Excellent analysis as usual. Like the use of RCP 8.5, agenda trumps science. I hope the authors accept your invitation, as that will publicize the problems occurring in climate science and its peer review.
I see in the comments references to the assumptions behind RCP 8.5 and I look forward to Roger's work on this. A few questions come to mind. First I wonder whether what mght have seemed excessive projections of CO2 levels a few years ago might now be more realistic given the growing needs for electrification and the growing possibility that the renewables craze will abate amidst higher costs and energy shortages, to say nothing of the relentless demand for energy from the 3/4 of the earth's population that is starved for it. Secondly, what of the claim by a number of highly credentialed folks that increasing CO2 has diminishing heat returns because the atmosphere is "saturated"?
As a scientist, I have a hard time understanding some of the reactions to this excellent article. Even if you happen to conclude that climate change is man-made and a very serious problem, as Mr. Pielke does, the information that he provides is simply devastating for the “mainstream” reaction to this problem by the overall scientific community and political decision makers. Just in the last few months, Mr. Pielke has convincingly demonstrated, with facts at hand, the bias in climate studies (“targeted science”), the hurdles faced by that any publication that does not fully support the “scientific consensus”, the non-scientific character of the very idea of “scientific consensus”, which happens to be officially declared as a great value by leading US scientific publications today, the fact that the most important findings of the IPCC are either not mentioned in the media or twisted towards highly unlikely extremes, the systematic use of extreme scenarios, and finally the use of discredited, non-scientific datasets to draw alarmist conclusions.
These are devastating facts, which require nothing less than a complete re-evaluation, a major clean-up of both scientific positions as well as political decisions on this topic, irrelevant of which scientific theories one prefers. And yet some people ask if Mr. Pielke has not been too harsh…
Roger, As you know more than most, words have meaning. Including the word “fake” in your review of this paper, which had gone through the “usual” peer review process - Isn’t including “fake” a bit much? Did the author, a solid researcher “fake” the data? Apples and oranges? Should the authors have caught the oranges? An honest oversight? Using “fake” data to prove a theory? Yikes! The need to include part of the scientific method in each new research - that is “discussion” of error(s) - absolutely! Did any peer reviewer pick up this error? Can “peer review” work count as equal to published work in academia? We know the answer. But was it a conspiracy to continue some “fake” research? A big step and a big word.
That’s a very strange take on what the authors of the incriminated paper have done. To say the least, there’s a shocking level of naivety here. Imagine a scientist who just woke up after 50 years of sleep and tries to figure out this strange and new controversy (to him) about man-made climate change. Without any pre-conceived ideas, don’t you think that he would notice that one theory is embraced by virtually all politicians in power? That there is a huge pressure on researchers to deliver only results that support that theory? That any occasional paper that contradicts the said theory, if lucky enough to be published, is at least labeled “controversial”, while any extreme conclusions on the side of alarmism never get flagged? That irrespective of the scientific merits of the theory, support for it has been drummed up to the level of a religious belief?
No, I’m sure the authors that based their “study” on a thoroughly discredited database are honest, high-class scientists and their conclusions are completely unbiased.
"The lead author responded and he was not happy. He invited a 'spirited discussion'.”
I put this statement in the category of "weasel words". Basically, weasel words are words (typically adjectives or adverbs) that suck the meaning out of the nouns they qualify. Careless readers either accept them at face value or skip over them without realizing it.
Clearly the lead author was not happy that he and his associates had been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Rather than addess the root issue, mixed and matched data sets, he wants to duke it out verbally.
Have you sent a Comment to the journal? Good to have it + the authors' response accompanying the paper, should it not be retracted + that way also alert others of the data issues involved.
I’m confused, it seems clear the dataset should not be used to support the authors conclusion and they should retract the paper. What is the spirited debate?
Yes, the lead author is putting on a brave face and pretending that there is a debate to be had here. Obviously I’d be happy for him to engage. But I doubt he will.
That said, it is a rare author who willingly will retract their own paper. The thing to watch is whether the journal takes any action.
No response from the editor as yet.
Given the PNAS debacle I am not optimistic but we shall see!
Roger, you’re on your way to have the response in our science, to politicians answering their phone to hear, “Mike Wallace calling”. Don’t set out to be a world class PITA 😁. But charge on 👍
🤔. Bizarre. I’ve made modeling mistakes before and some have even been caught by clients. Yes, it’s embarrassing and sometimes you get fired, but modeling anything with large data sets is hard! You will make mistakes which is the only certainly in data analytics. Thats why you have independent reviewers. 😎. I’m imagining a scenario where I would say, nah, I’m not changing my conclusions, I’m sure I’m right regardless. Let’s move forward on the deal with my wrong analysis. That’s called gross negligence and you don’t work again.
