Listen now (33 mins) | A look back at the IPCC's war with the science of disasters and climate change
It’s a dirty job Professor but someone has to do it and unfortunately, you are the perfect one. However, reading and seeing what has been done to you professionally, and personally I believe you could bring a defamation of character lawsuit against pretty much everyone on the wrong side. this seems like a slam dunk case.
Thank you that was an excellent article. Learned a lot. Scares me a little to think that are fate is in the hands of politicians however. Funny you give me ammunition when speaking to climate fanatics however they completely shut down when presented with the facts.
Very interesting. Definitely a major reform is needed. The whole process seems to have become overly biased and politized by the presence so much public money and special interests. Keep up the good work Roger.
Roger - Thanks for posting the London debate. As a broadcast meteorologist we are bombarded by many entities, including the AMS- that the evidence is not up for debate and it is expected that we will “fall in line”. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see a real debate - covered by mainstream media - featuring both sides of the argument for all to see and decide on their own.
You also mentioned last email that you would be covered by PBS in an exchange with Dr. Scott Tinker and Shellenberger. Can you post that? I couldn't find it.
Roger you are way too polite. Early in the podcast you mention there was some politics going on but in reality we are talking of intellectual dishonesty if not blunt corruption. Then there is the issue of what you call IPCC mistakes: genuine mistakes would be random. The IPCC mistakes instead are always one sided. So they are not mistakes anymore but a clear communication strategy. Finally the enemy of science are correlation and deduction: I still remember a clear statement from NOAA saying that establishing causality between greenhouse emissions and increasing temperatures, in a complex system like global climate, was hard. The statement, very honest, is not there anymore.
It’s amazing to hear a Grauniad reporter actually be fair and balanced.
That would never happen today, you would have been debating 3 people today, or that reporter would be drawn, quartered and fired and would never work again.
And yes, of course you are Voldemort, because climate Scientology requires everything to be bad NOW. What you said then is the same thing that you say now, that it’s complicated where they want black and white.
The climate has changed in the last 200 years, no one disputes that, but can you point me to a paper or an MSM story in the last 5 years regarding a positive outcome of climate change?
We all know we are living in the best of times for human civilization so we know there must be some positives?
I really would like to read one, published by East Anglia and given space in the Guardian.
Thanks Roger, fascinating stuff. I am just an ex banker. Got a c- in science. So much of what is told to citizens today seems to be motivated by an agenda. It’s hard for me to rap my head around what the hell that is? Why is climate being used to in affect deprive vast populations of people from using fossil fuel? In NY they just outlawed new gas stoves and heating by 2026? How does this makes sense when we know the grid will not be able to handle the additional load? Please as a climate scientist will you shed some light on the WHY of all this?
are these podcasts available on regular podcast apps? (if so, I couldn't find them).
There's wildfires in Alberta, again. FT headline reports climate scientists are on alert. Body of report includes links to "studies" that allege links to climate change. If this is on topic wrt your current interests, here's the link:
Alas, but "If the IPCC didn't exist it would have to be invented", says Pielke Jr.
What is the IPCC other than a political committee with a mission to confirm the catastrophic viewpoints of its' founders. The scientists who contribute to the IPCC evaluations are just pawns to be manipulated, misquoted and maligned if non responsive. The IPCC is a smokescreen to provide cover for Guttierres, Kerry and Biden to make their idiotic statements. The IPCC is a perpetrator of disinformation.
Roger has been making the same points re natural disaster losses for almost 15 years (with ever improved data) and he continues to be ignored and/or vilified.
It would be interesting to hear your take on the question of 'cui bono'? It must be more than just insurance companies wanting to accrue super profits on tangible asset insurance. What are non-Western narratives on the IPCC failings?
excellent , stuff for a Netflix serie
Interesting example of how criticism of some of the evidence gets unfairly presented as denial of the wider argument. Many of us in private discussions have been caught on that hook.
Perhaps most(?) lay people develop their opinions and ideas in the affective rather than the logical domain. Dramatic images of disaster swing the community attitude more strongly than logical/factual analysis. Pictures of storms and wild fires attract more readers to an article on climate than a graph. In this context scientistific voices (such as the IPCC) feel the need to feed material like this to the media in order to have an impact. In a cyclic way the wider community devour this emotionally charged material in the lay science media, and then claim to be "following the science".
You provide an example of where the science itself has been compromised by this need to feed the media a good story? Are there more examples, and what might be the end result of this approach on science? (I have a copy of 'The Honest Broker' on my bookshelf and I think I should read it now :-) )
For the record I am not a climate sceptic and I suppport the general message of the IPCC reports.
While only a minor point, the discussion of the Himalayan glaciers brought back memories. I remember diving down that rabbit hole at the time. My current vague recollection is that there may have simply been a typo, with the year 2350 transmogrified into 2035. While I don't have definitive support for that possibility it ultimately doesn't matter, as the 2035 date came from New Scientist article by Fred Pearce, which doesn't meet IPCC's standards for inclusion. Still, I wondered where it came from. The article was an interview with Syed Hasnain, a respeccted scientist. The article attributes the date to Hasnian: "Hasnain’s four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline" but it is not supprted by a quote from a Hasnian paper, and Hasnian subsequently disputed the date noting that his papers don't have such dates. According to Ann Rowan, https://theconversation.com/two-thirds-of-glacier-ice-in-the-himalayas-will-be-lost-by-2100-if-climate-targets-arent-met-143207, Hasnian "misquoted another scientist’s work predicting glaciers worldwide would shrink by 80% by 2350." (Unfortunately, that claim is linked but it is a dead link. I'm not sure she got it right, I don't think Hasnian would have done that.) Another possibility is that Pearce had the article mentioning 2350, and mistakenly attributed it to Hasnian.
In any event, it was not an accurate scientific claim.
excellent podcast. Is there, or will there be, a transcript. Listening to these things reminds me too much of being in class, and i can't keep up with the notes.