JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

“Find the climate deniers near you” — Ted Cruz, Mark Steyn, Will Happer, Judith Curry in Congress

The full 2 hour 40 minute testimony of Ted Cruz and his invited guests.

Don’t underestimate the importance of what is going on in this testimony to Congress. It captures why the USA is the best hope for defeating the religious climate meme. Which other western democracy comes close to this? As Mark Steyn says, the most important form of competition is the competition of ideas. Paris will not get a binding agreement mostly because the USA congress stands in the way. (Though that doesn’t mean they won’t get billions; more on that in the next post.)

The landscape of the US presidential campaign has undergone a phase change. Watch this and think back to the bland weakness of Mitt Romney in 2012. In 2015 the top Republican candidates are competing to be the most skeptical, and to demonstrate how they don’t pander to political correctness. And Ted Cruz surely is the best informed on the climate topics.

Judith Curry   ” I can no longer get government grants….”

Please copy your favorite quotes below so those who can’t watch the lot can pick up the gems.

UPDATE: Best short parts are around 2:14 – 2:20 with Steyn and Curry. A lot of the proceedings were dominated by the Democrats who turned up and outnumbered the Republicans. Only two Republicans were present. Cruz could’ve used more support.  h/t Rodzki, TdeF at #13, #14,  #15 for a  good synopsis of the whole event.

h/t ianl8888, Alistair, Geoff D, Joe B, Pat, Yonnie.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (122 votes cast)
"Find the climate deniers near you" -- Ted Cruz, Mark Steyn, Will Happer, Judith Curry in Congress, 9.1 out of 10 based on 122 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/plavszx

232 comments to “Find the climate deniers near you” — Ted Cruz, Mark Steyn, Will Happer, Judith Curry in Congress

  • #
    Ross

    I put this link in the thread below but it is more applicable here as it adds to Jo’s comment above ” the USA is the best hope for defeating the religious climate meme”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/09/why-bother-john-kerry-admits-american-co2-cuts-would-be-pointless/

    150

  • #
    Rico L

    I watched the whole thing – some of those senators are well beyond help, made me want to move planet.

    210

  • #
    Mjw

    A little off topic, but, on the weekend two clowns at the Paris trough fest in different interviews both said they wanted the earths temperature to lower to what it was at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. NOT CO2, temperature. You know, the middle of the Little Ice Age. Obviously briefed by the same organisation and shown on commo tv.

    312

    • #
      doubting dave

      Mjw if , like this pair of clowns that you mention , i wanted to experience the temperature before the industrial revolution , i would not have to spend trillions trying to turn the CO2 thermostat down , i’d just drive from my home in the Trent valley up to my sisters in the Derbyshire Hills , a distance of about 20 miles and it would only cost me a couple of quids worth of LPG . ;)

      70

  • #
  • #

    I don’t care what anyone says, I want Trump to become the POTUS. I want to see the Left completely implode, the world over. I’m also looking forward to Tony Abbot doing a John Howard. That said, I’m kind of weird anyway.

    562

    • #
      PeterS

      Be careful what you wish for. You probably will get it with the pendulum swinging all the way to the far right. Why can’t people be happy being in the middle? I know, it’s boring to many, but at least it’s a safer path. Unfortunately, people today are like drug addicts on ice, and can’t stand people like Abbott who was on a steady but clear path to a better overall environment.

      301

      • #

        I’m serious, especially on the Trump issue. He’s giving the Left apoplexy (including their cheerleaders in the media), as well as the limp Republicans, and that’s a good thing. And, seriously, how bad could Trump be compared to Obama or Clinton? Trump is not stupid, he knows who he is playing to, who he is calling upon and what those people are looking for in America. What he’s doing and saying now is controversial, but he’s been in business and show business for a long time to know what he’s doing.

        Unfortunately, the pendulum is way, way, out to the Left at the moment and you can’t just swing it to the centre and expect it to stop, it has to swing to the right before it hopefully settles. But then it never settles. No matter how good the times, complacency always sets in and then someone kicks the pendulum once again.

        350

        • #
          Phil R

          I tend to agree. I don’t think Trump is necessarily the best candidate. But as things stand now, if Trump became president,

          1. it would be entertaining
          2. the left would go ballistic (which would also be entertaining), and
          3. It couldn’t be any worse than it is now.

          210

          • #

            #1 and #2 are wishes, but #3 I must agree with! Ted Cruz, Vlad Putin. or even the local black bear cub we named Vladimir, before anyone checked?
            Now Vladimira, would be just what the US needs!

            20

        • #
          PeterS

          That’s right, the pendulum swings left, right, left, etc. until one or the other extreme is overreached and things go crazy. It’s called under-damped oscillation. I also agree that it’s currently past the middle, and as all pendulum swings go it didn’t stay there long. That was my original point. People in general don’t like the middle of politics. For one it’s boring to them – they prefer agility and so do the leaders (I hate that word because it means change for change sake at any time sometimes for no reason at all). Being agile may be appropriate in some situations but when it come sot leading a nation, being agile is the last thing one should apply. Instead use common sense, careful planning and intelligent decision making where changes should be kept to a minimum. But then common sense is not common and that’s where it starts to fall apart.

          10

        • #
          ExWarmist

          I’m concerned that Trump is the establishment choice, and will usher in more Big Government.

          If the media really wanted to get rid of him – they would stop giving him air time.

          Right now, the media are all carrying Trump’s water for him.

          10

        • #
          Ceetee

          What I can’t understand is how so many apparently savvy political commentators can’t see why this man appeals so much. he is not a politician, not from the beltway. We, all over the world have become so cynical to the utterances of career politicians, saying many things in one sentence, being all things to all men yet standing for who knows what. Trump is a businessman, he sees things in black and white and his statements reflect that. I happen to disagree with his latest because I know it is simply unconstitutional and unfair, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he moderated it tomorrow, (and this is important) without the slightest hint of an apology. I have a sneaky suspicion this man is playing it in a way that none of the others even begin to understand. They’re all gobsmacked into virtual silence.
          I have to say the smartest thing said this week in my opinion is the statement by Tony Abbott, who said what all of us are quietly demanding, a Muslim renaissance. They gave us so much in terms of human achievement in the past and now they are devolving into a factional mess and we are dragged into it because so many of them live amongst us, in the vast majority of cases quite happily. We don’t understand the process of radicalisation but they do. They need to be in the forefront of saving their faith because right now IMHO it needs saving.

          30

      • #
        Dannz

        PeterS: How do you know what the political middle is when the majority of the information available is from the left or extreme left media outlets. Read ‘Left Turn’ by Dr Tim Groseclose to learn how ‘Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.’
        Although based on American experience it matches what I see in all Western Media outlets particularly the UK, Australia, and NZ all countries I have lived in and whose politics I follow together with US politics.
        It is not surprising to me that media attacks on AGW sceptics is coordinated throughout the Western world, as is the anti-Trump blitz and other anti-socialist matters.
        Freedom lovers are under attack, if you don’t believe me then select a news topic and compare the media reports in the US, UK, Aus, and NZ.

        190

        • #
          PeterS

          The “middle” in politics, whatever it is, doesn’t matter anymore. Look at what’s happening in France in the recent elections. The far right party has won leaving the socialist left in the dust, and the moderates non-existent. In Greece, the far right Golden Dawn Party (neo-Nazis) are gaining ground although still small (around 7% but increasing) as people there are rapidly becoming dissatisfied with ruling communist party. That’s the problem now, it’s going from one to the other side of politics, with one side as bad as the other. For some reason people do not like moderate/conservative/middle of the road leaders, and both the left and right side of politics will attack the middle so easily. The exception appears to be in the UK where the Conservatives are in power. But then some say they are not really conservative but more to the right, which may mean their popularity will increase. Time will tell.

          20

          • #

            @ PeterS – Here in the UK we Have Cameron (Conservative in name only) as Prime Minister, the Conservatives here are neither right wing nor conservative but tend toward the left wing and could only described as right wing in comparison to Red Ed Milliband or Jeremy Corbyn.

            Cameron described himself as “the heir to Blair” and would have been described by Maggie Thatcher as a “wet” at best, appears to like big government and the EU as well as having a “green” wife ( dad-in-law making serious money from wind “farms”).

            100

        • #
          James

          I was thinking the other day that Australia does not have any alternative news outlets. America has Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, and Townhall.com to name a few. Australia does not have much pay tv penetration so I cannot ever see a news channel of any description ever being viable.

          I know of no Australian conservative news sites. Perhaps I have missed them. I think that the media has gone more left over the last 12 years. I used to read some of the Rural Media site, but even those have crept more leftward, and more believing in the religion of Climate Change.

          An expat Australian.

          120

      • #
        Dariusz

        Recently I have been accused of being on the extreme right. But I have not changed my believes. I still love John Howard who was a great centrist and the best PM in recent history. It is not me that have pushed to the right. It is the world that is pushing to the left. Trump is a product of the mainstream political incompetence. What about le Pan? 30% of French are suddenly extreme right or this is because they have been abandoned by the centrist parties? Just like in Oz with the liberals abandoning the conservatives? Now I can,t vote for them and this is definitively not because I changed my views. Conservatives like the name suggests do not change their political views very easily as we value my cherished believes of freedom, individuality and no bull.

        190

        • #
          Retired now

          Yes, I have been bemused these last few years. I used to be considered somewhat left by friends. Now the same “friends” consider me extreme right. I have the same values and most of my views are similar to what I was writing in my diaries 30 years ago, although much hardened in relation to I**m as I have educated myself. As one example, back in the 1970s feminism used to be about liberation for all. Now its victim mentality permeates everything. I haven’t changed in relation to my views on liberation. My friends (ex-friends now they don’t like my stance) changed the definition of feminism to such an extent I can’t call myself a feminist any more.

          I used to be a radical feminist theologian. Now I’m considered so far from being radical, feminist or theological that I can’t even have a conversation with previous colleagues. Now I’m every thing they hold as horrendous – so right wing, so “racist” (ie not victim hugging), and a climate denier to boot.

          Now I’m looking for a conservative party to support as I have to vote and with the Turncoat and Bish taking us so far left I don’t recognise the party any more I need another party that supports freedom, self responsibility and supportive of individual effort and small businesses.

          But the main point is that although my beliefs and values have changed little in 30 years the so-called political centre has moved from far to my right to far to my left and I have gone from being a “leftie” to a “far right extremist” in the views of past colleagues.

          120

          • #
            Graham Richards

            Don’t worry what others think. I have a similar problem with people thinking I’m just slightly left of nazi

            30

            • #
              tom0mason

              Graham,

              Please remind these people that just to the left of the Nazi party (National Socialists) is the Communist party (or International Socialists). Both parties are socialist and therefore will seek to exterminate some freedoms and those who believe in those freedoms.

              40

      • #
        Glenn999

        When discussing whether someone is left or right, which can be confusing when discussing different countries, you need to look at specific policies that the candidate is endorsing. For instance, the term conservative in the US is different than conservative in the Eurozone.
        Far right is different in the US than it is elsewhere in the world.
        The US constitution was designed to limit the federal government, but the left leaning progressives in the US want to undue those restraints, so as to increase federal involvement in what used to be a state prerogative. Conservatives in the US want less federal intrusion, which means smaller deficits, less taxes, and a stronger economy brought about by more individual economic freedom.

        Hope this helps.

        70

        • #

          Rather than left/right a more useful characterization for US politics is between those who believe that big government knows best and those who believe that free markets know best, although this isn’t always divided along party lines. At least this time around, all the serious candidates on the Republican side seem to embrace the later.

          Trump isn’t a traditional ‘far right’ candidate, especially on social issues. His apparent far right views on immigration and foreign policy are more a reaction to the feckless, reckless and ineffective foreign policies coming from the Obama administration.

          140

          • #
            Richard Ilfeld

            Yup, generally.

            Many of our states are larger than most of the countries of the world — four in the top 25 economies and about a dozen in the top 50 MOL. So devolving from the fed to the states is not necessarily “local control”, merely devolving form a gargantuan government to a huge one.

            There are a number of unique things in our history — to be an “American” you buy into an idea…we were never a tribe. Guns were essential over several hundred years of frontier — so important that when our civil war ended the losers kept their guns.

            While a majority of our citizens live in cities, in a majority of our country one is till subject to visitation by the odd coyote or bear.

            The dominance of “social issues” is that is really the only appeal progressives have – as a significant majority is center to far right on economics and public safety … and many who profess to be “left” act right in many ways. Check the parking lot at a liberal convocation and you’ll find more SUV’s than bikes.

            The extreme polarization in the US is relatively recent and hopefully shortlived. A democratic Senator from a generally republican state or a Republican governor in a generally Democratic state used to be not unusual.

            Trump is a cross between Teddy Roosevelt & Wendell Wilikie …if we studied our own history or if our mainstream media actually had reporters instead of clones flogging the progressive narrative we’d all know that we’ve seen this before.

            In a very many instances the press understanding of a candidate during the election has had no relation to that cadidates governance, current POTUS included.

            80

        • #
          martin

          GLENN 999
          While the Republican party is supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility they aren’t anymore. For both parties its either spend too much here, or spend too much there, and usually both. When a countries currency goes FIAT.,(based on nothing but faith),printing it becomes too tempting. I believe the American dollar will collapse in the next 3-8 years.
          The liberal party used to be the party of free speech, and “Don’t trust authority”. Now? Everyone must conform in thought, and full embracing of authoritarians.
          I was a liberal 30 years ago. Now, I am more liberal but that’s called Republican now.
          Everything has been going left for decades.
          The undercurrent is shifting. Obama’s presidency is responsible for Trumps rise. I love/hate this. Trump is blowback. This might not end well…..

          20

          • #
            Glenn999

            I agree with everything you said. I use the term conservative to differentiate between big govt Repubs and constitutional conservatives.

            10

    • #
      Aaron M

      We’ll be weird together then, eh?

      80

  • #

    “Be careful what you wish for.”

    Mr Trump can probably win the nomination. But can he win the election? I doubt it.

    And if, as president he upsets too many people then both houses of Congress could swing against him at mid-term. Whether Congress would swing far enough to impeach and convict him, we cannot even guess.

    31

    • #
      PeterS

      If he does win I can understand the reasons why – more and more people are fed up with the crap coming from the other candidates, as well as from Obama. Trump has one very valuable and good quality; he won’t stand for BS. Trouble is there are other attributes that might make him a very dangerous President. I’ll say one thing though – he could end up being the right person for the times ahead. The US has lost it’s way and spiraling down the gurgler. If anyone can rescue the US, he can (but personally I doubt very much even he could).

      100

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Winston Churchill was seen as a political maverick in the lead up to WW2, when his warnings came to fruition Great Brittan and her allies were bloody glad to have the ‘Bulldog’ leading them, war can make strange bedfellows.

        180

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Mr Trump can probably win the nomination. But can he win the election? I doubt it.’

      Most unlikely, Cruz is more radical and should easily convince his Party that he’s the man to beat Hilary on climate change. Remember, both his parents are mathematicians and scientists, so Cruz is on solid ground as he mounts his offensive.

      He can win this debate and he will.

      260

      • #
        PeterS

        He could spit the dummy and run as an independent or third party locking out the Republicans for the final race. I think he has already made hints he would do that if the Republicans keep attacking him. As for Winston Churchill, he’s a totally different person and only in hindsight did we conclude he was the perfect man for that war era. Who knows what Trump would do in a similar situation. At least he ridiculed Obama on the global warming nonsense. So there’s two major pluses; he’s anti-BS and he’s a global warming skeptic. Hmmm.

        150

        • #
          Another Ian

          I seem to remember he’s said that he wouldn’t.

          But a week in politics???

          30

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          “spit the dummy and run as an independent”

          American politics is definitely different to Australia, as in Australia it would be seen as a sort of rebellious confidence if a candidate split from a party and went independent, certainly not seen as dummy-spitting. I thought “spitting the dummy” meant giving up.

