The authors' reference to 'Reducing greenhouse gases being crucially important' does not stack up scientifically. The heating effects of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases logarithmicly as that gases level increases. It is not a linear relationship and beyond 100 ppmv it is largely ineffective as a greenhouse gas. This inconvenient fact is often ignored by the fearmongersbut the phenomenon explains how CO2 gas was up to 20 times the levels of today, even in the middle of ice ages. Check with William Happer and Richard Lindzen for details and the complex mathematics.
If 11,000 people died in weather and climate-related disasters in 2022, and with a world population of 8 billion, I would think that the overall 2022 death rate is about 1.4 and not 0.14 people per million?
Gees, Roger. I had a peek at your Twitter feed and, like most things nowadays, very few people are paying attention. Ambivalence is leading us slowly toward dystopia.
Roger, you are walking a cancellation tightrope so i forgive your hesitancy to call a spade a spade. The temperature data is the only dataset found to be increasing with whatever IPCC confidence level, yet no mention of all the chicanery involved with its calculation. Yet you mention Climategate and are presumably aware of the homogenization and infill calculations and adjustments. Not sure why the uncertainty in the single global average temperature is not discussed. The temp has gone up 1.2degC +/-1.0degC. Thoughts?
While my faith in the U.N. has been declining for many years, I no longer view them as a relevant global institution. From its feckless response to Russia's terrorism in Ukraine and the joke that the Human Rights Council has become (members including China, Russia, Cuba and Somalia), the U.N. has devolved into an illegitimate institution. My view is now cemented with the Secretary General misleading the global community.
My sense is that this issue is not unique to the UN, but symptomatic of a deeper pathology related to climate, where institutions seem compelled to avoid consensus science (like IPCC) preferring instead to advance a narrative. Really fascinating, and troubling.
I think that’s an important insight. And so the follow up question is: what is the motivation for the institutions you refer to above to advance a specific narrative?
Great update, thank you Roger. The media is no longer independent, which is very dangerous in many respects. I rarely see any public discussions about “attribution” simply because, in my opinion, a good understanding of this concept does not serve the narrative. Mitigation, as you note, can and should be part of the global strategy, along side of reducing carbon emissions. They can and should be addressed side by side. New Orleans will be reclaimed by the sea at some point, so why rebuild every time it gets clobbered ?
Here's another critique of uncritical journalists. .it's about carbon and not disasters, but ..
"It’s no surprise when militant environmental groups paint a dire picture so they can attack the Canadian forestry sector. But Canadian journalists covering this beat have a professional obligation to approach such claims with skepticism instead of uncritically parroting them."
Most of us are wondering about why officials are bluntly spreading false information. The answer is corruption at all levels. I can’t believe there is any other credible explanation. Anyhow, funny enough, a few days ago walking in a remote valley in the Italian Dolomites there was a placque describing how in 1966 the valley was subject to a major flooding and how the population adapted by moving the road and new housing in different areas of the valley...maybe being more humble and learning from the past would not be a bad idea.
Having been born in 2000, it’s helpful to get context on how the frequency of disasters has evolved over time. Seeing that disasters haven’t increased despite claims that they have, it reminds me to remember in all aspects of examining problems your statement to the effect of “experience is not an adequate substitute for data.”
I suspect you have much in that vast experience of yours that can help us to understand how climate journalism got so badly off track. I think back to the revelation in the Climategate emails of you not being "reliable enough" (or something to that effect. It was not long after that you became a public target of these folks. I recall you introducing Justin Gillis to me after he assumed your role at the NYT. He spoke to me once and soon after blocked me on Twitter and joined the mob. Keep up the good work!
To me, the question is “why”? Yes it is complex, but why don’t journalists check, rather than repeat claims? And what is up with Gutierres.. does he not know or not care. What possible motivation could someone have to say something is worse than it is? I’m very curious.
This seems like a great scholarly project for journalism schools...such as at UC. Too bad they don't have an open forum for topics regular people would like to be studied... unless we can afford to support scholars.
The authors' reference to 'Reducing greenhouse gases being crucially important' does not stack up scientifically. The heating effects of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases logarithmicly as that gases level increases. It is not a linear relationship and beyond 100 ppmv it is largely ineffective as a greenhouse gas. This inconvenient fact is often ignored by the fearmongersbut the phenomenon explains how CO2 gas was up to 20 times the levels of today, even in the middle of ice ages. Check with William Happer and Richard Lindzen for details and the complex mathematics.
