Climate hypochondria and tribalism vs. ‘winning’

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

Posted on February 7, 2019 by curryja |

by Judith Curry

Some reactions from Wednesday’s Congressional testimony.

I’m starting this post while sitting in the Phoenix airport waiting for my delayed flight home (by the time I get home, I will have been up for 24 hours today/tomorrow).

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

Well, maybe tomorrow I will remember.  The response to my testimony has been gratifying, from people across the political spectrum.

And the response from some segments has been very illuminating.  Sometimes I think these people don’t really want to make progress in addressing climate change, but rather are using the issue as a club to enforce their tribalism and/or achieve social justice objectives.  I think they actually LIKE the gridlock and climate wars.

Climate hypochondria

First, the climate hypochondriacs.  Some people (including one of the Members) took issue with the following statement in my testimony:

“Based upon our current assessment of the science, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation.”

I referred to AR5 WGII:

“Every single catastrophic scenario considered by the IPCC AR5 (WGII, Table 12.4) has a rating of very unlikely or exceptionally unlikely and/or has low confidence. The only tipping point that the IPCC considers likely in the 21st century is disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice (which is fairly reversible, since sea ice freezes every winter).”

In hindsight, I should have hit this a bit harder.  See my previous posts:

The IPCC AR5 refers to ‘reasons for concern.’  I won’t rehash my previous posts here, take a look.

Thinking that catastrophes like major hurricane landfalls, massive forest fires etc. will be ‘cured’ by eliminating fossil fuel emissions is laughable.  Well its not really funny.  Thinking that eliminating fossil fuel emissions will ‘solve’ the problem of extreme weather events is very sad, sort of on the level of doing rain dances.  Every thing that goes wrong, they blame on fossil fuel driven climate change.

Imagine how surprised they would be if we were ever to be successful at eliminating fossil fuel emissions, and then we still had bad weather!


The response on twitter  to my testimony from the usual suspects (e.g. Michael Mann, Dana Nuccitelli, Bob Ward and their acolytes) has been entertaining.  Its actually a waste of space to reproduce any of it here, check it out on twitter if you have the stomach.

Of course they loved Kim Cobb’s testimony and thought mine was horrible, in spite of the fact that we said comparable things about climate policy.

Kim Cobb’s testimony

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

But I will give credit where it is due:

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

Here is excerpt from the first paragraph of her written testimony:

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The conclusions of the 1992 report of the NAS (not NRC) “Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” remain:  Don’t take actions that are not otherwise justified.”

The impediment of climate scientists

By insisting on fighting the climate science wars in an attempt to win a climate policy debate, climate scientists continue to set this up for failure.  From the Hartwell Paper:

“it is not just that science does not dictate climate policy; it is that climate policy alone does not dictate environmental or development or energy policies.”

By ostracizing any climate scientists who engage with energy companies or Republicans, and pretending that that energy policy depends on 100% scientific consensus in a speaking consensus to power framework, these climate scientists are setting climate policy up for failure.

Speaking of energy companies, I’m relieved that this issue did not come up in the Hearing, after the Grijalva inquisition of a few years ago.  By the way, Kim Cobb holds the Georgia Power Chair at Georgia Tech.  The activists presumably think that is fine; its only bad when someone like me engages with energy companies.  Can anyone think of  why energy companies should not have access to the best climate information available and advice from climate scientists?


Climate scientist/activists need to recognize that any U.S. climate policy will require bipartisan support (that includes the dreaded Republicans).  Also, energy companies are part of the solution.   Attacking scientists such as myself and other climate scientists that testify for the Republicans is pointless.

No-regrets, win-win solutions seem politically palatable to the Republicans; it remains to be seen if Democrats will make incremental no-regrets policies such as proposed here the enemy of their grandiose ideas such as Green New Deal.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Endicott
February 8, 2019 10:14 am

Sometimes I think these people don’t really want to make progress in addressing climate change, but rather are using the issue as a club to enforce their tribalism and/or achieve social justice objectives

That’s a spot on observation. “climate change” is merely a club they use to achieve their real objectives

Tom Halla
Reply to  John Endicott
February 8, 2019 10:31 am

Exactly. The green blob recommended the same “remedies” when the scenario was global cooling.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 8, 2019 12:03 pm

Sure it’s a club.

Just yesterday , I was talking to someone I know vaguely and asked what his green ribbon pin was about. He said it was from the “Climate March”. He whine on a bit about how “catastrophic” it was and how one cargo ship emitted more “pollution” than a million cars.

He then left in diesel powered to car having picked up his son from the school bus stop and ran him the remaining 200m up to the center of the village where they live.

The boy is 14 y.o. and still has both legs in working order.

