Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Judith Curry's Critique of Steven Hayward's Articles

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judith Curry's Critique of Steven Hayward's Articles

    Steven Hayward: Conservatism and Climate Science

    Posted on June 13, 2014

    by Judith Curry

    Liberals and environmentalists would do well to take on board the categorical imperative of climate policy from a conservative point of view, namely, that whatever policies are developed, they must be compatible with individual liberty and democratic institutions, and cannot rely on coercive or unaccountable bureaucratic administration. – Steven Hayward

    I met Steven Hayward last April while I was in Boulder – he has just finished serving a one year stint as the Inaugural Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy. He was visiting from his position at the American Enterprise Institute. Hayward also blogs regularly for powerline.

    Conservatism and Climate Science

    Hayward has written an article in Issues in Science and Technology entitled Conservatism and Climate Science. The article is over 5000 words, some excerpts to give you a flavor:

    One must read Curry's entire post to fully understand her critique of Hayward's articles ― one in The Weekly Standard, the other in Issues in Science and Technology.
    Last edited by John Reece; 06-13-2014, 07:36 PM.

  • #2
    Interesting comparison of two articles written by the same author. Minus the hyperbole and inflammatory language of the second article, it was a well reasoned argument.

    Thus, Judith Curry's response is quite apropos:

    So if you think that there is justification for calling people ‘deniers’, there is arguably as much justification for calling people ‘cultists’ – if the shoes doesn’t fit then don’t wear it. So there are two approaches – filter out the name calling garbage and try to figure out what people are actually saying, or stop the name calling. I doubt the name calling will stop – and the conservatives have just come up with a stinging new name. An interesting development in the ‘climate wars.
    I think there is plenty of room for compromise on this issue between conservatives and liberals, if we just remove the name-calling. While we are bashing each other from ideological precipices, greedy people are putting the con over us with bogus "environmental solutions" like wind farms and laughing all the way to the bank.

    As a liberal, I find the willful ignorance of the damage these wind farms do to bats, birds, the beautiful landscape and the folks who have to live near these monstrosities.

    When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu


    • #3
      Judith Curry's Critique of an AR4 projection
      On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase

      Posted on June 15, 2014

      by Judith Curry
      For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2C per decade is expected for a range of emission scenarios.” – IPCC AR4

      In response to my post on Steven Hayward, Hayward is being criticized on twitter for this statement made in context of discussing the temperature plateau:
      The basic theory says we’re supposed to continue warming at about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

      Seems pretty consistent with what the AR4 SPM said.


      • #4
        Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now
        Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now

        Posted on June 18, 2014

        by Judith Curry

        The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is convening a Hearing today on Climate Change: The Need to Act Now.

        The website for the Hearing is [here]. From the Opening Remarks by Barbara Boxer:

        JC comments: Well, if this Hearing is about ‘the need to act now’, none of the witnesses invited by Democrats made much of a case for the urgency of acting now. The Republican witnesses made a pretty strong case for not acting now, with Mason summing it up with this statement:
        . . . take our time and study what works and what does not so that we design an effective system that does not pose unnecessary costs upon our nation.

        Overall, I would say this was a pretty interesting Hearing, with an interesting strategy by the Democrats to invite 4 former EPA Administrators that served in previous Republican administrations, that agree with Obama’s EPA. The three witnesses selected by the Republicans were all excellent choices, and provided good breadth of topics covered in arguing why not to act now.


        Related Threads


        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by whag, Yesterday, 10:43 PM
        0 responses
        Last Post eider
        by eider
        Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:38 AM
        0 responses
        1 like
        Last Post rogue06
        by rogue06
        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 06:47 AM
        56 responses
        Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
        Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
        48 responses
        Last Post seer
        by seer
        Started by Starlight, 04-14-2024, 12:34 AM
        11 responses
        Last Post rogue06
        by rogue06