Unfortunately, it’s not bizarre. If you work with clients for a business purpose, they expect quality results and you suffer the consequences if you deliver less than that. In this case, many “climate scientists” create “products” for a clientele that expects a specific “scientific” result by any means, including lack of elementary scientific probity.
"A normalization estimates direct economic losses from a historical extreme event if that same event was to occur under contemporary societal conditions." From the abstract of your study with Jessica Weinkle as lead author. Haven't read the paywalled full article which may detail the answer to this question: does "contemporary societal conditions" then approximate the density and class of 2017 or 2020 infrastructure and buildings in the path of the historical storm even though these may not have existed at the time of earlier storms vs. taking the less dense/less costly historical infrastructure and simply pricing it in contemporary dollars. thanks ,brian
As bad as fraud and plagiarsm have become in academia, it's not the worst thing. Bias is a much bigger more pervasive problem than outright cheating. Especially since academia has now been thoroughly cleansed of any deviants who may not fully subscribe to the the woke-climate leftist agenda.
Looks like you are on firm ground and I fear that we may see some bad behavior in the case of the "spirited discussion."
However, my meta fear is that this will result only in noise that leaves both climate denialists and doomsters even more entrenched in their policy positions.
I don't know how this tennis match will be played, but I can only say that the point is to return the volley onto the court, not just hit it back over the net.
As always, the bottom line is not just to correct errors in what is claimed, but to improve _policy._
The use of the term “climate denialists” is not only offensive (which is obviously the very intent) but also totally reminiscent of “infidels” or “heretics” in respect to a religion. By the way, the term is vague; what does a “climate denialist” deny? That climate change exists? That it is mainly man-made? That is should be humankind’s top priority? That some specific actions - such as a forced transition to electrical vehicles - are effective responses to the problem?
In this case there is no policy implication here, other than for policies related to scientific integrity. People trust science and scientists in part because science is self-correcting and when mistakes are found they are fixed. This is a clear cut test of scientific integrity. Mistakes happen, what matters is what happens when they are found out.
It's not the policy concerns this study will affect (effect?). It is the corresponding public disclosure through media that is of concern. Once reported, it becomes public record regardless of a retraction. But of more concern is the peer review process that allowed this to be published. I dare say. If this study had shown the opposite, that hurricane damage had decreased due directly to climate change, it would likely have been rejected before it ever got to review. I know I've harped on this endlessly, the peer review process is broken. It needs, desperately, to be re-imagined. Right now, I hope for some fully open process. Where articles are put forth, reviews are published independently and journals bid on publication. Just an idea at this point.
I was wondering whether you would consider writing an article listing all the dubious assumptions of RCP 8.5? I have see them mentioned in a few places (including your articles), but to the best of my knowledge, no one has listed them all out in one place. You would be the perfect person to write the article. Thanks.
The background to RCP8.5 is simple. A bunch of people were asked to come up with 4 internally consistent scenarios that covered the range of CO2 (and other GHG) emissions already in the literature.
Running a climate model over a simulated 100 years takes lots of computing power and too many scenarios is a waste of resources. These scenarios would be used by climate modeling teams so that everyone was "singing from the same song sheet".
In the past climate scientists typically ran the iconic "doubling CO2 from pre-industrial times". But of course it was also worth seeing what happened when they ran 3x or 4x CO2 by the end of the century. As this is "in the literature" the people given the request to create scenarios duly obliged with RCP8.5.
They weren't asked to "predict the future". They were asked to try and find a way to get this much CO2 out into the atmosphere. Quite a stretch.
I wrote about it a long time ago on the old Science of Doom blog:
The best part of this response is the demand to make the discussion public. I know that scientists prefer not inviting critique by uninformed or I'll informed people, but would like to think many of us are smart enough to know when one argument runs out of stream because of back peddling, clear obfuscation, etc.
Which text to image creator do you use? I like the level of detail
ChatGPT
Excellent analysis as usual. Like the use of RCP 8.5, agenda trumps science. I hope the authors accept your invitation, as that will publicize the problems occurring in climate science and its peer review.
I see in the comments references to the assumptions behind RCP 8.5 and I look forward to Roger's work on this. A few questions come to mind. First I wonder whether what mght have seemed excessive projections of CO2 levels a few years ago might now be more realistic given the growing needs for electrification and the growing possibility that the renewables craze will abate amidst higher costs and energy shortages, to say nothing of the relentless demand for energy from the 3/4 of the earth's population that is starved for it. Secondly, what of the claim by a number of highly credentialed folks that increasing CO2 has diminishing heat returns because the atmosphere is "saturated"?
