Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Richard Muller, Professor, University of California, Berkley and Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Dr. John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP.
Dr. David Montgomery, Economist
Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Armstrong - I tuned in late.
10.32 Unadjusted data is similar to three indices. Why? Muller surprised. Comments on Watts: Poor stations don’t rise more than good stations. Compliments McIntyre and Watts. Some of the biases less of a problem than previously thought.
Bio details. Criticizes IPCC permitting Lead Authors to assess their own work. 1) Hockey Stick case – Lead Author was conflicted. Hide the decline. 2) the McKitrick case. IPCC Lead Authors assessed their own work. 3) EPA Endangerment finding – EPA overstated agreement between models and data. U.S. should not rely on IPCC process. “Climate science needs adult supervision”. Needs second opinion fro, non-activist scientists.
Commented on EPA process. 1) Did not consider societal benefits from fossil fuels. Health has not deteriorated, the opposite. 2) EPA had already decided on finding before comments. 3) EPA relied almost entirely on third party assessment, most heavily on IPCC. Failure to do own assessment is violation of US guidelines. EPA did not examine IQA of IPCC sources. Climategate showed that EPA should have permitted comment on EPA reliance on EPA. Written testimony contrasts EPA procedure on GHG with other policy cases.
19th century history. Arrhenius’ sensitivity estimate 5-6 deg C. Scientific basis is “solid”. Attribution of last half temperature increase to CO2 is solid. Many academies have issued warnings. DOD issued warning. Scientists are conservative and underestimate risks (Fukushima earthquake risk). Assessments of risk are uncertain. Uncertainties unlikely to decline in next decade. No basis for confidence that effects benign. Served on Oxburgh panel. Showed “poor judgement” but no evidence of intent to deceive. Mavericks usually wrong (HIV-AIDS). Politicians should not make mascots of mavericks. Used phrase twice. Appeal to forefathers.
Failures of economic analysis. Global phenomenon. Reducing GHG emissions will have a cost. Deeper the costs, the greater the costs. Green job claims are wrong as they ignore job losses elsewhere. Regulations do not help US competitiveness. Costs of policies underestimated and benefits exaggerated. EPA estimates unreliable. Free lunch assumptions. Unilateral action by US will not accomplish anything. Need India and China as well.
Glaser gave example of EPA responding to comments in boiler rules. Process flaws in Endangerment are not mere technicalities. Process was undermined. EPA had determined its conduct in advance.
To Montgomery – repercussions of removing coal from generation mix while electricity growth of 21% by 2035. Carbon capture is speculative technology. EPA regs would increase electricity costs by 40-50% in ten years. Will Russia, China, India and others participate?
Is temperature rising and greenhouse gas partly to blame? Christy – Muller – GHG by themselves exert warming. The question is one of degree. Is it high end? How do we work with other countries? If it is low end, then time to implement more long term solutions that some people object to. Emanuel – projections range from benign to catastrophic.
Do we have answers now? Muller – No “conspiracy”, but scientists work as advocates and fears that they lose their impartiality. Don’t trust the public enough. Bad effect is that public loses trust. Christy – tests model output and doesn’t match data. Emanuel – some areas show model estimates too conservative. IPCC is not a research organization, but a “communications exercise” between scientists and public.
Asks about Oxburgh. Five questions.
Did the panel have any written terms of reference?
Transcript of hearings.
“No, I don’t believe so”.
Scope of panel. Any breach of scientific integrity.
Describes advocacy of Oxburgh. Isn’t that a conflict of interest? Papers we read, interviews we conducted showed great integrity. No sunshine on the process. Didn’t interview critics, no transcript of interviews.
Something from Armstrong’s website on election forecasting. Offering personal opinions on matters on which he has appeared as a lawyer. Unethical for lawyers to express personal opinion as opposed to client. Is there any area on which his personal opinion differs from opinion of clients? Asks about how much he has been paid. Attorney-client privilege. Odd that Glaser asked to appear. In a court case, multiple parties.
long statement about energy. Montgomery – oil, climate change and fossil fuels different issues. Peak oil a different issue.
Asks Christy about openness of IPCC process. Asks Christy about code. Says important that code be available. Asks about “fraudulently” inclusion of data in reports. “biased… overconfident”.
Asks Montgomery – oil companies spent massive amounts against climate science. Testified as expert witness on unrelated cases for Exxon.
Rep worked in wind energy field. Buying wind turbines from Germany.
Would you trust data from hide the decline..?
Quotes from harry code. “hopeless data base”. Christy – panels did not address issues. Did reviews address Climategate issues? No. Is independent review of allegations warranted? Asks for report different from IPCC cadre.
MIT received $100 million from Koch. Should this be dismissed?
Seven independent exonerations of Climategate (waved). Asks whether funded by oil, coal or energy industry.
She represents NASA Goddard and NOAA. Needs to invest in climate research.
Is there evidence for confidence that it will be risky? No.
Difference between forecast and risk assessment – house on fire.
Glaser – Glaser’s point that public health has improved. Good things not taken into consideration.
To Montgomery – Going to borrow money from Chinese to buy German or Chinese windmills. Then increase electricity to place US at competitive disadvantage. Yes.
About letter from Watts about Muller testimony.
Pain and suffering of decline of market share in autos. Represents Detroit. Concerns not heeded. No jobs in auto plants. Concerned about investment in green technology.
Asks Christy about great global cooling scare. From mining district in Minnesota.
Tuned out for a while.
Some closing remarks about Climategate. Emanuel said of hide-the-decline that they should have taken whole proxy out. No intent to deceive anyone. Christy – icon itself based on tree rings as not very good. Muller – had to show your dirty laundry at Berkeley. If you don’t show something , you are most likely to fool yourself. Glaser – Climategate about many things. Hockey stick is about to the public. About large pattern of activity. Review panels – English investigated. Asked EPA to investigate and allow public to comment. None of the review panels operated according to US procedures. No interviews, no dissenting points of view. Review panels were critical of scientists. Surprised that climatologists did not invole disinterested statisticians. Operating in culture of secrecy.