As Ted Nordhaus wrote, between 1992 and 2007 the forecast global average temperature increases for the year 2100 were steadily rising, from 3-4 °C to 5-6 °C (and some even shouting more than 12). Since then the idea of 1.5 °C and 2°C have become the story. What baffles me is that in parallell to this reduction in forecast GAT, the alleged consequences have remained the same or made even worse. It seems somewhere there was a disconnect between the story on how much warming we would see and what the consequences would become. All this under a guise of "settled science".
Thank you for these links Roger; they are all quite good particularly Ted Nordhaus. I see an implicit assumption, however, in much of the work on both sides that I would love to see you address. That is that there is a 'right' level of CO2, it is 'low', and the years before the industrial revolution represent that level. Do we know any of this? What experiments are being done to determine whether there is a 'right' level of CO2? And, if there is such a thing, what is that 'right' level? Given the pace of technological invention, I am concerned that soon some will propose taking CO2 out of the air to prevent something (not sure what, given all of the information out there), and these proposals will lack both any sense of the trade-offs (any positives of current CO2 levels are relentlessly ignored by most 'scientists'), of less/more CO2 leaving the human and animal/botanical populations much worse off. There will be money to make, of course, from technology that removes CO2 from the air and that may take the place currently occupied by those making money from so-called green energy resources. Understanding this gives me no comfort. Mr Nordhaus is right that it has been hard to propose and fund experiments that deviate from the accepted narrative, yet we need such proposals and experiments! Can you (or Ted Nordhaus) shed any light on what is happening in the research arm of 'climate science'? Maybe I can find some comfort there.
"The secretary’s plan was simple. We would reorient the debate about climate science and climate policy by confronting the gatekeepers head-on. The DOE was to publish a report that would reinforce areas of wide agreement among climate scientists, such as the observable fact that carbon dioxide is a GHG that is warming the planet. However, in the immortal words of Al Gore, the report would also shed light on some inconvenient truths that cut against the prevailing narrative that climate change is an existential threat.
Among those truths: US historical data do not support claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts."
So far so good. But if the "prevailing narrative" has led to incorrect polices, what correct policies follow from correcting the narrative? How much reduction CO2 accumulation will feeing smug about not being wrong US hurricane data get us?
“Why do so many smart people, most trained as scientists, engineers, lawyers, or public policy experts, and all who will tell you, and I say this not ironically, that they “believe in science,” get the science of climate risk so badly wrong?”
Becasue people like Nordhaus do not use the not-wrong analysis to advocate for non-wrong policies.
Roger, I too disagree with you about your current position on Endangerment /Carbon Dioxide pollution rulings. There never was a full-throat legal and scientific discussion about it, as such it was allowed to slide into the Clean Air Act of in 2012 without ever getting an open debate and Congressional approval. It is better late than never that we are going to witness a well rounded discussion now. The EPA of Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy was far too political, with climate science becoming an orphan. Judith Curry and you were victimized in that era.
I appreciate that you are in favor of this new discussion.
Thank you for this information, Roger. I forwarded a copy of the paper regarding prescribed burns to the inter agency task force fighting the Gifford Fire, California's largest wildfire. This morning, the acreage was 119,070 acres with 33% containment. In San Luis Obispo County, the fire is burning through a wilderness area that has never burned in recorded history. When conditions are right, firefighters will be conducting some controlled burns in advance of the forecast path of this large fire.
I included the plain-language summary, "Prescribed (“Rx”) fire is increasingly proposed as a policy strategy to reduce wildfire risks in the western US, but evidence of its effectiveness in lowering fire severity and smoke emissions remains limited. We empirically demonstrate that, for areas that had been recently treated with Rx fire and then burned during the extreme 2020 wildfire season in California, Rx fires led to a net reduction of . 14% in smoke emissions, although these treatments were less effective in areas near human populations. Our findings suggest that expanding Rx fire use can meaningfully reduce smoke emissions, even when factoring in smoke from the Rx fires themselves. The broader application of Rx fires can provide benefits in mitigating severe wildfire impacts and improving air quality in similar fire‐prone regions worldwide."
