Roger, you may be interested to know that here in New Zealand we have a report of a mainstream, experienced, IPCC lead author scientist openly acknowledging that RCP 8.5 is not widely believed - or to use his words it's a 'scenario nobody really believes."
1) Is it possible to get acceptance in the climate science community that RCP8.5 is implausible based on any reasonable projections of Global GDP, decarbonization, carbon free energy technology trends, use of Nuclear to create energy independence from Russia, Middle East, and limits of fossil fuel reserves.
2) create realistic projections for CO2 emissions around expecteded forecasts for energy and energy mix.
3) build a body of impact assessments around realistic forecasts for C02 emissions.
What would the climate impacts look like in i) a NetZero world ii) a realistic emissions world iii) a slow decarbonization world?
So, when we review the "scientific" terms Hausfather used in a recent interview, "Staggering. Unnerving. Mind-boggling. Absolutely gobsmackingly bananas”;
Can we assume his people are telling him he's not getting enough exposure for his career path, Piltdown Mann is getting all the press adulation, is this his attempt to make him more relevant in alarmist circles?
A simple "Business as usual" scenario, compounding the current growth of the use of fossil fuels (+0,70% per year over the past 5 years), results in 2100 with:
83 % of all proved fossil reserves consumed (that would have needed to be put in production).
664 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (currently, 45% of the emitted carbon accumulates in the air).
4.62 W/m2 primary radiative forcing over beginning of the industrial era (Myhre equation).
Why? I'll tell you why. Because the goal of our Kleptocrat Psychopathic Overlords is not about Climate Change, it is about World Tyranny, Globalism, Corporate/Bank control, Malthusianism, impoverishment of what they will call "The Serf Class", while the Overlords live in the lap of luxury, exempt from even the Rule of Law. In fact they have made no secret of their plans if you just go and read their writings. Of course, they justify the atrocity by claiming "we're saving the World".
When considering future warming, emissions trajectory is a key variable but so is climate sensitivity. One argument I have heard is that, since the ECS and TCS have a fair amount of uncertainty, we could see impacts akin to these high emissions scenarios even if the level of emissions is much lower than RCP8.5 assumes.
Would be interested if Roger has any thoughts on this. Is there value in understanding the effects of high warming scenarios, given that a status quo emissions trajectory plus an ECS that turns out to be at the 75th or 90th percentile of current estimates could produce an essentially similar outcome? This would change the characterization of the high warming scenario from “BAU” to “unlikely but very much possible under BAU conditions”.
Yes, there is definitely value in look at high warming trajectories.
The warming should result from plausible inputs, including emissions and CS. However, don't use high emissions as a proxy for high CS (or C feedbacks or whatever).
Very dubious there is enough coal to fuel the predicted growth required for RCP8.5. China is already having supply problems. And the Developing World where that demand must come from does not have sufficient economical supply and lacks the foreign exchange to import it. So coal is just not feasible. Even moreso oil and gas are infeasible.
However it is still true that a 5X increase in World primary energy supply will be needed to modernize and industrialize the developing world. The only energy supply that can allow for that is nuclear which also happens to have the lowest emissions. With these facts being quite obvious, it is really astounding how the IPCC not only does not promote the nuclear solution but likes to throw shade on nuclear with ridiculous statements that are utterly false:
Open Letter to Heads of Government of the G-20 from Scientists and Scholars on Nuclear for Climate Change -- The IPCC anti-nuclear bias:
"...IPCC authors make misleading claims about nuclear power including:
An alleged debunking of the above-mentioned 2016 study in Science through the use of a 2018 study published in a journal[12] with an impact factor of just 10 percent of that of Science;
The suggestion that building new nuclear plants must be a slow process[13] despite evidence from the recent past that nuclear capacity can be installed very rapidly when required[11];
A statement[14] suggesting a connection between “nuclear installations” and “childhood leukemia,” and no mention of recent research finding higher radiation exposure from coal plants and the manufacturing of solar panels than from nuclear.[15] While the authors acknowledge that there is “low evidence/low agreement” to support their claim, in reality there is no valid evidentiary support for it and the supposed connection has been thoroughly dismissed in the literature[16];
A claim that nuclear power “can increase the risks of proliferation”[17] and that the "use of nuclear power poses a constant risk of proliferation"[18] even though no nation in history has ever created a nuclear weapon from civilian nuclear fuel under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency;
A claim that nuclear has “mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels,”[19] which is contradicted by the large body of scientific research, cited above, showing that nuclear saves lives;
Repeated concerns raised about nuclear waste[20] without acknowledgment or clarification that spent fuel is safely contained, usually on site, nor any mention of the waste from other low-carbon energy sources, including solar panels, which contain toxic metals including lead, chromium, and cadmium, and which in most of the world lack safe storage or recycling.[21]
Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences. ..."
