In reading this article twice, it appears to me that the “Red Team” put out a measured analysis compared to that of the “Blue Team”. Dressler’s last comment in your writeup comes off slightly unhinged, claiming that there is no substance with the Red Team’s unscientific findings and is against the grain of “scientific consensus”. This just shows that if one is reading Matthew Wielicki, Roger Pielke JR, or Robert Bryce, you will gravitate to what the Tman Administration is trying to do. The “Blue Team” here is all in with the crazy, never manifested climate disaster “predictions” over the last 20 years - all they care to do is rebrand by putting lipstick on a pig. Then again, what would one expect with a team that throws in with the likes of Al Gore and Michael Mann and cannot admit that any of their “analysis” is wrong? Especially in the face of claiming that there is scientific consensus of this whole climate change matter - that is the ultimate denial of truth.
The statement “the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring” stands out to me. Are we really going to base policy on the equivalent of “Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it’s not there.”?
Your summary is well stated and does a nice job of stating both positions. But it seems to me one side seems to be open to discussion and areas of uncertainty (DOE CWG) and the other side wants no discussion to happen and believes there is no real uncertainty (DK25). I gravitate to the former, not the latter.
I’ve found when one side resorts to pejoratives and name calling (use of term “bullshit”), as often happens in climate science, then they aren’t really making a scientific argument. It would seem that Dressler and the DK25 folks have arrived there.
Thank you very much for this comparison, Dr. Pielke, and my apologies for my tardiness.
First, I’d like to suggest that the two parties, Red and Blue, submit to having Dr. Pielke and others he might deem fit (Weinkle, Burgess and Ritchie come to mind) arbitrate the differences and filter the real bullshit from each report.
DK25 purports to reflect the voices of 85 experts in climate science. It is my understanding that the Working Group Reports of the IPCC assessments required input from hundreds of scientists. 85 hardly seems a consensus. Given the penchant for “consensus,” did DK25 actually poll all of those authors and contributors to see if they agreed the CWG report was bullshit? Is there truly a “consensus” on this conclusion? As Roger says, there is much the CWG got right. DK25 fails to acknowledge this.
DK25 claims the intention of the CWG report is to dismantle the endangerment finding. CWG authors dispute that, but CWG certainly provides evidence that the finding is wrong-headed. They say “the evidence for human-caused climate change and the dangers it poses to public health and welfare has continued to grow stronger.” Does DK25 provide evidence that public health has deteriorated over the last 16 years? Does DK25 provide any direct evidence that atmospheric CO2 constitutes a clear and present danger to mankind? I think DK25 was wrong to frame their arguments in terms of the EF; their comments should be based on the stated intentions of the report and not what they believed those intentions to be.
It is interesting (disappointing) to me that neither report references the work of Richard Lindzen and William Happer. I am no expert (NOT EVEN CLOSE) but their report on Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase (2024) suggests that CO2’s dangers are greatly overstated. Others have also reached that conclusion, and have provided direct evidence for their reasoning in separate reports, some of which were peer-reviewed. My understanding of what the climate system is (two turbulent fluids interacting over an uneven surface and on a rotating sphere differentially heated by the sun) would suggest even to the most uninformed that attributing climate change to one variable is disingenuous.
In comparing the two reports, what struck me the most was the difference in tone. CWG said climate change is real, it deserves attention, but is not existential. It then offers evidence supporting this conclusion. DK25 says that conclusion is wrong, and though it too offers counter evidence, DK25 presumes to offer advice to policy makers, as if theirs is the final word. They carry on as if they were an attorney in a divorce case posturing for lucrative settlement.
The Secretary’s Foreword clearly states that "we need open, respectful, and informed debate...I’m inviting public comment...Honest scrutiny and scientific transparency should be at the heart of our policymaking.” Calling the work to be “bullshit” is not even professional, much less offering “open, respectful and honest” comment.
I have complete faith that the Secretary will provide all public comments to the CWG authors and afford them the opportunity to revise their report in response to those comments. It is in such efforts that true transparency, and science, emerges - not through back channel social media postings. Personally, I think that until the final revision is published, I think this kerfuffle is much ado about nothing; a "he said-she said" exercise in finger-pointing. When the final version is published is when the real discussion should begin.
There is no way Mann or Dessler will ever admit they have done anything wrong. They went out of their way to crush anyone who had a different opinion when the science was being developed, and they will not change. President Trump is doing the right thing. Mann, Dessler and crowd can't be reasoned with. They have to be overuled.
As Roger's observations and comments have repeatedly proven, they are trustworthy... they save me from having to read through 459 pages of critiques (DK25) of critiques (DOE CWG, 151 pages) of climate science as presented in the IPCC reports (AR6 WG1, 2409 pages).
So, thank you very much, Roger!
