CCD Editor’s Note: On April 15, 2015 (today), at 10:00 a.m. E.S.T., the U.S. House of Representatives will hold hearings on Obama’s United Nation’s climate “pledge” with testimony given by various people in different fields. The main points are whether it is scientifically justified or simply a new tax on Americans. Here is Judith Curry’s write-up on the event:
* * * * *
I will be testifying before the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology on April 15.
The Hearing is titled The President’s UN Climate Pledge: Scientifically Justified or a New Tax on Americans? The Hearing web page is [here].
Committee Chair Lamar Smith has written a Hearing Charter, which provides a good overview of the history of the UNFCCC treaties.
The witnesses testifying are:
Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
The Honorable Karen Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Former Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy
Mr. Jake Schmidt, Director, International Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation
I have not previously come across any of these individuals, but their bios all look interesting and I look forward to their testimony.
Three of the witnesses are invited by the Republicans ‚Äì the three females (!!!)
This Hearing is before the full Committee (I have testified previously before this Committee, but only to the Subcommittee on the Environment).
Well I’m obviously not going to give away what I am going to say before the Hearing (somehow this is the custom, I’m not sure why). But here are some reflections on the process of preparing this particular testimony.
I wasn’t notified of the Hearing until Wed April 1. I was on travel at the time, so I effectively had 8 days to prepare the written testimony (I submitted it on Sunday). Basically, you need to drop everything and work on the testimony.
In preparing to write the testimony, I read my previous 4 testimonies (since 2010; listed on About). I also read about 20 previous blog posts that were on topics relevant to what I planned to write about (the collection of previous blog posts is an extremely convenient reference source for this).
I’m very pleased with what I eventually came up with for my written testimony. I learned a lot about writing for an audience such as this from my WSJ editorial experience [link]. I feel like I’m finally finding my voice on this issue. Will see how it is received, I’m not very good at judging my own stuff.
The Committee asked for a one page summary of main points, which I haven’t previously been asked to provide. Roger Pielke Jr always puts ‘take home points’ on the first page of his testimony; I’ve liked what he does but never did it myself. It was a very interesting exercise to do this, and not simple.
Oral testimony has always been my greatest challenge; I am not a dynamic speaker. This was compounded at the Senate Hearing last year, when my oral testimony went significantly over time and I got ‘hammered.’ The comments on the blog post were very constructive [link] and I appreciate them. Well I can’t promise ‘exciting’ verbal testimony, but I do promise ‘short’.
Well I’m running out of time in terms of preparing for my trip (I’ll be traveling pretty much all day tomorrow to get to DC; no I am not flying from Atlanta), so I need to cut this short.
The Hearing will be Webcast (starts at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time), which will also be archived. I will post my testimony sometime on Wed.