Dear Dr. Pielke, I admire the clarity and integrity with which you address this issue. Would it be fair to say that, with a more plausible and less extreme baseline scenario, the need to reinvent industrial civilization becomes less urgent than present energy policies assume?
Well, we are always reinventing industrial civilization!
As I have often said, decarbonization is a good thing, we've been doing it for >100 years. If we can harness it to expand energy access, increase security, decrease pollution and ... stop the tinkering with the Earth's energy balance, then yes, let's do it.
Dear Dr. Pielke, May I assume then that you do not approve of policies which do not expand energy access but rather decrease it? Increasing energy costs are thus far the hallmark of "green" energy projects, yet increased costs decrease access for ordinary folk. Policies such as banning internal combustion engines, gas stoves, gas furnaces, rationing air travel to no more than 4 trips per year, banning or tripling the cost of synthetic fertilizers are seriously advocated these days with the avowed intention of decreasing energy access for the common man. How is security to be increased if new chokepoints of critical minerals are to replace the plentiful hydrocarbon fuels on which we now depend? Platinum comes from Russia, Lithium and rare earth magnets from China, cobalt and nickel from unstable zones of Africa and Oceana. Depending on the benevolence of these world actors would decrease our security rather than increase it. Would that not negate any benefits of decarbonization if we are replacing ICE vehicles with EV's?
Roger, I see a parallel process emerging in New Zealand sea level rise studies. Here, climate scientists have wedded the RCP 8.5 scenario, which you say was underpinned by a 4 year snapshot enhanced by Chinese activity, with a model of future vertical land movement that is based on a 7 year snap shot taken between 2003 and 2011, selected for its 'inter-seismic' and consequent 'subsiding' attributes.
The result is an exaggerated model of sea level rise where New Zealand is 'sinking', exacerbating the sea level rise, with stories of insurance withdrawal all arising in the same week as the gov't kicked off its managed retreat legislative processes - coincidence?
The truth is NZ is rising out of the sea over geological time but will be in a 'subsiding' part of the seismic cycle after significant earthquakes raise the coastal land by metres within seconds (e.g. Wellington 1855, Napier 1931) or over longer periods as the country slowly decouples from the Pacific plate that is subducting underneath it, dragging it down a few millimetres for a period before it ratchets back over months to years (known as 'slow slip events') usually with interest.
This uplifting characteristic of most of NZ is well known and established but gov'ts and local councils are determined to impose strict development restrictions on coastal properties and even halt public services, based on a model underpinned by a very short, unrealistic and already proved wrong scenario of subsidence that is anything but 'representative' of the decadal, centennial and multi-millennial trend.
They also seem to want us to live in high density cities, ride bikes, abandon meat, own nothing and be happy. Is there a connection?
I know you are not an economist, but you continually assert that climate change is 'real and a risk.' Can you quantify the risk with specific examples?
Do you dispute that Nordhouse's estimate of less than 1% lower GDP in 2100 is a manageable cost associated with climate change?
Also, you iron law fails if governments mandate the use of EVs to the exclusion of ICE and ban the use of natural gas because, while these mandates significantly raise energy price, it is hard for the average person to connect the dots.
Thanks for sending me the first chapter of your book “The Climate Fix.” It adds clarity to a number of issues and provides insights to your scientific and political approaches to Climate Change (CC).
You make a good point that even though CC science is fraught with uncertainties, the science does not have to be settled to justify political actions to begin a policy of decarbonization. (As a point of information, do the integrated CC models do back casting to support the forecasting viability of the models?) The issue then boils down to the costs / benefits of the proposed policies. The economic approach is to equate marginal social benefit to marginal social cost of each policy, where there is some consensus on both the costs and benefits. With this approach, the optimal level of CO2 is never zero. However, apocalyptic notions of the existential threat of CC to civilization will preclude any sound marginal cost analysis in favor of command and control / regulatory policies advocating total decarbonization.