As early as 1961, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower highlighted "the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite". It seems that the 85 authors of DK25 consider themselves to be such an elite and deny this status to the authors of DOE CWG.
However, this is not just a posture of authority. On the contrary, the speed and vehemence of this response is a sign of the nervousness and weakness of these guardians of the temple, the walls of which are in danger of collapsing.
DOE CWG raised questions that have not yet been resolved or have been poorly resolved; its purpose was not to rewrite climate science or get lost in nuances. DK25 therefore criticises them for this rather than acknowledging the shortcomings of climate science, which is far from being ‘settled’. This is therefore not an opening for scientific debate and new explorations, but a sectarian, detestable and, in the literal sense of the term, fascistic attitude.
I guess it's fortunate that most areas of science don't directly implicate politics. Back in the first half of the 20th century, there was intense debate among earth scientists about theories that became known as plate tectonics. The debate was loud (within the scientific community), at times petty, and made and broke reputations. But no one tried to use the debate to take political or economic power, so the scientists were allowed to hash out competing theories. I'm sure there are still areas of controversy, and more reputations to be made.
Likewise, in his 2003 book "Mapping Human History," Steve Olson wrote about the then-current state of DNA analysis, particularly as applied to very old fossil samples. Based on the state of knowledge at the time, he concluded that there was no evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans, and implied that it was unlikely such evidence would be found. Now, most scientists seem to think that humans descended from European and Asian populations have 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals. Again, there's no political group trying to gain power or influence policy based on this argument, so the scientists have been left to work out theories based on emerging evidence, while arguing over the validity of the evidence.
On climate change, we seem to have quickly developed two camps. I hesitate to give the camps names, but one side seems wedded to the idea that climate change is happening, primarily caused by human emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, and certain (or very likely) to cause catastrophic changes in the foreseeable future. The other side seems to have had different positions over time, from "there is no change in climate" to "there are changes, but there's no reason to think they're caused by human activity" to "climate change may well be caused by human activity, but it's not particularly bad, and eliminating emissions would cause more problems than it could solve." The first camp thinks aggressive action to reduce and eliminate emissions is a very high priority, maybe the highest priority for all people everywhere. The second camp thinks action to reduce emissions is unimportant, futile, and destructive.
Because of the policy implications, there's no way to take the politics out of the science, and there will be no end to politicians invoking "science" to justify their preferred policies.
I think the next step in the process Wright has started and that Dessler fell into is to force a public debate, sponsored by the USA govt and DOE, moderated by an impartial 3rd party, maybe like a Munk debate.
And then watch the squirming.
It has to be public with both sides committed to the process.
Ad Hom not allowed, denigrating terms disqualify, only the data can be debated.
This needs to occur before attribution science destroys the functionality of the IPCC
Didn’t Dessler have his head handed to him in a debate with Koonin?
“In other areas, the balance will surely be different.”
Why would you assume that? If in your area it’s wrong it’s more likely true to assume the rest is just as wrong
Or even worse.
There is no need to try so hard to be so nice and balanced, these people are hoping you bring a knife to a gun fight, it’s what they count on.
What’s happening with the IPCC shows they are playing for keeps.
I view the DOE report as a psyop intended to show just how unbalanced the Blue team is to the general public and it looks like a success to me.
There were instant threats to sue instead of debate, and now this reply which as you point out goes off a cliff trying to show that the DOE authors got everything wrong.
“the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring”
Is not as inaccurate as I am seeing talked about on this post. I think the key words are “statistically significant”.
Imagine that you had a coin and you wanted to determine if it were a fair coin by flipping it and counting the number of heads. If it were fair, you would expect about 50% heads, but not exactly 50% heads. If you flipped it 20 times, and all 20 times were heads, you could claim that the coin was not a fair coin because the odds of that happening by chance are astronomically small.
Now imagine that same coin was unfair, but in a very weak way. If you flipped it 100 million times and got 51% heads, you could also argue it was an unfair coin. With a large enough sample, even a small difference tells you something.
If someone else flipped that same coin only 100 times and got a result of 51 heads (51%), you could not say the coin was unfair because the difference from what would be expected was so small relative to the sample size. The difference is there, but it does not show up statistically.
I think one of the problems with many weather-related events is that their frequency is so small. I did a google search and it appears that there were 5 major hurricanes in the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. I think it is hard to say much about these kinds of infrequent activities.
I am a big fan of Thomas Sowell. One of his many well-known sayings is “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs”.
Imagine that putting C02 in the air increases the likelihood of major hurricanes. Instead of 5 per year, we get 6. Maybe we could spend 50 trillion dollars on revamping our energy system making it more costly and more fragile, but we could reduce the number of majors hurricanes back to 5. That same 50 trillion could be used for adaption with plenty of money to spare to help with other problems. Spending that 50 trillion on reducing C02 may well have had a much larger net negative effect on humanity because we did not spend it somewhere else. Opportunity cost is important.