          In an interview a couple of days ago Mr Trump remarked that the whole campaign would be a complete waste of time if he did not win and change a few things as POTUS. He sounds to me like he would try any avenue open to him, and that would technically include running independently.

          It’s really bizarre to me that the elections are still 11 months away and campaigning has already been going on for a year. It’s as though they don’t expect skill in clever debate to be part of the process so they turn it into a stamina test instead?

          What’s probably helping Trump is that he gets so much attention that even people in other countries know roughly what Trump believes and aims to do. Can anyone say that about the other candidates to the same degree. I would struggle to recall any stated policy directions from any other candidates. Even with Clinton I’d be making assumptions based on political party, not recalling anything she’s actually said.
          But then USA Presidential elections seem to be 90% personality and 10% policy, almost the opposite of Australia.

          50

          • #
            Phil R

            Even with Clinton I’d be making assumptions based on political party, not recalling anything she’s actually said.

            You’re absolutely correct, but probably not for the reasons you think. If nothing else, Hillary is a master politician (though still not as good as Bill). the reason that you can’t recall anything she’s actually said is because she talks a great deal but never says anything! :)

            121

          • #
            Glenn999

            You have to remember that the Primaries are going to start up soon. That is when the decision gets made. Also, in regard to Mr. Trump, he said he would only go independent if the GOP goes against “their word” and refuses to support him, if he wins the Primary.
            Basically the “art of the deal” strategy in dealing with two-faced politicians.

            50

          • #

            A better way to characterize the American political scene is that there are two large groups of people and one small group, one large group votes Democratic the other votes Republican, regardless of who is running and if they really don’t like their parties candidate, they just don’t vote.

            The small group in the middle votes on policy, not party, and this group decides elections, while the partisans decide who runs in each party.

            We are now in the primary season where the partisans choose their candidate, so we can expect pandering to the base on both sides. Once the candidates are decided, we will see the candidates on both side tack towards the center in order to attract the deciding voters.

            70

          • #
            Ceetee

            But then USA Presidential elections seem to be 90% personality and 10% policy, almost the opposite of Australia

            Interesting Andrew, agree entirely since all Aus politicians seem to come across as flustered lawyers. I think a major part of Key’s success is that he doesn’t.

            00

            • #
              AndyG55

              “almost the opposite of Australia”

              Say what ???????

              Turnbull is ONLY there because he has what the mid-left see as “character” (omg, are they serious?)

              He still hasn’t implemented one policy of his own.

              Abbott was dumped purely on perceived, MSM manufactured dud character.
              His real character shines way beyond anything that Turnbull could ever have.

              21

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        his parents are mathematicians and scientistshis parents are mathematicians and scientists

        Is an understanding of the Scientific Method,and the ability to reason logically inherited genetically?
        Not a rhetorical question. I’m serious. Does such data exist?

        10

        • #

          Rod, your question gets right to the heart of it.

          “Is an understanding of the Scientific Method,and the ability to reason logically inherited genetically?”

          The latter is certainly the case to a limited extent, being but one aspect of ‘general intelligence’ or g for want of a better term, to which one’s parents are well known to make some contribution.

          But the former couldn’t possibly be the case, because understanding the Scientific Method is not a matter of logic, common sense or mathematical aptitude. No matter how smart you are, you’re vanishingly unlikely to guess how science works a priori. Remember, the method eluded our species’ best minds for hundreds of thousands of years. It was a cultural achievement beyond price, but it’s not an automatic birthright. Two general principles are:

          1. unless someone taught you how science works you don’t know how science works, and

          2. unless you’re a scientist nobody taught you.

          13

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Brad Keyes,

            You wrote:

            2. unless you’re a scientist nobody taught you.

            This is incorrect. Back in Junior High School, every student was taught the scientific method. None of us were scientists in the sense that your statement implies.

            OTOH, every time one of us used the scientific method, we were scientists by definition.

            Take for example the yearly science fair. Every student who participates is in fact a scientist. Just because that student doesn’t go on to become a scientist as an adult, doesn’t mean they were never taught what the scientific method is and doesn’t know how to apply it.

            Abe

            30

            • #

              Abe/Just-A-Guy,

              thanks for pulling me up on point 2. You’re quite right. Your comment provides a great counterpoint to my Australian perspective, which I fallaciously generalized to the rest of the world. (Which wasn’t particularly logical, or indeed scientific, of me, was it?) Science fairs—like Junior High School itself—are an alien concept where I come from.

              Would you expand a bit on how much, exactly, you recall being taught about the scientific method in school? (This is all new to me.) Cheers,
              BK

              22

              • #
                James Bradley

                My first year science teacher in high school in Australia sat us down and drilled us about the importance of planning experiments and recording accurate observations, including very detailed drawings, graphs and charts – the first scientific method we studied was Johan Mendel and peas.

                40

              • #

                James, my high school experience wasn’t too different from what you’re describing. Problem is, when they told us to be honest, they really meant “get the expected result or be marked down.” Everything we did in the lab was a kind of anti-experiment. The answer was known in advance, and the trick was to falsify your data to agree with it.

                20

              • #

                (And FWIW, I went to one of the “best” schools.)

                20

              • #
                Bulldust

                These days there would be no wrong answer – it’s how do you feel about the plight of the peas?

                Unless, of course, you are scientifically aloof, because you _must_ have feelings, yes?

                20

              • #

                Sure Bulldust, but my point was: if the answer is already printed in the Teacher’s Supplement, why pretend we’re doing an experiment? Working towards a predetermined “discovery” is pretty much the definition of teleological, motivated, counter-scientific inquiry. Teachers should at least be honest about this farcical exercise and call it an ecneics class.

                10

              • #
                James Bradley

                Well, Brad,

                I looked back at it differently, to me the experiments were new, so I had no preconceptions as to outcomes, but I was confident if I used the method correctly the result would be correct, pretty much the way things are verified is by replication, so replication itself is an integral part of the scientific method.

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                “The answer was known in advance, and the trick was to falsify your data to agree with it’

                Good to see you know the premise behind all “climate science™” ;-)

                00

              • #
                AndyG55

                “My first year science teacher in high school in Australia sat us down and drilled us about the importance of planning experiments and recording accurate observations”

                Ditto..

                1… understand what is “meant” to happen by “accepted” hypothesis.

                2… Experiment to see if that hypothesis gives the expected result.

                3… If it doesn’t. repeat experiment.

                4… If it doesn’t again…. start asking questions about what went wrong with either hypothesis or experiment.

                Climate science fails so miserably that they have to start manipulating the actual data to match the hypothesis.. yet it STILL fails miserably. !!

                00

              • #

                2… Experiment to see if that hypothesis gives the expected result.

                3… If it doesn’t. repeat experiment.

                Hang on… “if it doesn’t”? What you seem to be advocating is: if the prevailing hypothesis doesn’t “win” the experiment on its first attempt, then it gets to ask for a rematch? “Best 2 out of 3?” Whereas, by implication, if it passes the test first time, there’s no need to test it again?

                Surely this is a recipe for confirmation bias, heteronormative status-quo preservation and publication bias, or as Feynman might say, ‘fooling yourself’?

                The way I was raised, you have to say in advance how many times a hypothesis needs to be tested, you have to count all the results, and you have to stick to the plan regardless of the actual contingent outcome of the “tests” (experiments).

                00

              • #

                PS: Notwithstanding that quibble, it’s impressive (and gives me hope for the future) to see how much you were taught about the scientific method. I wonder how widespread that experience is in Australia. Maybe I was just really unlucky in my parents’ choice of school?

                00

              • #
                AndyG55

                Brad, experiments will offer go astray, they should always be repeated.

                A hypothesis should be tested many times with many experiments.

                Surely you aren’t saying a hypothesis should be dumped because of one wonky experiment! That is really bad science.

                “say in advance how many times a hypothesis needs to be tested”….

                seriously ???

                00

            • #
              Konrad

              ”OTOH, every time one of us used the scientific method, we were scientists by definition.”

              Just-a-guy, well said.
              I work design and engineering, I might have an hon1 degree, but it is not in pure science. No matter. Dr. Spencer can’t beat me at empirical experiment design, and Lidnzen can’t beat me at radiative physics. David Evans can beat me at linear mathematical modelling, but maths can model the physical as well as the physically impossible. (Empirical experiment first, then maths David.)

              Science is not an institution. Science is not an authority. Science is a method.

              Published in a journal? Passed “pal-review”? “consensus”? That is nothing to do with scientific method. Provable, repeatable, replicable empirical results, that’s what counts. That’s my day job.

              314

            • #

              Andy,

              On what basis are you or anyone else entitled to say a certain experiment “went astray” or was “wonky”?

              Why, because the results didn’t jibe with a given hypothesis?

              Don’t you see the problem here?

              It’s not that I disagree with you on the general desideratum of testing things as many times as you can, of course. That’s important. But it has to be an a priori commitment, a matter of principle, not just something you do when you find you’re not getting the results you expected.

              As a matter of epistemological hygiene, you’re not allowed to attach more/less significance to an empirical finding according to what the finding actually was. You have to agree, in advance, that nature is the only arbiter, and that we will abide by what she says no matter what she says.

              Case in point:

              the original-and-worst hockey stick graph was reprinted 6 times in the IPCC TAR alone. It was the belle of the ball. Why? Presumably because it pandered to the alarmist fetish.

              But strangely, when M&M put out a corrected version of the graph, a version that used valid math, suddenly nobody wanted to know about it. It wasn’t plastered all over the next Assessment Report, was it?

              No. And what better proof could there be of the Medieval, pre-scientific, peasant mentality at the heart of climate-alarmist thought?

              10

    • #
      tom0mason

      Frederick Colbourne,

      “And if, as president he upsets too many people then both houses of Congress could swing against him at mid-term. “

      Trump may well upset a few or many on both sides of the house, however IMO, it’s not so much what any president does or says, more the advice, and advisors, that get lodged in their ear.
      Trump, I feel, would do his own thing regardless of advice. And that would be in stark contrast to resent times where presidential verbal ejaculations are maintained through ‘plausibly deniability’ arguments prepared by teflon-coated teams of advisors buzzing about them.

      10

    • #

      Even if they could! That would be a reversal of feckless congress! Nice! For any Candidate, the choice of VP will be most interesting, if not vital! Just imagine if Ted Cruz is running mate to “the Donald”!

      20

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.

    Just love that Texas guy, Ted Cruz. So to the point, unlike that waffler Obama.
    Ted for President! Why can’t Australia have such articulate politicians?

    380

  • #
    TdeF

    Once again they concede that mankind is increasing CO2 through burning fossil fuel. Even many scientists think this is obvious because equilibrium concepts are fundamental chemistry concepts, not physics or general engineering. It is however not true. CO2 is in rapid equilibrium between the 2% in the air and the 98% in the ocean. This is proveable. We cannot change CO2 levels. However once again we ignore simple physical chemistry and proceed to evaluating the consequences of something which is not happening, a man made 50% CO2 increase. That given, I look forward to watching to the point where every prediction is proven wrong but really, the fundamental introduction “all this is true” is demonstrably not right.

    210

  • #

    I see someone’s put a proposal to replace the surface data with the satellite data on wikipedia global warming!

    90

  • #
    Peter Azlac

    I watched the whole circus – Cruz made his points with the help of his objective witnesses, especially Mark Steyn who is fearless but also Judith Curry whose stand against the bullying. Does anyone have any references to how that “liberal media” has reacted to this Congressional Hearing – they were invited to be “told” before the meeting by the Democrats the usual meme that the “science is settled” and I assume they will have reported this in bold headlines. But have they reported objectively on what went on in the hearing, especially the rebuttals by Judith Curry and Mark Steyn of the dogma coming from the Democrat side that justified Senator Cruz in labeling the meeting Data or Dogma , though even my dog is more intelligent than some of those on the left.

    211

    • #
      Dave in the states

      Peter, the MSM response was to ignore it completely. There has been no bold headlines either way. Actually no headlines at all, not even on page 6. Nothing. Nada. Not even on Fox. It didn’t happen according to the media.

      Nine out of ten Americans don’t even know about this.

      100

      • #
        DougT

        10%? at the moment, I would bet that’s more likely 9,996 out of 10,000 or so…

        50

      • #
        rah

        Your right Dave. This Hoosier is doing his best to spread the video and the word though. Cruz is the only Republican presidential candidate that is really taking on the scam. The rest either dismiss it with a few words or as in the case of Bush, are luke warmers. I am leaning towards Cruz the man I would most like to get the nomination.

        Despite the fact that I was stationed at Ft. Devens, MA for 5 1/2 years when in the Army, it never ceases to amaze me how the state of Massachusetts manages to elect the most left wing wacko senators time and again. Sen Markey is a dangerous clueless socialist of the Kennedy mold.

        In fact I thought one of the most revealing points during the hearing was when the Senator from MA tried to prevent Dr. Curry from responding to his allegations and insulting implications and Mark Steyn spoke up. It was in microcosm, so typical of the primary tactic of the whole scam to shut up any opposition or alternative views.

        30

    • #
      ExWarmist

      I heard that the “liberal media” reporters asked for a “safe space” room before they would agree to attend.

      20

  • #
    Eddie

    “The climate system of this planet is too complex for the slogans of cartoon climatology we’re currently seeing in Paris.”
    Mark Steyn. Original & fearless

    201

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Cruz has not translated his views into any proposed legislation. That’s not surprising: His icy relations with his Republican colleagues in the Senate, much less with Democrats, have essentially blocked him from the dealmaking needed to implement any of his ideas.

    ‘But legislating is not his goal; rather, Cruz prefers a debate in which he can win political points. Yesterday’s hearing fit that mold: He ended it by listing seven “facts” to which Democrats have offered “no effective response.”

    ‘Those facts include his belief in the benefits of CO2 and the additional greenery covering the planet, and his disdain for the staggering amount of evidence on how rising carbon emissions have affected air and ocean temperatures, ocean acidity, the polar regions, inland glaciers, and sea levels. Cruz also brushes aside how those emissions have disrupted what Titley called “the climate stability” that has allowed modern civilization to flourish.

    The hearing didn’t change anyone’s mind. But it gave Cruz a chance to explain where he stands on the issue. The next move is up to voters—and the scientific community.’

    Science Insider

    140

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Slight typo:
      “and his disdain for the staggering amount of evidence on how rising carbon emissions have affected air and ocean temperatures, ocean acidity, the polar regions, inland glaciers, and sea levels.” should read

      “and his disdain for the staggeringly SMALL amount of evidence on how rising carbon emissions have affected air and ocean temperatures, ocean acidity, the polar regions, inland glaciers, and sea levels”.

      While I can accept that CO2 will cause some warming it is obvious from the inability of Climate “scientists” to quantify the amount that any warming must be very small. On the other hand the quality of a lot of the Climate “scientists” might explain their inability. Corrupt and Incompetent.

      141

      • #
        el gordo

        Good catch on the typo, the author was showing his bias.

        ‘While I can accept that CO2 will cause some warming …’

        Give me one positive feedback to support your assumption?

        40

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          el gordo:

          CO2 does absorb some infra red. Far less than the same amount of water vapour (see the IR spectra) and since there can be over 100 times as much water vapour present in the tropics where the sun’s rays are most evident, it follows that the effect of CO2 is marginal. Further the Beer-Lambert Law indicates that the declining effect of higher CO2 concentrations (usually referred to as the geometric effect). This is basic science.

          The complexity of the climate is beyond the present understanding of science, and certainly beyond the feeble minds of those anxious to scare or be scared by impending doom. To study the temperature records, such as they are, and try and prove that CO2 has an effect of X is futile, because it is obviously far less than the error limits – and some of the errors are horrendously large not to say ludicrous and criminally motivated. But to say that CO2 has no effect is as mistaken as say that it has a major effect. We don’t know what the effect is, nor how small it is, and any efforts to find out are being hampered by the dogmatism of the doomsayers.