Along this line of reasoning, you highlight the differences in the political approach to solving the CFC problem with the approach to CC. You note that the CFC problem relied on data and science to formulate a ‘no regrets’ policy that was incremental in nature. The policy was to do the easy stuff first in order to buy time for substitutes to become available and reduce the cost of banning CFCs. You characterize the political approach to CC as lessons not learned because the most challenging and costly issue, the regulation of global energy, is at the center of the debate.
I maintain that this is not a ‘lesson not learned,’ instead it is a ‘lesson learned - never let a good crisis go to waste.’ This is because dealing with CC is not the strategic goal. CC is merely a wedge used to control the energy sector and, therefore, as a means to fundamentally change the market based, capitalistic economy of the West.
If you are interested, I can send you a paper I wrote for The Electricity Journal supporting my line of reasoning.
One last note, I can’t resist contesting your comment that, “I'm not at all worried about government's violating the iron law for very long at all. People won't stand for it” with a real life example: CALIFORNIA’S BULLET TRAIN. In my paper I explain this phenomenon with the concept of ‘regulatory externality.’
You have done a good job of tracing and identifying the error of using RCP8.5 as the baseline climate change scenario. However, you continue to not face the fact that your scientific paradigm of data, science, policy has been turned on its head to meet the political goal of a fundamental transformation of the global economy. The IPCC reports are political documents that support this transformation and will continue to use selected, even if incorrect, scenarios that support their policy goals.
We have been managing "climate change risk" for 10,000 years, the same amount of time we have been working on the energy transition.
None of this rate of change is going to change significantly, except in a couple thousand years when we start shifting our lawn chairs south 100meters a year to stay ahead of the ice.
We'll manage.
"Unless" we destroy the economy for nothing in the next 10-20 years, then all bets are off.
With 8.5 being seriously debunked as a rational scenario and with the world currently tracking below 4.5, can you explain why you still seem to categorize climate change as a serious problem requiring accelerated decarbonization.
I quite agree with you, Mark. The Hamas atrocities, our own Culture Wars, our propensity to put assets where they shouldn't be, and the growing gap between rich and poor are all more pressing targets for our efforts and our money. Several of us have asked RPJ to comment on the recent papers that seem to downplay the importance of carbon; I still want him to discuss those. They seem to further diminish the importance of "Climate Change." And if so, why decarbonization at such a frenetic pace?
Thanks John. I have pretty much given up on RJPJr. If he can't bring himself to admit that climate change as an issue just isn't very high priority moving forward, he is being intellectually dishonest.
I have been following his Substack since the beginning, originally as a Founding Member. I downgraded to a regular yearly member a while ago. I would cancel my paid subscription immediately if there was a way to do so. I'll just not renew if that's my only option.
Cancelling subscriptions is not the way to go, another voice in the debate lost. Its what "they" want.
Roger is not part of "they".
Or he wouldn't be here on substack.
While we can disagree with some things he believes (after all he is just a political scientist ;-)), at least he is against the insane WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE TOMORROW crowd, providing actual data showing they are wrong, and there is no censoring of reasonable opinions here which is gold compared to MSM and Social MSM.
Be like Bruce Banner, when Black Widow asked him how he can summon the rage to become Hulk when needed, he replied that the rage is always there, its about controlling it.
We are all here reading and commenting because we have rage, i have to deal every day with the fact that one of the dumbest idiots on the planet is the Prime minister of Canada, i have to control my rage over that every day and prevent it from dominating my comments.
"My own politics are fairly heterodox and I can pretty much guarantee that I have some views you’ll agree with and some you don’t."
Disagreement is healthy and expected.
I am less concerned about different views than what seems to be a weakening collective ability to achieve disagreement. THB is trying to counter that in some small way, but it is also what I try to do on campus with colleagues and students.
Climate change gets us to the policy table to ask whether we'd like to adopt policies that accelerate decarbonization. It is not the final word, nor does climate change tell us anything about what to do, how fast or at what cost.
The world has been decarbonizing for a century (decrease in CO2/GDP).
So the question is not whether decarbonization is worthwhile, just how fast.
