Ideology is permeating research, epistemology and is not going to go away soon. Data are irrelevant because there are too many vested interest into the current catastrophic narrative. Yes, education and ethic are the keys to change the current inertia but is not easy. As soon as you sing out of the choir you are shunned by the scientific community. Look at Marxism: economic disasters, million of deaths, poverty but still popular
There is more at work here than media clicks. Just like Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex, there is a climate-industrial complex today. Enormous amounts of money and regulatory powers are at stake. Why the media goes along with this is a more complicated question. I think it’s partly because it plays into the kind of good versus evil narrative that they seem to find attractive nowadays. You have the evil business community who want to make money even if it destroys the planet, versus the “scientific consensus” who only want the best for the future. I think some actually believe this fairy tale. It’s kind of similar to how the media covered Covid. They seem to believe it’s their role now to advocate for certain policies even if it means slanting their reporting.
Piltdown Mann and others will instead point to an increase of F0-F1 small tornados as “proof” of “climate emergency”, even though when you compare that to the trend of the bigger tornados it’s clear that is just detection bias, Doppler radar picking up every little spin.
No different than how satellites now see every spinning cloud in the ocean.
Could you advise me on where I might be able to find answers to questions on statistical analyses of climate trends? I would like to help prepare a high school debating team by looking at published commentaries and their responses. For starters, I could use an explanation of how Iif at all) Random Walk analysis might apply to climate changes data.
For many readers it would be helpful to explain how normalization works. Otherwise, they might worry that it is distorting rather than clarifying the facts. More power to you for so ably conveying all the information you do.
I had read that one but it's very helpful for you to post the link here. (You are so prolific that it's hard to remember everything you've written. Substack could do with an indexing function or better search function.)
Hypothesis (4th U.S. National Climate Assessment) "There is reason to expect increased tornado frequency and intensity in a warming climate." BUT reality fails to meet "expectations" - at least since 1950. Another instance of plausible hypothesis very likely contradicted by evidence. Thus science progresses in the long run. My guess is a lot of climate alarmism is driven by "expectations." Alarmism gets more ears and eyeballs than unspectacular reality--explaining the media trends.
You are doing the lord's work Roger but I don't share your assessment that good science will eventually become accepted wisdom. In an honest society with an honest press it would have done so by now.
Climate change reporting may become the catalyst that motivates an intentional revolution in our information ecosystem
Currently climate researchers get to the front page in journals with RCP8.5 scenarios. The media report the most extreme possibility of the most implausible scenario
I'm not sure they can just choose to do otherwise. If your publication, scrabbling for clicks and revenue, doesn't report the most fantastical available headline someone else will. And they'll pay their employees next month
When the curtain is raised, which could take decades, we'll have a chance to choose an improved information ecosystem. It may particularly have a strong component of prediction markets. For example: You hear 187 million people will be flooded annually in 2100. You ask your AI to check the relevant prediction market on the topic. It reports the actual likely number in the supposedly cited study is tens of thousands. Something like that
Long term predictions are tricky but may be workable by trading bets. You know early on that the real 2100 prediction is going to be far less than people think. You make a mid to low prediction. As people see the market shifting as people with money on the line dig out balanced and real information they can offer to buy your prediction. They could be traded until 2100 comes or until a mechanism closes the question as resolved given current information
I like what Eric Hoffer wrote about predictions: "Our present addiction to pollsters and forecasters is a symptom of our chronic uncertainty about the future… We watch our experts read the entrails of statistical tables and graphs the way the ancients watched their soothsayers read the entrails of a chicken." Climate predictions fall into the same category. Steve Rayner and Daniel Sarewitz followed that up in their essay on Policy Making in the Post Truth World: "the models serve a role similar to goat entrails and other pre-scientific tools of prophecy. They separate the prophecy itself, laden with inferences and values, from the prophet, who merely reports upon what is being foretold. The models become political tools, not scientific ones."
Lots of words. The Boy Scouts kept it simple: Be prepared.
