Search
Close this search box.

Search Results for: pielke

Pielke Jr.: The Weaponization of ‘Scientific Consensus’ – Only science offers a path to truth, not surveys of expert opinion

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-weaponization-of-scientific-consensus By ROGER PIELKE JR. Excerpt: In September, 2022 California Governor Gavin Newsome signed into law a bill that prohibited medical professionals from sharing “misinformation” with patients. Specifically, the law stated that it would be [U]nprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19. The law defined “misinformation”: “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care. The law reflected a common perspective: A scientific consensus represents truth and views outside that consensus are misinformation. Thus, to identify those who are spreading misinformation we simply need to identify the relevant scientific consensus. Those out of step with the consensus, the argument continues, can then be called out or sanctioned for spreading misinformation — and public discourse can proceed based on accepted facts, not falsehoods. The notion of consensus-as-truth has been operationalized in various forms: journalistic “fact checkers,” academic “misinformation” researchers, and content moderation on social media platforms. The practical effect is the creation of self-appointed arbiters of truth — journalists, academics, social media platforms, and even governments — who render judgments on acceptable and unacceptable speech according to conformance with an acceptable view. There are many problems with the notion of consensus-as-truth and the (self)appointment of misinformation police to regulate discourse, whether of the public or, as in the case of the California law, of experts themselves. A scientific consensus is not a single view, but a distribution of views. Almost 20 years ago I participated in an exchange in Science with Naomi Oreskes on this point. Professor Oreskes shot to fame by publishing a commentary that argued that the consensus on climate change was universal, based on a review of 928 papers. Oreskes argument quickly moved from characterizing science to a call for political action, based on the asserted universal consensus. I responded by arguing that a consensus is not a single thing, but a distribution, and policy should be robust to that distribution: The actions that we take on climate change should be robust to (i) the diversity of scientific perspectives, and thus also to (ii) the diversity of perspectives of the nature of the consensus. A consensus is a measure of a central tendency and, as such, it necessarily has a distribution of perspectives around that central measure. On climate change, almost all of this distribution is well within the bounds of legitimate scientific debate and reflected within the full text of the IPCC reports. Our policies should not be optimized to reflect a single measure of the central tendency or, worse yet, caricatures of that measure, but instead they should be robust enough to accommodate the distribution of perspectives around that central measure, thus providing a buffer against the possibility that we might learn more in the future. A further complication is that the notion of a “consensus on climate change” is incoherent. In a 2011 study of how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represented uncertainty in its Fourth Assessment Report, Rachael Jonasson and I identified 2,744 “findings” across the AR4 report — each finding was a specific scientific claim. There was a degree of consensus associated with each of those claims — the distribution of views may have been narrow (e.g., climate change is real), bimodal or wide (e.g., future hurricane incidence), and with the advantage of hindsight, utterly wrong (e.g., a high emissions scenario is business-as-usual). … Full report: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-weaponization-of-scientific-consensus

Dr. Roger Pielke’s Deposition in Mann v. Steyn case

Mann V. Steyn Goes to Trial After 12 Years On X, Roger Pielke Jr talks about his deposition in the cast. Pielke Deposition in Mann vs. CEI/National Review In the interests of transparency, and to provide a window to some of the ugliness found in climate science, you can find a PDF of my deposition in this casehttps://t.co/20nU4CObnh — The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) January 17, 2024

ROGER PIELKE JR.: ‘Saving the planet, one COP (UN climate summit) at a time’ – Next stop Dubai! – ‘Climate is now a full-scale industry, with fortunes & careers to be made’

Pielke Jr.: “Global Climate Policy Hasn’t Made Much Difference on Energy Transitions” … “COP28 is expecting 70,000 participants, more than double those of COP27. Climate is now a full-scale industry, with fortunes and careers to be made, and perhaps lost.”

Image

Pielke Jr.: “This week the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change kicks off in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Accompanying the conference will be an onslaught of climate news, information, reporting, propaganda, misinformation, marketing, spin, science and the science-like… Along with the climate industrial complex comes massive vested interests, ranging from the financial to the professional to the political.”