          80

          • #
            el gordo

            Fair enough, but for the sake of argument we should avoid the sensitivity issue. Cruz won’t dilute the debate, its what the other side want, this is no time to split hairs.

            CO2 has stopped rising 18 years after atmospheric temperatures stalled, Gaia works in mysterious ways.

            10

  • #
    TdeF

    Overall what was striking was the general idea that professional scientists are very intimidated by the political lobby, that there is zero funding for anyone questioning the facts and beliefs of AGW proponents. Worse, according to Judith Curry, young scientists keep their heads low or even leave the field. It certainly explains why many of the outspoken critics are well past fear of firing, often retired masters of science at the highest levels, like Harper.

    Harper even suggested the situation was comparable to Stalin’s favorite Lysenko under Stalin with his crazy theories of genetics which killed tens of millions in the Ukraine by starvation, not that Stalin cared. You lost your job or even you life if you dared disagree with Lysenko, until Andrei Sakharov. Today publications including Nature state as policy that questioning of AGW is forbidden.

    It also confirms that the issues is entirely political where the Democrats under Obama push this as unquestionable truth claim and even on Obama’s personal web site that anyone who disagrees is a real criminal. This is not just an obvious term of real abuse and bullying. They want criminal prosecution as gangsters under RICO! This level of political persecution of scientists has not happened in Science since the 1950s in the anti Communist purges under McCarthyism. Perversely the persecutors are communist sympathisers previously known as the Greens and Greenpeace and the UN and ably supported by Hollywood, so the tables have turned.

    111

    • #
      Dave in the states

      Worse, according to Judith Curry, young scientists keep their heads low or even leave the field. It certainly explains why many of the outspoken critics are well past fear of firing, often retired masters of science at the highest levels, like Harper.

      This is absolutely the case in the American academies right now. I have seen this first hand.

      120

  • #
    Rodzki

    I watched the whole thing and have a number of observations:
    —Although chaired by Sen Cruz, the committee was totally dominated by Democrat “chicken littles”. They mentioned Republican members of the committee at one stage, including Rubio, but apparently they did not even bother to show up. Cruz battled manfully but he and his witnesses ended up being totally dominated for time because the Democrats turned up to ask questions.
    —The witness Titley was obviously a Democrat stooge and he ended up answering the vast majority of the questions (even questions on the UAH temperature data, even though John Christy was on the panel) because the Dems were asking the vast majority of the questions.
    —Besides their brief opening statements (Christy, Curry, Happer, Steyn) the best bit for me came at about 2:14 to 2:19 when Steyn and Curry pointed out the corruption of scientific principles on the part of Science and Nature magazines.
    —I noticed right at the end of the video Curry and Christy were not at the table. I don’t know when they left but would love to have known if Christy was still there while Titley was being asked about UAH data.
    —Overall very disappointing. Although Republicans outnumber the Democrats in the Senate they’ve either been squeezed out of this particular committee, or even worse, they just didn’t bother to show up and even out the balance of questioning. As a result the Dem stooge got to talk far more than the key witnesses. If I get the time I might do a time analysis of the session.

    100

    • #
      Rodzki

      Further to this, according to this site, there are 11 members of the subcommittee – 6 Rep and 5 Dem. Of those only two Reps turned up (Cruz and Daines) while 4 Dems (Peters, Markey, Udall, Schatz) were there and managed to divert the time away from the key witnesses. So while there are are more Reps than Dems on the subcommittee, the Dems managed to outnumber the Reps on the day by 2:1. Pretty pitiful showing. Either Cruz was let down by his buddies, or he failed to get them on board.
      By my count, aside from about 15 mins of general introduction, witness introduction and wrap-up and about 13 minutes of ‘cross-party’ argy-bargy the time to lay out each side of the case was pretty evenly split (67 minutes each) despite there being 4 good guy witnesses to 1 bad guy. Pretty crap level of commitment by the Republicans.

      170

    • #
      Dave in the states

      They mentioned Republican members of the committee at one stage, including Rubio, but apparently they did not even bother to show up.

      Rubio is pathetically weak on this issue. As I recall he is not actually against climate change action.

      70

  • #
    TdeF

    The positive proposal though was a red team to investigate the claims of AGW. They could start with the IPCC claim that CO2 had a half life of 80 years, the base level for all greenhouse gases plus various contrary and simultaneous IPCC statements that CO2 hangs around for hundreds or thousands of years. If mankind cannot change CO2 levels significantly, the whole argument of AGW collapses. It was interesting that Adminral Titley refused to answer Mark Steyn’s question about the percentage of AGW vs Natural variation because he cannot without being exposed as another warming waffler pushing the precautionary principle.

    172

    • #
      TdeF

      Also Harper made an excellent point about the Satellite data. He said Satellite data was corroborated with huge numbers of balloon readings which provided a check and confirmation for the data. He also said this is not done with traditional thermometer data. Given that they disagree violently, one is right and has been confirmed. The other is not only unconfirmed, it is homogenized as explained by Judith Curry and the error bars from the many assumptions, missing data and extrapolations should swamp the variations.

      171

  • #

    Actually, contra Senator Cruz (D) in that video, the science of global weirding did a remarkably good job of anticipating the snap ice sheet that ensnared the Akademik Shokalskiy in November 2013.

    One of the major (and most successful) predictions of climate science—and one of the reasons the field enjoys such credibility—has always been that weather and climate conditions would become more unpredictable over time.

    So it’s no wonder contrarians rarely like discussing what happened in the Antarctic that Christmas Day: it was a black eye for them and all other global weirding disbelievers. Cruz admits it was “An Inconvenient Truth,” and it was: for his ilk.

    PS the “D” after Cruz’ name doesn’t stand for Democrat. It’s a new labeling system I’ve adopted to let readers know, at a glance, whether their political representative is an acceptor (A) of science or an antiscientist (D).

    632

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      “One of the major (and most successful) predictions of climate science—and one of the reasons the field enjoys such credibility—has always been that weather and climate conditions would become more unpredictable over time.”

      And your evidence for such a misleading statement is where? Over what time?

      133

      • #

        Sam,

        while I’m loathe to blow my own trumpet—preferring to let others do it—you force me to cite a humble blog post by yours truly in which very prediction is referenced. You’ll note that it’s dated November 1, 2013, several weeks before Antarctic sea ice defied all predictions by fulfilling my prediction that ‘Weather [is] predicted to become less and less predictable.’

        And I’m not even a climate scientist, just a science communicator.

        514

        • #
          graphicconception

          Is there a statistical test you can point to that shows that, say, the variance of a particular weather parameter is now larger than it was previously?

          If not, how does your claim stand up?

          131

        • #

          To elaborate, let me quote from probably the most penetrating and intelligent commentary written on the Akademik disaster as the news broke:

          ‘Locals will tell you the Antarctic can’t be trusted. This continent is a cruel and mercurial mistress. Turn your back on her and you are likely to lose a nose—or worse. Every villager has a chilling story to tell—no pun intended—about a relative or friend who was blindsided by the treacherous elements. In most cases the body is never found.

          ‘But these were fishermen, hunters, truckers, nurses, tradesmen. Simple folk who had no time for fancy-schmancy book sciencin’. They couldn’t possibly have seen it coming. Most of them didn’t even finish high school.

          ‘Which brings us to the most terrifying aspect of the plight of the UNSW-chartered icebreaker: the expedition was led by a scientist. Not just any scientist, either—a climate scientist.

          ‘But all of Professor Chris Turney’s years of post-doctoral education, and dozens of peer-reviewed publications, didn’t help him or his passengers. All that expertise wasn’t enough. They were still caught off guard. They had no idea what the Antarctic would throw at them (ice, of all things).

          ‘When even a climate expert can’t anticipate nature’s next move, that’s when you know we’ve entered a new era. The dawning of the age of anthropogenic global weirding is, well, undeniable.

          ‘Those who, for ideological reasons, would rather not accept the science of AGW will be noticeably less vocal on the Internet tonight. Because they fear what the rest of us already know: that this may be first time a climate scientist has gotten it totally wrong, but it won’t be the last. We’re looking at a New Normal here, folks.

          ‘—B.K., Nov 31, 2013′

          917

          • #
            Julian Feltcher

            You’re wasting your time using reasoning here Brad.

            The regular Nova worshippers have developed such a strong dissonance that any prior academic achievements have been reduced to that of ‘simple folk’, even the expert opinions of Mann, Alley, Gore, Suzuki etc are automatically relegated to the trash bin of denialism where such people should stay and keep their uneducated dangerous views from the unwitting public.

            429

            • #
              James Bradley

              You don’t Michael Mann of the Nobel Laureate?

              143

            • #
              James Bradley

              Or David Suzuki who bought Quadra Island off the British Columbia Coast so no one else there would suffer sea level rise?

              http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/10/10/david-suzuki-a-man-of-property

              182

            • #
            • #
              James Bradley

              Or “There’s no ‘pause’ here” Alley?

              142

            • #
              Dave in the states

              That’s quite a panel of experts there Julian.

              One is best known for constructing a graph using questionable practices, such as combining disparate and barely related data sets and presenting some data sets inverted, among others:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzcA7SsqSA

              Another was best known for predicting such scenarios that the ice caps would be gone a year ago, who before that was known for putting together a propaganda movie that was found to be so full of errors that a UK court ruled it unfit for class rooms, who before that was known as a successful politician before he was an unsuccessful one, and before that was best known for trying to ban Rock-n-Roll.

              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

              Another was recruited by the above successful/unsuccessful politician and stated: that climate change would be “abrupt”. That was at the beginning of the pause almost 20 years ago.

              Another is apparently not a scientist, but plays one on TV:

              http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/the-david-suzuki-school-of-irrational-thought-on-the-climate-if-only-he-knew-what-science-was/

              171

            • #
              TdeF

              expert opinions of ..Gore, Suzuki? Gore has no science qualifications whatsoever, unless you know otherwise.
              “While at the Tennessean, Gore, a Baptist, also studied philosophy and phenomenology at Vanderbilt University. In 1974, he enrolled in Vanderbilt’s law school.” He then dropped out of law school too. Professional politician and billionaire Gore does not have a degree in anything or any science qualification whatsoever but he does share an extraordinary Nobel Peace prize for reasons which need explanation.

              Yes, Suzuki has a PhD in Zoology and does not profess to be a science expert or to know much about the subject. Our own Professor Flannery is a giant dead kangaroo expert whose first degree was in English because he could not get into a Science course.

              As for the discredited Mann whose PhD and fame was based on a improperly extrapolating temperature data from a single tree from which he concluded rapid, runaway warming , he is notorious and demonstrably wrong. Are these your experts and your heroes? Why?

              191

              • #
                TdeF

                Sorry, Al does have a degree. His essay thesis? “The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947-1969″
                Later he was a reporter and then politician. As for studying philosophy and phenomenology, what? Al is his own phenomenon.

                30

            • #

              Julian,

              You’re wasting your time using reasoning here Brad.

              Sigh. I’m beginning to think you’re right—I should probably just write comments like yours.

              Maybe I’m an incurable optimist, but I can’t seem to shake the naive faith that if we keep talking to them like rational adults, sooner or later, one of these years, the message of the science is going to get through to them. Admittedly, though, I’d be hard pressed to remember the last time I succeeded in convincing someone to give up skepticism and accept the scientific way of thinking. That phase of the Climate Wars is long over, I fear. Now all that’s left to do is mop up the really committed opponents—the kamikaze skeptics, to extend the WW2 metaphor—and what they lack in numbers, they more than make up for in bloodthirsty incorrigibility. We could be stuck in this jungle for years yet, I’m afraid. It’s the 80-20 rule.

              In any case, I can’t thank you enough for your words of sympathy. The road of a science communicator can be such a lonely, sisyphean, quixotic one that we’re at constant risk of giving up and joining the job market. But when you discover that there’s a kindred spirit out there—at least one person who ‘gets it’—well, that almost makes this war worthwhile. Cheers!

              112

              • #
                James Bradley

                Oh no, I’m Brad Keyes, and we are all doomed from climate change because nothing has happened that can possibly be predicted therefore everything that happened that can not possibly be predicted is caused by man made Co2 and has caused absolutely nothing predictable to happen to the climate, look the proof is already here, the world temperature pause has already exceeded the climate use-by date of 15 years and is nearing 19 years, if it continues much longer we may need to resign ourselves that the world temperature is stable and that a un-predicted stable climate will doom us all… again.

                100

              • #

                Moderators, please take action! I’m being sockpuppeted without my consent:

                Oh no, I’m Brad Keyes,

                That is a lie. Even the most superficial comparison of our respective writing styles should be enough to convince you that Mr Bradley is not, in fact, me. Just frinstance, you’ll notice that I demonstrate a keen awareness of sarcasm. I might not use it myself, preferring to keep my tongue firmly out of my cheek, but I do know it when I see it: something that clearly cannot be said of my epigonous doppelganger.

                I feel so violated.

                25

              • #
                James Bradley

                Simmer down Cupcake,

                I call it ‘The Escalation of The Use of Farce’

                I haven’t even got past Irony and you’re already sooking on.

                Wait till you get a load of Satire and Sarcasm.

                And we don’t even look the same…

                70

              • #
                James Bradley

                I suppose it’s too late to get that consent form signed?

                30

              • #
                James Bradley

                BTW,

                Big, big, big fan of Mad About Mental Issues. :)

                10

              • #

                Thanks James, I’m very glad to hear that. I thought the piece might be too dry and technical for a non-medical readership. That’s the tightrope we walk as science communicators: on one hand the public expects us to tell them about how the natural world works, but on the other hand the whole thing (just between us) is not exactly the most riveting topic in the world.

                So we’re under continual pressure to find new ways to communicate the facts of science, without communicating the sheer tediousness of it.

                23

              • #
                Frank

                Oh Brad, the scientific method died here long ago, they’re reduced to reverse burden of proof demands and cherry picked data.

                17

              • #
                Just-A-Guy

                Brad Keyes,

                You wrote:

                In any case, I can’t thank you enough for your words of sympathy.

                First, ignorance begets ignorance.
                Second, misery loves company.

                I can’t think of anyone more miserable than one who’s ignorant. After making the ridiculous, irrational statement that “Unless you’re a scientist nobody taught you“, your ignorance shines bright. That you and Julian Feltcher find comfort in each others words is both funny and sad all at once.

                Abe

                41

              • #
                Julian Feltcher

                Thanks for the kind words Brad, as a Climate Reality Leader I’m trained to ignore childish insults from denialists as it’s simply classic deflection when their false arguments fall apart, the objection to being called deniers is also subliminal projection of what gravity their ignorance can lead to, best wishes from a fellow science communicator.

                210

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Climate Reality Leader ”

                roflmao…

                take the target off your back and put it back on your forehead where it belongs. :-)

                And maybe actually present an argument with some content.. or not. ;-)

                70

              • #

                Abe, you berate me with:

                After making the ridiculous, irrational statement that “Unless you’re a scientist nobody taught you“, your ignorance shines bright

                Do try to keep up. I’ve already admitted I was wrong. That’s what science does: it’s self-correcting. Whereas all you’ve done so far is correct me. Not very scientific, I must say.

                14

              • #

                Brad Keyes December 11, 2015 at 11:09 am

                “I feel so violated.”

                Can you tell the rest of us, in your own way, how it feels to be “so violated.”? Did you have to buy the next round?

                30

              • #
                James Bradley

                FYI Brad,

                Ignore Frank, no one likes him very much.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                @ Frank

                “the scientific method died here long ago, they’re reduced to reverse burden of proof demands and cherry picked data.”

                Yep “climate science™” has really hit the doldrums, hasn’t it.

