The Climate Hearing

There doesn’t appear to be much mainstream news coverage of yesterday’s big climate confab on the Hill, so it’s a good thing we have blogs to pick up the slack.

If you want a descriptive overview, check out Jeff Tollefson at Nature. For a selective play by play, including color commentary by Gavin Schmidt, go to Eli Kintisch at Science and click on the “replay” inside the Cover it Live box. (I could have done without the Greek Chorus of commenters.)

If members of the climate concerned community are looking for some red meat, Joe Romm obliges with his post on Judith Curry’s testimony.

On the whole, Andrew Revkin says that the House Committee on Science and Technology

pulled off a (relatively) civil hearing on basic questions related to climate science and policy options.

If you want to watch the whole thing and decide for yourself, here’s the video. If anyone has other links to notable commentary or news coverage on the hearing, please share them in the comments section.

6 Responses to “The Climate Hearing”

  1. Andy says:

    Romm has a new term for the Curry’s and Lomborg’s of the world: “Confusionist.”  Clever.

  2. Keith Kloor says:

    Yes, I saw that. She’s also “abandoned science,” according to Romm.

  3. Huge Difference says:

    “Yes, I saw that. She’s also “abandoned science,” according to Romm.”

    Does he still work as a scientist?  Is he affiliated with any University or Lab?  In what role? The wiki would suggest that he is no longer a working scientist, but a journalist/pundit/lecturer/business consultant.

    Who abandoned science?

  4. harrywr2 says:

    “Yes, I saw that. She’s also “abandoned science,” according to Romm.”
    Interesting prelude as to who the new congress will look to for climate advice.
    I wonder who will be more influential, Dick “What Global Warming’ Lindzen, Judith ‘It’s more complicated than that’ Curry or Pat ‘The science is dubious ‘ Michaels.

  5. Roddy Campbell says:

    I didn’t realise Romm was quite so crazy?

    Her testimony simply asserts, “Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation.”

    The literature from the last year alone makes clear that doing nothing is the only surefire way to make things worse “” most likely unimaginably worse with a confluence of catastrophes any one of which would motivate action and combined is indeed an existential threat to the health and well-being of billions of people.

    “For me, what is especially important about Weitzman’s analysis is that the science is now crystal clear that there is far greater chance than 3% chance we will have a total warming of 6°C in a century or so if we don’t reverse emissions trends soon.”
    “To repeat, on our current emissions path, we have a 9% chance of an incomprehensibly catastrophic warming of 7°C by century’s end, but less than a 1% chance of under 3°C warming.”
    Really?  Less than a 1% chance (ie zero) of warming by less than 3c?
    Does he say this to get readers, hits, or to influence people, or because he believes it?  Does he think it works, this extremism, at winning converts?

  6. Pascvaks says:

    Some people make great ‘Weather Vanes”.  Some vanes are better than others.  Some vains make even better vanes than other vanes if you remember they’re more vain than any other vane and also remember to read them backwards. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.