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams Biden climate report: It ‘pours fuel on the pathological politicization of climate science’ – ‘More a glossy promotional brochure’ than ‘a careful assessment of the scientific literature’

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/original-sin Original Sin: The U.S. National Climate Assessment was Off Track from the Start By ROGER PIELKE JR. Excerpt: Over the past few days I have commented on X/Twitter about the just-released Fifth U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA). It is much more a glossy promotional brochure than anything resembling a careful assessment of the scientific literature on climate change and the United States. That’s a shame because scientific assessments are crucially important. Instead, the U.S. NCA pours fuel on the pathological politicization of climate science. Among the issues I have highlighted: Several reviewers asked the NCA to cite our various papers on extreme weather and U.S. losses. The NCA refused, in one instance claiming “this comment is inconsistent with the author team’s thorough assessment of the science” and in another, falsely claiming, “Pielke et al. only examined trends through 2005 and have not published an updated assessment since.” Someone should tell them about Google Scholar, where our most recent work is easy to find. The report’s main chapter on climate trends was led by a scientist who works for Project Drawdown, a climate advocacy group. That chapter was also written by a scientist at The Nature Conservancy and the company Stripe, which makes money via carbon offsetting through carbon removal. There is no need for these conflicts of interest to play such a prominent role in the report’s authorship, but they perhaps explain some of its errors.1 The report leads with the “billion dollar disaster” meme popularized by NOAA. As Nature summarized the report: “Extreme weather events caused by global warming cost the country around US$150 billion in direct damages each year, says the climate report.” All U.S. extreme weather and its economic impacts can now apparently be attributed to global warming. I could go on. See my X/Twitter feed for more. … The failures of the NCA stem in part from its placement inside the White House, making it a tempting target for political meddling. But a deeper reason for its failures result from a belief that science can make politics lead to desired policy. Unfortunately, that belief brings politics more into science and science assessments than anything else. Here are two papers that explain how that happened: Pielke Jr, R. A. (2000). Policy history of the US global change research program: Part I. Administrative development. Global Environmental Change, 10(1), 9-25. Pielke Jr, R. A. (2000). Policy history of the US global change research program: Part II. Legislative process. Global environmental change, 10(2), 133-144.

Climate expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: Biden admin new National Climate Assessment is ‘about political promotion not scientific assessment’ – Report ‘carefully cherrypicks peer-reviewed climate research to construct a political narrative’

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: “The NCA carefully cherrypicks peer-reviewed climate research to construct a political narrative There’s an entire alternate universe of research that’s ignored Everyone with expertise in climate research can see how obvious this is & even those without expertise can easily see.” …

“The Fifth US National Climate Assessment is out Includes this to justify reliance of RCP8.5: ‘The scenarios do not have relative likelihoods assigned and are all plausible futures.’ This is simply false.” 

Dr. Roger Pielke: ‘Neither the UN IPCC nor the US National Climate Assessment have high confidence in detection or attribution of trends in heat waves is the US’

Neither the IPCC nor the US National Climate Assessment have high confidence in detection or attribution of trends in heat waves is the US So either the IPCC is wrong or the media/activist scientists are wrong. Pick one.https://t.co/5ArB5GJdML pic.twitter.com/JHfW7zQOjg — The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) July 25, 2023 The latest from World Weather Attribution on recent heat waves says that they would have been impossible without climate change Maybe so But their methods are bespoke, impenetrable & data unavailableThis is not science They do offer veiled support for Just Stop OilNot subtle pic.twitter.com/3GmzcaRjqH — The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) July 25, 2023

Extreme Weather Expert Pielke Jr. rips Wash Post claim of hottest ‘world record’ ocean temp – ‘No it is not a world record. It’s not even highest at that station in past 6 years’

Science journalism is broken No it is not a world recordIt’s not even the highest at that station in the past 6 years When did journalists and editors stop doing journalism and start turning incorrect but viral Tweets into headlines? Recipe for misinformation pic.twitter.com/GIKspjOdmC — The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) July 26, 2023

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr: What the media won’t tell you about … Wildfires – ‘Wildfires used to be much more extensive in past centuries’