It’s all about virtue signalling and being in the right club.

Reply to  John Endicott
February 8, 2019 12:23 pm

For some reason the movie, ‘Joe vs. the Volcano’ popped into my head.
The premise of the movie seems oddly allegorical to the modern dilemma of climate change.
Joe Banks is told by his ‘doctor’ at the very outset of the movie:

Joe: So I’m not sick except for this terminal disease?
Dr. Ellison: Which has no symptoms. That’s right.

And at the end in dialogue with the female lead after they don’t jump into the volcano and escape from the island:

Joe: I still have a problem. I have a brain cloud.
Patricia: A brain cloud… what is a brain cloud?
Joe: It’s – well, maybe I should get a second opinion.
Patricia: You didn’t get a second opinion on something called a brain cloud? I mean what are you, a hypochondriac?
Joe: I was.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
February 8, 2019 1:55 pm

I thought they did jump into the volcano, but it spit them out.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  MarkW
February 8, 2019 10:23 pm


Reply to  John Endicott
February 10, 2019 3:02 pm

Why does it take some folk so long to realise this. I saw it early on. In searching for the reasons it turned out that the activists are very honest about control of CO2 being just a means to the desired end of economic growth. It is seemingly based on a ‘Cider with Rosie’ romantic delusion of a return to an imaginary, happier pre-industrial age. All activists are resolutely townies who depend on modernity so it’s even utterly self-delusional. Of course any hardship would be just for the plebs, not the patricians.

See this transcript for some illumination into the weird mindset of these hypocrites.

One excerpt…
“TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200 really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure with my little magic wand that we do not go above two degrees of global warming. However, by waving my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger, the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over the place but there will be no climate change. And I asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised their hands.
ROWLATT: That is quite shocking. I bet you were shocked, weren’t you?
TOWNSEND: I was angry. I wasn’t shocked. I was angry because it really showed that they wanted more. They didn’t just want to prevent climate change. They wanted to somehow change people, or at very least for people to know that they had to change.”

Once you see it laid bare then its obvious there never can be any compromise with folk who actually want economic decline!

February 8, 2019 10:15 am

IF the AGWcommunity were serious about addressing the ‘issue’ then there is onlyone solution they can support

Nuclear power
But they don’t.


Reply to  Leo Smith
February 8, 2019 11:19 am


You’ve hit the nail on the head.

Our problem is–and by “our” I mean we little people who just want to live our lives, triumph in our wise decisions, suffer our poor decisions, and learn from both–that there have always existed some people who crave power to rule others, which ultimately translates into forcing others to obey rules that are repugnant and harmful to them, with the power-mongers’ relishing their ability to do this.

These “masters of the universe” require satraps–groupies–to carry out their agenda. In the Bible these were called false prophets. They were suck-ups to the King or Emperor. In our era, these purveyors of false “wisdom and truth” call themselves “expert climate scientists”.

Actually, the old False Prophets were scientists. (Scientia just means knowledge, as Doctor just means teacher.) They studied the tracks of stars and planets. They used pharmacopoeia (translated as sorcery in the Bible). They studied mathematics, and passed down their craft only to people of their own kind. They held themselves to be superior to the vast majority of people.

In the court of Nebuchadnezzar anyone who disobeyed the False Prophets’ dictates, went to the lion’s den. Opposition Removed. The New False Prophets would be quite happy to impose a similar fate on we who call out their chicanery and malefaction.

Robert W Turner
February 8, 2019 10:22 am

We need to keep emitting as much CO2 as we can. Humans saved Earth by unintentionally solving its carbon dioxide shortage crisis.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 8, 2019 10:50 am

This understanding is wide spread in the skeptic camp but fails scientific scrutiny. Our emissions do not amount to enough to change the noise of natural emissions ( ). The recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is about 95% natural and variable enough that the human signal barely shows on a 5 year time line. See ( ) for an easy to follow explanation. Or Harde 2017 for a peer reviewed paper detailing the same thing. Harde was censored in his reply to the response paper by Kohler and that exchange is found at ( and is well worth reading. In my opinion this information is the most important refutation to any attempt to control emissions but it is seldom articulated and never in the main stream media.

Reply to  DMA
February 8, 2019 11:44 am

DMA, here is “the bottom line”. Had James Watt, Sadi Carnot, Michael Faraday and other clever engineer-scientists never existed, had mass petroleum producer John D. Rockefeller and mass petroleum-burning-populizer Henry Ford never existed, (and add your favorite character), such that humans never advanced beyond 16th century technology–scratch that, let’s take it back to 9000 BC technology–would the earth’s global average temperature be cooler than it is, the same or warmer than it is currently?