                50

              • #
                Bite Back

                Brad,

                Maybe I’m an incurable optimist, but I can’t seem to shake the naive faith that if we keep talking to them like rational adults, sooner or later, one of these years, the message of the science is going to get through to them.

                I once believed this too. But reality had its way with me and I no longer think it will happen.

                Do not wager anything of value to you on your hopeful premise coming true. You will lose your shirt and everything else you have.

                BB

                20

            • #

              Brad has developed “satire”
              to such a level that no longer can even ‘he’ recognize such as “satire”.
              So sincere in every response. WOW!!!

              20

          • #
            James Bradley

            Chicken entrails will tell you anything as well.

            122

            • #
              TdeF

              When you consider the trillions of dollars spent on failed carbon dioxide ‘mitigation’ over thirty years and more untold billions with professional scientists collecting and analysing world temperature data from the deep oceans to the stratosphere, the case for man made Global Warming should be over. It should have gone from hypothesis to science certainty. There should be no dispute.

              It should have been totally confirmed and by now the models should have matched the data perfectly and be able to project backwards to match all historic data. Given we are only measuring a single number, it should be game over. The alternative explanation is that collectively, the human race has no idea what controls the temperature. We cannot predict the future and cannot hope to accurately model the past.

              While we accept that meteorologists cannot even get today’s weather right, the unproven and unstated hypothesis is that we can get trends right and to accuracies now of better than one degree. Even then we have to call on unpredictable phenomena like El Nino and La Nina and Arctic vortexes and extreme events and now something called ‘natural variation’ just to explain today’s weather.

              You can only conclude with the best people on show supported by the best equipment and best science an massive world wide data collection, that we are just as far from predicting long term weather as we have always been. Chicken entrails sound a good idea.

              112

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              James Bradley:
              Not true. It is the INTERPRETATION of the chicken entrails that tells you anything.

              In the past when the Interpreters made mistakes their own entrails got examined. These days getting it wrong means increased funds, invites to International Conferences, politicians (and others) citing you as “proof”. Nice work if you can get it.

              81

          • #
            diogenese2

            Brad, the apotheosis of the sublime art of satire is to convince the audience that absurdity is real.
            Your quoted piece is an outstanding example of piss taking which I greatly appreciate. Just a caveat to which you should pay attention.
            “villagers…..fishermen, hunters,truckers, nurses, tradesmen .. simple folk “- in the antarctic?
            But nether the less an outstanding effort.
            This conclusion was brilliant; “this may be the first time a climate scientist has got it totally wrong, but it won’t be the last”.
            I take my hat off.
            Julian Felcher; “expert opinions of…. Gore, Suzuki etc..”
            You must try harder, your statements must have at least possible credible.

            132

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              Gore isn’t an expert on anything, but he played one on TV.

              70

            • #
              mc

              diogenese2, I might be wrong but it seems to me the purpose of satire is to exaggerate the characteristics of the subject being satirised to the point of absurdity. If the subject matter is so exaggerated and implausible as to be absurd already then all the better from a satirists point of view because the job of satirising can be done by merely paraphrasing the subjects’ own words.
              You say “Brad, the apotheosis of the sublime art of satire is to convince the audience that absurdity is real”. But satire is an activity in which the intended audience is invited to understand the satirist’s intentions and hopefully share the sense of amusement being enjoyed by the satirist; if the audience becomes convinced that the absurdity is real the satirist has failed because they think they are just listening to a crank who takes his absurdities deadly seriously. If a satirist dupes his audience in this way deliberately and gives them no clues as to his intention to see the funny aspect of things then he is merely using the audience for his own sense of amusement by casting them as inferior and himself as superior, a kind of self-satisfying sadistic pleasure at the expense of the perceived “little people”.
              You also say, ‘Julian Felcher; “expert opinions of…. Gore, Suzuki etc…” “You must try harder, your statements must have at least possible credible”; I reckon he has put in a good deal of effort. Cheers.

              20

              • #
                diogenese2

                MC: “If a satirist dupes has audience…he is using them for his own sense of amusement… a kind of self satisfying sadistic pleasure….”
                Exactly – that is the apotheosis, to sell a big fake. Classic example SF writer L.Ron Hubbard. Contemporaries, Hansen, Ehrlich, Maurice Strong……

                40

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Let me get this right. Three years ago you predicted something unpredictable would happen. And it did. Now you’re a credentialed expert?

            100

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            BK:
            “When even a climate expert can’t anticipate nature’s next move” as proof of Climate changing would be stronger if your climate experts had a history of successful predictions. Or are you saying that when they are wrong that they are right?

            Incidentally I don’t think that the return to their homes of all the climate scientists should be described as a disaster. Had the ship sunk then it would have been a catastrophe, and blamed on Climate Change or the Captain as usual, but the stupidity of Turney in defying the Captain’s calls for an immediate return to the ship and expecting weather conditions to stay the same hardly justifies a claim that he knew what he was doing.

            102

          • #
            James Bradley

            Brad,

            You actually predicted that the sea ice mass would increase?

            If you had the strength of your convictions, I would have thought you’d warn poor old Professor Turkey rather than let the ill advised expedition proceed, I mean, Brad, you could easily have been sued for criminal negligence had anyone been injured or killed as a result of your failure to notify of the dangers.

            And you use your negligence as proof Climate Change now presents multi-faceted environmental challenges which can no longer be predicted?

            Well, sh1t, how will the world ever know the difference between Natural Climate Change, Man Made Climate Change, and Not Climate Change?

            81

          • #
            RodM

            “Locals will tell you the Antarctic can’t be trusted. This continent is a cruel and mercurial mistress. Turn your back on her and you are likely to lose a nose—or worse. Every villager has a chilling story to tell…”
            Where are the villages in the Antarctic?

            70

          • #

            Brad…….Your comment…….”Every villager has a chilling story to tell”

            There are no villages in the Antarctic! Just as there is no warming going on there lol

            80

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Those who apprehend what you have done in this thread will upvote the delightful duplicity and its hilarious Poesian result. Who would have thought such thermageddon thought-leaders floated among us, solidifying only upon artful bait.

            The downvoters… well their own life is punishment enough.

            However, good sir, I fear for your sanity. Like A Scanner Darkly, you may disappear into the warmist warren so deeply that you wind up ridiculing yourself. Medication is available. It’s called daytime television. Disabling all critical faculties may seem a blunt tool, but it may be the only treatment that makes time for the id to rebuild its one true self.

            And you wouldn’t want to get caught up in the new Nürnberg over a case of mistaken identity.

            20

          • #
            Uncle Fred

            Brad Keyes, you should be ashamed of your mockery. Gerbil Worming is REAL. I have an aunt that lives in Antarctica and she says there is no red Sockeye salmon to be had because the bloody Polly bears are eating all of them. It is all the fault of AGW and ABBOTT. Especially ABBOTT. Before gerbil worming, there was plenty of salmon because the polly bears fed on the penguins. But now that it is so warm that the penguins all emigrated to join ISIS, the polly bears have to eat something. Somebody should do something about it. Perhpas get rid of TRUMP!

            30

            • #

              Interesting. Do you mind my asking what’s her phone number? I’m doing a long investigative piece on the citizens of Antarctica and how (or if) they’re coping with climate change, e.g. by moving inland or other means of adaptation, and it would be great to get some quotes from her as it sounds like her opinions slot nicely into the story arc I’ve decided to tell.

              21

              • #
                Uncle Fred

                I tried unsuccessfully to call her the other day, but the phones are out. I understand that the Penguins used their hockey sticks to smash down all the wires. The telephone wiring is not underground, of course, due to the permafrost.

                20

        • #
          Another Graeme

          Just so I’ve got this right, your position is that if the weather or climate does something that warming centric scientist did not predict, this is confirmation of the theory?

          51

          • #

            Another Graeme, do you realize how disrespectful your term

            warming centric scientist

            is?

            You probably meant nothing by it, but FYI it’s basically one step up from the word ‘warmist,’ which is hate speech. Please be aware that the phrase ‘warming centric scientist’ is the carefully-orchestrated, well-funded, focus-grouped brainchild of the rightwing antiscience hate media, which seeks to delegitimise science (and the scientists who discover it) by subtly framing them as parti-pris ‘advocates’ or ‘exponents’ of a particular conclusion. This is a scandalous calumny because, as real scientists know, nothing could be less scientific than to champion one particular empirical finding above all the other possible outcomes of ongoing research.

            But don’t take my word for it. Distinguished Professor Michael Mann himself—that’s right, the “captain” of the Hockey Team—has made the point better than I ever could here.

            310

            • #
              Ross

              Brad ,

              Did you bother to read diogenese2′s comment above ? Or are we to believe that you still think what you wrote is correct ?

              32

              • #

                Ross,
                I lost interest once it became clear that Diogenese2 still seemed to think everyone in the Antarctic lives in an igloo and hunts for penguin meat with a flint spear. While such a condescending—and let’s face it, borderline racist—image is still applicable to some of the more traditional peoples of the region, the average community here is just as likely to use compressed-air harpoons, GPS and (yes!) trucks to transport their precious harvest of flightless-bird flesh from point A to point B.

                28

              • #
                TdeF

                Brad, you have no idea where the Antarctic is do you? Or anything about it apart from penguins. Nothing you have said is right. I have heard of an argument from authority but you are actually arguing from total ignorance, an amazing effort.

                70

              • #

                Brad, your comment about Antarctica…….
                “image is still applicable to some of the more traditional peoples of the region, the average community here is just as likely to use compressed-air harpoons, GPS and (yes!) trucks to transport their precious harvest of flightless-bird flesh from point A to point B.”

                What are you talking about?……..there are no people living in Antarctica and never have been except for a few scientists and researchers who spend limited time there. Is the rest of your stuff as inaccurate as this misconception?

                70

              • #

                Brad, you have no idea where the Antarctic is do you? … Did you bother to read diogenese2′s comment above? … Where are the villages in the Antarctic? … What are you talking about?

                Sorry people, I’d love to edify you further but I’m a science communicator, not a geography communicator. If you’re still struggling to accept the geography all I can do is direct you to the Yellow Pages.

                07

              • #
                AndyG55

                “but I’m a science communicator”

                NO.

                20

            • #
              mc

              Brad Keyes, what a card, very amusing stuff. for those of us “taken for a ride” by Mr Keys, it would be a good idea to have a look at his website. Cheers.

              61

              • #
                AndyG55

                Brad’s problem is that he has an esoteric language degree of some sort.

                Nothing he says has any real meaning except in his own mind.

                A sort of hallucinogenic “aren’t I clever” meme.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                I mean , he describes himself as a “science communicator”.. a subject he knows nothing about.

                How “wank” is that !!

                11

            • #
              James Murphy

              So… who exactly are these ‘traditional people’ of the Antarctic…?

              Mawson? Scott? Amundsen? Shackleton? Dick Smith…?

              30

            • #
              James Murphy

              So… who exactly are these ‘traditional people’ of the Antarctic…?

              Mawson? Scott? Amundsen? Shackleton? Dick Smith…?

              20

            • #
              Another Graeme

              Brad, i award you with the coveted gold star for piss- taking, well done champ.

              10

          • #
            mc

            come on you all, click on Brad Keyes and have a look at his site, it’s hilarious.

            30

        • #

          So vastly increased ice cover in Antarctica is evidence of global warming………..how did I miss that one????/

          70

          • #

            Er, because you’re not a scientist in a relevant field maybe? Because you haven’t got a recent and active track record of publications* on the science of man-caused** global weirding?

            In short, don’t be too hard on yourself. You’re not meant to grasp these things, at least not at first. That’s what we have the experts for.

            *To avoid misunderstanding, I’m talking about high-quality journals only. Not all science is created equal.

            **And I do mean “man-caused”—there’s a well established emissions gap between the genders, which will persist as long as there is a power gap.

            14

        • #
          RogueElement451

          I predict that on a roulette wheel the ball will land on either a black or a red number based on the science and especially the laws of gravity , if perchance it falls into zero , neither red nor black that will be further proof of my science.
          My science which is infallible, can and does predict all possible outcomes and there can be no argument with the consensus, whatever happens , I am correct.
          So , am I lying?
          “Er, because you’re not a scientist in a relevant field maybe? Because you haven’t got a recent and active track record of publications* on the science of man-caused** global weirding?”
          Classic straw man and appeal to authority , not to mention ad hominem as it infers a lesser knowledge of the subject. Perhaps you might regale us with your bountiful credentials ,which supersede those of the panelists with the exception of Sterne,who was in my view .quite remarkable in his defence of Judith Curry.
          The only global weirding taking place is between the confused ears of maleficent persons adopting a religion and confusing it with science. The Jihadi alarmists are definitely weird ,I grant you that, perhaps you would grant us the privilege of explaining why the ignoramus from the Sierra Club refused to appear to the committee,Thats ok , we all understand that talking science in front of real scientists can be a tad difficult if you know jack &*%^ on the subject and cannot even recount your own dogma. Why do so many “experts” refuse to engage in debate , why did the Admiral serve up tripe instead of caviar?
          Refusing to answer direct questions is the equivalent of lying. As a very much lapsed catholic, I still recall the sins, mortal, venial and of course sins of omission, where you did not say those things you ought to have said , but instead prevaricated and avoided telling outright lies. The Admiral will no doubt be feted by the Jihadi warmistas but will be a laughing stock among all of us who have the vaguest understanding of the subject.

          10

          • #

            Perhaps you might regale us with your bountiful credentials ,which supersede those of the panelists with the exception of Sterne,who was in my view .quite remarkable in his defence of Judith Curry.

            While I agree that credentials are the first question you should ask when exchanging ideas with anyone, please note that I never said I was a scientist. I’m not. I’m a science communicator, but (unlike certain people) I get my science from scientists who are, and from the scientific bodies of every major country of national or international standing.

            11

    • #

      As always Brad is the master at “Wait, what, watdidhe say”!! Beautiful!

      20

  • #
    DennisA

    Senator Ed Markey was Co-Chairman of the GLOBE International Commission on Climate & Energy Security in 2009. Globe has close links with the Club of Rome whose former Co-President, Ashok Khosla, is a member of Globe International and President of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It has become a de facto unofficial world government, whose members agree measures on behalf of the UN and then take those measures back to their own countries and seek to enact legislation to implement them.

    Scroll down the page to see Ed Markey as Co-chair with his Chinese counterpart:

    http://globelegislators.org/about-globe/25-globe-international

    “Without the burden of formal governmental negotiating positions, legislators have the freedom to push the boundaries of what can be politically achieved. GLOBE’s vision is to create a critical mass of legislators within each of the parliaments of the major economies that can agree common legislative responses to the major global environmental challenges and demonstrate to leaders that there is cross-party support for more ambitious action. All major government policy decisions should be consistent with climate change goals.”

    He was in Paris on Dec 4th,
    GLOBE COP21 Legislators Summit – Programme
    15:00 – 16:30 SESSION 2:
    DEVELOPMENTS IN NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, ENERGY & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – TOWARDS INTEGRATED NATIONAL PLANNING ON THE 2015 AGENDA

    Session chair:Senator Bukola Saraki
    President, GLOBE Nigeria; President, Senate of Nigeria

    National updates from GLOBE parliamentary delegations:
    Senator Ed Markey, Member of the U.S. Senate, Chair of the Senate Climate Change Clearinghouse; Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy

    80

  • #
    pat

    (QUESTION: Do the US and EU know the earth is not warming as predicted, and is unlikely to warm more than 1.5 degrees – if warming occurs at all – by the end of the century? sure seems that way to me.)

    everything about the Paris Summit is utterly surreal.

