In From the Cold
I'm profiled in the Swedish magazine Kvartal
I’m profiled today in the Swedish magazine Kvartal — It is a generous account by Swedish journalist Anders Bolling, and quotes me extensively from a recent interview. My how the world has changed. Below I provide an English translation (courtesy ChatGPT).
But before that, a quick heads up on what to look for at THB over the coming weeks as we charge into 2026:
Global disasters losses update, focus on 2025;
Tropical cyclone landfalls 1970 to 2025 (with Ryan Maue);
Updated evaluation of the Stern Review disaster forecast of 2006;
A guest post from a colleague on lessons learned in a career working where science and policy meet;
The latest important peer-reviewed papers in climate science and policy;
A continuation of series on “climate risk” in finance, propaganda where science meets politics, and more;
Now, back to Kvartal . . .
The Climate Researcher Who Came into the Heat
One of the most independent voices in climate research appears finally to be having his moment, after many years out in the cold. “I’ve learned that they can’t cancel me,” says researcher Roger Pielke Jr. The “iron law” of climate policy that he formulated fifteen years ago is now beginning to show itself.
Author: Anders Bolling
Presented by: Henrik Höjer
A Black Sheep in Climate Research
Consider the following statements:
“Climate change is a serious problem.”
“If the UN climate panel did not exist, we would have to invent it.”
Professor emeritus Roger Pielke Jr. has repeated them for decades to anyone willing to listen. In his research, he constantly refers to the scientific working groups of the IPCC. And yet, for many years, the climate establishment has regarded him as a black sheep.
One explanation is that Pielke tells us what the research actually says—including what emerges from the IPCC’s scientific assessments—and that is not popular in influential circles. Those sounding the alarm about climate change often convey something quite different.
The Climate Telephone Game
It is a bit like the children’s game of “telephone.” The message conveyed in the dry pages of the report is simplified and transformed once when it reaches the Summary for Policymakers, a second time when it becomes a press release, and a third time when it is reinterpreted into the one-liners delivered in front of cameras by UN Secretary-General António Guterres—which is what typically ends up in the news and is consumed by most people.
Guterres has said things like “humanity is on red alert” and that “the number of weather-related disasters has quintupled since the 1970s”—claims that lack support in the research coordinated by his own organization.
The Iron Law of Climate Policy
Pielke has also made another contribution to our understanding of climate politics that irritates the activist camp like a pebble in a shoe. With his 2010 book The Climate Fix, he introduced what he called the “iron law of climate policy,” which states that when climate policy comes into conflict with citizens’ welfare, welfare will win every time.
Bad news for those who want an instant transformation of the energy system—but a claim increasingly supported by evidence.
Pielke’s “iron law” appears to be having its historical moment now, as we shall return to.
Expertise on Extreme Weather
Roger Pielke Jr. is not a physicist and does not claim to know more than others about greenhouse gases or the role of human emissions in global warming. But he is a world-leading authority in two areas: extreme weather and climate scenarios.
Since Al Gore sounded the alarm with his influential film An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, extreme weather has become the emblem of climate alarmism. The claim has been that warming makes weather ever more dangerous. But what Pielke and his colleagues show—and what emerges from IPCC reports—is that there is no evidence that hurricanes, storms, droughts, floods, tornadoes, hail, or lightning have become more frequent.
Heatwaves have become more common because average temperatures have risen, and heavy rainfall has increased in most regions. Otherwise, there are no robust trends.
How Policy Is Made
Pielke entered the climate issue through political science, though he was well-versed in atmospheric research. His father, Roger Pielke Sr., was a prominent atmospheric scientist. In the late 1980s, Pielke Jr. worked as a programmer at NCAR, the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
“I heard scientists say, ‘If politicians just understood science, the world would be a better place.’ So I wanted to learn how policy is made,” he says via video link from his home in Boulder, Colorado.
Later, during a master’s program in public policy, he worked for a time with the U.S. House of Representatives’ science committee.
“Then I heard officials say, ‘If scientists just understood politics, the world would be a better place.’ That’s when I realized it would be more interesting to connect science and politics than to focus on just one.”
He earned a PhD in science and technology policy. His postdoctoral work focused on extreme weather events, especially hurricanes and floods—research that would later make his name.
From Newsweek to Academia
Initially, he did not connect extreme weather research with climate change. But a Newsweek cover in January 1996—Blizzards, Floods and Hurricanes: Blame Global Warming—prompted him to do so.
Eventually, he became a professor at the University of Colorado. From that position, he and colleagues published a number of widely cited scientific papers.
“The results were not always popular among climate activists, but they were always solid work.”
Later, Pielke turned to the contentious area of climate scenarios—projections of future emissions and their consequences.
“It’s one of the most important stories in all of climate science.”
The Best-Kept Secret
Together with colleague Justin Ritchie,1 Pielke revealed how an unrealistic emissions scenario—RCP 8.5—had been systematically misused. The scenario assumed that coal consumption would increase six-fold by 2100. In reality, coal use was already near its peak when the scenario was introduced around 2010.
Bizarrely, RCP 8.5 came to be described as “business as usual”—the path we would supposedly follow if no radical action were taken.
“I call it the best-kept secret in the climate debate. Many politicians and journalists are shocked when they realize how dependent all projections are on these scenarios, and how outdated the scenarios actually are.”
Backlash and Exile
Over time, it became known in climate circles that there was a professor in Colorado spreading non-alarmist findings. Around 2008, the progressive organization Center for American Progress decided that Pielke had to be opposed. It later emerged that the campaign was funded by billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer.
