Good presentation. I’m a big fan of your scientific/policy analysis. On area of confusion, however, is your endorsement of the conclusions from the IPCC Working Group 1.
In the past, you’ve cited cases where the IPCC lacks scientific integrity (see below). You are likely aware of many other areas of where data is selective used (or adjusted) to hide inconvenient conclusions.... e.g. solar influence on the climate; measured temperature adjustments and urban heat island effects; overly hot models; ECS assumptions; the hockey stick; and many more. Given these long standing integrity problems, how do we trust the IPCC’s conclusions?
2 of many examples to illustrate the point:
1. You highlighted 54 studies relating to hurricane “normalized damaged”: 53 of these studies showed no human attribution. These 53 studies were ignored by the IPCC. One study supported attribution – and this was the only one cited by the IPCC (since the conclusions supported the IPCC narrative). This is clearly unacceptable science.
2. The sun’s influence on past/present climate is a major topic. Yet the recent report deleted findings from earlier IPCC reports that showed the sun could account for part (or a majority) of recent temperature changes. Clearly this conclusion was inconvenient. To address this problem, a small group created the PMOD data set using controversial adjustments to the satellite data. This modified data conveniently showed the sun had a minor impact of temperatures. The last IPCC report deleted the conventional data and relied soley on the adjusted/controversial PMOD data.
Clearly the IPCC wants to suppress this important scientific topic (only a handful of pages discuss the sun, from the 2000+ pages in the report).
Russ, thanks. The IPCC is a snapshot in time presenting what its small group of authors think the varied and vast literature says. It is an important organization, because if it did not exist we'd have to invent it. That said, it is not an infallible institution and errors and biases are always possible. It is the job of all experts, not just those involved, to play a part in the extended peer-review community of the IPCC. That helps to strengthen its work. The bottom line conclusions of the IPCC (which i discuss in Ch.1 of The Climate Fix) have remained remarkably consistent since the 1980s. That should give confidence in those conclusions.
Excellent interview - I thought the host got a little lost when discussing the drought in the Horn of Africa and mixed it up with climate change - I was hoping you would bring up the Indian Ocean Dipole as a possible cause.
Thank you Roger, an excellent interview bringing together so many aspects of science, political science, climate and policy. Very refreshing to hear someone talk like a scientist - admitting errors, discussing assumptions, and in particular being clear about the construction and usefulness of scenarios. I made several notes to incorporate in my Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) currently in preparation, examining the so-called energy "transition" from an energy (not just emissions) point of view.
Roger posts some good stuff here. I subscribed in the past but canceled because there was no participation in the comments by RPJr. In fact the comments section is almost non existent. There would doubtless be more interaction if the author participated.
I studied Oceanography and Meteorology at NYU back in the days (1960s) when a course or 2 in air/sea interaction was what passed for climate science. I received a BS and MS. I am certainly closer to your father's generation than yours. I spent 30 yrs of my 40 yr working career with a major oil and gas company working on a wide range of things including some of what I was trained for. Since retiring 16 yrs ago, I have spent a lot of time on Climate Change and related issues. I am familiar with much of your work.
During the podcast, you seemed to say that you cut Michael Mann slack in his public advocacy and attacks on others because he was the subject of a congressional investigation. Really? Do you put scientific expertise and camaraderie above ethics and honesty?
Not quite ... I explained that when politicians in Congress and Virginia came after Mann, I spoke out on his absolute right to call things like he sees them. If Mann uses that right to say nonsense (like climate changes has killed more people than Covid), then the nonsense should be called out.
Good presentation. I’m a big fan of your scientific/policy analysis. On area of confusion, however, is your endorsement of the conclusions from the IPCC Working Group 1.
In the past, you’ve cited cases where the IPCC lacks scientific integrity (see below). You are likely aware of many other areas of where data is selective used (or adjusted) to hide inconvenient conclusions.... e.g. solar influence on the climate; measured temperature adjustments and urban heat island effects; overly hot models; ECS assumptions; the hockey stick; and many more. Given these long standing integrity problems, how do we trust the IPCC’s conclusions?
2 of many examples to illustrate the point:
1. You highlighted 54 studies relating to hurricane “normalized damaged”: 53 of these studies showed no human attribution. These 53 studies were ignored by the IPCC. One study supported attribution – and this was the only one cited by the IPCC (since the conclusions supported the IPCC narrative). This is clearly unacceptable science.
2. The sun’s influence on past/present climate is a major topic. Yet the recent report deleted findings from earlier IPCC reports that showed the sun could account for part (or a majority) of recent temperature changes. Clearly this conclusion was inconvenient. To address this problem, a small group created the PMOD data set using controversial adjustments to the satellite data. This modified data conveniently showed the sun had a minor impact of temperatures. The last IPCC report deleted the conventional data and relied soley on the adjusted/controversial PMOD data.
Clearly the IPCC wants to suppress this important scientific topic (only a handful of pages discuss the sun, from the 2000+ pages in the report).
Russ, thanks. The IPCC is a snapshot in time presenting what its small group of authors think the varied and vast literature says. It is an important organization, because if it did not exist we'd have to invent it. That said, it is not an infallible institution and errors and biases are always possible. It is the job of all experts, not just those involved, to play a part in the extended peer-review community of the IPCC. That helps to strengthen its work. The bottom line conclusions of the IPCC (which i discuss in Ch.1 of The Climate Fix) have remained remarkably consistent since the 1980s. That should give confidence in those conclusions.
Excellent interview - I thought the host got a little lost when discussing the drought in the Horn of Africa and mixed it up with climate change - I was hoping you would bring up the Indian Ocean Dipole as a possible cause.
A detailed discussion of "event attribution" would have needed another hour ;-)
Thank you Roger, an excellent interview bringing together so many aspects of science, political science, climate and policy. Very refreshing to hear someone talk like a scientist - admitting errors, discussing assumptions, and in particular being clear about the construction and usefulness of scenarios. I made several notes to incorporate in my Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) currently in preparation, examining the so-called energy "transition" from an energy (not just emissions) point of view.
Roger posts some good stuff here. I subscribed in the past but canceled because there was no participation in the comments by RPJr. In fact the comments section is almost non existent. There would doubtless be more interaction if the author participated.
Hi Mark, I'm happy to engage ... fire away, thx
Thank you, that would be good.
I studied Oceanography and Meteorology at NYU back in the days (1960s) when a course or 2 in air/sea interaction was what passed for climate science. I received a BS and MS. I am certainly closer to your father's generation than yours. I spent 30 yrs of my 40 yr working career with a major oil and gas company working on a wide range of things including some of what I was trained for. Since retiring 16 yrs ago, I have spent a lot of time on Climate Change and related issues. I am familiar with much of your work.
During the podcast, you seemed to say that you cut Michael Mann slack in his public advocacy and attacks on others because he was the subject of a congressional investigation. Really? Do you put scientific expertise and camaraderie above ethics and honesty?
Not quite ... I explained that when politicians in Congress and Virginia came after Mann, I spoke out on his absolute right to call things like he sees them. If Mann uses that right to say nonsense (like climate changes has killed more people than Covid), then the nonsense should be called out.