    CAGW/renewables pusher, Giles Parinson, in RenewEconomy today, wrote:

    “a new coalition has emerged that combines the US, European nations, oil producers and vulnerable nations pushing for an ambitious outcome to the talks”

    they are known as “The Coalition for Ambition”, & Parkinson continues:

    ‘Ambition is about whether the agreement targets “below 2°C, “well below 2°C, or 1.5°C, or includes 1.5°C as a reference that could be scaled up as a target at a later date.”’

    these figures all relate to a meaningless consensus at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 “to work towards” something:

    10 Dec: Economic Times India: PTI: India not fully satisfied with new climate draft: Prakash Javadekar
    “I must stress that the concept of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) is a great innovation and has proved a game-changer. It has enabled the participation of over 186 countries. ***Yet, INDCs are not even mentioned in the draft,” Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said…
    ***In 2009, countries agreed to work towards ensuring that global temperatures do not rise beyond 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.”
    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-not-fully-satisfied-with-new-climate-draft-prakash-javadekar/articleshow/50119794.cms

    to prevent “catastrophic” and “irreversible” impacts:

    10 Dec: Indian Express: Amitabh Sinha: Paris talks: Why the 2-degree warming target has now come down to 1.5 degrees
    The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose periodic assessments of climate science are the basis of the ongoing negotiations, says keeping the rise of average global temperatures under 2 degrees from pre-industrial times is essential ***to prevent “catastrophic” and “irreversible” impacts. This year, we are set to touch the ***1-degree mark…
    http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/paris-talks-why-the-2-degree-warming-target-has-now-come-down-to-1-5-degrees/

    so we’ve warmed about 1 degree already, which means an “ambitious” 1.5 degree target in Paris (still unlikely in the final Accord/Agreement, and non-binding anyway) would mean trying to prevent a little over half a degree of warming over the next 85 years.

    on 18 April, the World Bank claimed: “Over the next 15 years, the global economy will require an estimated $89 trillion in infrastructure investments across cities, energy, and land-use systems, and $4.1 trillion in incremental investment for the low-carbon transition to keep within the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise.”

    how many trillions (zillions) more would be needed to meet a 1.5 degree target? what about the other 70 years up to the end of the century? we’d soon be talking real money.

    60

  • #
    pat

    setting aside Javedekar’s statement in the Economic Times article just posted -

    “Yet, INDCs are not even mentioned in the draft,” Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said.

    on 30 Oct, UNFCCC published “Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions” analysing INDCs of 146 plans, including all developed nations and three quarters of developing countries under the UNFCCC, covering 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions, & claimed they only had the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, presumably above pre-industrial levels, so there’s a lot of work/unemployment to be done/not done to achieve a lower target of 1.5 degrees:

    10 Dec: The Conversation: How 1.5 became the most important number at the Paris climate talks
    by Kate Dooley, PhD candidate, Australian German Climate & Energy College, University of Melbourne and Doreen Stabinsky, Professor of Global Environmental Politics, College of the Atlantic
    Many industrialised countries have surprised the world at the talks with a new-found fondness for 1.5℃…
    ***What does staying below 1.5℃ mean in practice? Nothing less than full decarbonisation of the global economy by 2050. We must stop burning all fossil fuels before the middle of the century, along with a massive effort to keep forests standing and protect biodiversity. ***That is no small feat…
    https://theconversation.com/how-1-5-became-the-most-important-number-at-the-paris-climate-talks-51960

    ***”no small feat? what an understatement!

    reality time:

    13 Nov: Livemint: Ragini Bhuyan: Five charts that show how India’s dependence on fossil fuels will increase
    The IEA expects India’s oil demand to rise the fastest—by 6 million barrels per day to 9.8 mb/d in 2040
    India’s coal consumption will reach 1,300 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) in 2040. This will be 50% more than the combined demand of all Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and second only to China. Power generation and industrial usage will account for most of this consumption…
    The transport sector alone is expected to account for two-thirds of the rise in oil demand with 260 million additional passenger cars, 185 million new two- and three-wheelers and nearly 30 million new trucks and vans being added to the vehicle stock. The shift from fuelwood to LPG for cooking in households will also drive this demand…
    IEA expects an extra 315 million people to move to towns and cities by 2040. The agency also factors in India becoming the most populous country by 2040 and its economy growing by five times by 2040…
    The construction industry will expand with the rise in urbanization: its constituent sectors such as steel and cement are particularly energy intensive. The infrastructure investment called for by programmes such as the Smart Cities programme will also hike energy usage. A shift to manufacturing, as envisaged by the Make in India programme, will also have an impact, as manufacturing industries consume more energy than services sectors…
    http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/Lc6lOXOiSwzSWPWF1yTvTI/Five-charts-that-show-how-Indias-dependence-on-fossil-fuels.html

    9 Dec: WSJ: Trefor Moss: In Asia, King Coal Hard to Dethrone
    Philippines’ dependency on the fossil fuel illustrates a challenge in Paris climate talks
    The Philippines is set to open 23 coal-fired power plants over the next five years to meet rising electricity demand, illustrating the challenge climate-talk negotiators face in crafting a deal that reduces carbon emissions.
    Competition from natural gas and environmental regulations have crippled the coal industry in most of the developed world, bankrupting companies and snuffing out jobs in the U.S. and Europe. But in the Philippines and in dozens of other developing countries, coal remains an essential fuel for building more prosperous societies…
    Environmentally minded leaders, especially from the West, want to curb coal use. But many developing countries, aware that it fueled the industrialization of the U.S. and Europe, argue that coal is key to their future too…
    Before arriving in Paris, President Benigno Aquino III pledged the Philippines would reduce its carbon emissions by 70% by 2030…
    Yet, according to IHS, the Philippines will nearly triple its fleet of coal plants by 2020, while doubling the amount of CO2 to 70 million metric tons a year by 2025.
    Manila is failing “to balance climate goals with the need to supply” rising demand,” said James Ooi, an IHS director.
    The Philippines is hardly the only developing country depending on coal.
    Vietnam plans to double its coal plants to 40 by 2022 to tide it over until a generation of nuclear generators comes on line. Thailand is boosting its use of coal as part of a security strategy designed to ease the country’s dependence on natural gas. Indonesia is encouraging more coal-fired plants to support its mining industry…
    The Philippines’ carbon footprint is small by any measure you look at,” said Erramon Aboitiz, CEO of Aboitiz Power Corp: “Our problem is affordability of power—and the only way to address that is through coal.”
    The Philippines has some of Asia’s highest electricity prices because the government, unlike others, doesn’t subsidize the power sector. Rates are therefore a highly sensitive political issue…
    For a developing economy where a sixth of the population still isn’t connected to the main power grid, “the priority has to be to assure there is enough supply,” not curbing emissions, said Francisco Viray, a former energy secretary…
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-asia-king-coal-hard-to-dethrone-1449692644

    70

  • #
    Ruairi

    Alarmists are called to defend,
    The climate-change message they send,
    Which is long overdue,
    To the skeptical view,
    Who want all their nonsense to end.

    180

  • #
    StewGreen

    39:20 William Happer’s testimony , wow he looks very shaken and sweaty, but carry’s on OK for 5 minutes.
    But when you have seen the Greenpeace video, which is the last part of their sting operation, you can understand that before he was going to give evidence GP guy with a camera marched right into the room shook Happer’s hand and asked him if Peabody coal was giving him money to testify here. Happer cottoned on what was going on and realised it was the sting and said ‘You SOB, I didn’t receive a dime from them, my fee went to charity’ Getiing up to confront the GP guy ..who was then ushered away.

    This explains why Moore reported GP to the FBI for conspiring to interfere with a witness.

    Prior to that the Christy presentation was slow and clear as science should be..calling for a “red team” ..so that all the funding doesn’t go to people who just reconfirm each other instead of challenging weak points.

    160

  • #
    graphicconception

    The main impression I gained from watching it live was how stage-managed it all was. The senators, or inquisitors, all had pre-prepared scripts that they read out. Some used nearly all of the available question time to read their sermons.

    There are two separate rounds of questions and they appear to have some researchers in the background who are charged to find some documentary evidence to refute the claims made by their opponents in the previous round. Those documents are then entered into the evidence.

    You can only answer a question when asked so you can be impugned without any opportunity to reply. This happened to Curry this time and it happened to Monckton in a much earlier hearing.

    The Democrats relied heavily on the 97% figure and on the fact that the science bodies issued statements supporting the consensus. From an administrators point of view that makes sense. However, it completely ignores the science.

    Cruz should have had in his script questions to take down the 97% figure and also cast doubt on the institutions’ position papers. That would have offset much of the lecturing. Curry managed to squeeze in the American Meteorological Society’s 52:48 survey but the point largely went unnoticed. The other point about the institutions is that the sceptical scientists on the panel are all members of one or another of them. How was it thought that the institutions reflected their views, I wonder?

    As a consequence of the extended sermonising, the scientists on the panel were largely unheard. It was as if they were just an excuse to make a speech setting out your point of view.

    70

  • #
    Thomas

    The testimony of Mr Titley is so depressing.
    It is a true shame that Senator Cruz did not call out the underlying presentation.

    Because it’s the same narrative over and over again.
    We have a series of causes and effects:

    more CO2 => more T => more damage => apocalypse at some point

    It is staggering to witness how alarmists keep finding ways to gloss over the very first and most fundamental one.
    It is arguably the one that is the easiest to debate scientifically and alarmists are all like “oh the science, oh the science” but then, they just slip to the alarmist narrative.
    There’s all kind of people focusing on the data (T but also CO2 -this last one being often glossed over too) but still, alarmists slip and find shelter in their narrative right in front of them.

    It is now becoming absolutely ridiculous with all the data we have accumulated.
    Data about reality of course. But also data about the predictions. And data about ridiculous claims.

    And yet alarmists slip.

    Here, the narrative is so well crafted that, at nearly every moment except at the end of Mr Titley’s testimony, I believed he would get down to some facts.

    We have a great problem for sure.
    A problem on the form of discourse.

    You can’t actually feel a discourse such as his is actually using on you an argument of authority (unless you are watching out for it).
    Still, you need to rewind and play it again.
    And maintain accountability.

    The figures you get are staggering.
    Mr Titley’s testimony have a nearly 100% accountable rate.
    If you rely on faith.

    The minute you wake up and demand to have a grip on things, you realize it wasn’t his goal all along.
    And just like that, you don’t need any maintenance of accountability.

    Mr Titley answers it all for you: it’s 0%.
    And although he is being very polite and appears to be reasonable, he is giving the finger to every one.
    Because his goal was to please the committee and plead (his word) how important the Congress is and how urgent is it that they take action.

    I believe the issue here is a gut issue.

    Mr Tiltey’s voice is grounded and comforting.
    And little by little you get ground and comfort too from hearing what he says.

    Yeah, despite the dark image he is summoning.
    But if you feel overwhelmed by the subject, if you fear even glancing in a unpopular direction, it’s easy to go by his testimony.
    Because we’re all in it together.
    Who cares if we fall as long as we fall together?

    The other side is too complex and too scary.

    You have the firm call of John Christy about validating the science and caring head-on for the poorest.
    You have the distress of Judith Curry that leaks through the insane bullying she has suffered for her inclusive stance.
    You have the emperor-is-naked kind of realization that we have demonized CO2, thanks to Dr Harper.
    And you have the indignation of Mark Stein which is quite contagious.

    Basically this is really the opposite side.

    Alarmists says everything is ultimately tied to CO2.
    And this is very seducing because we will need to do just one thing, all together, for the betterment of everything and everyone (while depicting ourselves as heroes).

    Skeptics says CO2 is a minor point that we have foolishly embellished as our dragon.
    Consequently we are no knight but all inquisitor.
    And there is no princess to save: we just need to address the problems for the sake of solving them.
    And finally there is no destiny because clearly the temperature of the Earth couldn’t care less about us.

    60

    • #
      Rodzki

      Thomas, yes I agree. And what’s also depressing is that this is the sort of advisor the US Military is getting in to help them develop strategic plans. If Titley is indicative of the calibre of advice the US Military is getting, the planet has a lot more to worry about than increasing levels of plant food in the atmosphere.

      00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I really do wish Ted Cruz had a chance of being elected president. But alas, I don’t see how he can pull it off. :-(

    The truth, something based on actual evidence or lack thereof, reaches too few people where they think — that space between their ears.

    This video unfortunately isn’t on my agenda for now. I can only watch a little to get the flavor of it. But I’ll be back. You can count on it.

    50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And just from the few minutes I can spend on it right now — he is good. It’s hard to find someone who has his act together any better than Ted Cruz does before he opens his mouth. I don’t remember his ever putting his foot in there when he speaks out. Many claim he does but his statements always hold up under scrutiny. A better president Is hard to imagine, yet Hillary is preferred. Dumb!

      60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Well, it’s the same old same old all the way. Even Republicans would rather be paying researchers to find a problem than to find the truth.

        This is the situation and it’s well stated by Jo…

        A lot of the proceedings were dominated by the Democrats who turned up and outnumbered the Republicans. Only two Republicans were present. Cruz could’ve used more support.

        And just like correlation not proving causation, dominance in numbers doesn’t prove anything either. With just the testimony of one of the witnesses who has his head attached firmly facing forward I would be convinced to doubt the whole thing if I didn’t already. And there were several of them, not just one.

        Florida makes one claim I can’t quite believe. When you live in a place that would be a swamp if you didn’t hold it back; when the place would be taken over by the ocean if you didn’t hold it back; when the place where you live is sitting on top of soft rock permeated with water and that water has been being pumped out for many decades and you build heavy buildings on it, how am I to know whether the sea is rising or the land is sinking — I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to which. And I do not trust that all the necessary things are being measured.

        I’ve heard so may claims of sea level rise of wildly varying amounts that I cannot tell who or what to believe anymore.

        But this hearing has brought one thing home to me in a way that finally solidifies my belief once and for all that the whole thing is based on nothing but fear, plain old animal fear of something that may be changing. Oh how we hate change, we humans. It’s anathema to us. We cannot cope with uncertainty, yet it is the one and only certain thing in life. And they still argue essentially the precautionary principle and worse, do it for the future generations, the children.

        I finally had to give up listening to the testimony. It’s simply not worthwhile once you understand some basics about human nature. If you disagree I’ll read your disagreement but I doubt you’ll change my mind.

        Mark Steyn is a brilliant arguer. Ted Cruz is as good as any bulldog with his teeth sunk into a fleeing thief. Go Mark! Go Ted!

        I think my long standing position that climate change is a political disease is still accurate.

        I hope Jo is right that this indicates some hope for licking the climate change monster.

        00

    • #
      • #
        Roy Hogue

        What do you suppose is the chance that climate change is actually responsible for changing water level (if it really is changing)? And if it is, what is the chance that human activity caused it?

        Near zero and zero respectively I think.

        Did you notice that the bey is sinking? Oops!

        Maybe multi millennia changes could account for it. But human activity?

        60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          And I used the wrong word, bey instead of bay and no one called me on it. :-(

          There’s always a way to get it through your spell checker and your proofreading.

          00

      • #

        Roy, I suppose that article about islands in the Chesapeake sinking is further proof that truth really is stranger than fiction.

        James A Michener wrote about exactly that in his wonderful novel Chesapeake, first published in 1978.

        Always one to do thorough research for his novels, throughout the novel he comes back to his fictitious Devon Island and explains how it was gradually being lost to the Bay over time, (in this case across the 300 years of the novel) and explains just why it is happening, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Climate Change, and has been happening in the Chesapeake for many many years, decades and centuries already.

        Incidentally, if you’re (all readers here at Joanne’s site, collectively) not sure whether or not you’d like Michener’s fiction, then I recommend this one of his many novels as perhaps the absolute best of them.

        Tony.

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Tony,

          Yes, I believe the sinking would have been known at least that far back (1978), if not even farther. It’s like the receding snow line on Mt. Kilimanjaro. The loss of ice was known way over 100 years ago now and so was the cause. But Al Gore didn’t do even a little due diligence before making his epic joke of a movie. Otherwise he would have skipped Mt. Kilimanjaro. That part of Africa has been steadily getting dryer for over 100 years. QED: Less moisture, less snow and thus the receding snow line. I’ve never heard of anyone making temperature measurements up there — too inconvenient to get up there (talk about your Inconvenient Truth). But I suspect it stays below freezing. The ice, unfortunately just keeps on subliming away, paying no attention to the global warming alarmists. And Chesapeake bay keeps ignoring them too.