Ans: Nobody knows.

Question 2: Is some man-made extra CO2 better or worse for our planet? Remember, the enviros’ favorite CO2 warming scientist is Svante Arrhenius, who proposed BURNING MORE COAL to create a BETTER (warmer) environment. And he didn’t even study plant physiology to figure out how CO2 would affect their growth and reproduction.

Ans: The greening phenomenon proved by satellites suggests the environment is getting better for plants, which should translate into better food availability for plant eaters, and the eaters of plant eaters. Unless the enviros prove that the plants now proliferating are toxic to animals that eat plants, or that the eaters of eaters of plants are nasty creatures than need to be eliminated, I’m favoring more plant growth.

Reply to  DMA
February 8, 2019 12:04 pm

Our emissions do not amount to enough to change the noise of natural emissions

True by word, but totally irrelevant as human emissions are much larger than the decadal scale atmospheric portion growth for which they’re responsible. There is a rough balance between the sea, atmosphere, and vegetation. Inserting a lot of CO2 will change the balance for a while.

Saying humans are not causing the growth in the atmospheric CO2 and basing that to blogs, crackpot science, and personal misunderstandings, is exactly the culprit of all of us being called denialists. Sorry about that. You need much better science to enter as an ‘einstein’ proponent.

Ian W
Reply to  Hugs
February 8, 2019 2:14 pm

Humans cause the emission of less CO2 than ants and termites. Not so special.

Reply to  Ian W
February 9, 2019 12:10 pm

Termites don’t mine carbon or peat, so their emissions are very much included in the balanced budget, where existing biomass comes and goes around. Unless you can claim termites are changing land-use by killing vegetation away. Afaik this is not happening.

Nice try, but better luck next time.

Reply to  DMA
February 8, 2019 12:19 pm

DMA, I’m always interested in this kind of inspection of the degree of natural variation in CO2. When a “paper” cites Salby (2014) like it is a published paper reference ( which I appear to have the release of ) I instantly skip down the the reference section to get the citation and see if I can get his long awaited published paper.

Imagine my surprise when Salby (2014) turns out to be U-tube video !!

At that point I stop wasting my time with your author and his presentations pretending to call itself a paper.

Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2019 12:47 pm

Salby 2014 is if fact a video of a lecture by the author of the text “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” and was based on a part of that text. Harde 2017 is a peer reviewed paper that recognizes Salby as an important source of information. If you are interested to see what Harde says you should be aware of the information at ( ). Salby’s text uses first principles to analyze the evolution of atmospheric CO2 among other things. I have not seen a refutation of his or Harde’s work that is believable and I cannot refute it myself. His and Berry’s refutation of the IPCC Bern model seem reasonable to me.

Reply to  DMA
February 9, 2019 12:23 pm

Salby is a crackpot. Sorry to say, but he’s way out there. I like to say crackpot, because the only option to that could be evil cackpot who took money for talking ScheiBe.

That’s blunt but I drew these conclusions after reading Judith Curry who touched the issue maybe couple of years back?

Note being crackpot is not that bad. Eddington was a crackpot in the end. So was Kurt Gödel. Both fine scientists with great contributions. Eddington was the one who thought the fine structure constant is 1/137, pünktlich. Gödel went totally tinfoil and starved to death after refusing to eat ‘poisonous’ food.

Reply to  Greg
February 8, 2019 2:42 pm

Greg, You’re playing right into their hands.

Salby and Harde have shown that man’s emissions cannot account for more than a tiny fraction of the observed increase of CO2. Berry has now shown the same in a paper which, incidentally, he presented at a scientific conference. See:

What they show is fundamental. If recognized, it would destroy the AGW industry, which, through widespread government support, appears to have achieved a strangle hold on publication – the industry determines what is published. See references in DMA’s comment. If Pal Review could get away with gagging even Harde’s reply to their criticisms, which Harde showed are nonsense, then why would you expect the product of Pal Review (which you’ve declared is kosher) to be anything more than industry-certified propaganda?

Daily headlines show that the infection has now metastasized to the US congress. The drum beat will only grow louder. The only way its advance will be halted is to force what the AGW industry has succeeded in dodging – an open face off with real scientists like Lindzen, Happer, etc.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 8, 2019 11:21 am


That’s the spirit!

February 8, 2019 10:30 am

For an ice free Arctic summer I suppose they (IPCC) must ignore major ocean cycles like PDO and AMO or at least hold them constant and out of mind backwaters in their models like solar.

I’ll not do the links to the charts this time. But go look it up.

