A tangential question from a fan: Is anyone looking at what people (including decision makers) think is going to happen the day that we hit "net zero" (or some key milestone on the way to that objective)? My understanding is that essentially nothing will change that day, except that we will start down the multi-decade long curve that we have been riding up since about the end of WW2, with positive effects over time but no dramatic changes. How should those making climate assessments be asked to think about that period?
This is nitpicky, but why doesn't your link to your X feed comments take you directly to your comments on NCA? I was interested to read more detail, but I gave up after scrolling through endless reposts and Buffalo football stuff.
Reading the NCA's response to your comment reminded me of a conversation I once had with a friend at the Corps of Engineers who had spent many years dealing with the public. He said there are five generic responses to public comments: it sucks to be us; it sucks to be you; bullshit; noted; and we'll pray for you.
I think NCA's response of "does not fit" falls into that third category.
Surprise surprise. The federal government is bought and paid for by NGOs funded by lefty philanthropists who don't live like they believe anything they financially support. Americans' control over their own economies are being undermined, government has become a corrupt participant in king making in the climate idiot olympics, the energy economy is becoming a controlled one rather than market driven, etc. And all of this looks like mutual self-pleasuring between NGOs, federal agency flunkies, and corporate chiefs who know which side of their green energy bread is buttered.
Dear Roger, I wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal requesting a correction to their article in yesterday's paper. This article parroted the National Climate Assessment uncritically to claim that extreme weather events are increasing and, at present, are putting food supplies and our "way of life" in peril. I used your data to show that floods, hurricanes and tornadoes are not doing any such thing. Wildfires are down over 90% since the 1930's, and this year's bountiful corn crop set a new record for bushels harvested. I plan to keep protesting about such claptrap. But sometimes, the torrent of climate scare stories has reached such a volume that I feel like a man with a teaspoon trying to turn back the tide at the Bay of Fundy.
I was working in federal R&D when our representative came back from a USCGRP meeting and said something like “ there’s going to be big bucks, bigger than we’ve ever seen” and being R&D folks we said “but everything has some relationship to climate” visions of dollar signs dancing in our heads. And pretty soon every proposal had climate somewhere.. and so I wonder, because most scientists who get funded by climate megabucks are not modelers, if that’s part of the reason 8.5 was accepted and folks can’t let go; that most climate research needs projections and most groups are not able to generate their own (nor downscale). It’s not exactly “corruption” on the part of scientists, they need to go where the money is.. but the path from “lotsa bucks” to “shifts in research direction” to “climate affects everything” to a way of looking at the world that can’t be questioned.. even in its tiniest part (see your work, even the recent Patrick Brown kerfuffle) looking back looks kind of inevitable. A kingdom built on projections with the king disciplines being modelers and the rest of us toiling in their fields. But I’m thinking big infusions of bucks to USCGRP is where it all started.
"There is no need for these conflicts of interest to play such a prominent role in the report’s authorship, but they perhaps explain some of its errors." Way too nice to those who have approached criminal malfeasance so closely.
Judith Curry was professor at Georgia Institute of Technology. She is a world-class expert on many aspects of climate change, particularly sea level. She drew a lot of fire for her doubts regarding climate extremism. Finally, she quit and started her own company to advise commerce and industry regarding impacts of climate change. Businesses with lots of money at stake want to hear the real skinny, not the false alarmism pushed by the agencies. I hope she is doing well - I am not connected.
Roger: My advice! Instead of collecting 80 bucks a year from folks like me, and putting your stuff out for free, start your own company and advise corporations on how they should adapt to climate change. Make the big bucks?
Thanks for coming to Montrose and sharing your work. Could you send the slide deck that you used? I'm sure that I had seen some of the charts in your blog but it was a nice collection in one place!