There are many reasons beyond climate why accelerating decarbonization makes sense -- public health, energy security, energy access, economic growth among them.
I develop this argument in TCF which I've posted the first 6 chapters (so far) here:
Roger, in the spirit of keeping discussion here collegial, I am going to refrain from future comments and questions. Your, trotting out prepackaged answers from your old books and your class notes from Climate Policy for dummies is just getting tiresome. Nobody likes to be talked down to.
Hopefully there will be enough substance in future posts to warrant being a paid subscriber.
Even in disagreement there is learning. Your comments always provide a tangent to Dr. Pielke; would hate to lose that perspective, even if I disagree with it. I disagree with the need for urgent decarbonization, but agree with his premise that is has been occurring over the last century. Sarewitz (I think, or maybe Hausfather) makes that argument; so does Mills, and so does Smil. Except that decarbonization has not been driven by public policy, but rather economics and competition.
Dr. Pielke, you say that you can't "explain why the error has not since been corrected by the IPCC or others in authoritative positions in the scientific community." Your logic is compelling, and quite probably correct, but it is equally clear that the IPCC will not acknowledge the error for the plain reason that they don't believe it to be an error. That much is clear from Field & McNutt's declaration that "a no-policy endpoint remains an important point for comparison, even after the world has begun to diverge from the no-policy path. Referring to this no-policy endpoint as business-as-usual is imprecise, but it is not a significant failure of scientific integrity."
What is sad about this is that they do not recognize that their stubborn adherence to a flawed scenario has led to policy decisions based on a false belief in urgency and a very, very direct collision with policies directing economic growth and human flourishment.
The IPCC’s position on this reminds me of Barry Goldwater’s remark leading up to the 1964 Presidential Election: “Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.” He was wrong, as proven by recent history. I believe the IPCC is also wrong.
Extremism reaps what it sows. Mark Lynas' support for Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil has become so completely detached from any grounding in science that even he can see the the implausibility of their arguments.
Climate Scientists who advocate for RCP8.5 and higher should be held to account for this extreme political violence.
Freedom of speech is no license to yell fire in a crowded theater. Climate activists cloak themselves in a cloud of scientific virtue so bright that the truth is obscured.
Adopting the impossibly high RCP8.5 as a baseline emissions scenario is an egregious form of policy based science making.
It is the default scenario for climate impact assessments and a consequence it has become embedded at every level of government whether looking at energy policy, sea level impact studies, forestry and even projections of deaths from heat waves.
It is the deaths from climate catastrophe implausibly assessed at the level of 1 to 2 billion by 2100 that is fuelling radical movements like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.
The flames of hysteria are bring fanned by the likes of the head of the UN Antonio Guterres describing the future as an era of "Global Boiling".
Roger, you may be interested to know that here in New Zealand we have a report of a mainstream, experienced, IPCC lead author scientist openly acknowledging that RCP 8.5 is not widely believed - or to use his words it's a 'scenario nobody really believes."
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/03/20/govt-warns-councils-against-picking-extremes-in-climate-decisions/
Nice, thanks!
https://electrek.co/2023/10/19/half-the-world-is-5-years-past-a-peak-in-fossil-fuel-power-generation/
Half of the world’s economies are already five years past a peak in power generation from fossil fuels.
So what happens now?
1) Is it possible to get acceptance in the climate science community that RCP8.5 is implausible based on any reasonable projections of Global GDP, decarbonization, carbon free energy technology trends, use of Nuclear to create energy independence from Russia, Middle East, and limits of fossil fuel reserves.
2) create realistic projections for CO2 emissions around expecteded forecasts for energy and energy mix.
3) build a body of impact assessments around realistic forecasts for C02 emissions.
What would the climate impacts look like in i) a NetZero world ii) a realistic emissions world iii) a slow decarbonization world?
Roger
So, when we review the "scientific" terms Hausfather used in a recent interview, "Staggering. Unnerving. Mind-boggling. Absolutely gobsmackingly bananas”;
Can we assume his people are telling him he's not getting enough exposure for his career path, Piltdown Mann is getting all the press adulation, is this his attempt to make him more relevant in alarmist circles?
