For citizens to have confidence in experts one essential component in bureaucracy is management of conflicts of interests. (I'd be pleased to hear about *any* agency that has a serious attempt at making it work.)
Without that, and steering away from a mindset that defaults to always thinking the worst, citizens have an obligation (for their own good, at least) to keep up as best they can. In that vein, I can recommend Alan Finkel's latest - 'Powering Up: Unleashing the clean energy supply chain'.
“Dollars and Degrees: Investigating Fossil Fuel Dark Money’s Systemic Threats to Climate and the Federal Budget.”
Holy cow! It's not just a title for a Senate hearing. That's a mini-polemic right there!
If it was me (probably best for all concerned that it's not) I'd reprise the statements that provoked the attacks in 2013ff, candidly assess how they stand up in hindsight, and offer some thoughts as to how the world today might be different had policy makers taken them on board rather than condoning attempts to punish the messenger.
As for money in climate politics, Bob Bryce did a substack piece back in February that claims anti-carbon interests hugely outspend producers of conventional energy. ICYMI, it's here:
Can an "expert" also be an advocate of a particular political agenda? It seems that those two roles are incompatible. An expert should be pragmatic, data centric, impartial and most importantly, willing to address all aspects of an issue. An advocate, on the other hand, has the responsibility to lobby for a specific cause, leaving out any evidence that might harm that lobbying effort.
I think the idea that we would all switch and buy new stuff that is electric were it not for the evil oil companies is inherently ... silly.. (oh and that the electricity infrastructure is there to do it.) I think the transition to low carbon sources is going to be hard and that's the problem. We need to be open-minded and humble about what's going to work, and try different things, not use CC as a tool to beat our political enemies over the head.. and even the Biden Admin thinks is can "protect" 30% of US Land and put wind turbines and solar panels in necessary quantities for an all-renewable future, and yet not mine on federal lands. Point being even D's can't agree on the path to pursue when it comes down to reality in terms of land use. It's going to be hard and demonizing oil and gas doesn't help. Sorry for the rant. https://forestpolicypub.com/2020/08/27/working-together-for-decarbonization-interview-with-michael-webber/
Like Michael Webber, I think "all hands on deck" is what we need if this is really a "climate emergency." To say "we don't need you guys" tell us it's not really about anthropogenic climate change at all..
Wildfires have decreased a lot compared to 150 years ago:
Wildfire science confirms a basic fact: Dry weather tends to dry out materials that fuel and intensify wildfires. But climate change is not to blame for this year’s or any year’s wildfires.
"North American boreal forests burned much more 150 years ago than they do today,” three University of Quebec ecology professors concluded in a recent research paper. “[B]etween 1700 and 1850, the annual area burned was between two and more than 10 times greater than what has been observed over the past 40 years.” The scope of wildfires seems to have decreased despite any measured or predicted changes in climate (warming or other). In a weird twist, the same study then argues, “It seems more likely that climate change is the primary cause of the decrease in fires.”
It pains me to think that anyone who gives testimony before congress unless they purger themselves should be retaliated against as you were. Unfortunately it seems to be more and more common. You have been remarkably consistent in your writings over the years. It must really irritate the people who would question what the say is settled science. I hope this time around you do not have a similar experience. Let’s face it Roger your position on this issue infuriates the zealots. Keep it up please and share your testimony when available. The best of luck to you.
Roger, this is the work of a lifetime and you only have your integrity and reputation at the end of the day. We will all get things wrong, the key is approach complex topic like global climate systems with a bit of humility and a curious mind. Thats what keeps me reading your substack, you are not afraid to dive in and challenge even the most stridently held "beliefs". On the title of the hearing, There are some recent articles claiming 200M+ of money spent by the energy companies to lobby against climate change legislation. The methodology used to support that assertion is highly speculative. All companies spend money on public affairs, supporting or opposing various pieces of legislation. It is a stretch to say its all directed toward stopping climate change legislation, I am sure you follow Robert Bryce who has done a deep dive on the other side of the coin where billions are spent by NGOs and the like to fund anti fossil fuels movements. Hopefully the committee will use this hearing to be informed versus more grandstanding for their voter base. As they say--just go in and speak your truth.
This looks at who is actually winning the funding war big oil or big green in the UK. Contrary to what is the received perception it is not big pil. When you add government support of big green it can be seen that big oil is very much outspent.
For citizens to have confidence in experts one essential component in bureaucracy is management of conflicts of interests. (I'd be pleased to hear about *any* agency that has a serious attempt at making it work.)
Without that, and steering away from a mindset that defaults to always thinking the worst, citizens have an obligation (for their own good, at least) to keep up as best they can. In that vein, I can recommend Alan Finkel's latest - 'Powering Up: Unleashing the clean energy supply chain'.