A tangential question from a fan: Is anyone looking at what people (including decision makers) think is going to happen the day that we hit "net zero" (or some key milestone on the way to that objective)? My understanding is that essentially nothing will change that day, except that we will start down the multi-decade long curve that we have been riding up since about the end of WW2, with positive effects over time but no dramatic changes. How should those making climate assessments be asked to think about that period?
This is nitpicky, but why doesn't your link to your X feed comments take you directly to your comments on NCA? I was interested to read more detail, but I gave up after scrolling through endless reposts and Buffalo football stuff.
Reading the NCA's response to your comment reminded me of a conversation I once had with a friend at the Corps of Engineers who had spent many years dealing with the public. He said there are five generic responses to public comments: it sucks to be us; it sucks to be you; bullshit; noted; and we'll pray for you.
I think NCA's response of "does not fit" falls into that third category.
Perhaps the problem lies in incentives.
Tax funding and publication quotas naturally leads to politicisation and a higher quantity of papers of lower quality.
Scientists should be funded by those seeking the truth. Lower but honest funding would lead to lower quantity and higher quality.
Surprise surprise. The federal government is bought and paid for by NGOs funded by lefty philanthropists who don't live like they believe anything they financially support. Americans' control over their own economies are being undermined, government has become a corrupt participant in king making in the climate idiot olympics, the energy economy is becoming a controlled one rather than market driven, etc. And all of this looks like mutual self-pleasuring between NGOs, federal agency flunkies, and corporate chiefs who know which side of their green energy bread is buttered.
Dear Roger, I wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal requesting a correction to their article in yesterday's paper. This article parroted the National Climate Assessment uncritically to claim that extreme weather events are increasing and, at present, are putting food supplies and our "way of life" in peril. I used your data to show that floods, hurricanes and tornadoes are not doing any such thing. Wildfires are down over 90% since the 1930's, and this year's bountiful corn crop set a new record for bushels harvested. I plan to keep protesting about such claptrap. But sometimes, the torrent of climate scare stories has reached such a volume that I feel like a man with a teaspoon trying to turn back the tide at the Bay of Fundy.
I was working in federal R&D when our representative came back from a USCGRP meeting and said something like “ there’s going to be big bucks, bigger than we’ve ever seen” and being R&D folks we said “but everything has some relationship to climate” visions of dollar signs dancing in our heads. And pretty soon every proposal had climate somewhere.. and so I wonder, because most scientists who get funded by climate megabucks are not modelers, if that’s part of the reason 8.5 was accepted and folks can’t let go; that most climate research needs projections and most groups are not able to generate their own (nor downscale). It’s not exactly “corruption” on the part of scientists, they need to go where the money is.. but the path from “lotsa bucks” to “shifts in research direction” to “climate affects everything” to a way of looking at the world that can’t be questioned.. even in its tiniest part (see your work, even the recent Patrick Brown kerfuffle) looking back looks kind of inevitable. A kingdom built on projections with the king disciplines being modelers and the rest of us toiling in their fields. But I’m thinking big infusions of bucks to USCGRP is where it all started.
Another example of what a 5 ton Gadfly can do.
"There is no need for these conflicts of interest to play such a prominent role in the report’s authorship, but they perhaps explain some of its errors." Way too nice to those who have approached criminal malfeasance so closely.
Judith Curry was professor at Georgia Institute of Technology. She is a world-class expert on many aspects of climate change, particularly sea level. She drew a lot of fire for her doubts regarding climate extremism. Finally, she quit and started her own company to advise commerce and industry regarding impacts of climate change. Businesses with lots of money at stake want to hear the real skinny, not the false alarmism pushed by the agencies. I hope she is doing well - I am not connected.
Roger: My advice! Instead of collecting 80 bucks a year from folks like me, and putting your stuff out for free, start your own company and advise corporations on how they should adapt to climate change. Make the big bucks?
Thanks for coming to Montrose and sharing your work. Could you send the slide deck that you used? I'm sure that I had seen some of the charts in your blog but it was a nice collection in one place!