My related Tweet: https://x.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1712881221825609757?s=20
Love that picture, which one is Mann, they all have way too much hair
lol
A simple "Business as usual" scenario, compounding the current growth of the use of fossil fuels (+0,70% per year over the past 5 years), results in 2100 with:
83 % of all proved fossil reserves consumed (that would have needed to be put in production).
664 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (currently, 45% of the emitted carbon accumulates in the air).
4.62 W/m2 primary radiative forcing over beginning of the industrial era (Myhre equation).
See details: https://blog.mr-int.ch/?attachment_id=11033
Even this perpetuation is more than 'unlikely' in IPCC's newspeak.
The RCP8.5 scenario indicates a CO2 concentration of 936 ppm in 2100, with a corresponding primary radiative forcing of 6.46 W/m2.
With such concentration, 171 % of proved fossil reserves would be used.
Scenario games are no science, they are a misuse of science.
What remains to be understood is WHY the climate alarmism establishment stubbornly persists in its blunder. while pretending to be 'scientific.'
Why? I'll tell you why. Because the goal of our Kleptocrat Psychopathic Overlords is not about Climate Change, it is about World Tyranny, Globalism, Corporate/Bank control, Malthusianism, impoverishment of what they will call "The Serf Class", while the Overlords live in the lap of luxury, exempt from even the Rule of Law. In fact they have made no secret of their plans if you just go and read their writings. Of course, they justify the atrocity by claiming "we're saving the World".
$$$$$$$$$$$
When considering future warming, emissions trajectory is a key variable but so is climate sensitivity. One argument I have heard is that, since the ECS and TCS have a fair amount of uncertainty, we could see impacts akin to these high emissions scenarios even if the level of emissions is much lower than RCP8.5 assumes.
Would be interested if Roger has any thoughts on this. Is there value in understanding the effects of high warming scenarios, given that a status quo emissions trajectory plus an ECS that turns out to be at the 75th or 90th percentile of current estimates could produce an essentially similar outcome? This would change the characterization of the high warming scenario from “BAU” to “unlikely but very much possible under BAU conditions”.
Yes, there is definitely value in look at high warming trajectories.
The warming should result from plausible inputs, including emissions and CS. However, don't use high emissions as a proxy for high CS (or C feedbacks or whatever).
Very dubious there is enough coal to fuel the predicted growth required for RCP8.5. China is already having supply problems. And the Developing World where that demand must come from does not have sufficient economical supply and lacks the foreign exchange to import it. So coal is just not feasible. Even moreso oil and gas are infeasible.
However it is still true that a 5X increase in World primary energy supply will be needed to modernize and industrialize the developing world. The only energy supply that can allow for that is nuclear which also happens to have the lowest emissions. With these facts being quite obvious, it is really astounding how the IPCC not only does not promote the nuclear solution but likes to throw shade on nuclear with ridiculous statements that are utterly false:
Open Letter to Heads of Government of the G-20 from Scientists and Scholars on Nuclear for Climate Change -- The IPCC anti-nuclear bias:
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/10/25/open-letter-to-heads-of-state-of-the-g-20-from-scientists-and-scholars-on-nuclear-for-climate-change
"...IPCC authors make misleading claims about nuclear power including:
An alleged debunking of the above-mentioned 2016 study in Science through the use of a 2018 study published in a journal[12] with an impact factor of just 10 percent of that of Science;
The suggestion that building new nuclear plants must be a slow process[13] despite evidence from the recent past that nuclear capacity can be installed very rapidly when required[11];
A statement[14] suggesting a connection between “nuclear installations” and “childhood leukemia,” and no mention of recent research finding higher radiation exposure from coal plants and the manufacturing of solar panels than from nuclear.[15] While the authors acknowledge that there is “low evidence/low agreement” to support their claim, in reality there is no valid evidentiary support for it and the supposed connection has been thoroughly dismissed in the literature[16];
A claim that nuclear power “can increase the risks of proliferation”[17] and that the "use of nuclear power poses a constant risk of proliferation"[18] even though no nation in history has ever created a nuclear weapon from civilian nuclear fuel under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency;
A claim that nuclear has “mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels,”[19] which is contradicted by the large body of scientific research, cited above, showing that nuclear saves lives;
Repeated concerns raised about nuclear waste[20] without acknowledgment or clarification that spent fuel is safely contained, usually on site, nor any mention of the waste from other low-carbon energy sources, including solar panels, which contain toxic metals including lead, chromium, and cadmium, and which in most of the world lack safe storage or recycling.[21]
Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences. ..."