The major blow came in 2013. Pielke was called to testify before Congress on climate change. He calmly described what he knew about extreme weather. The video went viral, triggering a new level of attention.
[I’ve added a link to the video below. It had >400,000 views in the first week, back in 2013. — RP]
Soon after, a congressional investigation was launched on the pretext that he might have been bribed by the oil industry—a claim entirely unfounded and quickly dismissed. But the damage was done. A Twitter mob led to his dismissal from a role at Nate Silver’s website FiveThirtyEight.
“Even the White House singled me out. Things get crazy pretty fast then,” Pielke says.
He entered a decade of academic and media coldness. The lowest point came when his university refused to support him.
“People don’t have to agree with me, but academic freedom has to mean something. You must have the right to do your research and describe what you see.”
Despite being one of the university’s most visible and influential professors, attracting many students and funding, he was pushed out.
A New Home and a Turn in the Debate
He eventually left his professorship—a decision that turned out well. He was welcomed by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he received strong support and considerable freedom.
Looking back, he does not describe the period as being canceled.
“What I’ve learned is that they can’t cancel me. I now run one of the most widely read climate Substacks in the world. In the latest IPCC report, work by me and my colleagues is cited in all three working groups.”
He says the experience gave him a deeper understanding of what it means to be a public intellectual.
“If your work has impact, it will make some people angry. That’s guaranteed. This is about global energy policy and economics—there are winners and losers.”
Pielke’s turnaround coincides with a shift in the broader climate debate. For the first time in many years, a more balanced discussion of climate change and the energy transition is emerging.
Several influential commentators and political leaders have suggested—explicitly or implicitly—that there is no need to rush. In mid-December, the EU Commission backed away from its proposed 2035 ban on gasoline cars.
“I’d say the climate movement had about a decade in which unreality was allowed to lead the way. Reality has now bitten back hard.”
A More Pragmatic Approach
This “bite” looks very much like a vindication of the iron law.
Although the new U.S. administration is climate-skeptical, Pielke emphasizes that what is happening is not simply a Trump effect.
“It’s a much broader pragmatism.”
Surveys show that in Germany and Sweden, the share of people who consider climate change the most important issue has dropped over five years—from a clear majority to a small minority.
In much of the West, the transition to fossil-free energy has been pushed ahead before stable alternatives were in place. Germany has shut down nuclear power while phasing out coal and cutting off Russian gas. Few are willing to don a hair shirt when apocalyptic scenarios still seem largely theoretical.
If a real course correction is underway, how will it unfold? Pielke suspects climate change will gradually move to the periphery of public concern.
He draws a historical comparison:
“The best model we have is the population panic of the 1960s and 70s. That issue never disappeared entirely, but it faded from view in the 1980s as food availability increased, famine declined, and birth rates fell.”
“When climate change shifts from being seen as apocalyptic to being seen as problematic, it will recede into the background in the same way.”
Emissions, Reality, and Forecasts
Emissions will continue to decline, Pielke notes. The world has successfully decoupled emissions from economic growth. Emissions per unit of GDP—carbon intensity—have fallen by one to two percent per year for decades.
The key, he argues, is to focus on continuing that trend rather than obsessing over politically determined targets.
Official forecasts of warming by the next century have been revised downward in recent years—from 4 degrees to around 2.5, or even lower in some assessments. The UN climate bodies credit the Paris Agreement. But Pielke has shown that the steady decline in carbon intensity began long before Paris and did not change after it came into force.
“Paris may have led to good things, but decarbonization is not one of them.”
“That’s why we need independent assessors who can say when something is wrong. If we’re making collective decisions with intended outcomes, we can’t just make things up.”
The truth, he says, is that forecasts were revised downward because of (1) real-world energy developments and (2) the fact that earlier projections were simply wildly unrealistic. The most extreme emissions scenarios have now been quietly abandoned.
Politics to the End
Days after the interview, news breaks that the Trump administration wants to shut down NCAR, where Pielke began his career. He believes the move is politically motivated.
“The government’s claim that NCAR is a base of climate alarmism is simply wrong. It’s a large research organization—climate research is only a small part of its work. It looks like the government is using a metaphorical sledgehammer against any institution that might have something to do with something that could be connected to ‘climate.’”
It may also have something to do with Trump’s dislike of Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Pielke speculates.
“Stupid politics,” he writes.
He does not appear to be on anyone’s leash.
Comments and questions are welcomed! Go on, ask me anything. Also, I am happy to hear requests for posts as the new year unfolds, especially for follow-ups on issues previously covered here at THB.
Before you go . . . Please click that “❤️ Like” button — More likes mean that THB rises in the Substack algorithm and gets in front of more readers. More readers mean that THB reaches more people in more places, broadening understandings and discussions of complex issues where science meets politics. Thanks!
THB exists because of its paid supporters . . . Thank you! Click the button above to join them at whatever level makes sense for you.
And Matt Burgess too! All credit to Justin, who led the way.
Long ago I learned to be a skeptic. Don't trust any numbers or claims unless I can verify them elsewhere. Rarely have I found someone I can pretty much trust, whether or not I agree with them. Roger is one of those very few whose observations I can pretty much take to the bank, and his substack is the only one I subscribe to. I hope to see more articles based on him and his work.
Very interesting and good interview. But once again, does anyone have any proof that:“Climate change is a serious problem.”
It seems to me the new pragmatism doesn't see that.