I just read the most fantastic piece on how censorship works starting with words and speech control, i think everyone who follows this or any blog should read and understand it as it helps to understand those who throw around the term "denier" in relation to climate science or any science. Covid comes to mind.
There is no people more dangerous than these, as they want to control how you think.
There are a several parts to the IPCC analysis. The first part is simple: For any given accumulation of CO2 emissions at a future date, a simple formula gives the temperature gain. The next part involves drawing curves of annual emission in the future based on various guessed scenarios for future world economics, energy usage and efficiency, and penetration of sustainable sources. These are the so-called "SSP" graphs of future annual emissions in the IPCC reports. You can draw these almost any way you like and each one yields a cumulative emissions vs. time curve from here to 2100. For any cumulative emissions according to any "SSP" scenario at any future date, we have the IPCC estimate of global temperature . All of that is relatively straightforward. The last part (and by far most difficult) is to estimate for any given temperature rise in the future, how will that affect occurrence and incidence of hurricanes, tornados, drought, floods, heat waves, downpours, sea level rise, etc.? If there were some magical meteorological model that identified how (for example) hurricanes formed, and specifically how the global average temperature to the nearest tenth of a degree affects the number and strength of hurricanes by dividing the earth into a million interacting segments subject to the laws of physics, then we could indeed predict the future incidence of hurricanes based on the the future temperature rise according to any scenario of future emissions. But that physics problem is far too complicated to solve, so the fallback position is to look at the past, and from that, derive how the incidence of hurricanes (for example) varied with global temperature, and use that to predict hurricanes in future scenarios. But there are challenges in doing that because data on hurricanes becomes less complete as we venture into the past, and using insurance costs as a measure must account for many things not so obvious as Roger has shown many times. Sea level rise is another interesting case. There isn't one single sea level; it varies with location and time. It might go through oscillations. The data is difficult to validate. For the past ten thousand years, sea level has been rising in the aftermath of the end of the last ice age. There is evidence that the rate of rise has increased in the 21st century but taking stock of the "goesintos" the oceans and the "goesoutofs" the oceans involves uncertainty. At the bottom line, all the correlations used by the IPCC using the past to infer future occurrence and incidence of hurricanes, tornados, drought, floods, heat waves, downpours, sea level rise, etc. is fraught with uncertainty, and for the various impacts investigated by Roger, they are clearly wrong and err on the side of alarmism. So my take on all this is that the IPCC estimate of future temperature rise for any future accumulation of emissions is probably in the right ballpark, but the impacts of any given temperature rise have been exaggerated. And while there is a great need to build sustainability (as Roger emphasizes) even independent of climate change, the urgency seems to have been overloaded by the IPCC. That is fortunate because as far as I can tell, the extreme draconian reductions in emissions desired by the IPCC seem impossible to achieve. I wish that Roger had been more assertive of his findings.
This article by The Economist explains very well why moderate evidence-based policy advocacy falls by the wayside. Threat inflation (as the Pentagon hawks learned decades ago) is far more lucrative, There is a massive lobbying ecosystem that is now feeding off the trough of this particular crisis. There are literally hundreds of billions of reasons why we should expect the disaster-mongering to continue:
Excellent interview. I was pleasantly surprised that John Hook asked so many good questions, because I really didn't think Fox ever allowed that kind of smart, independent interviewing. He played it very straight and gave you ample opportunity to make some excellent arguments.
The IPCC "Summary for Policymakers 2023" is a joke. Doing a search of the document I see 37 matches for the world "sustainable, 16 matches for "equity", 7 matches for CCS, 12 matches for wind & solar, 0 matches for nuclear.
Nuclear being the largest source of clean energy on the planet, 2X hydro, 2X (wind + solar).
CCS currently stores 0.1% of global emissions.
Equity displaces ZERO emissions, in fact, wastes resources that could reduce emissions, thus it increases emissions.
"Sustainable" is mostly nonsense since you don't know how human activities will change in the future and you especially don't know what tech will be available. Calling something "sustainable" is tantamount to claiming you have a crystal ball and can see into the future. The only resource that needs to be sustainable is energy. With nuclear, the energy supply is effectively unlimited, so with nuclear, at the very least, sustainable is achieved. Forget everything else.