Dear Dr. Pielke, I admire the clarity and integrity with which you address this issue. Would it be fair to say that, with a more plausible and less extreme baseline scenario, the need to reinvent industrial civilization becomes less urgent than present energy policies assume?
Well, we are always reinventing industrial civilization!
As I have often said, decarbonization is a good thing, we've been doing it for >100 years. If we can harness it to expand energy access, increase security, decrease pollution and ... stop the tinkering with the Earth's energy balance, then yes, let's do it.
Dear Dr. Pielke, May I assume then that you do not approve of policies which do not expand energy access but rather decrease it? Increasing energy costs are thus far the hallmark of "green" energy projects, yet increased costs decrease access for ordinary folk. Policies such as banning internal combustion engines, gas stoves, gas furnaces, rationing air travel to no more than 4 trips per year, banning or tripling the cost of synthetic fertilizers are seriously advocated these days with the avowed intention of decreasing energy access for the common man. How is security to be increased if new chokepoints of critical minerals are to replace the plentiful hydrocarbon fuels on which we now depend? Platinum comes from Russia, Lithium and rare earth magnets from China, cobalt and nickel from unstable zones of Africa and Oceana. Depending on the benevolence of these world actors would decrease our security rather than increase it. Would that not negate any benefits of decarbonization if we are replacing ICE vehicles with EV's?
Expanding energy access is non negotiable
A moral imperative
And offshoring supply chains for energy and energy resources is a bad idea (see Germany 2022)
Energy security also is non negotiable
Also!
Here I am just Roger
My Dad, that’s Dr. Pielke 😎😉
Roger that, Roger!
To avoid coming across as overly familiar, I address people formally until given permission to downshift to the informal. All best wishes.
Thanks for another clean and clear piece, Roger.
Thanks!
Roger, I see a parallel process emerging in New Zealand sea level rise studies. Here, climate scientists have wedded the RCP 8.5 scenario, which you say was underpinned by a 4 year snapshot enhanced by Chinese activity, with a model of future vertical land movement that is based on a 7 year snap shot taken between 2003 and 2011, selected for its 'inter-seismic' and consequent 'subsiding' attributes.
The result is an exaggerated model of sea level rise where New Zealand is 'sinking', exacerbating the sea level rise, with stories of insurance withdrawal all arising in the same week as the gov't kicked off its managed retreat legislative processes - coincidence?
The truth is NZ is rising out of the sea over geological time but will be in a 'subsiding' part of the seismic cycle after significant earthquakes raise the coastal land by metres within seconds (e.g. Wellington 1855, Napier 1931) or over longer periods as the country slowly decouples from the Pacific plate that is subducting underneath it, dragging it down a few millimetres for a period before it ratchets back over months to years (known as 'slow slip events') usually with interest.
This uplifting characteristic of most of NZ is well known and established but gov'ts and local councils are determined to impose strict development restrictions on coastal properties and even halt public services, based on a model underpinned by a very short, unrealistic and already proved wrong scenario of subsidence that is anything but 'representative' of the decadal, centennial and multi-millennial trend.
They also seem to want us to live in high density cities, ride bikes, abandon meat, own nothing and be happy. Is there a connection?
And if COVID has taught us anything, it's that cities are concentrators of risk.
I know you are not an economist, but you continually assert that climate change is 'real and a risk.' Can you quantify the risk with specific examples?
Do you dispute that Nordhouse's estimate of less than 1% lower GDP in 2100 is a manageable cost associated with climate change?
Also, you iron law fails if governments mandate the use of EVs to the exclusion of ICE and ban the use of natural gas because, while these mandates significantly raise energy price, it is hard for the average person to connect the dots.
My discussion of what climate science tells us and doesn't tell us is in Ch.1 of TCF, available here:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/pielkes-weekly-memo-23
I'm not at all worried about government's violating the iron law for very long at all. People won't stand for it.
Roger:
Thanks for sending me the first chapter of your book “The Climate Fix.” It adds clarity to a number of issues and provides insights to your scientific and political approaches to Climate Change (CC).
