The story of UC v. RP should go into the history books. But when the proper history of Climate Science is told, you will be there, in bold type. I am still trying to fit your story about 8.5 into the accounts of the methodology of models. Never give up!
He asked good questions and then allowed you to expound upon them. Nice discussion!
As to your reply (to a comment ): "I think the phrase "climate change is an existential threat" is today a bit like "How you doing?"
No, it's not. We should use every chance to call-out untruths like these (especially in a venue like your interview!). The idea that we are in a climate crisis is damaging our young people (more anxiety, fewer children and altered career choices) and will keep billions in poverty due poor policy choices.
Silence when a lie is said frequently is interpreted as assent. People need to hear that there are principled disagreements to many current issues (and not just climate! ) .
I think that I recently saw somewhere that the new IPCC Director has called out this untruth as well. That would indeed be a major step in the right direction if true.
It's discussions like this that I miss most from my time at CU as both a grad student and instructor. Thanks, Roger for creating and producing The Honest Broker as it keeps me engaged and mentally sharp. I've shared this video with my family and close friends.
I don’t have one on campus (haven’t had one for several years after mine got commandeered for storage) but that is supposed to be addressed in the next few weeks. I’ll post a pic.
You have mentioned on a couple of occasions that your role and course offerings at the University will also be changing. Can you share how this has been addressed as well?
It’s a long boring story from deep inside academia, but in a nutshell
In 2015 I was investigated by a member of Congress
My campus administrators abandoned me & I was pushed/encouraged to leave the hugely successful science policy center I founded
Rather than resist, I left and went to Athletics in late 2015 to start a sports governance center
That went very well, I guess too well!
But in 2019 the university decided not to further support the sports governance center (and tbh it probably would not have survived the pandemic anyway)
So the university moved me to the environmental studies program in 2019
Not everyone was happy with me being moved into that program, one person in particular
An effort was made to make my life miserable - giving me a tiny windowless storage room (literally) as an office, then later moving boxes and file cabinets into it that were not mine, making it unusable. I was formally investigated by my department chair three times - pure harassment, I was required to teach new classes every semester requiring new preps. I was excluded from departmental governance and decision making. I rolled with it. I have not worked on campus other than teaching since spring 2020.
I have had a very hostile work environment & asked to leave the department for years and finally this fall I am out as I return from a great sabbatical.
I am supposed to be getting a new office on the main campus in a week
And my teaching starting 2024 will be different, stay tuned.
All in all I am optimistic that the new arrangement is both much better and for the longer term. Finally.
I like the fire analogy because even if there is a fire in a theater, if everyone starts yelling and then running the situation hasn't improved despite there being an objective emergency
There are two pieces of information with the same conclusion of expanded time horizons for decarbonization
R.C.P 8.5 isn't a thing in real life. The very large majority of the centuries emissions will be outside Europe and N.A. This means long time horizon policies like investment into technology will have a multiple of the effect of cutting X tons of carbon by X years in one country
Congruently, the concept of net zero needs to become flexible. Instead of $300/MWh hydrogen plants in Canada, we should fund $100/MWh nuclear or other low carbon generation in a net zero in 2070 country
The story of UC v. RP should go into the history books. But when the proper history of Climate Science is told, you will be there, in bold type. I am still trying to fit your story about 8.5 into the accounts of the methodology of models. Never give up!
Roger,
Thx for sharing your interview with us.
He asked good questions and then allowed you to expound upon them. Nice discussion!
As to your reply (to a comment ): "I think the phrase "climate change is an existential threat" is today a bit like "How you doing?"
No, it's not. We should use every chance to call-out untruths like these (especially in a venue like your interview!). The idea that we are in a climate crisis is damaging our young people (more anxiety, fewer children and altered career choices) and will keep billions in poverty due poor policy choices.
Silence when a lie is said frequently is interpreted as assent. People need to hear that there are principled disagreements to many current issues (and not just climate! ) .
Just found this: https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523
Kind of wishy washy.
I think that I recently saw somewhere that the new IPCC Director has called out this untruth as well. That would indeed be a major step in the right direction if true.
It's discussions like this that I miss most from my time at CU as both a grad student and instructor. Thanks, Roger for creating and producing The Honest Broker as it keeps me engaged and mentally sharp. I've shared this video with my family and close friends.
Thanks. I miss those days as well!
You missed the opportunity to disabuse Nate of the notion that climate change is an existential problem.
I think the phrase "climate change is an existential threat" is today a bit like "How you doing?"
Just a throat clearing signal of friendliness.
Nice office for a full Professor!
Thanks!
It’s in my house 😎
I don’t have one on campus (haven’t had one for several years after mine got commandeered for storage) but that is supposed to be addressed in the next few weeks. I’ll post a pic.
You have mentioned on a couple of occasions that your role and course offerings at the University will also be changing. Can you share how this has been addressed as well?
Sure
It’s a long boring story from deep inside academia, but in a nutshell
In 2015 I was investigated by a member of Congress
My campus administrators abandoned me & I was pushed/encouraged to leave the hugely successful science policy center I founded
Rather than resist, I left and went to Athletics in late 2015 to start a sports governance center
That went very well, I guess too well!
But in 2019 the university decided not to further support the sports governance center (and tbh it probably would not have survived the pandemic anyway)
So the university moved me to the environmental studies program in 2019
Not everyone was happy with me being moved into that program, one person in particular
An effort was made to make my life miserable - giving me a tiny windowless storage room (literally) as an office, then later moving boxes and file cabinets into it that were not mine, making it unusable. I was formally investigated by my department chair three times - pure harassment, I was required to teach new classes every semester requiring new preps. I was excluded from departmental governance and decision making. I rolled with it. I have not worked on campus other than teaching since spring 2020.
I have had a very hostile work environment & asked to leave the department for years and finally this fall I am out as I return from a great sabbatical.
I am supposed to be getting a new office on the main campus in a week
And my teaching starting 2024 will be different, stay tuned.
All in all I am optimistic that the new arrangement is both much better and for the longer term. Finally.
Oh the stories I can tell!!
I like the fire analogy because even if there is a fire in a theater, if everyone starts yelling and then running the situation hasn't improved despite there being an objective emergency
There are two pieces of information with the same conclusion of expanded time horizons for decarbonization
R.C.P 8.5 isn't a thing in real life. The very large majority of the centuries emissions will be outside Europe and N.A. This means long time horizon policies like investment into technology will have a multiple of the effect of cutting X tons of carbon by X years in one country
Congruently, the concept of net zero needs to become flexible. Instead of $300/MWh hydrogen plants in Canada, we should fund $100/MWh nuclear or other low carbon generation in a net zero in 2070 country