Ideology is permeating research, epistemology and is not going to go away soon. Data are irrelevant because there are too many vested interest into the current catastrophic narrative. Yes, education and ethic are the keys to change the current inertia but is not easy. As soon as you sing out of the choir you are shunned by the scientific community. Look at Marxism: economic disasters, million of deaths, poverty but still popular
There is more at work here than media clicks. Just like Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex, there is a climate-industrial complex today. Enormous amounts of money and regulatory powers are at stake. Why the media goes along with this is a more complicated question. I think it’s partly because it plays into the kind of good versus evil narrative that they seem to find attractive nowadays. You have the evil business community who want to make money even if it destroys the planet, versus the “scientific consensus” who only want the best for the future. I think some actually believe this fairy tale. It’s kind of similar to how the media covered Covid. They seem to believe it’s their role now to advocate for certain policies even if it means slanting their reporting.
Piltdown Mann and others will instead point to an increase of F0-F1 small tornados as “proof” of “climate emergency”, even though when you compare that to the trend of the bigger tornados it’s clear that is just detection bias, Doppler radar picking up every little spin.
No different than how satellites now see every spinning cloud in the ocean.
There is no emergency now.
There may be an emergency in the future.
But that is only based on GIGO models.
How might the improvements in radar impact the number of detected F1 tornadoes?
Detection bias is all it is
Could you advise me on where I might be able to find answers to questions on statistical analyses of climate trends? I would like to help prepare a high school debating team by looking at published commentaries and their responses. For starters, I could use an explanation of how Iif at all) Random Walk analysis might apply to climate changes data.
Nice post - and really clean! I could come up with only one small nit:
"which instead claimed the opposite contrary to the evidence and peer-reviewed research:"
should be
"which instead claimed the opposite - contrary to the evidence and peer-reviewed research:"
this is like the joke about commas saving lives - the difference between
"Let's eat Gramma" and "Let's eat, Gramma"
Frank
Thanks!
For many readers it would be helpful to explain how normalization works. Otherwise, they might worry that it is distorting rather than clarifying the facts. More power to you for so ably conveying all the information you do.
Yes, good point.
Here is a post on that, which I'll link in the main text here. Thanks!
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/making-sense-of-trends-in-disaster
I had read that one but it's very helpful for you to post the link here. (You are so prolific that it's hard to remember everything you've written. Substack could do with an indexing function or better search function.)
I agree. I usually use Google to find my old posts, as Substack does not have a great index or search.
Hypothesis (4th U.S. National Climate Assessment) "There is reason to expect increased tornado frequency and intensity in a warming climate." BUT reality fails to meet "expectations" - at least since 1950. Another instance of plausible hypothesis very likely contradicted by evidence. Thus science progresses in the long run. My guess is a lot of climate alarmism is driven by "expectations." Alarmism gets more ears and eyeballs than unspectacular reality--explaining the media trends.
But... But.... The narrative!
You are doing the lord's work Roger but I don't share your assessment that good science will eventually become accepted wisdom. In an honest society with an honest press it would have done so by now.
Climate change reporting may become the catalyst that motivates an intentional revolution in our information ecosystem
Currently climate researchers get to the front page in journals with RCP8.5 scenarios. The media report the most extreme possibility of the most implausible scenario
I'm not sure they can just choose to do otherwise. If your publication, scrabbling for clicks and revenue, doesn't report the most fantastical available headline someone else will. And they'll pay their employees next month
When the curtain is raised, which could take decades, we'll have a chance to choose an improved information ecosystem. It may particularly have a strong component of prediction markets. For example: You hear 187 million people will be flooded annually in 2100. You ask your AI to check the relevant prediction market on the topic. It reports the actual likely number in the supposedly cited study is tens of thousands. Something like that
Long term predictions are tricky but may be workable by trading bets. You know early on that the real 2100 prediction is going to be far less than people think. You make a mid to low prediction. As people see the market shifting as people with money on the line dig out balanced and real information they can offer to buy your prediction. They could be traded until 2100 comes or until a mechanism closes the question as resolved given current information
I like what Eric Hoffer wrote about predictions: "Our present addiction to pollsters and forecasters is a symptom of our chronic uncertainty about the future… We watch our experts read the entrails of statistical tables and graphs the way the ancients watched their soothsayers read the entrails of a chicken." Climate predictions fall into the same category. Steve Rayner and Daniel Sarewitz followed that up in their essay on Policy Making in the Post Truth World: "the models serve a role similar to goat entrails and other pre-scientific tools of prophecy. They separate the prophecy itself, laden with inferences and values, from the prophet, who merely reports upon what is being foretold. The models become political tools, not scientific ones."
Lots of words. The Boy Scouts kept it simple: Be prepared.