You make a good point that even though CC science is fraught with uncertainties, the science does not have to be settled to justify political actions to begin a policy of decarbonization. (As a point of information, do the integrated CC models do back casting to support the forecasting viability of the models?) The issue then boils down to the costs / benefits of the proposed policies. The economic approach is to equate marginal social benefit to marginal social cost of each policy, where there is some consensus on both the costs and benefits. With this approach, the optimal level of CO2 is never zero. However, apocalyptic notions of the existential threat of CC to civilization will preclude any sound marginal cost analysis in favor of command and control / regulatory policies advocating total decarbonization.
Along this line of reasoning, you highlight the differences in the political approach to solving the CFC problem with the approach to CC. You note that the CFC problem relied on data and science to formulate a ‘no regrets’ policy that was incremental in nature. The policy was to do the easy stuff first in order to buy time for substitutes to become available and reduce the cost of banning CFCs. You characterize the political approach to CC as lessons not learned because the most challenging and costly issue, the regulation of global energy, is at the center of the debate.
I maintain that this is not a ‘lesson not learned,’ instead it is a ‘lesson learned - never let a good crisis go to waste.’ This is because dealing with CC is not the strategic goal. CC is merely a wedge used to control the energy sector and, therefore, as a means to fundamentally change the market based, capitalistic economy of the West.
If you are interested, I can send you a paper I wrote for The Electricity Journal supporting my line of reasoning.
One last note, I can’t resist contesting your comment that, “I'm not at all worried about government's violating the iron law for very long at all. People won't stand for it” with a real life example: CALIFORNIA’S BULLET TRAIN. In my paper I explain this phenomenon with the concept of ‘regulatory externality.’
Thank you for your time. Cliff Rochlin
You have done a good job of tracing and identifying the error of using RCP8.5 as the baseline climate change scenario. However, you continue to not face the fact that your scientific paradigm of data, science, policy has been turned on its head to meet the political goal of a fundamental transformation of the global economy. The IPCC reports are political documents that support this transformation and will continue to use selected, even if incorrect, scenarios that support their policy goals.
Yes, I hear you
The challenge here is that science has indeed lost integrity and at the same time climate change is real and a risk
So we need to fix science and climate change at the same time
Which is a god awful mess for sure
We have been managing "climate change risk" for 10,000 years, the same amount of time we have been working on the energy transition.
None of this rate of change is going to change significantly, except in a couple thousand years when we start shifting our lawn chairs south 100meters a year to stay ahead of the ice.
We'll manage.
"Unless" we destroy the economy for nothing in the next 10-20 years, then all bets are off.
With 8.5 being seriously debunked as a rational scenario and with the world currently tracking below 4.5, can you explain why you still seem to categorize climate change as a serious problem requiring accelerated decarbonization.
I quite agree with you, Mark. The Hamas atrocities, our own Culture Wars, our propensity to put assets where they shouldn't be, and the growing gap between rich and poor are all more pressing targets for our efforts and our money. Several of us have asked RPJ to comment on the recent papers that seem to downplay the importance of carbon; I still want him to discuss those. They seem to further diminish the importance of "Climate Change." And if so, why decarbonization at such a frenetic pace?
Thanks John. I have pretty much given up on RJPJr. If he can't bring himself to admit that climate change as an issue just isn't very high priority moving forward, he is being intellectually dishonest.
I have been following his Substack since the beginning, originally as a Founding Member. I downgraded to a regular yearly member a while ago. I would cancel my paid subscription immediately if there was a way to do so. I'll just not renew if that's my only option.
Mark
Cancelling subscriptions is not the way to go, another voice in the debate lost. Its what "they" want.
Roger is not part of "they".
Or he wouldn't be here on substack.
While we can disagree with some things he believes (after all he is just a political scientist ;-)), at least he is against the insane WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE TOMORROW crowd, providing actual data showing they are wrong, and there is no censoring of reasonable opinions here which is gold compared to MSM and Social MSM.
Be like Bruce Banner, when Black Widow asked him how he can summon the rage to become Hulk when needed, he replied that the rage is always there, its about controlling it.
We are all here reading and commenting because we have rage, i have to deal every day with the fact that one of the dumbest idiots on the planet is the Prime minister of Canada, i have to control my rage over that every day and prevent it from dominating my comments.
Still working on that.