February 8, 2019 10:33 am

drives me crazy….why is one bit of any of this directed at us at all
The only thing it’s about is CO2….we have lower our emissions
…the vast majority of the rest of the world has increased…and increased to the point that it makes ours laughable

Reply to  Latitude
February 8, 2019 11:55 am

It’s not about CO2. It’s always been about imposing world order on the production of energy and on the people who use energy. It’s about a small coterie of people who believe their “royal bloodlines” qualify them to be control freaks who dictate how the billions of peasants must live.

February 8, 2019 10:38 am

We, as in skeptics and rational people, need to stop talking about a climate change “solution”. JC included. Nature will take care of it.

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  markl
February 8, 2019 10:49 am

markl, “Nature will take care of it”. Amen to that. It is folly to even think that we can alter the course of nature.

February 8, 2019 10:42 am

Well, we were told what polar vortex did.
It appears to mi that s.c. climate change ‘science’ has entered an uncontrollable ‘catastrophic calamity’ vortex of its own.

Clay Sanborn
February 8, 2019 10:45 am

Again, the left stopped using the term “Global Warming” and began using “Climate Change” because they lost the battle under “Global Warming”. And since the left’s use of words, to convey unsupported fact-less based concepts, is all they have, they had to change to using the ambiguous term “Climate Change”.
For leftist politicians, “Climate Change” is the magical, ubiquitous, amorphous gateway to their new found tax/spend socialist glory. For followers of the leftist ideologues, it is their religion. Either way, these people are lost to an improbable life of self delusion as Paul said in Romans 1: 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. (must best to read all of Romans 1 for the context of this verse). I pray that Judith ‘s testimonial words do not all fall to the ground, and that some of the above people will have actually have heard her.

Ian W
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
February 8, 2019 2:25 pm

Unfortunately, Clay it is worse than you stated. Climate Change has now been abbreviated to the even more meaningless ‘climate ‘. So we are called “climate deniers ” a phrase that only the most vapid would use.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Ian W
February 8, 2019 10:36 pm

Whenever some one uses any of the terms “climate change denier” or “climate denier” I realize thatperson either doesn’t understand what the discussion is about, or does understand and wants to pull the wool over their sheep”s eyes.

February 8, 2019 10:50 am

Global warming may come and go naturally, but the revenue crusades for money redistribution schemes and highway trust fund renewal will not ease up. Call it AGWG as in greed.

February 8, 2019 11:04 am

Have you ever wondered why climate change models don’t work?
Now we have an answer, surprisingly from the CAGW science no less:
“The weather these days is wild and will be wilder still within a century. In part, because the water from melting ice sheets off Greenland and in the Antarctic will cause extreme weather and unpredictable temperatures around the globe.”

Reply to  vukcevic
February 8, 2019 12:31 pm

Stop the fear mongering. Your wives and children will be happier. There are lots of interesting people who love adventuring in extreme climes and terrains. There is not a single wild weather event in our lifetimes that did not occur before our lifetimes, but there were many worse.

Reply to  ilftpm
February 8, 2019 1:05 pm

Hi there
have you not heard of the global climate weirding? If you have not, I can tell you that weather weirding is a very weird thing and is going to be weirder and weirder or you might say even weirdest ever, by the end of the century.
As the certain members of my family concerned, you are right I do often try to silence them by insisting that the ‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’ -CAGW will get them one day. After second or two I hear words of a total disrespect ‘global warming science is rubbish!’. Do I have any choice but to agree, I can tell you not, they are in a majority, and a democratic decision has been made, so the global warming science is rubbish’ in my household, no two ways about it.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  vukcevic
February 8, 2019 3:29 pm

Do you have data on tnis alleged ‘Climate Wierding?

If love to see some. So far all attempts at proving that anything unprecedented is happening have failed.

This is a genuine question, not a snark. Well, possibly a little…

Ronald Havelock, Ph.D.
February 8, 2019 11:06 am

The oil-industrial complex is in full appeasement mode when it comes to the fear mongers.
Our only hope to climb out of this holy hell of green madness is a Churchillian turn-around by the deep pockets of energy, meaning mostly the oil companies. What is required is a full frontal attack using the real data of real science to expose the fraud.
Whenever and wherever it is claimed that the science is “settled,” there should be a loud counter-claim.
That counter-offensive will cost a lot of money, but until it is put on the table, the fraudulent scenario of green extremism will go on and on. We must fight back!

Joel Snider
February 8, 2019 11:07 am

‘Kim walks the talk in her personal lifestyle: vegetarian, rides bike to work, solar panels, minimizes flying etc. Very few climate scientists do this.’

Well – let’s see – biking to work in Georgia, subsidized solar panels, flights are available when she wants.

Fairly leisurely ‘walk’.

