Roger: You lived through the attacks, etc., and seemed to have survived within academia but I was surprised you did not allude to others who received nasty personal and unwarranted attacks. For example, Judy Curry seems to have chosen a different path and seems to have received far less institutional support from within Georgia Tech and the scientific community in general. Going back to 2010 and her initial invitation to Steve McIntyre, she always struck me as having enormous scientific and persona integrity. I recall reading the attacks on your dad on Real Climate which were unbelievably nasty and without substance.
Roger: Many thanks for the link to your Forbes article. It more accurately captures what I have seen happening over the years - not just from the nasty folks at SkepticalScience but also from many on RealClimate. I recall charting the Amazon Reviews of Michael Mann's Climate Wars book and noted the astonishing number of reviews that were glowingly positive but without substance and the attacks on reviewers who pointed out Mann's errors and mischaracterizations.
I want to add that when I exchanged comments with your Dad when he was writing up the latest climate research articles, he was always very gracious and the epitome of a real scientist and educator.
Do you have a clear sense of what drives this kind of character assassination?
The typical YouTube rabbit hole dweller will always have a totalising story about corruption, authoritarian control or straight up stupidity, but I'm sceptical of totalising narratives (which is already why I'm here). It feels like a form of religious fundamentalism in the way that moral norms are shelved in order to pursue the cause.
I also wonder what it would take to surface their true underlying motivations.
In my view it is no different from the fanaticism associated with fundamentalism - as you suggest - and gets manifested around emotion laden topics from racism to abortion.
This does seem to be it. Which, I guess, is preferable to conspiracy and corruption. All of politics now feels to me more like old religious warring rather than the good faith disputes over which problems to solve and how, from my youth.
It is a witches brew of some and all of them - ideological/theological fanaticism, corruption, corruption, opportunism, careerism. As in many real world phenomena multiple causes are more likely than a single one.
Thanks for opening up during your interview. Roger. You have an interesting biography.
Anyway, I have admired your work, intellect, and activism.
I have been in energy communications for the last 23 years and I was on the EU-Emission Trade Scheme planning committee. In fact, I gave a presentation in Paris on why energy efficiency should be a part of any emission marketplace, especially because it can be measured and verified.
When you talked about “aspirational” goals: I call it greenwishing. Finally, you are a thought leader for many people right now and you are a great ally to be providing good information and solid thinking.
Hi Roger. You have well documented how the data does not support the claim of a climate change induced increase in hurricane frequency or intensity. But I now note an new claim, as per a headline in the CBC this morning that: "Climate change, warming oceans causing more rapid intensification in hurricanes"
"For hurricane rapid intensification (RI), Bhatia et al. (2019) and Bhatia et al. (2022) find that the observed increases in the probability of RI since 1982 are highly unusual compared to one climate model’s (GFDL HiFLOR) simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, both in the Atlantic basin and globally. The increase in RI is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing, though aerosol forcing decreases as well as greenhouse gas increases may have contributed to the positive trends since 1982 in the Atlantic. A limitation of the study is the relatively short reliable basin-wide record. Their model-based assessment of the potential role of natural variability in the observed trends is suggestive of a climate change detection, but is not definitive. The results depend on the HiFLOR model’s ability to simulate naturally occurring Atlantic Multidecadal Variability. In addition, the role of anthropogenic forcing was explored using the HiFLOR simulations in only a very preliminary way. Balaguru et al. (2022) report an increasing trend in hurricane intensification rates near the U.S. East Coast since 1979 and that external forcing in climate models produces similar, though much weaker, changes to hurricane environment metrics than those observed, which suggests a possible anthropogenic contribution. As Bhatia et al. and Balaguru et al. note, more climate models should be tested and further research pursued on the sources of Atlantic multidecadal variability in order to better differentiate between contributions from increasing greenhouse gases, aerosol changes, and natural multidecadal variability to recent trends since 1980. This is particularly the case given the pronounced multidecadal variability in the basin on timescales of ~60 years (e.g., Fig. 3), which can confound greenhouse gas-induced trend detection. Further, (Yan et al. 2018) suggest that climate models (for CMIP3 and CMIP5) tend to simulate too little natural variability of the Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation–which is a source of Atlantic multidecadal variability"
Yes, and that YCC bit is a good example of media-manufactured certainty (as compared to NOAA), citing a quotable scientist and ignoring consensus assessments. Pretty typical nowadays.