Only nuclear is capable of replacing fossil emissions which is the cause of human climate change. But the IPCC is much more interested in expensive impractical wind, solar & CCS. All of which are prohibitively expensive and ineffective.
France already proved that even archaic one at a time Nuclear construction can replace half of their total domestic emissions in 20yrs. No other method can come remotely close to that.
So what have their favored energy solution wind & solar REALLY achieved since 2000:
While wind + solar grew by 14.8TJ from 2000 to 2020
Coal grew by 59.7 TJ
Gas grew by 51.9 TJ
Oil grew by 18.2 TJ
Total fossil by 129.8 TJ
So in fact wind + solar, during their boom years, were only able to expand by 11.4% of the GROWTH in fossil, never mind actually replacing fossil, which is the Ruling Elites stated goal.
Conclusion: The IPCC is Fraudulent. Advocating non-solutions, while ignoring the one viable solution. It's that simple.
Dr. Pielke, I believe your book “The Climate Fix” should be a mandatory read for anyone and everyone who actually wants to learn about the future of climate and the math behind best way to decrease CO2 without all the hysteria we now receive from just about every corner of reporting.
I was impressed with Hook, but disappointed somewhat with Roger. Claiming 80% of future warming due to CO2 based on models. Also implying that smog in Asian cities is related to CO2. Maybe you should stick to extreme events and damages. While ultimately your policy ideas are reasonable, hanging onto the IPCC and the UN is not. Net Zero needs to be dropped as a meaningless concept.
Disappointed at the defense of serial wrong predictions by official climate for decades.
Contrary to what Roger said about how science admits when it makes mistakes I have never once read an apology, an omission of error, even an admission that maybe the science isn’t quite settled.
No this group just closes ranks, doubles down on “settled science” which now includes all these new things we never thought of before and only now discovered but never you mind, it’s settled and has always been settled you awful deniers you!!
There is a big difference between "science" and those who self-appoint themselves as representatives of "the science" -- I'm thinking here of people like Mann, Hayhoe, Schmidt, Wash Post, NYT etc etc who give the sort of impression reflected in your comment. I see a lot of similarities in Covid-19 discussions as well. The reality is that "science" is far more nuanced and less combative than these various personalities represent. Politicized, partisan, pathological science is difficult to sort through, so beware of throwing out the baby with the bathwater!
In thinking about the pathologies you mention, I'd suggest we keep in mind the story of Trofim Lysenko. Stalin felt that Lysenko and his theories worked very well in terms of ideology and politics, and therefore ruled that the science was settled. With Stalin's imprimatur Lysenko was able to rule the roost in Russian genetics for quite a while. In the western world we have a somewhat similar phenomenon today in climate science - although the body count among our professors doesn't begin to compare with Lysenko's performance. But the waste and damage to society, I believe, will far exceed the harm that Lysenko did to Russia.
I agree with your comment, and yet all those you list are the ones that the MSM gives all oxygen too, and here is you at least trying to spread a bit of common sense but the only ones talking to you is the dreaded "Fox".
I recall a story about polls done a few years ago, Fox viewers got the facts right on climate (and covid) while MSNBC/CNN viewers were completely out to lunch.
But Fox and anyone who appears on Fox is a "denier".
I notice one such underhanded attack on you here today.
And me, but i could care less about such people.
I mean, the MSM today still interviews and gives credence to Paul Ehrlich for god sake, 50 years of being completely wrong (and dedicated to allowing the useless mouths to perish) and yet he gets coverage.
From over the pond so didn't know Hook. Impressive diction and coherent presentation. Beat the usual hysteria that often engulfs studios when the subject is considered. Obviously a planned interview with Prof Pielke to give a sane response on the issue rather than climate hysteria. Sane reasoned responses to what is hysterical in policy responses, even by the UN, are what is needed. On the economics side Noah Smith presents the sanity in the house from abundance rather than we are all going to die.
Roger: I was disappointed that you came on so low key and seemed to mute almost everything into neutral statements. Maybe you just didn't want to add fuel to Fox? But when it comes to "science", the point I've made on this substack several times is that the science of this much CO2 causes this much temperature rise is pretty straightforward and simple. The real issue is not that. The real issue is whether this much temperature rise causes this much floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, sea level rise, heat waves, etc. Here, the IPCC and the politicians claim that we are already enduring significant evidence of these effects, and one by one you shot them down. That would seem to suggest that maybe the many learned papers on floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, sea level rise, heat waves, etc. might be exaggerated? I think you need to come out of your shell and say so?
