Reaction to climate change "debate" between Michaels and Curry.

First, I would take issue with anything called a "debate" when both are climate skeptics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIGXb9X2Dho "State of the Climate Debate: Patrick Michaels and Judith Curry" October 13, 2014.

Second, both have credibility issues, with both funded by fossil fuel companies. Michaels was one of the skeptics about the hole in the ozone layer, again saying we don't need to do anything, but was proven wrong (as documented in "Merchants of Doubt"). When one gets on the speaker circuit opposing something as a paid witness, I get skeptical.

As a State Representative, I reviewed many dozens of studies on a number of issues. Purely by coincidence, I am sure, the studies always concluded with findings that supported the position of the organization that funded the study. (sarcasm) So, you need to be able to read the reports, and also the opposing views, and evaluate the use of statistics and other evidence to discern what really is true and what is spin. There were very few other Representatives that were able to do that, and my views were not always welcomed in the House Republican Caucus because in politics, facts really don't matter (in their view, not mine).

With regard to climate change, I don't claim to be an expert. But, many, many other very smart people (who had the time and resources to do a much more thorough study of the science) who would love to become famous by showing why the rest are wrong, keep coming up with agreeing with the people writing the key IPCC reports. And they are not bought off - for example, who bought off Bill Gates? It just has not happened, despite the allegations of people like Michaels. 

So, I accept the scientific evidence presented  by those who say that the average global temperatures are rising, that the cause is increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere caused by humans burning fossil fuels, that even the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the temperature to rise even more even if we did not add more (which of course we will), and that it is urgent that we do what we can to minimize the damage. 

I acknowledge that 1.5 degree rise Celsius is almost certain to happen, that stopping at a 2 degree rise will take a major effort, but beyond that, the world will be a much different place than it was when you and I were growing up. 

The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act is the most likely proposal to be adopted, due to it being market based (.i.e. price signals will give incentives for people to reduce fossil fuels use and their products, without the need for massive government regulation that the Green New Deal contemplates), is revenue neutral and will not grow government, and that the border adjustment will give other countries incentives to follow suit or lose market access/share. The Act is expected to reduce CO2 emissions 40% in 12 years (and more thereafter) and that 68% of US households would receive as dividends more than the extra costs they would incur due to the carbon taxes. People who have big houses, gas guzzlers and who fly a lot would have higher costs than the dividends received, so this would be slightly progressive taxation.

Despite not being an expert, i note the following:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2841/2018-fourth-warmest-year-in-continued-warming-trend-according-to-nasa-noaa/  shows that the graph both Michaels and Curry use is just plain wrong.

Michaels' and Curry's graph

Graph from https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2841/2018-fourth-warmest-year-in-continued-warming-trend-according-to-nasa-noaa/, February 6, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM is great video regarding climate history  done in 2012 by Dan Britt, a geologist. In it, he addresses the natural variation, sun spots, etc, which are all factored into the models. Curry says these are not factored in, which is wrong.

The temperatures are rising the fastest in the Arctic, with the sea ice not only shrinking in areas, but also in thickness. The Antarctic, less so, due to less land mass south of the Equator, But, the melting of the Arctic ice is less of a concern for rising seas, as the ice is already in the water, floating (the ice on top of Greenland, however would cause the sea level to rise as it melts). But the Antarctic ice on the land is a major concern, which if melted, would cause the sea to rise much more - thus the concern about Florida, as well as the New York City coast, with major populations centers under water if the temperature rise reaches +4 degrees Celsius. That tremendous social cost we can avoid, if we have the political will to do so. 

But, the point here is, Michaels citing the fact that the Antarctic ice has not melted much yet is not evidence that the climate "alarmists" (as the skeptics call us who accept the scientific evidence) are wrong. That is expected, in the short run, but later as the temperature rises more, that is the real concern.

I am not an alarmist, but am concerned, and am committed to doing something about that concern.