          As far as Michener, no I’m not a fan. His penchant for trying to cover everything to death finally tires me out — it eventually gets in the way of a good story.

          But I understand that many are Michener fans and I believe wholeheartedly that there’s something for everyone in this world of ours, especially in the world of literature. I did try to read some of his work but never could get more than about halfway through. Great literature is all in the eye of the beholder I think.

          20

        • #
          John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.

          Yes TonyfromOz, I was an avid reader of Michener books in the early 60′s while at secondary school.
          My father, God bless his soul, was a Merchant Marine officer (with Pacific trader Burns Philip)and he put me on to “Tales of the South Pacific” (which won a Pulitzer Prize in 1948). My father was in the Pacific Theater during WWII, as was Michener (US Navy), so my dad could explain what it was like at that time. I enjoyed later monster novels such as Hawaii, Centennial and others. You can tell that his novels were highly researched with history, culture and even geology described in detail, without being boring.

          20

        • #
          John F. Hultquist

          Tony,
          One of Michener’s books is about Texas. It was written that after “thorough research” in that Great State with all the cattle, he still incorrectly wrote of a steer that it was a bull. Western folks pay attention to that sort of thing.

          I’d suggest reading condensed versions of his books.

          10

        • #
          Annie

          Tony, I read it many years ago. It’s maybe time to retread it. It would be interesting to see how it affects me now compared to my youthful self.

          10

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        About those “first climate change refugees”: Being “first” is a long line.
        Breaking News! Seventh First Climate Refugees Discovered!
        Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT August 9, 2013

        Note the date.

        10

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Roy, Cruz as President would be fantastic with Trump as VP to keep the left busy wile Cruz gets to rebuilding the USA.

      20

  • #

    Can I suggest people look at Mark Steyn’s testimony starting at 47:30 (2855)
    He is not a scientist and did not give testimony on the science. He said

    The most important competitiveness in any healthy society is competitiveness in ideas. That is how ideas are tested and that how good ideas win out over bad. And only a very weak idea demands it must be protected from any criticism.

    He then goes onto mention the efforts to nobble that competition, along with the false claims by Mann and others to be Nobel Laureates.

    121

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Ted Cruz did a great job in delivering the message that the Democrats are going to cost Americans millions in increased utility bills. They are not going to like that.
    good to see Curry, Christie and Steyn making their stand.
    Titley’s response to increasing CO2 will be good for crops and will increase the weeds” … was kinda weird and irrelevant.

    The 2016 US elections will either result in the status quo (_Democratic president with Replublican Congress and Senate) …
    or the complete defunding of this AGW nonsense.

    Either way, the Republicans control the money :D

    enjoyed the video… glad to see Schmidt got mentioned by Steyn ..

    41

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    “Consensus” on attribution.
    “Consensus” on forward projections.
    “Consensus” on ultimate effects.
    “Consensus” on policy proposal effects.

    All dumbed down to the “97%” agree.

    Either willful ignorance of pure ignorance.

    61

  • #
    TdeF

    Again, the entire Senate discussion highlights a point which destroys any global warming argument. The world did not have man made Global Warming Crisis before the creation of the IPCC. If anything, temperature data pointed to cooling until then after warming at the start of the 20th century. Then we were told there was the most serious moral problem in a generation was rapid, runaway Global Warming, according to Rudd and Obama. Left to themselves, why aren’t some Democrats skeptical and some Republicans believers? You know their opinions before they speak.

    However why would being a Democrat or Republican define what you believe. How is that science? This alone tells you that this whole thing was invented by the people who promote it, the extreme Left of politics. The other side of politics is simply and understandably saying it is not true and quoting evidence. There is no warming. They are abused as deniers.

    Yes, CO2 is going up but there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. The 100% correlation is between political party and interpretation of data. Logically that tells you one side is making it up, the side which invented it and the same political group believe maximum taxation and maximum government control will fix even alleged planetary problems? What’s next, a Volcano tax? A meteor tax? A UN department for the prevention of Alien invasion? Actually the UN supports Alien invasion.

    70

  • #
    Martin

    @ Rodzki

    I suspect you’re right. Other Republicans may have boycotted the hearing because it might be viewed as an endorsement of one of many candidates running for president. Whatever the reason, this was an opportunity missed. Judging from disappointment I’ve seen on the Republican controlled congress, it’s not the first. Maybe that’s why Trump has attracted support – despair with the political system.

    As to the message that might reach the general public, Cruz saved the day with his poised and clear summation. In the face of out numbered and amplified rhetoric by Democrats (Markey in particular), the voices of reason on the scientific panel were generally more polite than effective. Lacking was a scientific Joseph Welch – someone with broad command of the science (not to be confused with IPCC science) yet who is not afraid to call a spade a spade.

    40

  • #
  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    Interesting that Titley is skeptical about the satellite temperature record, but he is so confident in satellite measurement of sea level rise. It is disappointing that no one challenged him on the accuracy of the “measurement” of sea level rise.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    Judith Curry: An extract from 34:23. The emphasis is mine.

    Prior to 2009 I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on Climate Change was a responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument “don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists have said after years of careful deliberation”. That all changed for me in November 2009 following the leaked ClimateGate emails that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus. I started speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data supporting information publicly available, be more transparent about how they reach conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American. “Climate Heretic Judith Curry turns on her colleagues”. I came to the realization that I had fallen into the trap of GroupThink. I had accepted the consensus based on second order evidence. The assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. And what have I concluded from this assessment?

    Human caused climate changes is the theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880 or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere or that carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes vs natural variability; how much the planet will warm in in the 21 st century and whether warming is dangerous.

    100

    • #
      TdeF

      This is a calm reasoned piece of good analysis by a leading climate professional. However I want to point out how even such senior scientists accept that “humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere” as their starting point. Real physicist Ziggy Switkowski did the same in his article in the Australian today, but it was more waffle than factual as befits a politician.

      My personal contribution to the debate is that this is not true, or at least only say 2% of CO2 increase is man made, a fact that has been well known since the invention of radio carbon dating in the 1950s. That should be the end of the argument However the question remains of why CO2 is increasing at all? My conclusion years ago was that it points directly to slight warming of the oceans where 98% of all CO2 reside. So it has been amazing to me that in the last few years, AGW promoters have switched to claiming the warming of the oceans is exactly what they predicted, even if they never mentioned it before. The ocean warming in fact disproves everything they have said because it explains the CO2 increase. The plausible has become pathetic.

      110

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        TdeF,
        For some time I have been trying to formulate an analogue to the script that asserts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that its addition to the atmosphere will raise the temperature.
        As I have expressed it here, without caveats, it is correct. The longer story is in the caveats.

        I have been toying with a magnifying glass analogue. There are magnifying glasses that work in the infra red, let’s say IRMG for shorthand here.
        If you have an IRMG in a drawer, it is doing nothing to the temperature of the atmosphere. If you put it in the sun and align it a certain way, you will have enough heat to cause paper to burn. If you have a huge number of IRMGs you can generate a lot of heat, think of Ivanpah (though it uses visible light also).
        In the analogy, each IRMG is like a molecule of CO2. Each manipulates the energy in sunlight. Each causes heating. The reason for this analogy is because one can turn the IRMGs off and on at will. Therefore, they are easy come, easy go mechanisms.
        So, we turn on an array of IRMGs. Some heat is reorganised. Where does this heat go when you turn off? Methinks it is gone in a very small time.
        Now to CO2. What matters is not the lab demonstration of gas heating by shining light trough a tube with air and CO2 in it. What does matter is what happens to the reorganised heat when you turn the beam off. Methinks again that it wanders off quick smart.
        Some will argue that the IRMG acts by taking energy from one place and concentrating it in another, for no net change. I agree. But this means that the place that donated the energy is cooled.
        Same with CO2 in the air. If CO2 concentrates heat somewhere, it has to be cooler at the place that gave the energy to concentrate.
        This is a quick run trough to see if there is value in using this analogy. I think it is still to cumbersome.
        As David Evans is saying, the excess energy concentrated by CO2 has to leave the system, though there is argument about the detailed mechanism.
        To me, it is like turning off the IRMG array. The concentrated energy goes elsewhere, quickly.
        UV, visible and IR radiation come in to the earth’s atmosphere, then do some heating that disappears in a very short time (like in the seconds range). Most ends up pronto back in space and there is little measured change in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere.

        BTW, there seems to be some confusion (not yours) about absorption of radiation of various wavelengths. In the visible, we know that there is a great deal of redirection back out to space, because when we send people into orbit they can see the earth. If none went back to space, it would look black.
        Geoff

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          Interesting ideas. Not sure if they are right but the spectrum of absorption and therefore the reflection of light by the atmosphere is well known.

          According to a very interesting lifelong infra red astronomer who posted here there is no infra red reflection because he does not see it when he looks at space, which is like your story about the earth not being black. Basically the earth is too hot to get much back reflection at the usual surface temperatures at around 10-20C, even as he said on many trips to the Arctic. No reflection. I am more than happy to believe someone who looked his whole life at infra red coming from the sky and saw no back scatter. You would think that ended the fantasy, but people want to believe their high priests would not lie to them. Especially the renowned phrenologist Al Gore. (sorry phenomenologist)

          30

          • #
            TdeF

            Also it is puzzing that people want to study the atmosphere when it is largely a clear insulator. All of the changes, reflections, absorptions, cooling, storms, ice, snow, fog, clouds, sleet, hail, rain, mist are about the forms of water. Storms and monsoons and floods are all water. A drought is simply the absence of it. Deserts are usually cold and very dry places, like Antarctica or Colorado. In the tropics, water limits the temperatures so it is never above 32. How does that suffer global warming?

            Once the water turns solid, there is no bottom limit to temperature. It is water which covers 66% of the earth to an average of 4km, 400x more massive than the thin air and moderates all climates. It is water which determines life on earth, climate, weather and which pushes heat around and can destroy a heat wave in five minutes. Christopher Monckton’s thesis about the lack of clouds in the 1980s makes perfect sense as unlike CO2, clouds, ice and snow reflect light like a mirror. The weather is invariably about water and even the climate scare is almost always about water levels.

            However we have had to listen for 30 years to theories about the atmosphere and only the atmosphere and only now are people starting to see the oceans and the water in the air and climate as all the one system. Then CO2 is only 0.04% of 0.25% of a clear insulator which does not matter a great deal, except that you need to breathe and it can be filled with water. CO2 is not a tiny fraction of the green house gas which is known as water.

            30

  • #
    pat

    LOL.

    nicely timed, with Bolt working on a docu for ABC, and barely blogging, lots more media already on their Christmas break, and the public distracted:

    10 Dec: Tim Blair: LUVVIES DECIDE
    As expected:
    The ABC’s Q&A program does not have a “left wing anti-Coalition bias” and is equally a challenge to both sides of politics, according to a draft report of the long-awaited review of Q&A obtained by Guardian Australia…
    But Martin and Brown do suggest one change:
    Far from finding that it had too many local panelists from the left, the report said the program needed to have more Greens and independents…
    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/luvvies_decide/

    10 Dec: Guardian: Amanda Meade: Q&A does not have ‘leftwing anti-Coalition bias’, leaked report finds
    Among the key recommendations was that the program needed to have a better gender balance and needed to travel more widely…
    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/10/qa-does-not-have-leftwing-anti-coalition-bias-leaked-report-finds

    20

  • #
    pat

    gee, I never heard any of this on the endless ABC Paris coverage this morning!

    10 Dec: BusinessStandardIndia: Nitin Sethi: Paris talks drag, threaten to stretch beyond Friday
    Union environment, forests and climate change minister Prakash Javadekar and his team had a second bilateral meeting with the US secretary of state, John Kerry as differentiation and transparency continued to be bone of contention between the two…
    Two other developing countries in the G77+China group of 134 nations said that their heads of states too had been feeling the pressure from developed country partners with national capitals getting calls. “This is high stakes, there are political decisions for sure to be taken but there are serious concerns of arm-twisting as well as manipulation at this stage,” he said.
    Several negotiators Business Standard spoke to from the group said the hosts were trying to narrow down differences on differentiation and climate finance before they produce the draft for Thursday. “This has triggered the hectic bilaterals that the US and others are holding. ***US is sticking to its guns on demolishing the firewall and providing a strong signal to its industry that its created investment opportunities through this deal,” another negotiator said. “The talk of decarbonisation as a long term goal and symmetry across developed and developing countries on transparency issues is part of that signal to markets that the US is seeking,” he added.
    “Well if you see this is a deal the US so desperately requires as legacy for outgoing President Obama and of course the French hosts would want a deal at all costs. But when you say a deal at all costs, you ignore the fact that someone surely is going to pay the price for it. Developing countries need to be clear what is the price they pay and if they gain anything in the process,” he added…
    Singapore’s minister asked the developed countries, “Stop invoking the spectre of bifurcation and firewalls. Those are the standard negotiating tactics.” He noted that developed countries were refusing to engage with ideas that had already been agreed upon before. “We already decided that we would work on INDCs (pledges given under the Paris agreement).” He tried hard to convince the developed countries to provide constructive proposals rather than block and threaten others. “You talk of mitigation pledges needing to unconditional. Are you trying to scare people or encourage people to voluntarily come to the system.”…
    Under the accepted decisions of 196 countries all were asked to volunteer targets under the INDCs or pledges. Developing countries, which do not have legal obligations to cut emissions under the convention did so on a nationally-determined and voluntary basis. But now the developed countries have asked that these be turned unconditional – not dependent on finance and technology which the convention requires them to provide.
    At the time of writing the French presidency of the climate talks was yet to come out with the second iteration of Paris Package. It was clear, yet again, that ministers and negotiators would be locked inside Le Bourget, the airport-turned- convention hall, all night on Thursday. The chances of the meeting closing on Friday 6 pm Paris time had dimmed.
    http://wap.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/paris-talks-drag-threaten-to-stretch-beyond-friday-115121001576_1.html#.VmnS7OrRSXY.twitter

    20

  • #
    pat

    of course it was a sham…but it made headlines worldwide, so it achieved its purpose:

    11 Dec: BusinessStandardIndia: Nitin Sethi: Coalition led by EU and US a sham?
    On Wednesday evening the US joined a Coalition of High Ambition along with EU and other developing countries, announcing it as a group of more than 90 rich and poor countries demanding an ambitious climate change deal at Paris…But, within a day the coalition unravelled.