Floods, hurricanes, etc., are symptoms, and symptoms vary over time. Isn't the real issue can humans adapt? Does it matter if temp rises 1 degree, or 2 degrees, or even 5 degrees, so long as civilization survives? That civilization may be different, but certainly not any worse; I believe temp rises will not send us back to ox carts and widespread typhus and cholera. Policies may do that, but not temperatures.
Deaths and damages data clear show that extreme events are controllable and preventable. If extremes are the manifestations of climate change (debatable according to IPCC), doesn't the fact that we can manage and control death suggest that climate change is anything but catastrophic? I've said this before:
There are very real threats to civilization that cause death and destruction daily. Sometimes I think in this community we are working so hard to protect future generations against a potential threat that we forget about the real world and its wars, and starvation, and misery. Even in affluent and secure countries there is daily high carnage and needless but very real and continuous smoking/drinking and drug-related sufferings and deaths. We argue, as societies, page after page and year after year about hypothetical future risks and spend billions to avert them while all of these ugly, painful, deadly real things are around us daily and accepted as the cost of doing life’s business.
I don't regard the climate discussions as a failing of science, but rather a failing to provide those discussions in perspective of the art of living.
I just read the most fantastic piece on how censorship works starting with words and speech control, i think everyone who follows this or any blog should read and understand it as it helps to understand those who throw around the term "denier" in relation to climate science or any science. Covid comes to mind.
There is no people more dangerous than these, as they want to control how you think.
https://www.thefp.com/p/an-illustrated-guide-to-self-censorship
OMG, you still look 35!
Ha!
But I'll take it ;-)
There are a several parts to the IPCC analysis. The first part is simple: For any given accumulation of CO2 emissions at a future date, a simple formula gives the temperature gain. The next part involves drawing curves of annual emission in the future based on various guessed scenarios for future world economics, energy usage and efficiency, and penetration of sustainable sources. These are the so-called "SSP" graphs of future annual emissions in the IPCC reports. You can draw these almost any way you like and each one yields a cumulative emissions vs. time curve from here to 2100. For any cumulative emissions according to any "SSP" scenario at any future date, we have the IPCC estimate of global temperature . All of that is relatively straightforward. The last part (and by far most difficult) is to estimate for any given temperature rise in the future, how will that affect occurrence and incidence of hurricanes, tornados, drought, floods, heat waves, downpours, sea level rise, etc.? If there were some magical meteorological model that identified how (for example) hurricanes formed, and specifically how the global average temperature to the nearest tenth of a degree affects the number and strength of hurricanes by dividing the earth into a million interacting segments subject to the laws of physics, then we could indeed predict the future incidence of hurricanes based on the the future temperature rise according to any scenario of future emissions. But that physics problem is far too complicated to solve, so the fallback position is to look at the past, and from that, derive how the incidence of hurricanes (for example) varied with global temperature, and use that to predict hurricanes in future scenarios. But there are challenges in doing that because data on hurricanes becomes less complete as we venture into the past, and using insurance costs as a measure must account for many things not so obvious as Roger has shown many times. Sea level rise is another interesting case. There isn't one single sea level; it varies with location and time. It might go through oscillations. The data is difficult to validate. For the past ten thousand years, sea level has been rising in the aftermath of the end of the last ice age. There is evidence that the rate of rise has increased in the 21st century but taking stock of the "goesintos" the oceans and the "goesoutofs" the oceans involves uncertainty. At the bottom line, all the correlations used by the IPCC using the past to infer future occurrence and incidence of hurricanes, tornados, drought, floods, heat waves, downpours, sea level rise, etc. is fraught with uncertainty, and for the various impacts investigated by Roger, they are clearly wrong and err on the side of alarmism. So my take on all this is that the IPCC estimate of future temperature rise for any future accumulation of emissions is probably in the right ballpark, but the impacts of any given temperature rise have been exaggerated. And while there is a great need to build sustainability (as Roger emphasizes) even independent of climate change, the urgency seems to have been overloaded by the IPCC. That is fortunate because as far as I can tell, the extreme draconian reductions in emissions desired by the IPCC seem impossible to achieve. I wish that Roger had been more assertive of his findings.