I'm not sure that firing the head of the BLS was wrong. When you have large adjustments every month or two, you have to question the methods. I recently read an article that talked about how they collect data on pricing and it was ridiculous. At a time when I could go to every major retailer in a metro area and scrape their prices off of their ecommerce sites, they are personally stopping by and chatting up the proprietors about prices. Why?
I personally know six highly regarded (and now very successful) graduate Economics interns who worked briefly at the BLS over a 20-year period. To a person, typical of many government agencies, they all considered the BLS to be intellectually weak, second rate and sclerotic. Trump might not have the best of reasons re terminating BLS personnel, but it’s hard to claim that the BLS is “the gold standard.” Practically no long term federal agency should be considered “the gold standard.” In this regard they too often share ingrained thought biases and out-of-date expertise common to many tenured professors in academia.
The "ingrained thought biases" are an issue at NOAA and the NWS.
As a result, tornado warning accuracy has plummeted since 2010 and other types of warnings aren't doing much better. The only exception is hurricane warnings which have improved markedly.
There were serious issues with the NWS warnings of the horrible flooding in E Tennessee and W North Carolina as Helene moved inland as 100+ died. There were also issues with the warnings during the catastrophic Texas floods last month with ~140 dead. The NWS used to do "service assessments" of its work after major storms. Now, if their work has/had issues, no assessment. The fact that neither Texas nor Helene have assessments speaks volumes.
It appears (note that word, I'm not sure yet) the NWS doesn't even keep statistics on the accuracy of its flood warnings.
Firing the head of BLS would do absolutely nothing to change the methods of data collection. I am unaware of any published critque of BLS methods, which are widely understood to be the gold standard across OECD. Firing a statistician because the president didn't like the statistics is pretty silly.
I'm not sure if the analogy applies, but the NRC is "widely understood to be the gold standard" across nuclear regulation, yet they've presided over the construction of exactly 2 reactors in 50 years, while the UAE regulatory agency oversaw four reactors go up on time and on budget in about 12 years.
I think that leaders have accountability to review and make changes to methods and processes continuously. When the world changes and your ways of measuring it don't, that can be a problem. I based my opinion on two things: 1) Large retroactive adjustments to the official statistics and 2) a description of some of the shortcomings of the data collection in a WSJ article. Quite often, people get accustomed to doing things a certain way and won't naturally migrate to being more efficient / effective unless pushed or mandated. Leaders are the one's who push. When I worked at GM, they were said to be the best in the world ...
Statistics are, by nature, backward looking and will reflect only what has happened, neither what is happening or could happen in the future. Humans routinely use statistics poorly. I completely agree that methods of looking back need to adjust over time and, possibly, more than just a government which is first and foremost focused on projecting its upcoming revenue, needs to be involved in designing and gathering statistics. Statistics are how a government 'sees' (fabulous book called "Seeing Like a State") which less often than one hopes aligns with what could be seen to craft sensible policies around whether and to what end government/policy should 'intervene' in what has happened/is happening.
A lot of the credit for changing the conversation goes to you Dr. Pielke. Your work has been invaluable. I remember when attempting to re-post your work at FB would get me temp banned. My, times have changed.
I haven't tried to post THB at Facebook for a long time. I do think I am still throttled at Twitter (beyond the Substack algorithm). I do post THB over at Bluesky where I am blocked by dozens of climate folks.
I am, at most, an interested observer in this area of government. But I have independently noticed what seem to be unusually large adjustments in recent years.
To both you (Mike) and Roger: of course adjustments are getting bigger. The economy is getting more complex and government's ways of 'seeing' havent changed in how long? Years ago, I read about all the adjustments made to compare GNP over years, given the change in products. It was shocking then and I can only imagine what gyrations are gone through now. First, it would be helpful if 'we' (collectively) could decide what we want to observe and for what purpose? Both will change over time, particularly given the fast pace of population and technologival change! Just imagine how government statistics are going to look if/when the population actually starts shrinking!
Fortune and Reuters are mainstream media. Their writers' job is to scare you, anger you, or otherwise produce strong emotions that get them clicks. To that job, truth is irrelevant.