Going back to the statement “the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring”, it tells me that any changes we see, if they really exist at all, are likely small. I think diverting astronomically large amounts of money to trying to reduce C02 by small amounts, is probably a poor tradeoff.
DK25 also includes a bizarre claim regarding the detection of changes in extreme weather events:²
“the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring”³
Actually, that is exactly what the absence of detection means — don’t take it from me, take it from the IPCC, which defines a change in climate as follows:
A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.
UNQUOTE
Technically you are correct of course. FORMALLY there may not be 'a change in the state of the climate' detected yet until decades of statistically significant changes can be observed.
On the other hand, I share the concerns of the 'blue team' that it would be risky to sit back and relax for a few decades if based on fundamental physics it can be argued that it is likely that some extreme events will indeed become more frequent and/or severe. The fact that a change is not yet statistically significant does not mean it is not happening, it only means that it is not statistically significant yet. Which, to come back to the beginning, does mean that FORMALLY it is not happening yet. Evidence is inconclusive.
It's particularly surpring coming from somone like Roger who has correctly in my opinion voiced concern over the state of attribution studies. I think the comment made my the DK25 team was made to face that criticism.
Yes, some attribution studies have over-reached but if the reason stated for why that is, is that the variability of these complex systems is too high for attributable impact to emerge on the time scale we're dealing with, then one would also be foolish to ignore Sorites Paradox.
I certainly don't expect to find such suggestions from you. Based on months of reading, I've found your position quite clear.
What surprised me was the need to latch on to what I interpret (perhaps incorrectly) as an attempt by the DK25 team to face the valid criticism of certain attribution studies by basically saying sure but lack of attribution does not mean lack of effect.
And If that's what it is, I think it's a small but valuable step back from the ledge and towards conciliation that it is counterproductive to interpret differently for the lols.
I interpret DK25 as (yet another) an effort to undermine the IPCC D&A framework as related to extreme events. DOE is just the vehicle to make that critique.
I had commented in the past that a Red Team - Blue Team approach could be useful and productive when both teams were on the same team. As such the teammates would be playing by the same rules with the same goal - arriving at an improved understanding of the problems at hand. Since the Blue Team in this case does not want to cooperate in the 'same team' intermural competition, we all loose...!
What gets me is that the Leftists take a term like "climate change" and leave out "anthropogenic carbon dioxide caused..." or "immigrants" and leave out "illegal..." or "mail in ballots" and leave out "unverifiable and harvested..." or "science" and leave out "real classical challengeable..." -- and they then pin the "deniers" and some kind of "hater" label on those who disagree with any single aspect of their cleverly crafted and slanted wordsmithing. How can science have a chance if this technique is allowed any oxygen?
Yes, and this perversion of language has unfortunately led to very astute and aware people referring to the Michael Mann/Andrew Dessler wing of Climate Scientists and their Gov't/Media/Business supporters as "Climate Advocates."
I think that this discussion is missing some key points. The main issue that is getting the DK25's bowels in an uproar is the political and legal effort being garnered in undertaking to repeal "The Endangerment Finding". This is a political/policy undertaking and not at its' core a scientific debate. I think that Roger has repeated several times his opinion that the "Finding" was made in the context of a deeply flawed law passed by Congress and we can argue the "science" until the cows come home and it wouldn't really make a difference.
I think another key point is that President Trump doesn't really care a rat's butt about the science. He does care a whole bunch though about the destructive effects on our economy of the rules and regulations spouting from the "Finding". He doesn't know much about climate modeling or ECS or detection and attribution but he knows how to build things and how to make money and when he's being screwed over by the bureaucracy. When he chooses to fight you had better be ready with your best punches.
The "Red Team" we should care about then is the All Star team led by Chris Wright, Doug Burgum and Lee Zeldin that has the remit to try to undo the damage that has been done so far and to prevent significantly more damage from being done in the future on the basis that CO2 is a pollutant that endangers the health and well being of our Nation. The role of the DOE CWG in this undertaking is to make it as clear as possible that the scientific case in support of "Endangerment" is not particularly strong and there is significant basis for this view. I think that this team, led by Steve Koonin, has done yeoman's work in this regard. The transparent attempt by DK25 to shoot holes in the DOE report is a silly waste of time as it will be put on a shelf somewhere in the bowels of DOE, kind of like Roger's review comments on various climate reports by IPCC and the NCA have been treated.
If I were on the other side of this brouhaha I would be seriously worried about the lack of a team of adults to lead the defense of the "Endangerment" finding as it now stands. Having Dessler, Hausfather, Emanuel and 82 other mostly minor Academics trying to poke holes in the DOE CWG report is really kind of laughable in the context of the big picture problem.