Yup, as a solidly left biased organization they instead do "The Science", the intent of which is to confirm belief rather than seek truth. Unfortunately, most of my neighbors here in rural Vancouver Island take the CBC as Gospel. And not sure if you've been paying attention but the Globe and Mail, which used to be somewhat objective, has lately really gone off the climate change deep end, eg a couple of recent hysterical opinion pieces on forest fires by John Vaillant.
So grateful thanks once again to Roger and others like Judith Curry and Bjørn Lomborg who, at no small cost, are trying to put some objective reason in to an issue that has become way too emotional and politically motivated.
There are pockets of sanity on the island but not enough to overcome the climate/insane in Victoria.
Flew into Comox for my annual fishing trip two weeks ago
Still large amounts of first year snow on the coastal glaciers, first time in years I’ve seen any which of course means all those glaciers will have grown in mass this year.
I'm glad you stayed in the game. It's important work and with the help of Substack, IMO anyway, is reaching reasonable people who otherwise would only remain in the echo chamber of academic, media, and government scare mongering.
Roger: You lived through the attacks, etc., and seemed to have survived within academia but I was surprised you did not allude to others who received nasty personal and unwarranted attacks. For example, Judy Curry seems to have chosen a different path and seems to have received far less institutional support from within Georgia Tech and the scientific community in general. Going back to 2010 and her initial invitation to Steve McIntyre, she always struck me as having enormous scientific and persona integrity. I recall reading the attacks on your dad on Real Climate which were unbelievably nasty and without substance.
See:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/amp/
Roger: Many thanks for the link to your Forbes article. It more accurately captures what I have seen happening over the years - not just from the nasty folks at SkepticalScience but also from many on RealClimate. I recall charting the Amazon Reviews of Michael Mann's Climate Wars book and noted the astonishing number of reviews that were glowingly positive but without substance and the attacks on reviewers who pointed out Mann's errors and mischaracterizations.
I want to add that when I exchanged comments with your Dad when he was writing up the latest climate research articles, he was always very gracious and the epitome of a real scientist and educator.
Do you have a clear sense of what drives this kind of character assassination?
The typical YouTube rabbit hole dweller will always have a totalising story about corruption, authoritarian control or straight up stupidity, but I'm sceptical of totalising narratives (which is already why I'm here). It feels like a form of religious fundamentalism in the way that moral norms are shelved in order to pursue the cause.
I also wonder what it would take to surface their true underlying motivations.
In my view it is no different from the fanaticism associated with fundamentalism - as you suggest - and gets manifested around emotion laden topics from racism to abortion.
This does seem to be it. Which, I guess, is preferable to conspiracy and corruption. All of politics now feels to me more like old religious warring rather than the good faith disputes over which problems to solve and how, from my youth.
It is a witches brew of some and all of them - ideological/theological fanaticism, corruption, corruption, opportunism, careerism. As in many real world phenomena multiple causes are more likely than a single one.
Thanks for opening up during your interview. Roger. You have an interesting biography.
Anyway, I have admired your work, intellect, and activism.
I have been in energy communications for the last 23 years and I was on the EU-Emission Trade Scheme planning committee. In fact, I gave a presentation in Paris on why energy efficiency should be a part of any emission marketplace, especially because it can be measured and verified.
When you talked about “aspirational” goals: I call it greenwishing. Finally, you are a thought leader for many people right now and you are a great ally to be providing good information and solid thinking.
