Dr Judith Curry is a top-notch researcher who is considered a lukewarmer by Anthony Watts, owner of the WattsUpWithThat blog. Meaning she is not a hard-core believer in either the church of global warming or having a level of deep skepticism. She was once believed that man was the cause of the global warming but more research convinced her that there are too many uncertainties in forecasting future climate. Whether she is a lukewarmer or a skeptic is an open question. Her blog, Climate Etc. is reported to get about 12,000 hits per day, demonstrating that she is very influential.
Curry recently posted “Carly Fiorina hits the ‘sweet spot’ on Climate, Etc”. From that posting she says:
“In the political battles over climate change, there are three distinct and relevant questions:
- First, does mankind have a material effect on the Earth’s climate?
- Second, if mankind does impact the climate, is that impact harmful?
- And third, if we assume that mankind is harming the environment, will any given American policy or collection of policies have a meaningful beneficial impact?
“So far, the conservative movement has mainly pushed back on the “scientific consensus” related to the first question — the extent of human influence over the Earth’s climate. To see a textbook example, watch Ted Cruz’s recent interview with Katie Couric earlier this year, when he confronted her with the miserable recent history of environmentalist predictions.
“But is there a path to consensus in the third key political question, whether climate-change regulations will have any meaningful impact on the climate? Climate-change activists constantly say that “we have to start somewhere.” But what if in fact we’re starting nowhere? What if we’re asking Americans to sacrifice to no purpose? What if America can’t stop climate change?
That’s Carly Fiorina’s argument, and it may represent the best, and most easily defensible, path forward to consensus.”
“The short version of Fiorina’s argument is this: If the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real, there is also consensus that America, acting alone, cannot stop it. Indeed, the Chinese are only too happy to watch us constrict our economy as they capture the market in clean coal. California enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. The Obama administration enacts regulations that will make no difference in global climate. Yet Americans are asked to pay the price for — to take one example — climate regulations that, by 2030, would only save the world the equivalent of slightly over 13 days of Chinese emissions.”
“The Left doesn’t seriously dispute the notion that American regulations aren’t going to save the planet, but they justify the demand for American sacrifice by essentially ascribing a mystical power to our national policies — as if our decision to fall on our own sword will so move India and China and the rest of the developing world that they’ll essentially have their own “come to Jesus” movement in defiance of national interest and centuries of national political culture.
“America leads,” they proclaim. “The world laughs,” is the proper response. Nations, as the saying goes, do not have friends, only interests. Our geopolitical competitors will not sacrifice their strategic interests for the sake of combating global warming. Nor will developing nations sacrifice their economies, or their people’s lives, by restraining their own economic growth.” (cbdakota’s emphasis added.)
My position continues to be that we probably wont win the scientific battle although we have the facts and the warmers don’t. The politician sees too much to gain to care one-way or the other about the facts. And the mainstream media are ideologically allied with liberal political thought. I have repeatedly said that the impact of the costs of the warmers regulations will result in an uprising that will likely result in a loss of confidence in science and government by the people of the US. An uprising in Europe is showing signs of formation. It is not that I want to stop improving the scientific understanding of climate change, it is just that too often science is forced to take a back seat to political interests.