Seems like DK25 have danced around the main issue. In simple language, DOE CWG Report has put forth a Null Hypothesis (There's No Human-Caused Climate Catastrophe Underway or in the Offing) and claimed that the Climate Catastrophist Scientists have failed to provide evidence (observational data, not output of deterministic computer models) that would reject the Null Hypothesis. The burden of proof is entirely on the Climate Catastrophists, who would have us spend $Trillions on further studying the matter and mainly in a vain attempt to reduce the allegedly harmful Human influences. DOE CWG is basically saying to the Catastrophists: Put Up (Real evidence that would reject the Null Hypothesis) or Shut Up. In its 459 pages, does the DK25 Report put up any real "decisive" evidence to reject the Null Hypothesis or is it just complaints and accusations? I think it's just the latter, but I haven't read the DK25 Report yet. Can anyone answer my question or point me to any parts of the DK25 Report that provide pertinent evidence? If not, how can this failure best be conveyed to the Public?
You believe 459 pages are just "complaints and accusations"? You think these folks sat down and decided to not even attempt to provide legit criticism using peer-reviewed work as the basis for their criticism?
Lots of relevant professionals sympathetic to the work conducted by the "red team" have pointed out that it is flawed. Any attempt to correct those flaws and thus improve my ability to draw the best conclusions I can should be respected for attempting to do so.
I'm sure that in DK25's 459 pages there's plenty of legitimate criticism of the DOE CWG Report. Indeed, the Report's authors pretty much said at the outset that they expected lots of such criticism and were prepared to modify the Report based on legitimate criticism.
But, right off the bat, one of the coordinators of DK25, Andrew Dessler, sweepingly declared that DOE CWG Report was "bullshit" and had absolutely nothing to offer. As I said above, the DOE CWG Report basically presented a Null Hypothesis of "No Human-Caused Catastrophic Climate Change Underway or in the Offing." They used data from IPCC to support the Null Hypothesis. As Roger mentioned in his post, DK25 states that "The absence of statistically significant trends in the historical record does not mean that changes are not occurring." So, this says that DK25 are not even gonna try to reject the Null Hypothesis based on Observational Data. Instead, they spend 459 pages just poking holes in DOE CWG Report. That's fine, and legitimate criticism will be promptly addressed. But the burden of proof is on the Catatrophists, as represented by DK25 and, I think, soon by NAS. So far, they haven't presented data to reject the Null Hypothesis, and apparently aren't even trying.
The UN and many National Gov'ts have relied on Climate Change Catastrophism in committing to Net Zero, which is based on the belief that my Null Hypothesis has already been decisively rejected. True Net Zero by 2050 would commit the World to spending some $275 Trillion to get there, according to McKinsey, and I think that's a gross underestimate of the cost. In answer to your question, I'd say that "Catastrophe" is a sustained combination of all sorts of horrific events (not limted to those you listed) the elimination of which would pass a $275 Trillion+ Cost-Benefit test. How would you get the $275 Trillion+ without an all-powerful State able to completely control your behavior and extract every last penny you earned? The DOE CWG authors are saying, "Gosh, you're asking for a helluva lot and you haven't even come close to making your case."
This is very much like the Overpopulation/Limits to Growth/Running-Out-of-Everything Catastrophe claims by highly-credentialed Scientists w super-sophisticated deterministic computer models back in the late '60s/early '70s. Some of the very same "Scientists" moved effortlessly from this to Climate Change Catastrophism in the late '80s as the Overpopulation Scare began to fizzle out. This led to some extremely damaging policies like mass sterilization in India and China's One-Child Policy. But these were not nearly enough to satisfy the Catastrophists of that Era. Fortunately, it was eventually realized that all the claims of Mass Starvation and drastically reduced Lie Expectancy never came to pass
There is just to much money involved in the question of the climate and what to do about it. That’s why it’s political in my opinion. The sides are so extreme that financial motivation has to be a major factor. Roger how about a piece on who the winners and losers are if we modify our current approach to climate change? Probably not in your wheelhouse but thought I would ask. By the way I recently used your name when using Chat. It was disappointing because they painted you as an outlier in the climate debate.
In reading this article twice, it appears to me that the “Red Team” put out a measured analysis compared to that of the “Blue Team”. Dressler’s last comment in your writeup comes off slightly unhinged, claiming that there is no substance with the Red Team’s unscientific findings and is against the grain of “scientific consensus”. This just shows that if one is reading Matthew Wielicki, Roger Pielke JR, or Robert Bryce, you will gravitate to what the Tman Administration is trying to do. The “Blue Team” here is all in with the crazy, never manifested climate disaster “predictions” over the last 20 years - all they care to do is rebrand by putting lipstick on a pig. Then again, what would one expect with a team that throws in with the likes of Al Gore and Michael Mann and cannot admit that any of their “analysis” is wrong? Especially in the face of claiming that there is scientific consensus of this whole climate change matter - that is the ultimate denial of truth.
