You should definitely go ahead and develop the better alternative scenarios you keep writing about. I'm sure you'll do a great job implementing your advice to use oil company projections, definitely nothing one could criticize there! Also congrats on taking off the tin foil hat lately! You'll still have to run your scenarios by Bloomberg and Steyer for final climate cabal approval, of course. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/02/how-billionaires-tom-steyer-and-michael-bloomberg-corrupted-climate-science/
Mark, I totally get it “This likely will require distinguishing climate science research that is pursued for its intrinsic interests among climate researchers from that which is timely and useful in policy discussions (even as there is some overlap).” This is actually a problem in a great many other fields. If you asked NSF if stakeholders should be involved in research priorities they would say they are doing “pure science”.. and the last paragraph always tell us why it’s policy relevant…often proposed users are not brought into the design or production, or review at any point.
Much of what passes for climate science research during the past 10-15 years has been driven by catastrophists and their obsession with 8.5 and the notion of tipping points. If a more rational emissions prognosis is adopted research budgets will/should shrink by 75% or more and climate science will revert to the sleepy discipline it used to be.
The link to the "new FCCC report" goes to a "page not found" display.
You should definitely go ahead and develop the better alternative scenarios you keep writing about. I'm sure you'll do a great job implementing your advice to use oil company projections, definitely nothing one could criticize there! Also congrats on taking off the tin foil hat lately! You'll still have to run your scenarios by Bloomberg and Steyer for final climate cabal approval, of course. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/02/how-billionaires-tom-steyer-and-michael-bloomberg-corrupted-climate-science/
If you believe Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, then you will believe me when I tell you that I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
Putin is laughing so hard, that he is going to have put on a clean pair of pants.
I think Roger was on a "Rocky Mountain High" when he wrote this all but unintelligible article.
Mark, I totally get it “This likely will require distinguishing climate science research that is pursued for its intrinsic interests among climate researchers from that which is timely and useful in policy discussions (even as there is some overlap).” This is actually a problem in a great many other fields. If you asked NSF if stakeholders should be involved in research priorities they would say they are doing “pure science”.. and the last paragraph always tell us why it’s policy relevant…often proposed users are not brought into the design or production, or review at any point.
Much of what passes for climate science research during the past 10-15 years has been driven by catastrophists and their obsession with 8.5 and the notion of tipping points. If a more rational emissions prognosis is adopted research budgets will/should shrink by 75% or more and climate science will revert to the sleepy discipline it used to be.
But research budgets seldom shrink.. the rationale for funding just changes.