“Dollars and Degrees: Investigating Fossil Fuel Dark Money’s Systemic Threats to Climate and the Federal Budget.”
Holy cow! It's not just a title for a Senate hearing. That's a mini-polemic right there!
If it was me (probably best for all concerned that it's not) I'd reprise the statements that provoked the attacks in 2013ff, candidly assess how they stand up in hindsight, and offer some thoughts as to how the world today might be different had policy makers taken them on board rather than condoning attempts to punish the messenger.
As for money in climate politics, Bob Bryce did a substack piece back in February that claims anti-carbon interests hugely outspend producers of conventional energy. ICYMI, it's here:
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-anti-industry-industry?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Best of luck. Hope your thoughts on the role of experts find their way into the Congressional Record.
Can an "expert" also be an advocate of a particular political agenda? It seems that those two roles are incompatible. An expert should be pragmatic, data centric, impartial and most importantly, willing to address all aspects of an issue. An advocate, on the other hand, has the responsibility to lobby for a specific cause, leaving out any evidence that might harm that lobbying effort.
Good luck next week, sir. Watch your back!
I think the idea that we would all switch and buy new stuff that is electric were it not for the evil oil companies is inherently ... silly.. (oh and that the electricity infrastructure is there to do it.) I think the transition to low carbon sources is going to be hard and that's the problem. We need to be open-minded and humble about what's going to work, and try different things, not use CC as a tool to beat our political enemies over the head.. and even the Biden Admin thinks is can "protect" 30% of US Land and put wind turbines and solar panels in necessary quantities for an all-renewable future, and yet not mine on federal lands. Point being even D's can't agree on the path to pursue when it comes down to reality in terms of land use. It's going to be hard and demonizing oil and gas doesn't help. Sorry for the rant. https://forestpolicypub.com/2020/08/27/working-together-for-decarbonization-interview-with-michael-webber/
Like Michael Webber, I think "all hands on deck" is what we need if this is really a "climate emergency." To say "we don't need you guys" tell us it's not really about anthropogenic climate change at all..
Wildfires have decreased a lot compared to 150 years ago:
Wildfire science confirms a basic fact: Dry weather tends to dry out materials that fuel and intensify wildfires. But climate change is not to blame for this year’s or any year’s wildfires.
"North American boreal forests burned much more 150 years ago than they do today,” three University of Quebec ecology professors concluded in a recent research paper. “[B]etween 1700 and 1850, the annual area burned was between two and more than 10 times greater than what has been observed over the past 40 years.” The scope of wildfires seems to have decreased despite any measured or predicted changes in climate (warming or other). In a weird twist, the same study then argues, “It seems more likely that climate change is the primary cause of the decrease in fires.”
https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2023/only-who-can-prevent-forest-fires
That blog post from mackinac.org contains this link to the paper:
https://www.preventionweb.net/news/forest-fires-north-americas-boreal-forests-are-burning-lot-less-150-years-ago
So climate change increases wildfires, and climate change decreases wildfires. Is there anything that climate change doesn't do?
Good luck next Wednesday Roger. I am quite sure that your performance will be exemplary.
It pains me to think that anyone who gives testimony before congress unless they purger themselves should be retaliated against as you were. Unfortunately it seems to be more and more common. You have been remarkably consistent in your writings over the years. It must really irritate the people who would question what the say is settled science. I hope this time around you do not have a similar experience. Let’s face it Roger your position on this issue infuriates the zealots. Keep it up please and share your testimony when available. The best of luck to you.
Roger, this is the work of a lifetime and you only have your integrity and reputation at the end of the day. We will all get things wrong, the key is approach complex topic like global climate systems with a bit of humility and a curious mind. Thats what keeps me reading your substack, you are not afraid to dive in and challenge even the most stridently held "beliefs". On the title of the hearing, There are some recent articles claiming 200M+ of money spent by the energy companies to lobby against climate change legislation. The methodology used to support that assertion is highly speculative. All companies spend money on public affairs, supporting or opposing various pieces of legislation. It is a stretch to say its all directed toward stopping climate change legislation, I am sure you follow Robert Bryce who has done a deep dive on the other side of the coin where billions are spent by NGOs and the like to fund anti fossil fuels movements. Hopefully the committee will use this hearing to be informed versus more grandstanding for their voter base. As they say--just go in and speak your truth.
https://open.substack.com/pub/benpile/p/the-monolith-of-climate-smear-mongering?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1jkmhp
This looks at who is actually winning the funding war big oil or big green in the UK. Contrary to what is the received perception it is not big pil. When you add government support of big green it can be seen that big oil is very much outspent.
Roger, thanks. You are a breath of fresh air in both climate science and acedemia.