The statement “the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring” stands out to me. Are we really going to base policy on the equivalent of “Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it’s not there.”?
Your summary is well stated and does a nice job of stating both positions. But it seems to me one side seems to be open to discussion and areas of uncertainty (DOE CWG) and the other side wants no discussion to happen and believes there is no real uncertainty (DK25). I gravitate to the former, not the latter.
I’ve found when one side resorts to pejoratives and name calling (use of term “bullshit”), as often happens in climate science, then they aren’t really making a scientific argument. It would seem that Dressler and the DK25 folks have arrived there.
Thank you very much for this comparison, Dr. Pielke, and my apologies for my tardiness.
First, I’d like to suggest that the two parties, Red and Blue, submit to having Dr. Pielke and others he might deem fit (Weinkle, Burgess and Ritchie come to mind) arbitrate the differences and filter the real bullshit from each report.
DK25 purports to reflect the voices of 85 experts in climate science. It is my understanding that the Working Group Reports of the IPCC assessments required input from hundreds of scientists. 85 hardly seems a consensus. Given the penchant for “consensus,” did DK25 actually poll all of those authors and contributors to see if they agreed the CWG report was bullshit? Is there truly a “consensus” on this conclusion? As Roger says, there is much the CWG got right. DK25 fails to acknowledge this.
DK25 claims the intention of the CWG report is to dismantle the endangerment finding. CWG authors dispute that, but CWG certainly provides evidence that the finding is wrong-headed. They say “the evidence for human-caused climate change and the dangers it poses to public health and welfare has continued to grow stronger.” Does DK25 provide evidence that public health has deteriorated over the last 16 years? Does DK25 provide any direct evidence that atmospheric CO2 constitutes a clear and present danger to mankind? I think DK25 was wrong to frame their arguments in terms of the EF; their comments should be based on the stated intentions of the report and not what they believed those intentions to be.
It is interesting (disappointing) to me that neither report references the work of Richard Lindzen and William Happer. I am no expert (NOT EVEN CLOSE) but their report on Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase (2024) suggests that CO2’s dangers are greatly overstated. Others have also reached that conclusion, and have provided direct evidence for their reasoning in separate reports, some of which were peer-reviewed. My understanding of what the climate system is (two turbulent fluids interacting over an uneven surface and on a rotating sphere differentially heated by the sun) would suggest even to the most uninformed that attributing climate change to one variable is disingenuous.
In comparing the two reports, what struck me the most was the difference in tone. CWG said climate change is real, it deserves attention, but is not existential. It then offers evidence supporting this conclusion. DK25 says that conclusion is wrong, and though it too offers counter evidence, DK25 presumes to offer advice to policy makers, as if theirs is the final word. They carry on as if they were an attorney in a divorce case posturing for lucrative settlement.
The Secretary’s Foreword clearly states that "we need open, respectful, and informed debate...I’m inviting public comment...Honest scrutiny and scientific transparency should be at the heart of our policymaking.” Calling the work to be “bullshit” is not even professional, much less offering “open, respectful and honest” comment.
I have complete faith that the Secretary will provide all public comments to the CWG authors and afford them the opportunity to revise their report in response to those comments. It is in such efforts that true transparency, and science, emerges - not through back channel social media postings. Personally, I think that until the final revision is published, I think this kerfuffle is much ado about nothing; a "he said-she said" exercise in finger-pointing. When the final version is published is when the real discussion should begin.
Dammit, I don't know what color of pom-poms to buy. I hope this game gets rained out.
There is no way Mann or Dessler will ever admit they have done anything wrong. They went out of their way to crush anyone who had a different opinion when the science was being developed, and they will not change. President Trump is doing the right thing. Mann, Dessler and crowd can't be reasoned with. They have to be overuled.
As Roger's observations and comments have repeatedly proven, they are trustworthy... they save me from having to read through 459 pages of critiques (DK25) of critiques (DOE CWG, 151 pages) of climate science as presented in the IPCC reports (AR6 WG1, 2409 pages).
So, thank you very much, Roger!
As early as 1961, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower highlighted "the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite". It seems that the 85 authors of DK25 consider themselves to be such an elite and deny this status to the authors of DOE CWG.
However, this is not just a posture of authority. On the contrary, the speed and vehemence of this response is a sign of the nervousness and weakness of these guardians of the temple, the walls of which are in danger of collapsing.