That Labor OIG report is very good, thanks. Of course, firing the bureau's head will do nothing to advance implementation of any of that report's recommendations or do anything to alter the methodology for collecting labor statistics. Data can always be made better, of course, and if there are steps to improve US economic data, then they should be discussed and debated. It is not about any specific person (who has essentially zero role in the data collection or analyses).
Sorry, that is not how THB works. If you violate the community norms again I’ll refund your subscription and wish you well. Your opinions and arguments are welcomed, of course, but abusing the privilege of posting here is not.
Proofread note: "compiled", not "complied" in the paragraph referencing Chenoweth and Howard (2023).
As Ted Nordhaus wrote, between 1992 and 2007 the forecast global average temperature increases for the year 2100 were steadily rising, from 3-4 °C to 5-6 °C (and some even shouting more than 12). Since then the idea of 1.5 °C and 2°C have become the story. What baffles me is that in parallell to this reduction in forecast GAT, the alleged consequences have remained the same or made even worse. It seems somewhere there was a disconnect between the story on how much warming we would see and what the consequences would become. All this under a guise of "settled science".
Any thoughts on that?
Thank you for these links Roger; they are all quite good particularly Ted Nordhaus. I see an implicit assumption, however, in much of the work on both sides that I would love to see you address. That is that there is a 'right' level of CO2, it is 'low', and the years before the industrial revolution represent that level. Do we know any of this? What experiments are being done to determine whether there is a 'right' level of CO2? And, if there is such a thing, what is that 'right' level? Given the pace of technological invention, I am concerned that soon some will propose taking CO2 out of the air to prevent something (not sure what, given all of the information out there), and these proposals will lack both any sense of the trade-offs (any positives of current CO2 levels are relentlessly ignored by most 'scientists'), of less/more CO2 leaving the human and animal/botanical populations much worse off. There will be money to make, of course, from technology that removes CO2 from the air and that may take the place currently occupied by those making money from so-called green energy resources. Understanding this gives me no comfort. Mr Nordhaus is right that it has been hard to propose and fund experiments that deviate from the accepted narrative, yet we need such proposals and experiments! Can you (or Ted Nordhaus) shed any light on what is happening in the research arm of 'climate science'? Maybe I can find some comfort there.
"The secretary’s plan was simple. We would reorient the debate about climate science and climate policy by confronting the gatekeepers head-on. The DOE was to publish a report that would reinforce areas of wide agreement among climate scientists, such as the observable fact that carbon dioxide is a GHG that is warming the planet. However, in the immortal words of Al Gore, the report would also shed light on some inconvenient truths that cut against the prevailing narrative that climate change is an existential threat.
Among those truths: US historical data do not support claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts."
So far so good. But if the "prevailing narrative" has led to incorrect polices, what correct policies follow from correcting the narrative? How much reduction CO2 accumulation will feeing smug about not being wrong US hurricane data get us?
“Why do so many smart people, most trained as scientists, engineers, lawyers, or public policy experts, and all who will tell you, and I say this not ironically, that they “believe in science,” get the science of climate risk so badly wrong?”
Becasue people like Nordhaus do not use the not-wrong analysis to advocate for non-wrong policies.
Roger, I too disagree with you about your current position on Endangerment /Carbon Dioxide pollution rulings. There never was a full-throat legal and scientific discussion about it, as such it was allowed to slide into the Clean Air Act of in 2012 without ever getting an open debate and Congressional approval. It is better late than never that we are going to witness a well rounded discussion now. The EPA of Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy was far too political, with climate science becoming an orphan. Judith Curry and you were victimized in that era.
I appreciate that you are in favor of this new discussion.
Thank you for this information, Roger. I forwarded a copy of the paper regarding prescribed burns to the inter agency task force fighting the Gifford Fire, California's largest wildfire. This morning, the acreage was 119,070 acres with 33% containment. In San Luis Obispo County, the fire is burning through a wilderness area that has never burned in recorded history. When conditions are right, firefighters will be conducting some controlled burns in advance of the forecast path of this large fire.