As a scientist, I have a hard time understanding some of the reactions to this excellent article. Even if you happen to conclude that climate change is man-made and a very serious problem, as Mr. Pielke does, the information that he provides is simply devastating for the “mainstream” reaction to this problem by the overall scientific community and political decision makers. Just in the last few months, Mr. Pielke has convincingly demonstrated, with facts at hand, the bias in climate studies (“targeted science”), the hurdles faced by that any publication that does not fully support the “scientific consensus”, the non-scientific character of the very idea of “scientific consensus”, which happens to be officially declared as a great value by leading US scientific publications today, the fact that the most important findings of the IPCC are either not mentioned in the media or twisted towards highly unlikely extremes, the systematic use of extreme scenarios, and finally the use of discredited, non-scientific datasets to draw alarmist conclusions.
These are devastating facts, which require nothing less than a complete re-evaluation, a major clean-up of both scientific positions as well as political decisions on this topic, irrelevant of which scientific theories one prefers. And yet some people ask if Mr. Pielke has not been too harsh…
Roger, As you know more than most, words have meaning. Including the word “fake” in your review of this paper, which had gone through the “usual” peer review process - Isn’t including “fake” a bit much? Did the author, a solid researcher “fake” the data? Apples and oranges? Should the authors have caught the oranges? An honest oversight? Using “fake” data to prove a theory? Yikes! The need to include part of the scientific method in each new research - that is “discussion” of error(s) - absolutely! Did any peer reviewer pick up this error? Can “peer review” work count as equal to published work in academia? We know the answer. But was it a conspiracy to continue some “fake” research? A big step and a big word.
Bob Ryan
That’s a very strange take on what the authors of the incriminated paper have done. To say the least, there’s a shocking level of naivety here. Imagine a scientist who just woke up after 50 years of sleep and tries to figure out this strange and new controversy (to him) about man-made climate change. Without any pre-conceived ideas, don’t you think that he would notice that one theory is embraced by virtually all politicians in power? That there is a huge pressure on researchers to deliver only results that support that theory? That any occasional paper that contradicts the said theory, if lucky enough to be published, is at least labeled “controversial”, while any extreme conclusions on the side of alarmism never get flagged? That irrespective of the scientific merits of the theory, support for it has been drummed up to the level of a religious belief?
No, I’m sure the authors that based their “study” on a thoroughly discredited database are honest, high-class scientists and their conclusions are completely unbiased.
Hi Bob,
I have made no allegations about the authors, I am happy to assume that they were simply not knowledgeable about the data they have used.
In characterizing the ICAT “dataset” I am perfectly comfortable calling it fake.🙏
"The lead author responded and he was not happy. He invited a 'spirited discussion'.”
I put this statement in the category of "weasel words". Basically, weasel words are words (typically adjectives or adverbs) that suck the meaning out of the nouns they qualify. Careless readers either accept them at face value or skip over them without realizing it.
Clearly the lead author was not happy that he and his associates had been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Rather than addess the root issue, mixed and matched data sets, he wants to duke it out verbally.
Have you sent a Comment to the journal? Good to have it + the authors' response accompanying the paper, should it not be retracted + that way also alert others of the data issues involved.
I’m confused, it seems clear the dataset should not be used to support the authors conclusion and they should retract the paper. What is the spirited debate?
Ha!
Yes, the lead author is putting on a brave face and pretending that there is a debate to be had here. Obviously I’d be happy for him to engage. But I doubt he will.
That said, it is a rare author who willingly will retract their own paper. The thing to watch is whether the journal takes any action.
No response from the editor as yet.
Given the PNAS debacle I am not optimistic but we shall see!
Roger, you’re on your way to have the response in our science, to politicians answering their phone to hear, “Mike Wallace calling”. Don’t set out to be a world class PITA 😁. But charge on 👍
🤔. Bizarre. I’ve made modeling mistakes before and some have even been caught by clients. Yes, it’s embarrassing and sometimes you get fired, but modeling anything with large data sets is hard! You will make mistakes which is the only certainly in data analytics. Thats why you have independent reviewers. 😎. I’m imagining a scenario where I would say, nah, I’m not changing my conclusions, I’m sure I’m right regardless. Let’s move forward on the deal with my wrong analysis. That’s called gross negligence and you don’t work again.