DOE CWG raised questions that have not yet been resolved or have been poorly resolved; its purpose was not to rewrite climate science or get lost in nuances. DK25 therefore criticises them for this rather than acknowledging the shortcomings of climate science, which is far from being ‘settled’. This is therefore not an opening for scientific debate and new explorations, but a sectarian, detestable and, in the literal sense of the term, fascistic attitude.
I guess it's fortunate that most areas of science don't directly implicate politics. Back in the first half of the 20th century, there was intense debate among earth scientists about theories that became known as plate tectonics. The debate was loud (within the scientific community), at times petty, and made and broke reputations. But no one tried to use the debate to take political or economic power, so the scientists were allowed to hash out competing theories. I'm sure there are still areas of controversy, and more reputations to be made.
Likewise, in his 2003 book "Mapping Human History," Steve Olson wrote about the then-current state of DNA analysis, particularly as applied to very old fossil samples. Based on the state of knowledge at the time, he concluded that there was no evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans, and implied that it was unlikely such evidence would be found. Now, most scientists seem to think that humans descended from European and Asian populations have 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals. Again, there's no political group trying to gain power or influence policy based on this argument, so the scientists have been left to work out theories based on emerging evidence, while arguing over the validity of the evidence.
On climate change, we seem to have quickly developed two camps. I hesitate to give the camps names, but one side seems wedded to the idea that climate change is happening, primarily caused by human emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, and certain (or very likely) to cause catastrophic changes in the foreseeable future. The other side seems to have had different positions over time, from "there is no change in climate" to "there are changes, but there's no reason to think they're caused by human activity" to "climate change may well be caused by human activity, but it's not particularly bad, and eliminating emissions would cause more problems than it could solve." The first camp thinks aggressive action to reduce and eliminate emissions is a very high priority, maybe the highest priority for all people everywhere. The second camp thinks action to reduce emissions is unimportant, futile, and destructive.
Because of the policy implications, there's no way to take the politics out of the science, and there will be no end to politicians invoking "science" to justify their preferred policies.
I think the next step in the process Wright has started and that Dessler fell into is to force a public debate, sponsored by the USA govt and DOE, moderated by an impartial 3rd party, maybe like a Munk debate.
And then watch the squirming.
It has to be public with both sides committed to the process.
Ad Hom not allowed, denigrating terms disqualify, only the data can be debated.
This needs to occur before attribution science destroys the functionality of the IPCC
Didn’t Dessler have his head handed to him in a debate with Koonin?
“In other areas, the balance will surely be different.”
Why would you assume that? If in your area it’s wrong it’s more likely true to assume the rest is just as wrong
Or even worse.
There is no need to try so hard to be so nice and balanced, these people are hoping you bring a knife to a gun fight, it’s what they count on.
What’s happening with the IPCC shows they are playing for keeps.
I view the DOE report as a psyop intended to show just how unbalanced the Blue team is to the general public and it looks like a success to me.
There were instant threats to sue instead of debate, and now this reply which as you point out goes off a cliff trying to show that the DOE authors got everything wrong.
Bravo to Chris Wright, well played.
I think the statement
“the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring”
Is not as inaccurate as I am seeing talked about on this post. I think the key words are “statistically significant”.
Imagine that you had a coin and you wanted to determine if it were a fair coin by flipping it and counting the number of heads. If it were fair, you would expect about 50% heads, but not exactly 50% heads. If you flipped it 20 times, and all 20 times were heads, you could claim that the coin was not a fair coin because the odds of that happening by chance are astronomically small.
Now imagine that same coin was unfair, but in a very weak way. If you flipped it 100 million times and got 51% heads, you could also argue it was an unfair coin. With a large enough sample, even a small difference tells you something.
If someone else flipped that same coin only 100 times and got a result of 51 heads (51%), you could not say the coin was unfair because the difference from what would be expected was so small relative to the sample size. The difference is there, but it does not show up statistically.
I think one of the problems with many weather-related events is that their frequency is so small. I did a google search and it appears that there were 5 major hurricanes in the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. I think it is hard to say much about these kinds of infrequent activities.
I am a big fan of Thomas Sowell. One of his many well-known sayings is “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs”.
Imagine that putting C02 in the air increases the likelihood of major hurricanes. Instead of 5 per year, we get 6. Maybe we could spend 50 trillion dollars on revamping our energy system making it more costly and more fragile, but we could reduce the number of majors hurricanes back to 5. That same 50 trillion could be used for adaption with plenty of money to spare to help with other problems. Spending that 50 trillion on reducing C02 may well have had a much larger net negative effect on humanity because we did not spend it somewhere else. Opportunity cost is important.
Going back to the statement “the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring”, it tells me that any changes we see, if they really exist at all, are likely small. I think diverting astronomically large amounts of money to trying to reduce C02 by small amounts, is probably a poor tradeoff.