    ***One of the founding members of the so-called Coalition of High Ambition, Marshall Islands confirmed on record to Business Standard that the coalition actually has only 15 countries on board at the moment.***

    Then, revealing how the coalition was more a public posturing than a real new collective negotiating as one, past midnight, in closed door meeting called the Indaba, before the French hosts, both the EU and US argued against the two highest priorities of the vulnerable and poor countries in the Paris talks – a global temperature goal of 1.5 degree and a full-fledged Loss and Damage mechanism, which provides compensation for permanent debilitating impacts on vulnerable countries. Publicly the developed countries, EU and the US have claimed are working with the vulnerable countries to secure these goals from the unwilling by achieving an ambitious deal…
    An official of the Marshall Islands: “It currently includes 15 Ministers who negotiate on behalf of 91 countries.” But, the official was asked to clarify, if these fifteen ministers in the coalition were mandated by their respective groups of countries (adding up to the 91 countries) to be in it on their collective behalf or were they in the coalition in their individual capacities representing only their respective countries…
    The Marshall Island official responded, “They are there in their individual capacities, but they do of course negotiate on behalf of many more…
    There was more to unravel about the coalition in the midnight hours between Wednesday and Thursday. When the closed door meeting organised by the French hosts, called Indaba, began after midnight the US took a hard-line position against setting the global goal of the Paris agreement to keeping temperature rise below 1.5 degree Celsius by the turn of the century. In public the US, as well as EU, had said that they were working to accommodate this fervent desire of many developing countries…
    Then, in another direct attack on the demands of the small island and other vulnerable countries the US for the first time formally put on record that it would not permit these nations to ever seek compensation or file liability claims for permanent loss and damage caused by climate change…
    Business Standard accessed the proposal shared by the US in written with some countries present in the closed door meeting.
    The note reads…READ TEXT
    On The night between Wednesday and Thursday the US was supported all Umbrella group countries, such as Norway (also a member of the so-called Coalition of High Ambition), Australia and Japan.
    http://wap.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/is-coalition-of-high-ambition-led-by-eu-and-us-a-sham-115121001307_1.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    Vasudha Foundation: Letter from People of India to COP21 and Friends in the Developed World
    Dear Friends,
    There’s no light in our village. We use firewood to cook.
    We have been told that this is affecting your future.
    We hear that there is a big assembly in Paris where our future is being discussed. All world leaders are deciding the fate of the planet. We hope they will keep in mind our present predicament while deciding about our future…
    We live in Arunachal Pradesh, the north-eastern part of India. Our government promised us more than twenty years ago that we would soon get electricity. After all more than half of the hydro electricity potential of India is in our state. After more than two decades of promises and efforts the projects are yet to come up…
    We are forest dwellers of Jharkhand. Our children spend time with cattle. They wander with them throughout the day in search of food. There is no school or road in our village. They say there are coal deposits here. Many years ago we heard that soon there will be coal mining and we would get jobs. That coal will be used for generating electricity. We thought that finally we would see the light that the village had never seen. Those plans have now been stopped because coal mining will affect forests. We have also been told that burning this coal will harm you. Now we don’t know what our government will do. Please let us know if our leaders have promised you that they will convince us to live without electricity. We are sure that you will not accept such an arrangement…
    We are tribals from Rajasthan, the fascinating land of forts and deserts. Many of you might have visited our state…After taking you for camel rides and giving you a glimpse of our culture, music and dance we go back to our villages. Our women walk miles to fetch drinking water. The nearest hospital is half a day’s walk. Our life stands still after sunset. We have waited three decades for a nuclear plant that was to be set up near our village. We have no other hydro or thermal source, so nuclear was our only hope. Now that project is scrapped. Our government has not been able to tie up technology or fuel for the nuclear plant. Also some tourists told us that this was unsafe. So now we are safe but sad because we don’t know whether we will ever get electricity.
    The other day one foreign tourist told us that wind and sun can produce electricity. Our government now has a plan to instal solar power plant in our village and a wind power unit in the neighboring village. We are happy. But they say that this electricity is costly. They also said that they can give us electricity only for a few hours when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. We are excited but anxious because we don’t know if we will be able to pay for that electricity. There is now more uncertainty in our lives. We were used to managing our lives somehow for centuries…
    Is it true that in order to provide you electricity your government used all that it could, coal, gas, hydro, nuclear? Do you have any problem with us getting the same convenience? How can it be? We live on the same planet…
    Our government tells us that in your country one person consumes more than ten times the electricity than one person does in our country. We don’t understand these comparisons because we consume no electricity at all…
    We hope to hear from you as our government has promised to provide us electricity in the next few years. You can write to us at the following Signed,
    Common man from India
    http://www.vasudha-foundation.org/letter-from-people-of-india-to-cop21-and-friends-in-the-developed-world/

    10

  • #
    pat

    heart-warming appeal from Lloyd Blankfein…for our children and our grand-children! video will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside:

    VIDEO: 1min49secs: Godman Sachs Environmental Stewardship: Mobilizing Capital Markets to Address Climate Change
    Lloyd C. Blankfein, chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, discusses Goldman Sachs’ updated Environmental Policy Framework, highlighting our expanded target to deploy $150 billion to finance clean energy by 2025.
    http://www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/environmental-stewardship/index.html?cid=tw-or-cletech-4

    20

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: AFR: James Chessell: Business leaders at Paris climate talks see possibility of a carbon market
    AGL Energy chief executive Andy Vesey: “But my biggest surprise is really the level of business involvement, to the point where there is a sense of inevitability about what has to be done and almost an indifference as to what happens in the negotiations over the text of an agreement.”…
    “Why Paris is really significant for Australian business is to understand where dynamics of the marketplace are going in terms of this low-carbon trajectory in China, the US, Europe etc,” says Peter Castellas, chief executive of the Carbon Market Institute…
    However, Hunt may choose to set tougher baselines after a policy review in 2017 that could transform Direct Action into a market-based baseline-credit scheme – complete with trading and a carbon price – of the sort that Tony Abbott tried so hard to remove during his time in office.
    ***Malcolm Turnbull’s rise to prime minister suggests emissions trading could return. Lewis Tyndall, a former barrister who works for carbon farming company GreenCollar, told the same business event on Wednesday that Hunt had described parts of the Direct Action scheme as “baseline and credit system” at a private event on Friday. It is understood Turnbull has privately endorsed Hunt’s description…
    The implications for business are substantial. Most acknowledge they will face greater liabilities after the 2017 review. Once it becomes clearer exactly how baselines will be toughened, companies can begin modelling their carbon exposures. This could in turn stimulate investment in emissions reduction measures as those companies look to hedge their risks…
    Australian Industry Group, one of the business peak bodies that opposed Julia Gillard’s version of the carbon tax in 2013, signed up to joint business statement released by French employer association MEDEF that called for “measures and tools” which encourage private investments. Among these are “properly constructed carbon markets in the countries that choose to use them” and “linkages between markets once agreed by mutual recognition”.
    With the world heading towards more developed carbon markets – China has promised to roll out a national emissions trading scheme by 2017 – alignment with key trading partners will be a key consideration for those parts of the private sector liable under those schemes…
    “Companies want clarity across borders,” Castellas says…
    The UN’s overall goal of capping global temperatures at 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels means a significant proportion of the world’s known reserves of coal, oil and gas must remain in the ground while the gap is made up by renewable sources such as solar, wind and hydro…
    http://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/business-leaders-at-paris-climate-talks-see-possibility-of-a-carbon-market-20151210-glkwps

    00

  • #
    pat

    Twitter: Leo Hickman
    “Entry into Force” options changed *again*. Emissions “double trigger” is back in. Easier for big emitter to block?
    https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/675052256073527297

    yesterday it was: This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least [50/60] Parties to the Convention have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession [but not earlier than 1 January 2020].

    now it comes into force 30 days after [55] Parties to the Convention which accounted in total for at least an estimated [50][70] percent of the total [net] global greenhouse emissions have deposited their instruments, etc:

    10

  • #
    cephus0

    Childish I know but sometimes it’s so hard to resist.

    10

  • #
    Dennis

    The Ausralian

    ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI
    Global warming already may be an unpreventable reality, so we’ll have to adapt.

    Unbelievable!

    30

  • #
    pat

    the new draft…
    everything about the $100 billion is still bracketed:

    PDF: 27 pages: UNFCCC: DRAFT PARIS OUTCOME
    Version 2 of 10 December 2015 at 21:00
    IV. ENHANCED ACTION PRIOR TO 2020…
    123. [Resolves to enhance the provision of urgent and adequate finance, technology and capacity-building by developed country Parties in order to enhance the level of ambition of pre-2020 action by Parties, and in this regard strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap to achieve the goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation, and significantly increasing adaptation finance from current levels and to further provide appropriate transfer of technology and capacity-building support;]…
    Article 2
    1(a): Hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C, recognizing that this would significantly reduce risks and impacts of climate change;..
    Article 2
    2: This Agreement [will be implemented on the basis of] [reflects] equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances…
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/da02.pdf

    11 Dec: Deutsche Welle: Andrea Ronsberg: Paris climate summit close to finish line
    Observers were split on how strong the text is on signaling investors to get out of fossil fuels.
    Notably, the term “decarbonisation” that was present in an earlier draft, and that had been endorsed by leaders of the seven biggest economies (G7) at their June summit in Elmau, Germany, is now lacking.
    Instead, the new draft for the climate agreement refers to the goal of achieving “greenhouse gas emission neutrality in the second half of the century.”
    “The word ‘decarbonisation’ is not there, but in terms of timing, this text is similiar to what the G7 agreed on in Elmau,” said Bals, adding that he thought that was positive…
    But Jan Kowalzig of development organization Oxfam disagrees. “This is not the signal we need to increase pressure on investors to get out of oil, coal, and gas,” he said…
    http://www.dw.com/en/paris-climate-summit-close-to-finish-line/a-18911085

    00

  • #
    pat

    10 Dec: WUWT: Eric Worrall: BHP Exec leaves Paris COP21 due to “wanted” posters
    BHP climate executive Fiona Wild has left Paris, after her face appeared on series of “Wanted” posters. BHP denies that Ms Wild left because of concerns about personal security, though the Financial Times claims that she was upset by the personal nature of the campaign.
    According to the Financial Times: …. READ ON
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/10/bhp-exec-leaves-paris-cop21/

    10

  • #
    pat

    latest draft text link comment is in moderation.

    10 Dec: ClimateChangeNews: Alex Pashley: Gina McCarthy: US climate plan will stand test of time
    American people back flagship clean power plan despite lawsuits and Republican assaults, says Barack Obama’s top environmental regulator
    The Obama administration’s climate centrepiece is bulletproof, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told Climate Home on Thursday.
    The legislation upon which it rests – the Clean Air Act – is sound in the face of legal appeals by states and industry groups, Gina McCarthy said on the sidelines of the COP21 summit.
    “We know how to use this act. It’s fallen within the square four corners of that act and the science is strong, so we are confident.”…
    “It is serious. It is long term. It is a legal commitment for our country to move forward. So no matter how the political whims may change, it is the law and it is going to stick.”…
    The country was seeing a “sea change” as public attitudes support climate action, including in states suing the government for the regulations, she said…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/10/gina-mccarthy-us-climate-plan-will-stand-test-of-time/

    10

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King/Megan Darby: Thursday’s draft Paris agreement aims for ‘well below 2C’ warming
    Version presented by French presidency on Thursday evening well received, but some issues remain unresolved going into final day of COP21…
    The new version of a deal would commit 195 countries to slash net carbon emissions to zero in the second half of this century, involving radical cuts in fossil fuel use and a significant rise in deployment of clean energy and carbon capture technologies…
    ***Tony de Brum, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands and champion of a tight temperature goal, said: “With this, I would be able to go home and tell my people that our chance for survival is not lost.”… Significant hurdles in the legally binding part of an agreement remain.
    The tricky issue of loss and damage – support to address irreversible impacts of climate change – “is still not resolved,” said Michael Jacobs, an advisor to the New Climate Economy group…
    This draft deal “denies the world justice,” said Adriano Campolina, ActionAid chief executive: “By including a clause for no future claim of compensation and liability, the US has ensured people suffering from the disastrous impacts of climate change will never be able to seek the justice owed to them.”…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/10/thursdays-draft-paris-agreement-aims-for-well-below-2c-warming/

    ***7 Dec: Radio New Zealand: Prominent Marshall Islands foreign minister loses seat
    Mr de Brum is one of the world’s most vocal advocates for global action to mitigate against climate change, conveying the plight of the low-lying Marshall Islands around the world.
    He is currently at the international climate negotiations in Paris and was last week featured on the front page of The New York Times.
    Our correspondent, Giff Johnson, says Mr de Brum’s advocacy abroad may have contributed to his downfall at home.
    ***”Ebeye, which is a very overcrowded, challenging community hasn’t seen much change overall in many, many years. The foreign minister is doing what a foreign minister does. You know, he goes overseas and beats the drum on climate change, but I think what Ebeye and Kwajalein voters are saying is that they want some action on the local front.”…

    ***Oct 2015: HuffPo: Peter Mellgard: Uncertain Over Paris Climate Talks, Marshall Islanders Prepare For The Worst
    Even before the age of climate change, the atolls that make up the Marshall Islands were a dangerous place to build a nation. Carl Storlazzi of the U.S. Geologic Survey explained their particular sensitivity. The base of an atoll island is an ancient volcano millions of years old. Once upon a time, these in the Marshalls rose high out of the ocean, something like the limestone pillars you can see in parts of China or Thailand. Due to the Pacific plate’s subsidence, they slowly sank below sea level, and coral colonized their slopes…
    *Many, perhaps most, are manmade. Poor urban planning is immediately evident in Majuro and some of the other islands;
    *** Ebeye, hundreds of miles to the northwest, has long been called the SLUM OF THE PACIFIC (LINKS TO ORLANDO SENTINEL PIECE ON EBEYE). Pollution is unchecked. Garbage is dumped on coral reefs. Raw sewage is poured directly into the ocean just off Majuro. Materials like sand and gravel for coastline fortification are collected from sensitive locations with ineffective oversight…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/marshall-islands-climate-change_565f5337e4b079b2818cf643?section=australia

    10

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: Guardian: Paris talks: new draft climate deal published – as it happened
    Tim Gore, Oxfam’s head of policy, says the “main area of progress are definitely on finance. That seems to be a big step forward. There are some strong changes to the text that will increase finance from rich countries towards the $100bn target for 2020.”
    He notes, with a raised eyebrow, that human rights have been purged from the text completely just one day after gender equality was stripped.
    On loss and damage – which could open rich countries up to compensation claims for climate change related disasters – Gore said the language was “legalistic”. Which means it will likely be argued over “not just tonight, but for some years to come” if it stays the same in a ratified agreement.
    Gore said the high ambition coalition, which emerged this week, seemed to have had little impact on the text.
    He said the coalition had wanted to focus on the “ratchet mechanism”, which will make the agreement stronger over the coming years.
    “So far we can’t see much reflection of that in the text,” he said…
    The EU won’t be happy with this, but for the second time shipping aviation – responsible for around 5% of global emissions but growing rapidly – have been left out of the draft Paris deal. It seems unlikely at this stage that they will reappear…
    Negotiators appear to have opted for the weakest language around a long-term goal for phasing out fossil fuels…
    By contrast, today’s text only has woolly language about cutting emissions as fast as possible, with no time scale or numbers…
    There were 361 sections in the brackets that denote disagreement on Wednesday’s text. That’s now down to 50, according to a team that have been tracking the text…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/live/2015/dec/10/paris-climate-talks-cop21-draft-deal-negotiations-continue-live-blog

    00

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby/Ed King: As it happened: Paris climate pact edged closer on Thursday
    At a press briefing from green business advocates, the emphasis is on getting a clear long term goal. “We want a signal that clearly says we are going to decarbonise economies as soon as possible,” says Nicolette Bartlett, from the Prince of Wales Corporate Leaders Group…
    Sean Paul has landed. Plus bowler hat and shades. The Jamaican dancehall star says he wants to help spread renewable energies across the world. Cos We Be Burning…
    TWEET: Alex Pashley: Sean Paul! At cop21! Whaaa? …
    The good news is a) Sean Paul is playing later (see 1030am post) and b) Francois Hollande and Narendra Modi have launched a book full of wise words. “Each of us can find inspiration in poems and philosophical and religious texts,” reads the joint foreword…

    (pat: if Christiana can’t even raise $5 million, what chance$100 bn annually?)