Reply to  Joel Snider
February 8, 2019 12:00 pm

She go to work at University of Manitoba or Alberta or even URochester, New York to see how well biking to work and reducing dependence on fossil fuels works.

Reply to  Joel Snider
February 9, 2019 1:41 am

Does she use air conditioning? And at what temp setting?

February 8, 2019 11:41 am

Having “played” with those in the AGWcommunity and their predecessor I can assure Dr. Curry that they indeed love gridlock and the climate wars. Let no good crisis good to waste. Better yet if they can turn non-event into a crisis and a small crisis into Armageddon. They decided early in the game that climate change was the “horse” they would ride in on to change the entire world’s economic system. Some of their leaders have said exactly that. The latest New Green Deal spells in out.

Many here and elsewhere believe the demands as seen in the Green Deal are just so outrageous they must fail from their own apparent bizarre stupidity. DO NOT fall into that trap.

Hokey Schtick
February 8, 2019 11:42 am

Oooooh she rides a bike. Does she blow dry her hair though? Huh? Does she? So she isn’t willing to have wet hair to save the lives of our children’s children. Is that it? Sure she not even care?

Reply to  Hokey Schtick
February 8, 2019 12:07 pm

the bike must be carbon neutral no doubt and when she flies it must be on solar-powered aircraft.
What a champion!

Reply to  Hokey Schtick
February 9, 2019 8:40 pm

Does she wash and shower with cold water?

February 8, 2019 11:47 am

… it remains to be seen if Democrats will make incremental no-regrets policies such as proposed here the enemy of their grandiose ideas such as Green New Deal.

In every literate culture, someone has pointed out that The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good. It should qualify as universal human wisdom. Sadly, ideologues are bereft of wisdom. 🙁

Reply to  commieBob
February 8, 2019 3:49 pm

In this case, they don’t actually want to solve the problem. They want to use the problem as an excuse to force their agenda onto everyone else.

Common sense, no regrets solutions don’t promote their real goals.

February 8, 2019 11:54 am

As with all things there are good and bad from both sides. A good example is that I regard most of what the greens say as simply anti development, especially as regards energy. But they also want to legalise Euthelnasia, which I agree 100 % per cent with , i especially as being 92 in a few weeks time I may well need to use it myself if I should change from being reasonably healthy to being Ga Ga.

But because I agree with one bit does not mean I agree with rest of their policies.

Capitalism seems to work, to the benefit of most people, but nothing is perfect. So if t it can be improved just a little bit, then lets do so, without celebrating on one side as a victory , and doom and gloom on the other. Far better to have a win/ win situation.

For example Bismark , the boss of 19th century Germany, and a very right wing person , was all for a “Man” to have a roof over his head, clothes on his back, and food in his n belly. “For the greater good for Germany . For example in 1942 the USA had to build up its military forces, but found that a high percentage of the men were not physically fit enough.

So such a situation where the physical health of the population was of concern from a military point of view was a serious matter and should never have occurred.

But in regard to the present myth of “Climate Change, as one reader says, It’s just a club, for forcing change for a political reason, and has nothing to do with the good of the planet..


Reply to  Michael
February 9, 2019 11:09 am

Well certainly close to 92 you are nowhere near gaga. Happy to see an elder speak such good sense from my perspective of a 28 y.o.

Indeed capitalism and being right wing doesn’t mean their is no care and no desire for the less fortunate to be better off. Even from a purely selfish perspective, buying social peace and increasing the number of consumers is in the interest of the richer. Prior to Nanny state social welfare and public education, there were friendly societies and free education, notably from the church.

Regardig climate, the alarmists are doing the opposite of good for the planet. I just began working as a primary school teacher and discovered to my horror some kids were already indoctrinated with fear of the very air they breath out. I am already giving them clues about he great benefits of CO2, and how climate changes dramatically in the past without human involvement. Damn the fear mongers, I wish they used euthanasia on themselves to be consistent with their view that humans are poison and the planet is over populated. On you I wish many more years of a comfortable life.

John Endicott
February 8, 2019 11:55 am

1.Kim walks the talk in her personal lifestyle: vegetarian,

At least she’s not a vegan

rides bike to work,

I’d ride a bike to work too, if work was only a block or two away. Not everyone is so fortunate as to live within biking distance of their workplace.

solar panels,

Paid for with OPM (taxpayer’s money)

minimizes flying etc.

I’ve got her beat. I don’t fly anywhere. Haven’t been on a plane since the min-90s and have no plans to be on one any time in the near future. The fact is she still hops onto planes when she wants to, just like all the other rent-seekers.