You say:
QUOTE
DK25 also includes a bizarre claim regarding the detection of changes in extreme weather events:²
“the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring”³
Actually, that is exactly what the absence of detection means — don’t take it from me, take it from the IPCC, which defines a change in climate as follows:
A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.
UNQUOTE
Technically you are correct of course. FORMALLY there may not be 'a change in the state of the climate' detected yet until decades of statistically significant changes can be observed.
On the other hand, I share the concerns of the 'blue team' that it would be risky to sit back and relax for a few decades if based on fundamental physics it can be argued that it is likely that some extreme events will indeed become more frequent and/or severe. The fact that a change is not yet statistically significant does not mean it is not happening, it only means that it is not statistically significant yet. Which, to come back to the beginning, does mean that FORMALLY it is not happening yet. Evidence is inconclusive.
See my discussion of this point and Russell’s teapot in my book Disasters and Climate change (which you can find as a PDF on my books page at THB).
It's particularly surpring coming from somone like Roger who has correctly in my opinion voiced concern over the state of attribution studies. I think the comment made my the DK25 team was made to face that criticism.
Yes, some attribution studies have over-reached but if the reason stated for why that is, is that the variability of these complex systems is too high for attributable impact to emerge on the time scale we're dealing with, then one would also be foolish to ignore Sorites Paradox.
A lack of formal detection does not imply “do nothing” or “don’t worry” or “relax for a few decades.” You won’t find those suggestions from me.
I am already a supporter of aggressive mitigation and adaptation policies.
At the same time, the lack of achieving formal detection is just that, and if that is what the data show, we should not state or pretend otherwise.
I certainly don't expect to find such suggestions from you. Based on months of reading, I've found your position quite clear.
What surprised me was the need to latch on to what I interpret (perhaps incorrectly) as an attempt by the DK25 team to face the valid criticism of certain attribution studies by basically saying sure but lack of attribution does not mean lack of effect.
And If that's what it is, I think it's a small but valuable step back from the ledge and towards conciliation that it is counterproductive to interpret differently for the lols.
I interpret DK25 as (yet another) an effort to undermine the IPCC D&A framework as related to extreme events. DOE is just the vehicle to make that critique.
I had commented in the past that a Red Team - Blue Team approach could be useful and productive when both teams were on the same team. As such the teammates would be playing by the same rules with the same goal - arriving at an improved understanding of the problems at hand. Since the Blue Team in this case does not want to cooperate in the 'same team' intermural competition, we all loose...!
Agreed! 👍
What gets me is that the Leftists take a term like "climate change" and leave out "anthropogenic carbon dioxide caused..." or "immigrants" and leave out "illegal..." or "mail in ballots" and leave out "unverifiable and harvested..." or "science" and leave out "real classical challengeable..." -- and they then pin the "deniers" and some kind of "hater" label on those who disagree with any single aspect of their cleverly crafted and slanted wordsmithing. How can science have a chance if this technique is allowed any oxygen?
Yes, and this perversion of language has unfortunately led to very astute and aware people referring to the Michael Mann/Andrew Dessler wing of Climate Scientists and their Gov't/Media/Business supporters as "Climate Advocates."
I think that this discussion is missing some key points. The main issue that is getting the DK25's bowels in an uproar is the political and legal effort being garnered in undertaking to repeal "The Endangerment Finding". This is a political/policy undertaking and not at its' core a scientific debate. I think that Roger has repeated several times his opinion that the "Finding" was made in the context of a deeply flawed law passed by Congress and we can argue the "science" until the cows come home and it wouldn't really make a difference.
I think another key point is that President Trump doesn't really care a rat's butt about the science. He does care a whole bunch though about the destructive effects on our economy of the rules and regulations spouting from the "Finding". He doesn't know much about climate modeling or ECS or detection and attribution but he knows how to build things and how to make money and when he's being screwed over by the bureaucracy. When he chooses to fight you had better be ready with your best punches.
The "Red Team" we should care about then is the All Star team led by Chris Wright, Doug Burgum and Lee Zeldin that has the remit to try to undo the damage that has been done so far and to prevent significantly more damage from being done in the future on the basis that CO2 is a pollutant that endangers the health and well being of our Nation. The role of the DOE CWG in this undertaking is to make it as clear as possible that the scientific case in support of "Endangerment" is not particularly strong and there is significant basis for this view. I think that this team, led by Steve Koonin, has done yeoman's work in this regard. The transparent attempt by DK25 to shoot holes in the DOE report is a silly waste of time as it will be put on a shelf somewhere in the bowels of DOE, kind of like Roger's review comments on various climate reports by IPCC and the NCA have been treated.