    Does anyone have $5 million in their back pocket? UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “final push” on funds for adaptation in Paris. There’s a 2014-2015 target of $80 million… with $75m currently banked. It may seem small fry compared to the vast sums of money talked about here – but support for countries preparing and coping with climate impacts is a hugely contentious issue.
    “The announcements at the UN climate change conference by Germany, Italy, Sweden and Wallonia now put us in striking distance of that $80 million aim,” said Figueres. “I would call on others to come forward with the final support needed in order to register yet another success here in Paris towards the overall goal of a low emission, resilient world.”…
    Leading climate economist Lord Stern is speaking at the China pavilion, and he’s here with a strong warning to governments and business on their planning in the next few years.
    “If we do [the transformation] badly, forget about 2C of warming, we’ll be to 3 or 4,” he says. “We’re going to have to go to zero global emissions by the end of the century… that is arithmetic – it’s not a political statement.”…“In China, 4000 a day are killed by air pollution. 13 or the top 20 most polluted cities are in India. If it’s 4000 a day in China, how many in India? It’s enough to regard this as a deep deep problem. Moving from fossil fuels or capturing emissions would carry enormous benefits.”…
    Sorry for the updates delay. We are still recovering from Sean Paul news (below)…
    Here’s a message from one of our generous sponsors, Philips, which has pledged to go carbon neutral by 2020…
    Breaking news here in Paris is Jamaican rapper Sean Paul will be here today to talk about a ‘Song to the Earth’ he has put together. Those of a certain age and taste will recall his epic ‘We Be Burning’ song,
    replete with many, many women not wearing much and flame throwers. Which all seems very appropriate. Watch below…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/10/cop21-live-clock-ticking-on-paris-climate-talks/

    00

  • #
    pat

    10 Dec: Reuters: Global climate deal in sight though finance, timing gaps remain
    By Barbara Lewis and Bate Felix
    The European Union and China have clashed over the timeframe for reviewing and strengthening the document.
    The EU has asked for that review every five years from the early 2020s. European Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said national plans for action should be reviewed every five years “so that when the treaty enters into force in 2021, we are able to raise the level of ambition”.
    “Without the five-year cycles, the agreement is meaningless,” he told a news conference.
    But China has balked at setting any conditions that would bring external pressure to step up its own measures before 2030.
    Gao Feng, one of the Chinese negotiators, noted that Beijing had set out a national plan in June to start reducing its CO2 emissions by 2030. “I cannot say that in the middle, 2025, we would be in a position to change it,” he said…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-deal-idUSKBN0TT1HI20151210

    Tweet: Sabin Center @Columbia (Law Schoool)
    At #COP21, parties commenting on latest draft agreement. China highly critical.
    https://twitter.com/ColumbiaClimate

    00

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    I watched this video and I was impressed by both Cruz and the skeptic witnesses:
    Mark Steyn, Will Happer, and Judith Curry in particular were in my opinion outstanding speakers.
    Both from the scientific point of view and the political they were extremely convincing and I believe they delivered the ‘killer blows in this debate’.
    The Democratic Senators and their stooge witnesses all looked uncomfortable and unconvincing in argument (or lack of).
    If I was a genuine outsider and undecided American voter then I know who I would be going for.
    Ted Cruz would make a great and honest President of the United States.
    Geoff W Sydney

    10

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    I watched this video and I was impressed by both Cruz and the skeptic witnesses:
    Mark Steyn, Will Happer, and Judith Curry in particular were in my opinion outstanding speakers.
    Both from the scientific point of view and the political they were extremely convincing and I believe they delivered the ‘killer blows in this debate’.
    The Democratic Senators and their stooge witnesses all looked uncomfortable and unconvincing in their their argument (or lack of).
    If I was a genuine outsider and undecided American voter then I know who I would be going for.
    Ted Cruz would make a great and genuinely honest President of the United States.
    Geoff W Sydney

    00

  • #
    John

    I thought Cruz was “off the charts brilliant” in off the cuff debating?

    When Titley counteracted with his graph over a longer time period to “disprove” the 18 year pause, there was a fantastic opportunity to ask him “OK what about a 2000 year time period?”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

    It could then have been shown that there was a trend on the graph leading up to the Medieval Warm Period very much the same as now. Was this caused by CO2 as well?

    30

  • #
    el gordo

    This is a critique post by Gleick (warmist) of comments made by Ted Cruz recently, take note of how he handles the interview.

    http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2015/12/09/everything-senator-ted-cruz-said-about-climate-change-in-this-npr-interview-was-wrong/

    10

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: SMH: Vanessa Desloires: Malcolm Turnbull’s former employer Goldman Sachs tips early election
    Malcolm Turnbull’s former employer, US investment bank Goldman Sachs, says the prime minister should call an early election before the dark clouds from a sluggish economy set in.
    The probability of an election within the first half of 2016 has risen sharply, Goldman Sachs chief economist for Australia Tim Toohey said, with the Turnbull government looking to capitalise on its high approval ratings and lock down its recent policy announcements ahead of what will be a “pivotal” first budget…
    The major proposals put forward, including a 5 per cent hike to the GST, limiting superannuation contributions and the $1.1 billion innovation incentive package were “sufficiently controversial” that the government would seek electoral consent via an election ahead of the May budget…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/malcolm-turnbulls-former-employer-goldman-sachs-tips-early-election-20151211-gll99h.html

    8 Dec: CNBC: AP: Stephen Braun: Clinton intervened for firm after request to son-in-law
    As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened in a request forwarded by her son-in-law on behalf of a deep-sea mining firm to meet with her or other State Department officials after one of the firm’s investors asked Chelsea Clinton’s husband for help setting up such contacts, according to the most recently released Clinton emails.
    The lobbying effort on behalf of Neptune Minerals Inc. came while Clinton — now the leading Democratic presidential candidate — was advocating for an Obama administration push to win Senate approval for a sweeping law of the sea treaty. The pact would have aided U.S. mining companies scouring for minerals in international waters, but the Republican-dominated Senate blocked it…
    In the email, Siklas also said that his then-employer, Goldman Sachs, was representing Neptune.
    “I introduced them to GS and the bankers took them on as a client,” Siklas told Mezvinsky in the email..
    Before joining Eaglevale, Mezvinsky had also worked for eight years at Goldman, partly during Siklas’ tenure there between 2004 and 2007. Members of the influential New York firm were one of Clinton’s top funders in her 2008 presidential race…
    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/08/the-associated-press-clinton-intervened-for-firm-after-request-to-son-in-law.html

    00

    • #
      ianl8888


      … a 5 per cent hike to the GST …

      That’s 50%, from a rate of 10% to 15%, so a 50% increase. Fairfax published the existing and proposed rates correctly and then described 50% as 5%

      An election before the May budget is exactly what we predicted. It will be interesting enough to see what excuse Lord Waffle comes up with for an early election, since he will NOT propose a DD, in my view, even though the triggers exist. He does not want to fight a DD election on any of the existing triggers, so he needs an excuse for an early Reps, half-Senate election

      I also believe the current GG will do what he, Lord Waffle, wants irrespective of the transparency of her fig leaf. Shorten is her son-in-law all right, but he has no chance of winning

      00

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: Amanda Saunders: AFR: Westpac faces fossil fuel test under new climate pledge
    Westpac Bank will find it hard to justify lending to new fossil fuel projects after it commits on Friday to running its business to support an economy that limits global warming to below 2 degrees.
    The new pledge will take Westpac well beyond the “support” offered by the three other big Australian banks for the global 2 degrees target, currently being debated in climate talks in Paris…
    Instead, sources say, the bank will use its annual general meeting to make a formal commitment to “operating both directly and indirectly in a manner consistent with supporting an economy that limits global warming to below 2 degrees”…
    This means coal and oil and gas projects could struggle to win the support of Westpac…
    The move will be made partly in response to pressure from shareholders and activist groups and is a significant change to Westpac’s previous language…
    But Westpac is expected to increase its exposure to renewables…
    http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/9afrwestpac–20151209-gljig9

    Burdon suddenly notices what has been hidden in plain sight for years:

    11 Dec: The Conversation: Why is the business world suddenly clamouring for a global carbon tax?
    by Peter Burdon, Senior lecturer, Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide
    Among the various interests at the Paris climate talks, it is arguably the voice of business that has emerged most clearly. Many business leaders are now saying that if the world is intent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there must be a worldwide price on carbon and a framework for linking the 55 schemes that exist in areas such as China, the European Union, and California.
    Momentum has been building since May, when six of Europe’s largest oil and gas companies, including Royal Dutch Shell and BP, issued a letter calling for global carbon pricing system…
    It is not clear whether a carbon price will figure in the Paris agreement. But it is important to consider what is motivating some of the world’s highest-emitting companies to advocate for a carbon price…
    They know which way the wind is blowing and realise that governments might require painful and complex interventions to reduce emissions. Moves are afoot to decarbonise the world economy some time after 2050 (see Article 3 of the latest draft text, and there has been strong advocacy for a moratorium on new coal mines…
    https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-business-world-suddenly-clamouring-for-a-global-carbon-tax-52127

    00

  • #
    pat

    10 Dec: NYT: Sewell Chan/Melissa Eddy: Republicans Make Presence Felt at Climate Talks by Ignoring Them
    (Coral Davenport contributed reporting.)
    Except for Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California, no prominent Republican has participated in the events in this Paris suburb.
    No Republican attended a meeting of 400 mayors in Paris last Friday, convened by Michael R. Bloomberg…
    Of the candidates seeking the party’s nomination for president, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Donald J. Trump reject the scientific consensus that human activities are warming the planet…
    The Republicans’ unyielding approach has even sympathizers shaking their heads.
    “Paris could provide a chance for the Republican Party to get on the right side of history,” said Andy Karsner, who was an assistant secretary of energy under President George W. Bush.
    At the International New York Times Energy for Tomorrow Conference in Paris on Wednesday, Mr. Karsner, now an adviser to Google X, Google’s research and development arm, urged climate-change skeptics to leave the realm of the ideological and view the promotion of renewable energy in economic terms…
    Secretary of State John Kerry took a similar tack in a speech here on Wednesday.
    “For a moment — and a moment only — let’s give the climate deniers the benefit of the doubt,” he said. Even if the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong, he asked rhetorically, “what is the worst that could happen” by shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy?
    “Well, we absolutely would create millions of new jobs,” he said. “We would boost our economies, and for some countries where they’ve slowed down, they need that boost. They need the capital that would flow into energy investment. We would see a healthier population, healthier children.”
    He added, almost as a side note, there would be “a huge contribution to global security.”…
    Surveys have shown that in no other country is climate-change denial as prevalent as it is in the United States…
    Several progressive companies, like Ben & Jerry’s, Michelin, Nissan-Renault and Unilever, have taken part in the Paris climate meetings or related events, and Mr. Kerry has praised Bank of America, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs for their climate-related financing commitments.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/world/europe/republicans-make-presence-felt-at-climate-talks-by-ignoring-them.html

    20

    • #
      Dave in the states

      urged climate-change skeptics to leave the realm of the ideological and view the promotion of renewable energy in economic terms…
      Secretary of State John Kerry took a similar tack in a speech here on Wednesday.
      “For a moment — and a moment only — let’s give the climate deniers the benefit of the doubt,” he said. Even if the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong, he asked rhetorically, “what is the worst that could happen” by shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy?

      Yes, lets do that. Numbers please. Lets see if it adds up. What will it do the poor?

      00

  • #
    pat

    ***Manish Bapna, Executive Vice President and Managing Director, World Resources Institute,

    2 pages: 10 Dec: Forbes: 3 Key Questions for the Energy Industry Around a Global Climate Agreement
    ***by Manish Bapna (Forbes Bio: I write about environment and economic development)
    The reality is that if we want to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels – the threshold above which the most extreme climate change impacts are projected – we need to decarbonize the world economy near mid-century. To do so, we will need progressive, accelerated change, starting with the phase-out of coal, followed by oil and gas, while building better energy storage capacity and investing in smart power grids…
    It’s important to set clear priorities and realize that the switch to zero-carbon energy is complex, with gas likely serving as a bridging fuel…
    This could pose serious financial risks to fossil fuel assets such as coal, oil and gas. Most scenarios to stay below 2 degrees include taking carbon out of the atmosphere, so technologies including carbon capture and storage need to be explored…
    2. Will renewable energy boom?
    If the signals from a climate agreement are loud and clear, then the answer is yes…
    Conditions are ripe for expanding investment in low-carbon energy. Rapid growth and record-low prices for clean energy and energy storage technologies offer a prime opportunity to accelerate the move to renewable fuels…
    Bank of America recently made a commitment of $125 billion in low-carbon business by 2025 through lending, investing, capital raising, advisory services and developing financing solutions for clients around the world. And Goldman Sachs made a commitment to carbon neutrality, while announcing it would expand its clean energy investment target to $150 billion in financing and investment by 2025…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/manishbapna/2015/12/10/3-key-questions-for-the-energy-industry-around-a-global-climate-agreement/

    00

  • #
    pat

    so wait…Amy Goodman is a complete CAGW zealot, yet she feigns ignorance over every basic issue here!!! granted, she at least covers the story, which is more than ABC/Fairfax/Guardian etc have done:

    10 Dec: Democracy Now: Obama Accused of Giving Poor Nations a “Poison Chalice” by Skirting U.S. Climate Responsibility
    Critics including Asad Rehman, head of international climate for Friends of the Earth, say the United States is trying to keep an alliance of wealthy developed countries together and rewrite legal rules. “Many people talk about President Obama’s legacy in terms of climate change,” says Rehman. “Unfortunately, the legacy he will leave is a poison chalice to the poor, to make them pay for the impacts of climate change. I don’t see much difference between the United States now and the United States in Copenhagen.”…
    AMY GOODMAN: Asad Rehman, you’re particularly critical of this issue of loss and damage. And again, especially in the United States, these climate change negotiations are hardly being covered. When you say “loss and damage,” explain what that means in real terms…
    AMY GOODMAN: Say what you mean by “climate finance.”…
    ASAD REHMAN: …Many people talk about President Obama’s legacy in terms of on climate change. Unfortunately, the legacy he will leave here is a poison chalice to the poor, to actually make them pay for the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, I don’t see much difference between the United States now and the United States in Copenhagen.
    AMY GOODMAN: Wait, “a poison chalice to the poor.” Explain what you mean about what the U.S. role is here and around the issue overall of climate change.
    ASAD REHMAN: Well, the United States here is primarily the bad guy. They are keeping an alliance of countries together of mainly the rich, developed countries. They brought on the European Union together with them. What they’re trying to do is rewrite the legal rules that are taking place here.
    AMY GOODMAN: Now, I wanted just to clarify a big news headline came out yesterday. There’s the high ambition group. It was kept under wraps, secret for six months, and they unveiled themselves in the last few days—over a hundred of the world’s countries, so more than half the countries, led by the United States.
    ASAD REHMAN: Yeah, smoke and mirrors. I mean, a high ambition alliance of countries who are not—have got no ambition. The United States, which is doing one-fifth of its fair share, the European Union, which is doing one-fifth of its fair share, they’re not doing any of their fair share in providing the finance or the technology or the support. So, how they can call themselves the high ambition alliance? What this really is, is about trying to shift blame. If we go back to Copenhagen, we knew that the blame then was on (***China). Now the blame is on India…
    AMY GOODMAN: So, wait. On this issue of who’s in the coalition and who’s not, China and India are not in this coalition.
    ASAD REHMAN: No. So, what the United States has managed to do, and, of course, they—look, this is geopolitics. We’re talking about one of the most powerful countries in the world. It’s managed to get people to sign up to a paper agreement. It actually doesn’t mean anything. In reality, what we’re seeing, and we saw last night in the halls here, is every single developing country come out very, very strongly, saying they oppose the attempt by the United States to rewrite the legal rules here, to rip up the legal protection…
    And in the next 36 hours, what we’re going to see is either a lowering of expectations, a bullying and bribing of poorer countries to shift the blame. But in reality, there is a crime scene on there, but the criminal here is the United States.
    http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/10/obama_accused_of_giving_poor_nations

    10

  • #
    MichaelB

    Anyone can spot a liar.
    At 1:03:30 Dr Tittley is asked directly if he disputes the satellite data. He starts to visibly shake and his speech is noticeably affected.

    20