February 8, 2019 11:56 am

This statement from Judith,

“Of course they loved Kim Cobb’s testimony and thought mine was horrible, in spite of the fact that we said comparable things about climate policy.”,

not only goes to the tribalism on the climate issue, but to the very heart of why Climate Change is no longer about science. Climate Change is clearly nothing more than politics — the politics of power for the Democrats. We see that clearly with both US democrats wrapping climate policy with social issues, but also at the international level whereby,
“Climate justice and social justice go hand in hand. Social justice is a core of Just Transition, countries have to implement their commitments under the Paris Agreement in a way that works into the opportunities for job creation and minimizing disruption.” (ref: )

And that includes the politicized scientists that Judith names as “the usual suspects.” AO-C and Markey of Mass with their Green New Deal and UN’ COP climate hustlers have now fully exposed the climate crusade as nothing more than a run at socialism and the necessary destruction of the US constitution’s checks on the power of the federal government – but the very sovereignty of individual nations with a run at raw, dominating political power.

In the military, conflicts and war are defined by battle-spaces with an adversary – land, sea, air, space, cyber, psychological, etc.

The climate change war is just one battlespace in a multitude of different battlespaces that liberal Democrats are waging to acquire power at any cost. In a related war but different battlespace, Senator Lindsay Graham blasted the senate Democrats on September 27, 2108 for their ugly and desperate attempts to destroy Brett Kavanaugh to block him from the Supreme Court. That episode and Senator Graham’s excoriation of Democrats reminds us that all that animates Democrats now is acquisition of political power over every aspect of American life, regardless of their policy impacts on America’s future, the economic well-being of every American, or what good person they have to smear and destroy his/her character.

Democrats lost that senate confirmation battle for SCOTUS, just as they will for the next one coming by this fall. The now conservative make-up of the SCOTUS will set back Progressives on their quest for power long after President Trump is gone by 2025 at the least, and even longer when Trump fills the next (up-)coming SCOTUS vacancy. It will get even uglier then. Yes, there is always another lower level of Hell that Democrats (Progressive-Socialists in reality) are willing bring forth for more power.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 8, 2019 12:47 pm

Bottom line – the progressive-socialist mind-set exploits and promotes partisanship and bigotry.

February 8, 2019 11:57 am

I balk at anyone who issues the words “Social Justice” as a laudable goal. Any word used to modify justice may as well be read as “in”. Social Justice is at its essence injustice in that it demands that we take from the ones who have worked hard and made good decisions, the resources they acquire from such actions and give those resources (after government takes its hefty handling fee) to the ones who are shiftless or prone to making horrible decisions or both.

There is an old adage that one gets what one rewards, so Social Justice is just the encouragement of the destruction of the economy until one reaches the point that there is no longer any more other people’s money to be had. The more bad decisions we reward, the fewer good decisions will be made.

Reply to  OweninGA
February 8, 2019 1:11 pm


Terrific insights! Bravo!

Reply to  OweninGA
February 8, 2019 2:02 pm


I guess Venezuela is a good bench test for that.

Reply to  OweninGA
February 8, 2019 4:57 pm

Zimbabwe was claimed to be an attempt at social justice.
In reality, it was just a power grab and land grab by Mugabe’s officers.
In actual practice, and just as we see now in Venezuela, it is the power connected elites who get the “justice,” while the people get the socialism (equal misery).

Jon Jewett
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 8, 2019 9:30 pm

The Carter administration backed Mugabe in Zimbabwe. He also backed Chavez in Venezuela. He got the Nobel peace prize for ” “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” Merde. (I used the French so I would appear cool.)

Robert of Texas
February 8, 2019 12:00 pm

If any “climate scientist” (assuming there is such a thing) advocating severe consequences for any additional atmospheric CO2 wanted to be serious and not a hypocrite, they would reduce their own “Carbon Footprint” to zero – period. Or better, consume more carbon from the atmosphere then they put back in.

If they own a house, a car, a bicycle, or fly in a plane, they are plainly hypocrites. (Even bicycles require energy in their production). They should live in clothes woven from plants they grow next to their vegetable gardens that they fertilize with their own…organic output. They should live in a lean-to of their own manufacture from plants, including any trees needed, that they personally have grown. You don’t get to run around in modern clothes using modern conveniences and modern transportation and then claim “I have reduced my Carbon Foot Print” – so what – you are still adding to the problem you are trying justify.

Anything beyond this, and they are just plain charlatans trying to trick others into behaviors they themselves do not believe in. They live in a rich world created by the fossil fuels used to drive industry, make products, and produce long happy lives. They need to WAKE UP and realize how much better life is now then it was before Fossil Fuels. Quit acting like small children and claiming there is a “monster under the bed” – get over your fears of Climate Change which is a NATURAL PROCESS. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, then do so constructively like advocating a standardized nuclear industry.