Great interview, glad to see/rear a knowledgeable interviewer looking to answers and not a narrative. Too bad it wasn't viewed by a larger audience.
Might be worth the try. Let it rip see what happens. Mind you if it takes up to much time I will survive. Thank you for articles that make me think.
This article by The Economist explains very well why moderate evidence-based policy advocacy falls by the wayside. Threat inflation (as the Pentagon hawks learned decades ago) is far more lucrative, There is a massive lobbying ecosystem that is now feeding off the trough of this particular crisis. There are literally hundreds of billions of reasons why we should expect the disaster-mongering to continue:
https://www.economist.com/business/2023/04/10/americas-800bn-climate-splurge-is-feeding-a-new-lobbying-ecosystem
Excellent interview. I was pleasantly surprised that John Hook asked so many good questions, because I really didn't think Fox ever allowed that kind of smart, independent interviewing. He played it very straight and gave you ample opportunity to make some excellent arguments.
Thanks, this was my impression as well.
The IPCC "Summary for Policymakers 2023" is a joke. Doing a search of the document I see 37 matches for the world "sustainable, 16 matches for "equity", 7 matches for CCS, 12 matches for wind & solar, 0 matches for nuclear.
Nuclear being the largest source of clean energy on the planet, 2X hydro, 2X (wind + solar).
CCS currently stores 0.1% of global emissions.
Equity displaces ZERO emissions, in fact, wastes resources that could reduce emissions, thus it increases emissions.
"Sustainable" is mostly nonsense since you don't know how human activities will change in the future and you especially don't know what tech will be available. Calling something "sustainable" is tantamount to claiming you have a crystal ball and can see into the future. The only resource that needs to be sustainable is energy. With nuclear, the energy supply is effectively unlimited, so with nuclear, at the very least, sustainable is achieved. Forget everything else.
Only nuclear is capable of replacing fossil emissions which is the cause of human climate change. But the IPCC is much more interested in expensive impractical wind, solar & CCS. All of which are prohibitively expensive and ineffective.
France already proved that even archaic one at a time Nuclear construction can replace half of their total domestic emissions in 20yrs. No other method can come remotely close to that.
So what have their favored energy solution wind & solar REALLY achieved since 2000:
While wind + solar grew by 14.8TJ from 2000 to 2020
Coal grew by 59.7 TJ
Gas grew by 51.9 TJ
Oil grew by 18.2 TJ
Total fossil by 129.8 TJ
So in fact wind + solar, during their boom years, were only able to expand by 11.4% of the GROWTH in fossil, never mind actually replacing fossil, which is the Ruling Elites stated goal.
Conclusion: The IPCC is Fraudulent. Advocating non-solutions, while ignoring the one viable solution. It's that simple.
Dr. Pielke, I believe your book “The Climate Fix” should be a mandatory read for anyone and everyone who actually wants to learn about the future of climate and the math behind best way to decrease CO2 without all the hysteria we now receive from just about every corner of reporting.
Thank you!
I prefer to read rather than listen to a pod cast. Is it possible to read a transcript of this?
I heard back, no transcript unfortunately. I'll see how difficult it is to make one. Maybe a job for ChatGPT!
Whisper from OpenAI is great at transcribing.
That is my preference also. I'll ask and get back to you.
I was impressed with Hook, but disappointed somewhat with Roger. Claiming 80% of future warming due to CO2 based on models. Also implying that smog in Asian cities is related to CO2. Maybe you should stick to extreme events and damages. While ultimately your policy ideas are reasonable, hanging onto the IPCC and the UN is not. Net Zero needs to be dropped as a meaningless concept.
Disappointed at the defense of serial wrong predictions by official climate for decades.
Contrary to what Roger said about how science admits when it makes mistakes I have never once read an apology, an omission of error, even an admission that maybe the science isn’t quite settled.
No this group just closes ranks, doubles down on “settled science” which now includes all these new things we never thought of before and only now discovered but never you mind, it’s settled and has always been settled you awful deniers you!!