I included the plain-language summary, "Prescribed (“Rx”) fire is increasingly proposed as a policy strategy to reduce wildfire risks in the western US, but evidence of its effectiveness in lowering fire severity and smoke emissions remains limited. We empirically demonstrate that, for areas that had been recently treated with Rx fire and then burned during the extreme 2020 wildfire season in California, Rx fires led to a net reduction of . 14% in smoke emissions, although these treatments were less effective in areas near human populations. Our findings suggest that expanding Rx fire use can meaningfully reduce smoke emissions, even when factoring in smoke from the Rx fires themselves. The broader application of Rx fires can provide benefits in mitigating severe wildfire impacts and improving air quality in similar fire‐prone regions worldwide."
I'm not sure that firing the head of the BLS was wrong. When you have large adjustments every month or two, you have to question the methods. I recently read an article that talked about how they collect data on pricing and it was ridiculous. At a time when I could go to every major retailer in a metro area and scrape their prices off of their ecommerce sites, they are personally stopping by and chatting up the proprietors about prices. Why?
I personally know six highly regarded (and now very successful) graduate Economics interns who worked briefly at the BLS over a 20-year period. To a person, typical of many government agencies, they all considered the BLS to be intellectually weak, second rate and sclerotic. Trump might not have the best of reasons re terminating BLS personnel, but it’s hard to claim that the BLS is “the gold standard.” Practically no long term federal agency should be considered “the gold standard.” In this regard they too often share ingrained thought biases and out-of-date expertise common to many tenured professors in academia.
The "ingrained thought biases" are an issue at NOAA and the NWS.
As a result, tornado warning accuracy has plummeted since 2010 and other types of warnings aren't doing much better. The only exception is hurricane warnings which have improved markedly.
There were serious issues with the NWS warnings of the horrible flooding in E Tennessee and W North Carolina as Helene moved inland as 100+ died. There were also issues with the warnings during the catastrophic Texas floods last month with ~140 dead. The NWS used to do "service assessments" of its work after major storms. Now, if their work has/had issues, no assessment. The fact that neither Texas nor Helene have assessments speaks volumes.
It appears (note that word, I'm not sure yet) the NWS doesn't even keep statistics on the accuracy of its flood warnings.
Very good point about having large adjustments for the prior month or two.
Firing the head of BLS would do absolutely nothing to change the methods of data collection. I am unaware of any published critque of BLS methods, which are widely understood to be the gold standard across OECD. Firing a statistician because the president didn't like the statistics is pretty silly.
I'm not sure if the analogy applies, but the NRC is "widely understood to be the gold standard" across nuclear regulation, yet they've presided over the construction of exactly 2 reactors in 50 years, while the UAE regulatory agency oversaw four reactors go up on time and on budget in about 12 years.
https://hargraves.substack.com/p/drowning-in-nrc-documents/comments
I do not think "gold standard" means what people think it means....
I think that leaders have accountability to review and make changes to methods and processes continuously. When the world changes and your ways of measuring it don't, that can be a problem. I based my opinion on two things: 1) Large retroactive adjustments to the official statistics and 2) a description of some of the shortcomings of the data collection in a WSJ article. Quite often, people get accustomed to doing things a certain way and won't naturally migrate to being more efficient / effective unless pushed or mandated. Leaders are the one's who push. When I worked at GM, they were said to be the best in the world ...
Statistics are, by nature, backward looking and will reflect only what has happened, neither what is happening or could happen in the future. Humans routinely use statistics poorly. I completely agree that methods of looking back need to adjust over time and, possibly, more than just a government which is first and foremost focused on projecting its upcoming revenue, needs to be involved in designing and gathering statistics. Statistics are how a government 'sees' (fabulous book called "Seeing Like a State") which less often than one hopes aligns with what could be seen to craft sensible policies around whether and to what end government/policy should 'intervene' in what has happened/is happening.
Roger has already experienced the climate inquisition. An injustice which reveals that the climate industry is not about science.
No argument here ;-)
A lot of the credit for changing the conversation goes to you Dr. Pielke. Your work has been invaluable. I remember when attempting to re-post your work at FB would get me temp banned. My, times have changed.
I haven't tried to post THB at Facebook for a long time. I do think I am still throttled at Twitter (beyond the Substack algorithm). I do post THB over at Bluesky where I am blocked by dozens of climate folks.