These people are shameless and/or ignorant, or maybe just to lazy to discover the truth. Some are outright con-artists – the ones changing and making up data or writing summaries that do not reflect the science they are supposed to be summarizing.


February 8, 2019 12:03 pm

A profile in courage.

Thank You

February 8, 2019 12:42 pm

As many rejoiced that sea levels shouldn’t be impacted by melting Greenland or Antarctica according to the latest Tamsin Edwards paper, Bob Weber of the Canadian Press, faithfully reprinted by the CBC manages to deflect the result into more “cold weather” thanks to global warming…
CBC and Bob Weber!
“You might have more extreme weather events,” said Gomez. “The warmest day of the year may get warmer or last for longer. We may have more really cold days, really stormy days. (There’s) a greater range of possibilities.” prof. Gomez, McGill University…

John Endicott
Reply to  TomRude
February 8, 2019 12:47 pm

Translation: No matter what the weather does, we’ll blame it on global Warming/Climate Change.

AGW is not Science
February 8, 2019 12:47 pm

I’d give Kim Cobb a heck of a lot less credit than you do, Judy.

First, while I too would give her some credit for “walking the talk,” that doesn’t mean I agree with her perceived “need” to do so (or with what I’m sure is her perceived “need” to push OTHERS to modify THEIR behavior similarly) when I don’t agree with the underlying “cause” that she “believes in.”

But more to the point, the ONLY “growing cost” of so-called “climate change” is every stupid government “climate change” related policy, mandate, and research grant subtracted from this country’s prosperity in order to pursue non-solutions to an imaginary problem. In the fashion that SHE means “climate change,” she’s talking about something that doesn’t exist to any scale that is measurable or significant, as in HUMAN INDUCED, global climate change. There remains not a scrap of empirical evidence to support the ridiculous notion that atmospheric CO2 levels drive the Earth’s climate, nor is our minuscule addition of a few percentage points of emissions as compared with natural sources the driving factor in determining the atmospheric CO2 level, as far as I’m concerned.

To continue, “cleaner air and water” has absolutely nothing to do with so-called “climate change.” Nada. Zip. Nobody is “against” clean air and water. And P.S. the best way to ACHIEVE clean air and water is to use abundant fossil fuel energy and the continually advancing technology such use permits. If you don’t believe that, then compare the U.S. “air and water” with that of third world countries where they burn dung and wood to cook their meals and use their rivers as open sewers, due to a lack of access to electricity and grinding poverty.

And sorry, but the “healthier, more resilient communities” ilk sounds suspiciously like code for “cramming veganism down everyone’s throat” in the name of “saving us” from the nonexistent “threats” of “greenhouse gases” related to meat production, and “dictating living spaces” to cram walking, bicycling, or “mass” transit down the throat of a nation that has already had automobiles foist upon it by government transportation policies of the past. It’s too late to go back on that “development” now.

The gigantic hope-you-didn’t-have-food-in-your-mouth assertion about the “competitive edge in the low-carbon 21st century global economy” is a sick joke. “Low carbon” means “NO economy,” period. EVERY BIT of economic activity involves the use of energy, and the only way to reduce “carbon (dioxide)” is to REDUCE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY (including “doing things less efficiently”).

Finally the “mantle of global leadership on the challenge of our time” speaks once again to a nonexistent “challenge.” If the U.S. pursues “climate” policies, it will be not the leader but the laughing stock in terms of “global leadership” as its economy collapses. China will soon displace the U.S. at being the “global leadership,” as it pursues massive fossil fuel energy build-out to massively INCREASE its prosperity and extends aid in constructing coal-fired electric generation to those countries the World Bank has been turning its nose up at for years in the name of “climate” Eco-Fascism.

Though I didn’t see it in her opening statement, you said she mentioned “adaptation.” Though I wouldn’t disagree with that, I’m sure that once again the “reason” for it would be quite different. “Adapting” to [whatever] climate changes ACTUALLY OCCUR is in fact the ONLY thing we can do about [actual, not the imagined human-induced] climate changes, or with respect to “weather” events generally.