Unfortunately, it’s not bizarre. If you work with clients for a business purpose, they expect quality results and you suffer the consequences if you deliver less than that. In this case, many “climate scientists” create “products” for a clientele that expects a specific “scientific” result by any means, including lack of elementary scientific probity.
"A normalization estimates direct economic losses from a historical extreme event if that same event was to occur under contemporary societal conditions." From the abstract of your study with Jessica Weinkle as lead author. Haven't read the paywalled full article which may detail the answer to this question: does "contemporary societal conditions" then approximate the density and class of 2017 or 2020 infrastructure and buildings in the path of the historical storm even though these may not have existed at the time of earlier storms vs. taking the less dense/less costly historical infrastructure and simply pricing it in contemporary dollars. thanks ,brian
The former
Seems to be a "open and shut" case of incompetent editorship (and reviewers).
As bad as fraud and plagiarsm have become in academia, it's not the worst thing. Bias is a much bigger more pervasive problem than outright cheating. Especially since academia has now been thoroughly cleansed of any deviants who may not fully subscribe to the the woke-climate leftist agenda.
Looks like you are on firm ground and I fear that we may see some bad behavior in the case of the "spirited discussion."
However, my meta fear is that this will result only in noise that leaves both climate denialists and doomsters even more entrenched in their policy positions.
I don't know how this tennis match will be played, but I can only say that the point is to return the volley onto the court, not just hit it back over the net.
As always, the bottom line is not just to correct errors in what is claimed, but to improve _policy._
The use of the term “climate denialists” is not only offensive (which is obviously the very intent) but also totally reminiscent of “infidels” or “heretics” in respect to a religion. By the way, the term is vague; what does a “climate denialist” deny? That climate change exists? That it is mainly man-made? That is should be humankind’s top priority? That some specific actions - such as a forced transition to electrical vehicles - are effective responses to the problem?
In this case there is no policy implication here, other than for policies related to scientific integrity. People trust science and scientists in part because science is self-correcting and when mistakes are found they are fixed. This is a clear cut test of scientific integrity. Mistakes happen, what matters is what happens when they are found out.
It's not the policy concerns this study will affect (effect?). It is the corresponding public disclosure through media that is of concern. Once reported, it becomes public record regardless of a retraction. But of more concern is the peer review process that allowed this to be published. I dare say. If this study had shown the opposite, that hurricane damage had decreased due directly to climate change, it would likely have been rejected before it ever got to review. I know I've harped on this endlessly, the peer review process is broken. It needs, desperately, to be re-imagined. Right now, I hope for some fully open process. Where articles are put forth, reviews are published independently and journals bid on publication. Just an idea at this point.
I had recently seen a discussion of the paper implying a huge effect on storm damage by climate change and hoped you would respond. Thank you!
Great article as always.
I was wondering whether you would consider writing an article listing all the dubious assumptions of RCP 8.5? I have see them mentioned in a few places (including your articles), but to the best of my knowledge, no one has listed them all out in one place. You would be the perfect person to write the article. Thanks.
Yes, I am due to write a piece along these lines. I haven't focused much on RCP8.5 of late here at THB, but RCP8.5 keeps humming along!
The background to RCP8.5 is simple. A bunch of people were asked to come up with 4 internally consistent scenarios that covered the range of CO2 (and other GHG) emissions already in the literature.
Running a climate model over a simulated 100 years takes lots of computing power and too many scenarios is a waste of resources. These scenarios would be used by climate modeling teams so that everyone was "singing from the same song sheet".
In the past climate scientists typically ran the iconic "doubling CO2 from pre-industrial times". But of course it was also worth seeing what happened when they ran 3x or 4x CO2 by the end of the century. As this is "in the literature" the people given the request to create scenarios duly obliged with RCP8.5.
They weren't asked to "predict the future". They were asked to try and find a way to get this much CO2 out into the atmosphere. Quite a stretch.
I wrote about it a long time ago on the old Science of Doom blog:
A brief summary -
https://scienceofdoom.com/2018/12/29/opinions-and-perspectives-3-how-much-co2-will-there-be-and-activists-in-disguise/
And then more detail on the scenario -
https://scienceofdoom.com/2019/01/01/opinions-and-perspectives-3-5-follow-up-to-how-much-co2-will-there-be/
If you are responding to my comment, that is not what I am asking Pielke to write about…
These people have no shame.
The best part of this response is the demand to make the discussion public. I know that scientists prefer not inviting critique by uninformed or I'll informed people, but would like to think many of us are smart enough to know when one argument runs out of stream because of back peddling, clear obfuscation, etc.