Anyway, reconsider.
Thanks Pat, I do appreciate that attitude.
Here is what I say on the THB About page:
"My own politics are fairly heterodox and I can pretty much guarantee that I have some views you’ll agree with and some you don’t."
Disagreement is healthy and expected.
I am less concerned about different views than what seems to be a weakening collective ability to achieve disagreement. THB is trying to counter that in some small way, but it is also what I try to do on campus with colleagues and students.
Thanks for helping make THB what it is!
Mark, I’ve issued you a refund. Thanks for stopping by!
Climate change gets us to the policy table to ask whether we'd like to adopt policies that accelerate decarbonization. It is not the final word, nor does climate change tell us anything about what to do, how fast or at what cost.
The world has been decarbonizing for a century (decrease in CO2/GDP).
So the question is not whether decarbonization is worthwhile, just how fast.
There are many reasons beyond climate why accelerating decarbonization makes sense -- public health, energy security, energy access, economic growth among them.
I develop this argument in TCF which I've posted the first 6 chapters (so far) here:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-climate-fix-book-club-chapter-964
Roger, in the spirit of keeping discussion here collegial, I am going to refrain from future comments and questions. Your, trotting out prepackaged answers from your old books and your class notes from Climate Policy for dummies is just getting tiresome. Nobody likes to be talked down to.
Hopefully there will be enough substance in future posts to warrant being a paid subscriber.
Even in disagreement there is learning. Your comments always provide a tangent to Dr. Pielke; would hate to lose that perspective, even if I disagree with it. I disagree with the need for urgent decarbonization, but agree with his premise that is has been occurring over the last century. Sarewitz (I think, or maybe Hausfather) makes that argument; so does Mills, and so does Smil. Except that decarbonization has not been driven by public policy, but rather economics and competition.
Thanks Mark
Collegiality is appreciated and expected here, always
If you have specific questions fire away
General Qs get general As
Appreciate you being here👍
Dr. Pielke, you say that you can't "explain why the error has not since been corrected by the IPCC or others in authoritative positions in the scientific community." Your logic is compelling, and quite probably correct, but it is equally clear that the IPCC will not acknowledge the error for the plain reason that they don't believe it to be an error. That much is clear from Field & McNutt's declaration that "a no-policy endpoint remains an important point for comparison, even after the world has begun to diverge from the no-policy path. Referring to this no-policy endpoint as business-as-usual is imprecise, but it is not a significant failure of scientific integrity."
What is sad about this is that they do not recognize that their stubborn adherence to a flawed scenario has led to policy decisions based on a false belief in urgency and a very, very direct collision with policies directing economic growth and human flourishment.
The IPCC’s position on this reminds me of Barry Goldwater’s remark leading up to the 1964 Presidential Election: “Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.” He was wrong, as proven by recent history. I believe the IPCC is also wrong.
https://marklynas.org/2023/10/16/a-billion-deaths-at-two-degrees-why-climate-activists-should-make-a-special-effort-to-get-the-science-right/
Extremism reaps what it sows. Mark Lynas' support for Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil has become so completely detached from any grounding in science that even he can see the the implausibility of their arguments.
Climate Scientists who advocate for RCP8.5 and higher should be held to account for this extreme political violence.
Freedom of speech is no license to yell fire in a crowded theater. Climate activists cloak themselves in a cloud of scientific virtue so bright that the truth is obscured.
Adopting the impossibly high RCP8.5 as a baseline emissions scenario is an egregious form of policy based science making.
It is the default scenario for climate impact assessments and a consequence it has become embedded at every level of government whether looking at energy policy, sea level impact studies, forestry and even projections of deaths from heat waves.
It is the deaths from climate catastrophe implausibly assessed at the level of 1 to 2 billion by 2100 that is fuelling radical movements like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.
The flames of hysteria are bring fanned by the likes of the head of the UN Antonio Guterres describing the future as an era of "Global Boiling".
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DnWbdXl4XSiI&ved=2ahUKEwiw0tiZkICCAxU2FlkFHfObAXIQwqsBegQIExAB&usg=AOvVaw35vvaC6uSCLCpXQIT9G_gk
This has to be challenged.
'scientists' who use RCP8.5 in their papers get published and get more funding. Those who don't ... don't
What could be simpler?