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/06/09/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-wildfires-roger-pielke-jr/#more-64678 Roger Pielke Jr’s take on the Canada wildfires:   Wildfire, common to many healthy ecosystems, is a particularly challenging problem for society because of its impacts on property and health. It is also challenging because people like to locate themselves in fire-prone places and do things that ignite fires. We have learned through hard experience that complete suppression of wildfire is not the best policy — despite what Smokey Bear says — as it can actually lead to even greater and more harmful wildfire events. These dynamics together make wildfire a challenging issue for policy. This week, wildfire smoke from fires in Canada have drifted south along the eastern seaboard of the United States, affecting New York City and Washington, DC, and correspondingly capturing a lot of media attention. The event should offer a teachable moment on the complexities of climate and the challenges of adapting to a volatile world. With this post I discuss some of the aspects of wildfires that I see as missing in the public discussion. I start with what the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says about wildfire, discuss readily available data on wildfire trends and conclude with the complexities of policy in the face of interconnected human-environment dynamics. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-783?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=119454&post_id=126926234&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email As we have come to expect from Roger, this is another thorough, well researched and objective analysis. He makes the following points:     The IPCC has not detected or attributed fire occurrence or area burned to human-caused climate change Globally, emissions from wildfires has decreased globally over recent decades, as well as in many regions Canada wildfire trends show no increase in recent decades Wildfires used to be much more extensive in past centuries Wildfires are a part of the natural eco-system. You can read the full analysis here.

2023 Edition: What the media won’t tell you about . . . hurricanes – The science and data reporters refuse to report – Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/2023-update-what-the-media-wont-tell 2023 Edition: What the media won’t tell you about . . . hurricanes – The science and data reporters refuse to report By ROGER PIELKE JR. Below are five important conclusions from the scientific literature that are rarely, if ever, found in coverage of hurricanes. 1. The scientific consensus on hurricanes and climate change is clear and consistent. In short —trends in hurricane activity outside the range of documented variability have not been detected, nor is there high confidence in connections of hurricane behavior to greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t take it from me. Here is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said this month: [F]or Atlantic hurricane activity, the attribution observed changes to increasing greenhouse gases is not yet assessed as highly confident, apart from impacts related to sea level rise. Observed hurricane data generally either do not show clear centennial-scale trends or do not cover enough years to assess century-scale trends. Pronounced multidecadal variations typically dominate over long-term (centennial-scale) trends over decadal timescales for Atlantic hurricanes. NOAA’s assessment of scientific understandings is consistent with that of the most recent assessment of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): [T]here is still no consensus on the relative magnitude of human and natural influences on past changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, and particularly on which factor has dominated the observed increase (Ting et al., 2015) and it remains uncertain whether past changes in Atlantic TC activity are outside the range of natural variability. There are hypothesized effects — such as the rapid intensification of storms or enhanced precipitation — but NOAA concludes that “confident quantitative attribution” of changes in the phenomena to greenhouse gas emissions or internal variability “remains an unsettled topic of research.” The media often conflates hypotheses with firmly established conclusions. NOAA further states: “an anthropogenic influence has not been formally detected specifically for hurricane-related precipitation” For storm numbers, rapid intensification probability and extreme precipitation, “climate change detection/attribution studies are not yet definitive for hurricane activity metrics, and more research is needed for more confident conclusions.” “it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability” There is little ambiguity in the current state of the science of hurricanes and climate change. Share 2. Hurricane landfalls along the continental U.S. show no trends since at least 1900. Here are all landfalling U.S. hurricanes since 1900. Here are all landfalling major hurricanes since 1900. I’ve not seen either dataset appear in the legacy media — well, except once, when Bill Nye “The Science Guy” printed out my graph and took a sharpie to it on CNN, apparently to “correct” the data to show an increase! How to turn “No INcrease” into an “Increase” — Use a Sharpie! Share 3. Development and growth are sufficient to explain why hurricane damage has increased dramatically Spot the change While climate change is typically the focus of attention when hurricanes make landfall, there is no debate that the single biggest factor driving increasing damage from storms is development — the growth of buildings and amount of wealth exposed to storms. As blindingly obvious as this may seem, it is routinely ignored in the promotion of NOAA’s “billion dollar disaster” campaign. For more than 25 years, my colleagues and I have estimated how much damage that storms of the past would cause if they occurred with contemporary levels of development. Our methods offer a useful independent estimate of such losses that can be compared to the results of catastrophe models. … 4. Climate change is important, but far more important for understanding trends and causes of increasing disaster costs is societal change, especially what we build, where we build and how we build. It is not just hurricanes. Damage associated with extreme weather events has increased dramatically in recent decades. The reason? More people with more stuff. The map and graph below show population increases in different regions of the United States. We like to live where risks are high — in particular, East and Gulf Coasts (hurricanes) and California (fires and earthquakes). Source: Klotzbach et al. 2018 … 5. The largest climate signal — by far — in the damage record of U.S. hurricanes is ENSO. There are only a few times in my career when I can say that I actually discovered something fundamentally new. Once was in the 1990s when, along with Chris Landsea, we discovered a very strong signal in U.S. hurricane damage based on the phases of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation or ENSO. In a nutshell, during the peak of the hurricane season (that is August-October) El Niño conditions have the fewest landfalls and damage and La Niña conditions have the most, with neutral years falling in between. You can see this in the figures below. Source: Klotzbach et al. 2018 The panel on the left shows that there are almost twice as many hurricane landfalls in La Niña years compared to El Niño years. The panel on the right shows an even larger difference in median damage. But be careful — these are summary statistics with considerable variation and damaging storms can happen in any phase of ENSO.