If I were on the other side of this brouhaha I would be seriously worried about the lack of a team of adults to lead the defense of the "Endangerment" finding as it now stands. Having Dessler, Hausfather, Emanuel and 82 other mostly minor Academics trying to poke holes in the DOE CWG report is really kind of laughable in the context of the big picture problem.
Seems like DK25 have danced around the main issue. In simple language, DOE CWG Report has put forth a Null Hypothesis (There's No Human-Caused Climate Catastrophe Underway or in the Offing) and claimed that the Climate Catastrophist Scientists have failed to provide evidence (observational data, not output of deterministic computer models) that would reject the Null Hypothesis. The burden of proof is entirely on the Climate Catastrophists, who would have us spend $Trillions on further studying the matter and mainly in a vain attempt to reduce the allegedly harmful Human influences. DOE CWG is basically saying to the Catastrophists: Put Up (Real evidence that would reject the Null Hypothesis) or Shut Up. In its 459 pages, does the DK25 Report put up any real "decisive" evidence to reject the Null Hypothesis or is it just complaints and accusations? I think it's just the latter, but I haven't read the DK25 Report yet. Can anyone answer my question or point me to any parts of the DK25 Report that provide pertinent evidence? If not, how can this failure best be conveyed to the Public?
You believe 459 pages are just "complaints and accusations"? You think these folks sat down and decided to not even attempt to provide legit criticism using peer-reviewed work as the basis for their criticism?
Lots of relevant professionals sympathetic to the work conducted by the "red team" have pointed out that it is flawed. Any attempt to correct those flaws and thus improve my ability to draw the best conclusions I can should be respected for attempting to do so.
I'm sure that in DK25's 459 pages there's plenty of legitimate criticism of the DOE CWG Report. Indeed, the Report's authors pretty much said at the outset that they expected lots of such criticism and were prepared to modify the Report based on legitimate criticism.
But, right off the bat, one of the coordinators of DK25, Andrew Dessler, sweepingly declared that DOE CWG Report was "bullshit" and had absolutely nothing to offer. As I said above, the DOE CWG Report basically presented a Null Hypothesis of "No Human-Caused Catastrophic Climate Change Underway or in the Offing." They used data from IPCC to support the Null Hypothesis. As Roger mentioned in his post, DK25 states that "The absence of statistically significant trends in the historical record does not mean that changes are not occurring." So, this says that DK25 are not even gonna try to reject the Null Hypothesis based on Observational Data. Instead, they spend 459 pages just poking holes in DOE CWG Report. That's fine, and legitimate criticism will be promptly addressed. But the burden of proof is on the Catatrophists, as represented by DK25 and, I think, soon by NAS. So far, they haven't presented data to reject the Null Hypothesis, and apparently aren't even trying.
What is the definition of this catastrophe they are supposed to prove is "underway or in the Offing"?
Sea rise of 20 some feet over the next 500 years?
Meat too expensive to eat for average families?
AMOC collapse?
Regions of the middle east becoming effectively unhabitable?
X more hurricanes on average sweeping across the Atlantic.
Polar bear exctinction?
Habitat loss?
Petrol car ban?
Uninsurable real estate?
All of the above? One of the above? Something else?
The UN and many National Gov'ts have relied on Climate Change Catastrophism in committing to Net Zero, which is based on the belief that my Null Hypothesis has already been decisively rejected. True Net Zero by 2050 would commit the World to spending some $275 Trillion to get there, according to McKinsey, and I think that's a gross underestimate of the cost. In answer to your question, I'd say that "Catastrophe" is a sustained combination of all sorts of horrific events (not limted to those you listed) the elimination of which would pass a $275 Trillion+ Cost-Benefit test. How would you get the $275 Trillion+ without an all-powerful State able to completely control your behavior and extract every last penny you earned? The DOE CWG authors are saying, "Gosh, you're asking for a helluva lot and you haven't even come close to making your case."
This is very much like the Overpopulation/Limits to Growth/Running-Out-of-Everything Catastrophe claims by highly-credentialed Scientists w super-sophisticated deterministic computer models back in the late '60s/early '70s. Some of the very same "Scientists" moved effortlessly from this to Climate Change Catastrophism in the late '80s as the Overpopulation Scare began to fizzle out. This led to some extremely damaging policies like mass sterilization in India and China's One-Child Policy. But these were not nearly enough to satisfy the Catastrophists of that Era. Fortunately, it was eventually realized that all the claims of Mass Starvation and drastically reduced Lie Expectancy never came to pass
There is just to much money involved in the question of the climate and what to do about it. That’s why it’s political in my opinion. The sides are so extreme that financial motivation has to be a major factor. Roger how about a piece on who the winners and losers are if we modify our current approach to climate change? Probably not in your wheelhouse but thought I would ask. By the way I recently used your name when using Chat. It was disappointing because they painted you as an outlier in the climate debate.