If 11,000 people died in weather and climate-related disasters in 2022, and with a world population of 8 billion, I would think that the overall 2022 death rate is about 1.4 and not 0.14 people per million?
Great catch, eagle eyes appreciated! Now corrected, thank you.
Gees, Roger. I had a peek at your Twitter feed and, like most things nowadays, very few people are paying attention. Ambivalence is leading us slowly toward dystopia.
Roger, you are walking a cancellation tightrope so i forgive your hesitancy to call a spade a spade. The temperature data is the only dataset found to be increasing with whatever IPCC confidence level, yet no mention of all the chicanery involved with its calculation. Yet you mention Climategate and are presumably aware of the homogenization and infill calculations and adjustments. Not sure why the uncertainty in the single global average temperature is not discussed. The temp has gone up 1.2degC +/-1.0degC. Thoughts?
Perhaps a few words as to the recent changes in temp matching exactly the rate of change in the Keeling CO2 data?
While my faith in the U.N. has been declining for many years, I no longer view them as a relevant global institution. From its feckless response to Russia's terrorism in Ukraine and the joke that the Human Rights Council has become (members including China, Russia, Cuba and Somalia), the U.N. has devolved into an illegitimate institution. My view is now cemented with the Secretary General misleading the global community.
My sense is that this issue is not unique to the UN, but symptomatic of a deeper pathology related to climate, where institutions seem compelled to avoid consensus science (like IPCC) preferring instead to advance a narrative. Really fascinating, and troubling.
I think that’s an important insight. And so the follow up question is: what is the motivation for the institutions you refer to above to advance a specific narrative?
Great update, thank you Roger. The media is no longer independent, which is very dangerous in many respects. I rarely see any public discussions about “attribution” simply because, in my opinion, a good understanding of this concept does not serve the narrative. Mitigation, as you note, can and should be part of the global strategy, along side of reducing carbon emissions. They can and should be addressed side by side. New Orleans will be reclaimed by the sea at some point, so why rebuild every time it gets clobbered ?
Here's another critique of uncritical journalists. .it's about carbon and not disasters, but ..
"It’s no surprise when militant environmental groups paint a dire picture so they can attack the Canadian forestry sector. But Canadian journalists covering this beat have a professional obligation to approach such claims with skepticism instead of uncritically parroting them."
https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-forest-critics-are-lost-in-the-woods-on-emissions
Most of us are wondering about why officials are bluntly spreading false information. The answer is corruption at all levels. I can’t believe there is any other credible explanation. Anyhow, funny enough, a few days ago walking in a remote valley in the Italian Dolomites there was a placque describing how in 1966 the valley was subject to a major flooding and how the population adapted by moving the road and new housing in different areas of the valley...maybe being more humble and learning from the past would not be a bad idea.
Having been born in 2000, it’s helpful to get context on how the frequency of disasters has evolved over time. Seeing that disasters haven’t increased despite claims that they have, it reminds me to remember in all aspects of examining problems your statement to the effect of “experience is not an adequate substitute for data.”
Roger, like I said, you are heading for 15 years of fame. Credibility is everything. S
Needless to say, keep up the hard work Roger. I'd like to think you recognize me as trying to cut against the group Gish gallop in climate journalism these days. And you helped, as in 2010 story on LM Bouwer's work, which your blogging led me to): https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/study-finds-no-link-tying-disaster-losses-to-human-driven-warming/ and more recently in my Bulletin-to-Substack output: https://revkin.substack.com/p/behind-global-climate-emergency-rhetoric-21-08-06
Yes, good stuff Andy!
I suspect you have much in that vast experience of yours that can help us to understand how climate journalism got so badly off track. I think back to the revelation in the Climategate emails of you not being "reliable enough" (or something to that effect. It was not long after that you became a public target of these folks. I recall you introducing Justin Gillis to me after he assumed your role at the NYT. He spoke to me once and soon after blocked me on Twitter and joined the mob. Keep up the good work!
We name our weather events to identify them, but they live in our memories by their impacts.
To me, the question is “why”? Yes it is complex, but why don’t journalists check, rather than repeat claims? And what is up with Gutierres.. does he not know or not care. What possible motivation could someone have to say something is worse than it is? I’m very curious.
I posted this on Twitter. No replies from journalists ;-)
When your job depends on not answering your questions, it takes a very brave journalist to answer on Twitter.
This seems like a great scholarly project for journalism schools...such as at UC. Too bad they don't have an open forum for topics regular people would like to be studied... unless we can afford to support scholars.