Climate expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘climate journalism’ & Lists Top 5 Media narratives – ‘A big part of climate reporting these days is simply climate advocacy’

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/top-five-climate-change-narratives Top Five Climate Change Narratives in the Media Coverage of climate has become more about narrative promotion than news By ROGER PIELKE JR. Source: University of Colorado Boulder I’ve seen a lot over the past three decades. For instance, I’ve seen my own research on climate go from being widely covered in the late 1990s to 2000s, to journalists actively advocating for me to be fired in the 2010s to today, where thankfully my writing exists in this parallel universe called Substack. All this time my work remains pretty much the same — my research remains widely cited in the research community, including most recently by all three working group of the IPCC. It is not me that has changed. … Below I provide a list of the five most common types of climate stories that I see in the legacy and specialist media. I’ll admit to being a bit cheeky — it is Friday after all, but at the same time I also think there is a lot of truth to the list below. I’m calling out climate journalism because I am seeing its pathological effects on public views (especially among young people), on the research community and in policy discussions, including political advocacy. Climate is too important to be just another cul-de-sac of identity politics. … With that, let’s get to the list! Climate reductionism We can explain everything with climate change Hay fever? Bumpy fight? Home runs? Infertility? There is probably no phenomena in the world that has not at one time or another been linked to climate change. Part of the ubiquity of this type of article is the presence of so many journalists now on the “climate beat” having to come up with frequent climate-themed stories to satisfy their editors and their niche. This has the knock-on effect of creating incentives for researchers to produce studies with links to climate — no matter how tenuous or trivial. This dynamic has been well described my Mike Hulme as “climate reductionism.” We ❤️ the apocalypse The coming apocalypse If it bleeds, it leads. There is a great market for studies that offer scary predictions of the future, typically employing implausible scenarios (hello RCP8.5). These studies are readily transformed into university and research institute press releases, which are then pretty much reprinted as news. … Your guide to the players Good guys and bad guys In any morality tale, it is important to know who the good guys and bad guys are. Usually this is easy, but in climate it is difficult as there are a lot of legitimate experts out there, but only a subset share the proper views. Hence, the media produces a steady stream of articles helping to identify those who are heroes and those who are villains. Associating someone with Republicans or fossil fuels is a tip that this person is a villain, and a similar association with the renewable industry or Democrats means that they are onside. Extreme weather, we can explain that The extreme weather that just happened Weather is a renewable resource. It happens every day, and somewhere it is extreme. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, hail, oh my! It has become fundamental to the climate beat to associate, link, connect — pick your favorite — the extreme event that just happened with climate change. Forget the IPCC and rigorous standards of detection and attribution. There are studies to cherry pick, quotable experts and a new cottage industry of rapid event attribution studies. Extreme weather is no longer about the weather. Go team! Cheerleading for our team …A big part of climate reporting these days is simply climate advocacy. For instance, when the Inflation Reduction Act was being debated earlier this year, the media simply cheered its passage, printing the views of those paid to promote it by the renewables industry, and nary a critical voice to be heard. More recently, criticism of the IRA has appeared to become legitimate as part of the cheerleading to go beyond the IRA. Climate reporting is apparently a team sport.

For more results click below