Steve
Hi Roger. You have well documented how the data does not support the claim of a climate change induced increase in hurricane frequency or intensity. But I now note an new claim, as per a headline in the CBC this morning that: "Climate change, warming oceans causing more rapid intensification in hurricanes"
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/hurricane-idalia-strength-climate-1.6951928
Does the data support this claim?
Thanks and keep up the good work.
Here is what NOAA GFDL says:
Suggestive, not definitive
"For hurricane rapid intensification (RI), Bhatia et al. (2019) and Bhatia et al. (2022) find that the observed increases in the probability of RI since 1982 are highly unusual compared to one climate model’s (GFDL HiFLOR) simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, both in the Atlantic basin and globally. The increase in RI is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing, though aerosol forcing decreases as well as greenhouse gas increases may have contributed to the positive trends since 1982 in the Atlantic. A limitation of the study is the relatively short reliable basin-wide record. Their model-based assessment of the potential role of natural variability in the observed trends is suggestive of a climate change detection, but is not definitive. The results depend on the HiFLOR model’s ability to simulate naturally occurring Atlantic Multidecadal Variability. In addition, the role of anthropogenic forcing was explored using the HiFLOR simulations in only a very preliminary way. Balaguru et al. (2022) report an increasing trend in hurricane intensification rates near the U.S. East Coast since 1979 and that external forcing in climate models produces similar, though much weaker, changes to hurricane environment metrics than those observed, which suggests a possible anthropogenic contribution. As Bhatia et al. and Balaguru et al. note, more climate models should be tested and further research pursued on the sources of Atlantic multidecadal variability in order to better differentiate between contributions from increasing greenhouse gases, aerosol changes, and natural multidecadal variability to recent trends since 1980. This is particularly the case given the pronounced multidecadal variability in the basin on timescales of ~60 years (e.g., Fig. 3), which can confound greenhouse gas-induced trend detection. Further, (Yan et al. 2018) suggest that climate models (for CMIP3 and CMIP5) tend to simulate too little natural variability of the Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation–which is a source of Atlantic multidecadal variability"
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Is this talking about the same phenomenon? https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/08/idalia-rapidly-intensified-ahead-of-landfall-expect-more-of-the-same-in-a-warming-world/
Yes, and that YCC bit is a good example of media-manufactured certainty (as compared to NOAA), citing a quotable scientist and ignoring consensus assessments. Pretty typical nowadays.
Greg, of course there is one sure way to know a story on climate is false, it appears on the CBC.
If you are canadian like me you must know they don't do science.
Yup, as a solidly left biased organization they instead do "The Science", the intent of which is to confirm belief rather than seek truth. Unfortunately, most of my neighbors here in rural Vancouver Island take the CBC as Gospel. And not sure if you've been paying attention but the Globe and Mail, which used to be somewhat objective, has lately really gone off the climate change deep end, eg a couple of recent hysterical opinion pieces on forest fires by John Vaillant.
So grateful thanks once again to Roger and others like Judith Curry and Bjørn Lomborg who, at no small cost, are trying to put some objective reason in to an issue that has become way too emotional and politically motivated.
There are pockets of sanity on the island but not enough to overcome the climate/insane in Victoria.
Flew into Comox for my annual fishing trip two weeks ago
Still large amounts of first year snow on the coastal glaciers, first time in years I’ve seen any which of course means all those glaciers will have grown in mass this year.
Mention that one to your locals
“Attribution science”, Lysenkoism nonsense.
As Roger has noted, hurricane incidence and ACE are flat or decreasing meaning “climate change” has no or even negative effect on hurricanes.
I'm glad you stayed in the game. It's important work and with the help of Substack, IMO anyway, is reaching reasonable people who otherwise would only remain in the echo chamber of academic, media, and government scare mongering.
Thanks, Substack has been a game changer, for sure.