leadership that has replaced reason and leadership with ideology and an inability to recognize important priorities from frivolous ones.
Will your grandchildren thank you if your politically-stoked fear of future warming sets in motion a series of events that precipitate rampant glaciation?
AGW has simply never been about physical science. It has been about political science. The ultimate rational is if everyone consumes resources at the rate of the western world we would need X number of worlds to meet that need. Thus the need for the re-distributive change Obama speaks of. Dr. holdren prescribe the answer 40 years ago the U.S. has 5% of the world population and consumes 25% of the resources, Thus the U.S. must reduces emissions 80%. Deindustrialization of the U.S., a Massive wealth transfer to the third world. But they cannot sell that to the American people. They must create a crisis to sell this turd to the people.
It would appear that this administration attended the same school as these two….
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
“At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.”
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3UqA7aWRx
Well many of our intelligentsia are en amorous of so called Chinese state capitalism. In other words communism. The idea that democracy and a state controlled economy can coexist is an oxymoron. The ultimate fear of resource wars like world war 2 are a reality. The National socialists vision of Lebensraum or A workers of the world unite Communism are the nightmares of a free people. But it seems the ruling class have determined that telling the truth to the people in the nuclear age is unwise lol.
Thanks for the links the first on has been deleted. LOL
Doug,
The same comment was posted back in 2012 on WUWT. See (Gail Combs) July 27th 2012 @ur momisugly 2:40pm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
PS: The results of the research “New research in Antarctica shows CO2 follows temperature “by a few hundred years at most” is worth a read if one missed it before as I did.
I am sorry about interjecting politics into science folks. But i think the scientific debate has been settled by our politicians and they don’t care if you could disprove AGW. They believe they are trying to negotiate us out of world war 3.
I always wondered as I watch a hot air balloon go up and down. How much of the gas in the balloon is Co2? Does it descend because the gas escaped or cooled? it might be interesting to monitor temperature and gas concentrations in a balloon.
“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.”
“While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming.”
I’m having a little trouble squaring those two statements in your testimony, Professor Curry. If the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change is questionable, how can it be clear that humans are really influencing climate in the direction of warming?
Nevertheless, thank you, Professor Curry for your sage testimony before this House committee and I welcome your diligent efforts to bring some rationality back to the political discussion of climate change in Washington, D.C. The best statement that you have made is that there is NOTHING that justifies the kind policy response we have seen from the current Presidential administration on this subject.
Dr curry is surrounded by 3 plastic water bottles. do we want to tackle a real existing environmental problem, get rid of those (replace with water bringers and a glass). it’s interesting to see how real issues stare us in the face while we dribble about hypothetical problems (ps: nothing against Dr Curry here; just making a general comment)
I give Dr. Curry high marks for her testimony.
But I have to more than quibble with two phases she employed and urge her to revise them in future presentations
“Reset Button” is now a cultural joke. I cringe when any person of science uses it. Beyond the damage Sec. of State Clinton gave to the phrase, think about what it really means…. “We are going to reboot the system and hope the problems go away.” Folly!
What is needed is a Stop Work Order to reevaluate the situation before someone gets hurt.
“Pursue no regrets pollution reduction.” Dr. Curry is a scientist tenured at a university known for world class engineering and she utters a “no regrets” fantasy. Dr. Curry herself has established the phrase that “Climate Change is a wicked problem.” I believe a more accurate phrase is
Regardless, when there is a wicked problem then, almost by definition, there cannot exist a “no regrets” solution even in part. If the problem is wicked, then adding non-linear solutions can only increase the wickedness.
Let’s take an example. Is the curtailment of coal for electrical generation a no-regrets solution? Sure, generate the same MWhr with less CO2 generation, less mercury, less vanadium, fewer particulates. What’s to regret? How about:
1. the early retirement of coal fired electrical generation stations, wasting useful capital
2. the unemployment of railroad workers who have less coal to move
3. the utter destruction of towns that depend upon coal mining.
4. A greater percentage of electrical generation based upon a single fuel, natural gas, increasing the risks of supply shortages from extreme cold weather or …
5. increased risk of gas pipeline explosions.
Sure, we can work to minimize regrets. Maybe we require that all large natural gas electrical generation stations be built to also run coal during supply shortages. Now you are just spending other peoples’ money. Government is forcing a higher cost of generating electricity, through idled capital. Tell me that is a “no regrets” solution. I rather doubt it is a regret minimizing solution. After all, it’s complicated (i.e. wicked).
Let’s not con ourselves, much less the public. In a wicked problem, “no regrets” solutions do not exist.
Thanks for your article! My friends in Ottawa had major damage due to extreme weather and #frostquakes this winter that left 20′ cracks in their foundation walls. They’re stuck having to pay for the repair & even had to post a gofundme campaign (“Help save our friends’ home!”).#ClimateChange is a serious issue that is affecting us all!
http://www.gofundme.com/homeheart
Will society have to resort to crowd funding to deal with the effects of #ClimateChange on our homes & wildlife?
No.
But society will be destroyed by the alarmist demands for Big Government “solutions” to Climate Change propaganda to “solve” a problem that does not exist.
Jordan,
Go spin that yarn to the thousands displaced by the last Tsunami. If they had proofed their foundations (Caulking / wrapping with bitumen / ash felt) they would not be having this problem. Lousy construction does not make a climate catastrophe.