There is a big difference between "science" and those who self-appoint themselves as representatives of "the science" -- I'm thinking here of people like Mann, Hayhoe, Schmidt, Wash Post, NYT etc etc who give the sort of impression reflected in your comment. I see a lot of similarities in Covid-19 discussions as well. The reality is that "science" is far more nuanced and less combative than these various personalities represent. Politicized, partisan, pathological science is difficult to sort through, so beware of throwing out the baby with the bathwater!
In thinking about the pathologies you mention, I'd suggest we keep in mind the story of Trofim Lysenko. Stalin felt that Lysenko and his theories worked very well in terms of ideology and politics, and therefore ruled that the science was settled. With Stalin's imprimatur Lysenko was able to rule the roost in Russian genetics for quite a while. In the western world we have a somewhat similar phenomenon today in climate science - although the body count among our professors doesn't begin to compare with Lysenko's performance. But the waste and damage to society, I believe, will far exceed the harm that Lysenko did to Russia.
I agree with your comment, and yet all those you list are the ones that the MSM gives all oxygen too, and here is you at least trying to spread a bit of common sense but the only ones talking to you is the dreaded "Fox".
I recall a story about polls done a few years ago, Fox viewers got the facts right on climate (and covid) while MSNBC/CNN viewers were completely out to lunch.
But Fox and anyone who appears on Fox is a "denier".
I notice one such underhanded attack on you here today.
And me, but i could care less about such people.
I mean, the MSM today still interviews and gives credence to Paul Ehrlich for god sake, 50 years of being completely wrong (and dedicated to allowing the useless mouths to perish) and yet he gets coverage.
This is all broken
From over the pond so didn't know Hook. Impressive diction and coherent presentation. Beat the usual hysteria that often engulfs studios when the subject is considered. Obviously a planned interview with Prof Pielke to give a sane response on the issue rather than climate hysteria. Sane reasoned responses to what is hysterical in policy responses, even by the UN, are what is needed. On the economics side Noah Smith presents the sanity in the house from abundance rather than we are all going to die.
Thanks!
Roger: I was disappointed that you came on so low key and seemed to mute almost everything into neutral statements. Maybe you just didn't want to add fuel to Fox? But when it comes to "science", the point I've made on this substack several times is that the science of this much CO2 causes this much temperature rise is pretty straightforward and simple. The real issue is not that. The real issue is whether this much temperature rise causes this much floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, sea level rise, heat waves, etc. Here, the IPCC and the politicians claim that we are already enduring significant evidence of these effects, and one by one you shot them down. That would seem to suggest that maybe the many learned papers on floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, sea level rise, heat waves, etc. might be exaggerated? I think you need to come out of your shell and say so?
Floods, hurricanes, etc., are symptoms, and symptoms vary over time. Isn't the real issue can humans adapt? Does it matter if temp rises 1 degree, or 2 degrees, or even 5 degrees, so long as civilization survives? That civilization may be different, but certainly not any worse; I believe temp rises will not send us back to ox carts and widespread typhus and cholera. Policies may do that, but not temperatures.
Deaths and damages data clear show that extreme events are controllable and preventable. If extremes are the manifestations of climate change (debatable according to IPCC), doesn't the fact that we can manage and control death suggest that climate change is anything but catastrophic? I've said this before:
There are very real threats to civilization that cause death and destruction daily. Sometimes I think in this community we are working so hard to protect future generations against a potential threat that we forget about the real world and its wars, and starvation, and misery. Even in affluent and secure countries there is daily high carnage and needless but very real and continuous smoking/drinking and drug-related sufferings and deaths. We argue, as societies, page after page and year after year about hypothetical future risks and spend billions to avert them while all of these ugly, painful, deadly real things are around us daily and accepted as the cost of doing life’s business.
I don't regard the climate discussions as a failing of science, but rather a failing to provide those discussions in perspective of the art of living.
My two cents, adjusted for inflation.
Thanks, that's me and my views!
Not often I'm advised to come out of my shell (usually I hear the opposite;-)
I believe that I have been encouraging you to do so regularly in comments.
Love to see you on 60 Minutes or a similar show. I only watched the first half due to time constraints but as usual your arguments are persuasive.
Thanks!
60 Minutes is apparently for folks like Paul Ehrlich and MTG ;-)