We should (always, NOT because of any imaginary “crisis”) be building homes and infrastructure that are “resilient” REGARDLESS of what the climate does. And we should certainly be intelligent about WHAT we build WHERE to take into account the NATURAL hazards posed by local weather (NOT “climate”) events and exposures. Specifically, homes should be built to SURVIVE hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires or earthquakes in “high hazard” areas. In short, the houses in California with “Santa Ana” or “Diablo” winds breathing down their necks EVERY YEAR should be built out of steel-reinforced concrete (including the roofs), and with covered, wrap-around porches to isolate the building envelope penetrations from the heat of fires. Then the homes would not burn. Similar types of construction, on elevated piers, should be the rule for beachfront properties (with storm shutters mandatory), which then wouldn’t get crushed by storm surges. Intelligent building code requirements ARE possible, and it is (ironically) government that “permits” (no pun intended) stupid building practices in high-hazard areas that lead to expensive and often tragic results. It has NOTHING to do with so-called “climate change.”

A “better tomorrow for all Americans” does NOT involve making energy more expensive, less reliable, less accessible, by reducing mobility, freedom, or wealth, or by pushing diet-by-dictatorship in the form of government restrictions, be they direct or indirect.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
February 8, 2019 6:16 pm

“due to a lack of access to electricity and grinding poverty.”

They have plenty of access to grinding poverty.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 14, 2019 10:48 am

Yeah.. needs an Oxford comma…

February 8, 2019 1:30 pm

I sometimes think that more and more people care less and less about facts supporting human caused climate change. Rather, they care more and more about emotions that climate-change fear elicits. Playing on this fear in people prone to it is what wins power and popularity for politicians.

If you want votes, then play on the fears of those most likely to vote. Play the climate card. Parrot the party line. Win friends and supporters. That’s the game. Climate change is a chess piece.

If it moves people to vote and take action, then use it for this purpose. Who has time to scrutinize the details?

Misguided, misinformed zealots, thus, are enabled to elect unenlightened power-seekers into office.

Bruce Cobb
February 8, 2019 1:36 pm

I’d be highly suspicious of any “win-win, no-regrets” policies, regardless of what their stated goals were. The reason is that the Climatists will always want to put “climate change” in the “plus” colunmn as a reason for doing something whenever doing a cost/benefit analysis. Anything actually worth doing, we are most likely already doing anyway, and there is the problem of diminishing returns.

February 8, 2019 1:43 pm

I don’t understand the concept of a “no regrets” political policy. Every action (and every inaction) has costs. If we spend on the wrong things, we have less to spend on the right things. And we already have less than zero to spend on anything.

Using government force to do anything except curb wickedness (government’s actual job) and get ourselves solvent again would seem to be something to regret.

Reply to  damp
February 8, 2019 2:41 pm

This win-win/no regrets crap is just an extension of the “consensus building” politics.

If it stays on in common language and politicking, I hope that all involved keep a good record to prove that the winwinnoregreters were wrong 99% of the time.

kevin kilty
February 8, 2019 1:51 pm

I could care less about Kim Cobb walkin’ the talk, or talkin’ the walk or whatever she does. And I am 100% against “win-win, no-regrets” policies if they are predicated on 0.5% discount rates.

February 8, 2019 2:16 pm

Sorry this is O/T but important. Another new study has found that the IPCC’s 2013 (2 metres by 2100) SLR claims are just exaggerated nonsense.
IOW NO SLR apocalypse at all. When will these fra-dsters be held to account?

Reply to  Neville
February 8, 2019 6:25 pm

Your idea of important is pretty odd.

February 9, 2019 9:05 am

Count the number of nuclear power plants that have shut down since the Climate Change crisis has been pushed. In 2000 there were 104, today there are 99 operating plants. The Conservation dot com Environment = Energy indicates that 13 more plants are slated for shut down. That is in the neighborhood of 10,000 Megawatt of baseload, ZERO (almost) CO2 emitting electrical power. With a 33% capacity factor for wind it will take 30,000 – 1-Megawatt Wind turbines. Just to replace the lost Zero CO2 emission power. Factoring in the fact that these wind turbines will need NG backup the emissions will go UP not down. These actions are NOT a “no-regrets, win-win actions to reduce the growing costs of climate change,”mfar from that.
This is more like using a 50-50 mix of water and alcohol to put out a fire. Worse, the same actions that brought about these shutdowns have caused the abandonment of 4 NPPs in construction costing even more dollars ($15 – 20 Billion) that could have reduced CO2 emissions even further.
Those reading this with a knowledge of economics should look into exactly what classifying NPP’s as “Not-Renewable Energy” and the effects this had on the power plants bottom line. Even Obama’s CPP did not allow NP to go toward state CO2 reduction mandates. Appears to me as if the program was designed to cripple Nuclear Power and make it DIE. I am still waiting for a succinct explanation as to how you make Aluminum or smelt ore with a Wind Turbine and/or Solar. [Hint – it is made with COAL in China.]

February 10, 2019 10:39 am

The best way to have a competitive edge in the low-carbon 21st century global economy is to not have a low-carbon economy.

%d bloggers like this: