You speak in general terms about a carbon tax. As someone with an agricultural background, I would have a problem with that if the measurement of a carbon tax on food, fiber or biofuel didn't take account of sequestration of CO2 via photosynthesis. I wonder if your view would be that a carbon tax should be based on gross or net CO2/GHG emissions?
Interesting comment on the corrupting effect of climate change reporting on the BBC, by Iain MacWhirter, long-time BBC journalist, in the Daily Sceptic. MacWhirter was and is a left-winger, as are the vast majority of BBC journalists dating back to his arrival there in the late 80's. But in early days, according to MacWhirter, everybody at BBC went to great lengths to keep their bias out of the reporting. That changed, he said, in 2013 or 2014, after the infamous meeting where the BBC was persuaded by climate activists that "the science is settled.", and that sceptical views should no longer be presented. BBC execs agreed, and thereafter only climate alarmist views were permitted in BBC reporting. This one-sided presentation of climate change crept into other subjects over time, including LBGTQ coverage, transgender pronoun, Pakistani grooming gangs, COVID lock-downs and Gaza war coverage until the deceptive editing of Donald Trump's speech was just business as usual. Gerald Butler, another BBC alumnus, has a similar comment in today's Wall Street Journal. So the result of the climate hyperbole was the credibility collapse of one of the world's formerly most trusted news sources. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
Michael Mann is an angry and mediocre ideologue.He should not let idealogy determine his scientific opinions.That is why people now think he lacks street credibility which is the only credibility that matters.
Were you able to visit the Cornell University CHP plant that provides the majority of electric, natural gas, and steam to the Campus? Cornell constructed the line 3 mile 8” transmission gas pipeline to bypass the local utility from what is now Eastern Gas Transmission, a Berkshire Hathaway Company. It transports fracked gas from the Marcellus Shale to Ithaca, NY.
It's amazing to see the degrees of what amounts to religious zealotry on display in the comments of that YT video. There is still a lot of work to be done, apparently.
I watched the presentation Roger and it is good on the science and also the censorship aspects of your cancellation. There is cognitive dissonance here too. You say you voted for Obama twice and would do so again despite the fact that Obama's science advisor initiated your cancellation and the fact that Obama has come out in favor of the censorship industrial complex and the nonsense category of disinformation used to justify cancelling anyone contradicting our elite institutions, which are in fact mostly captured by the left. It is also true that it is generally the left and particularly the woke left that are the worst enemies of free speech.
That really is a nonsense. From my perspective looking at the US currently (I am an expat Aussie living in UK), it is the current administration in the US that has been the greatest threat to free speech and democracy I have seen in my lifetime in the West, with some absolutely horrific examples to draw on daily. I am also left-leaning and agree with Dr Pielke - I also would vote for Obama if I lived in the US. I voted for Corbyn in the UK and would do again - though not without reservation. My views on climate align very closely with Dr Pielke's, because it is firstly scientific question, and only then are there political consequences.
There is sadly a lost art to being able to disagree on some things with people and agree on others. I can vehemently disagree on some issues with someone and agree with them on other things, or trust them to act authentically. Why would Obama's former science advisor behaving negatively have anything to do with whether or not Obama would be a good president? Yet another former science advisor of Obama's would have warmly supported Dr Pielke because he has become a realist himself.
Whenever people become partisan about the "climate issue" it means they are not thinking about the problem objectively, rather just parroting views that predominate their tribe. I am pretty sure Dr Pielke is much more interested in scientific veracity than he is in which political tribe supports its conclusions.
I'll just add that it seems pretty clear to me that as John Ioannidis says in his Tablet essay, freedom of thought and speech is essential to the existence of science. It's also essential to democracy itself. I think Roger believes this himself but doesn't understand the very broad threat to freedom the left poses at this time.
It was Obama who led the Russian collusion hoax, the biggest disinformation campaign in our history to that point. He did it in order to overturn the results of an election he didn't like by getting Trump impeached. Obama also supported cultural Marxism and incited a sharp decline in race relations with his race baiting tactics. He harmed the country in lots of ways.
It was Biden's government that had literally thousands of government employees whose job was to monitor social media and regime media and then communicate to them that they needed to take down things they didn't like. This included mostly true information for example about covid. They censored some of our best scientists such as Jay Battacharia.
Trump's administration includes Democrats such as Tulsi Gabbard who sees the deep corruption of the deep state under Biden and the campaign of lawfare to try to silence her for example. They have fired the entire censorship industrial complex. There are media on all sides of most issues in the US and in fact regime media (corporate media) is losing their battle to cling to their strong left wing biases. Basically, titans of industry don't like to own platforms that are losing most of their readers and losing a lot of money. To understand the US, you must understand that regime media has lied consistently about almost every important issue of the last 12 years.
You probably don't like Trump's use of Federal funding to get elite Universities to stop violating civil rights laws but almost every administration has done that. You may not like Trump suing media outlets that defame him, but Winston Churchill made a nice living doing so. Woke ideology is the biggest threat the West has faced since the 1930's and it is fundamentally in favor of censorship and uniformity of thought. That's why it was lefties who cancelled Roger.
I posted a link to a Jonathan Turley article about the insane use of the justice system to jail people in Britain for saying innocuous and true things. We dodged a bullet when Harris lost.
It's important to deal with reality and not our prejudices. It's important to look at substance and not just style.
Roger -- Thanks for posting the video of your talk at Cornell. My one question about your comments has to do with your position favoring a carbon tax: Are you really just suggesting a price on carbon? Or do you think that a carbon tax is specifically better than a cap-and-trade approach. As I understand some cap-and-trade schemes, there's an opportunity for a positive economic feedback where the payments (e.g., emission allowances) go fairly directly to organizations (e.g., through auctions) that are succeeding at emissions reductions. It seems to me that this provides a stronger incentive in support of low-carbon technology deployments.
I’ve now watched the presentation. Good stuff. But the natural conclusion that must be considered if (1) climate extremes are not getting worse and (2) the mortality from extreme weather is at record lows, is that either (3) the planet isn’t warming materially or (4) if it is the dynamic weather systems remain largely unaffected by it.
There is peer reviewed literature supporting each proposition at 3 and 4. A combination of them both is likely (and consistent with earlier research done by Calendar, Lamb and others - Roger’s Dad included).
The inexorable conclusion though is that climate change is barely relevant to human welfare and does not justify rapid decarbonisation of fossil fuels that are vital to human welfare for the foreseeable future (btw I suspect the decoupling of GDP from fossil fuel use is due to the efficiency of ICEs and power plants etc, partly driven by economies of scale, but that’s just a guess).
Perhaps tell that to the next student environmental scientist who’s worried that the scary story narrative of Steve Schneider might get called out for the fake news it is.
I also don’t think we need the IPCC. Certainly not as currently used to justify political objectives that are deeply unpopular. An objective body, that called politicians out for misrepresenting the science, could have value. For example Table 12.12 should have led the IPCC’s talking points. Not ‘global boiling’. That such an important collection of observations was buried tells a story.
You speak in general terms about a carbon tax. As someone with an agricultural background, I would have a problem with that if the measurement of a carbon tax on food, fiber or biofuel didn't take account of sequestration of CO2 via photosynthesis. I wonder if your view would be that a carbon tax should be based on gross or net CO2/GHG emissions?
Any scientist who believes he knows the truth is not a scientist at all.
Another article exposing how bad scientific publishing has become.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/11/19/how_the_avalanche_of_academic_papers_threatens_scientific_research_1148282.html
Interesting comment on the corrupting effect of climate change reporting on the BBC, by Iain MacWhirter, long-time BBC journalist, in the Daily Sceptic. MacWhirter was and is a left-winger, as are the vast majority of BBC journalists dating back to his arrival there in the late 80's. But in early days, according to MacWhirter, everybody at BBC went to great lengths to keep their bias out of the reporting. That changed, he said, in 2013 or 2014, after the infamous meeting where the BBC was persuaded by climate activists that "the science is settled.", and that sceptical views should no longer be presented. BBC execs agreed, and thereafter only climate alarmist views were permitted in BBC reporting. This one-sided presentation of climate change crept into other subjects over time, including LBGTQ coverage, transgender pronoun, Pakistani grooming gangs, COVID lock-downs and Gaza war coverage until the deceptive editing of Donald Trump's speech was just business as usual. Gerald Butler, another BBC alumnus, has a similar comment in today's Wall Street Journal. So the result of the climate hyperbole was the credibility collapse of one of the world's formerly most trusted news sources. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
Michael Mann is an angry and mediocre ideologue.He should not let idealogy determine his scientific opinions.That is why people now think he lacks street credibility which is the only credibility that matters.
Crazy is really hard to get around.
Were you able to visit the Cornell University CHP plant that provides the majority of electric, natural gas, and steam to the Campus? Cornell constructed the line 3 mile 8” transmission gas pipeline to bypass the local utility from what is now Eastern Gas Transmission, a Berkshire Hathaway Company. It transports fracked gas from the Marcellus Shale to Ithaca, NY.
It's amazing to see the degrees of what amounts to religious zealotry on display in the comments of that YT video. There is still a lot of work to be done, apparently.
I enjoyed your video and presentation. Thank you for sharing. It's a breath of fresh air to follow you (here) and Chris Martz (on X)
Pielke is miles more credible and sensible than Chris Martz
I watched the presentation Roger and it is good on the science and also the censorship aspects of your cancellation. There is cognitive dissonance here too. You say you voted for Obama twice and would do so again despite the fact that Obama's science advisor initiated your cancellation and the fact that Obama has come out in favor of the censorship industrial complex and the nonsense category of disinformation used to justify cancelling anyone contradicting our elite institutions, which are in fact mostly captured by the left. It is also true that it is generally the left and particularly the woke left that are the worst enemies of free speech.
That really is a nonsense. From my perspective looking at the US currently (I am an expat Aussie living in UK), it is the current administration in the US that has been the greatest threat to free speech and democracy I have seen in my lifetime in the West, with some absolutely horrific examples to draw on daily. I am also left-leaning and agree with Dr Pielke - I also would vote for Obama if I lived in the US. I voted for Corbyn in the UK and would do again - though not without reservation. My views on climate align very closely with Dr Pielke's, because it is firstly scientific question, and only then are there political consequences.
There is sadly a lost art to being able to disagree on some things with people and agree on others. I can vehemently disagree on some issues with someone and agree with them on other things, or trust them to act authentically. Why would Obama's former science advisor behaving negatively have anything to do with whether or not Obama would be a good president? Yet another former science advisor of Obama's would have warmly supported Dr Pielke because he has become a realist himself.
Whenever people become partisan about the "climate issue" it means they are not thinking about the problem objectively, rather just parroting views that predominate their tribe. I am pretty sure Dr Pielke is much more interested in scientific veracity than he is in which political tribe supports its conclusions.
4🙄🙄🙄🙄for you
I wouldn't bet on your last point.
I'll just add that it seems pretty clear to me that as John Ioannidis says in his Tablet essay, freedom of thought and speech is essential to the existence of science. It's also essential to democracy itself. I think Roger believes this himself but doesn't understand the very broad threat to freedom the left poses at this time.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/saving-democracy-from-pandemic
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/pandemic-science
I notice you don't cite any evidence at all.
It was Obama who led the Russian collusion hoax, the biggest disinformation campaign in our history to that point. He did it in order to overturn the results of an election he didn't like by getting Trump impeached. Obama also supported cultural Marxism and incited a sharp decline in race relations with his race baiting tactics. He harmed the country in lots of ways.
It was Biden's government that had literally thousands of government employees whose job was to monitor social media and regime media and then communicate to them that they needed to take down things they didn't like. This included mostly true information for example about covid. They censored some of our best scientists such as Jay Battacharia.
Trump's administration includes Democrats such as Tulsi Gabbard who sees the deep corruption of the deep state under Biden and the campaign of lawfare to try to silence her for example. They have fired the entire censorship industrial complex. There are media on all sides of most issues in the US and in fact regime media (corporate media) is losing their battle to cling to their strong left wing biases. Basically, titans of industry don't like to own platforms that are losing most of their readers and losing a lot of money. To understand the US, you must understand that regime media has lied consistently about almost every important issue of the last 12 years.
You probably don't like Trump's use of Federal funding to get elite Universities to stop violating civil rights laws but almost every administration has done that. You may not like Trump suing media outlets that defame him, but Winston Churchill made a nice living doing so. Woke ideology is the biggest threat the West has faced since the 1930's and it is fundamentally in favor of censorship and uniformity of thought. That's why it was lefties who cancelled Roger.
I posted a link to a Jonathan Turley article about the insane use of the justice system to jail people in Britain for saying innocuous and true things. We dodged a bullet when Harris lost.
It's important to deal with reality and not our prejudices. It's important to look at substance and not just style.
Roger -- Thanks for posting the video of your talk at Cornell. My one question about your comments has to do with your position favoring a carbon tax: Are you really just suggesting a price on carbon? Or do you think that a carbon tax is specifically better than a cap-and-trade approach. As I understand some cap-and-trade schemes, there's an opportunity for a positive economic feedback where the payments (e.g., emission allowances) go fairly directly to organizations (e.g., through auctions) that are succeeding at emissions reductions. It seems to me that this provides a stronger incentive in support of low-carbon technology deployments.
Thanks for your excellent deconstruction of the statistics of AGW attribution.
I've written about this here. https://empathy.guru/2025/11/17/dark-matter-agw-and-emotionally-driven-decision-making/
I’ve now watched the presentation. Good stuff. But the natural conclusion that must be considered if (1) climate extremes are not getting worse and (2) the mortality from extreme weather is at record lows, is that either (3) the planet isn’t warming materially or (4) if it is the dynamic weather systems remain largely unaffected by it.
There is peer reviewed literature supporting each proposition at 3 and 4. A combination of them both is likely (and consistent with earlier research done by Calendar, Lamb and others - Roger’s Dad included).
The inexorable conclusion though is that climate change is barely relevant to human welfare and does not justify rapid decarbonisation of fossil fuels that are vital to human welfare for the foreseeable future (btw I suspect the decoupling of GDP from fossil fuel use is due to the efficiency of ICEs and power plants etc, partly driven by economies of scale, but that’s just a guess).
Perhaps tell that to the next student environmental scientist who’s worried that the scary story narrative of Steve Schneider might get called out for the fake news it is.
I also don’t think we need the IPCC. Certainly not as currently used to justify political objectives that are deeply unpopular. An objective body, that called politicians out for misrepresenting the science, could have value. For example Table 12.12 should have led the IPCC’s talking points. Not ‘global boiling’. That such an important collection of observations was buried tells a story.
Excellent, work, Roger. Keep it up.....
Spot on once again Roger! As usual, continuing to emphasize the "H" in all your posts, speeches, essays, articles, etc...
Thank you for your efforts!!