Oh, they are going to hate you on Bluesky!
https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExcXg2d2ZyOXdhNXMxZHNrbGtxYjVjY2lnYWlpdm9wbGVjejdmbWtmcCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/IgsXOXGPxfT3O/giphy.gif
Roger, Your posts on the CWG expose you to a potential charge of heresy.
Remember, "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition." (HT: Monty Python) ;-)
Hi Roger,
I'm curious as to why the firing of the person in charge of the jobs report aroused your criticism. It has been a mess -- for years. Reuters, which is hardly pro-Trump, agrees: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jobs-data-revisions-that-cost-us-government-statistician-her-job-2025-08-04/
See also: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117743/documents/HHRG-118-GO00-20241205-SD003.pdf
Would you elaborate further?
Mike
Can you point to specific criticisms of the BLS Director prior to the firing?
The Census report you sent (which is not the BLS) indicates that Congress is responsible for oversight
Politically motivated firings of statistics officials is never a good idea!
When a Federal Agency fails repeatedly to do its job and refuses to correct itself, you fire the person in charge and start over.
My sense is that he oversees this group that has done poor quality work for years.
It is the same as a coach getting fired after years of losing records.
The BLS data are high quality and produced by 100s of people
US government data are by far the world’s best
Can you point to any study that shows that BLS data are flawed in any way?
Revisions to economic data are expected and normal and have always happened
Both Fortune ( https://fortune.com/2025/06/13/bls-data-federal-reserve-cpi-employment/ ) and Reuters (above) believe there are issues with the data.
As to studies, the only one I can find is this: https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2024/17-24-001-11-001.pdf
I am, at most, an interested observer in this area of government. But I have independently noticed what seem to be unusually large adjustments in recent years.
To both you (Mike) and Roger: of course adjustments are getting bigger. The economy is getting more complex and government's ways of 'seeing' havent changed in how long? Years ago, I read about all the adjustments made to compare GNP over years, given the change in products. It was shocking then and I can only imagine what gyrations are gone through now. First, it would be helpful if 'we' (collectively) could decide what we want to observe and for what purpose? Both will change over time, particularly given the fast pace of population and technologival change! Just imagine how government statistics are going to look if/when the population actually starts shrinking!
Fortune and Reuters are mainstream media. Their writers' job is to scare you, anger you, or otherwise produce strong emotions that get them clicks. To that job, truth is irrelevant.
That Labor OIG report is very good, thanks. Of course, firing the bureau's head will do nothing to advance implementation of any of that report's recommendations or do anything to alter the methodology for collecting labor statistics. Data can always be made better, of course, and if there are steps to improve US economic data, then they should be discussed and debated. It is not about any specific person (who has essentially zero role in the data collection or analyses).
Climate Change Science is never settled
The wildfires are arson, not from climate change: https://cctruth.org/wildfire/
https://rcmp.ca/en/manitoba/news/2025/05/manitoba-rcmp-make-two-arson-arrests-following-wildfires
https://www.ecosia.org/search?method=newtab&addon=chrome&addonversion=7.1.0&q=Rowena+Fire+arson+arests
https://www.koin.com/news/wildfires/alder-springs-fire-in-central-oregon-was-human-caused-officials-say/
https://rosedogbookstore.com/climate-crisis-changed-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-reports-are-deliberate-science-fiction-ebook-text/
arson fire
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/local/2025/07/09/salem-fire-grass-grass-structure-fire-southeast-salem/84525257007/
Because the high schools teach the fear mongering of the media and UN. Nothing they have said will happen has ever happened.
Trees release terpenes which induce rain.
The high school teach our published high-school textbook and the arson fires will stop.
Climate Change is about Fear mongering and removing people from the earth.
Please do not post the same set of links repeatedly here at THB. Last warning, thx.
If you post the UN nonsense again I will post the correct science.
Sorry, that is not how THB works. If you violate the community norms again I’ll refund your subscription and wish you well. Your opinions and arguments are welcomed, of course, but abusing the privilege of posting here is not.
Wonderful summary. look forward to next post.