I believe that the proposition that Orestes referred to in her testimony as FACT is the attribution of more extreme weather to climate change. Is this what she had in mind (from WUWT):
‘A team of climate scientists with the group World Weather Attribution analyzed the record-breaking storm, dubbed Bernd, focusing on two of the most severely affected areas. Their analysis found that human-induced climate change made a storm of that severity between 1.2 and 9 times more likely than it would have been in a world 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.1 F) cooler. The planet has warmed just over 1 C since the industrial era began.”
‘How can anyone say with a straight face that attribution science is adding value to the conversation, when the best they can achieve is an uncertainty of 900%, and a bottom limit of no change in severity whatsoever?’
That is a question the answer to which I’m sure Oreskes doesn’t have or even care about, because ... FACT! She should be ashamed of herself for telling big lies, if, that is, she were capable of shame, which I doubt.
Well you won’t change the administrations view or policy but educating Congress is a great start. The fact that the Democrats didn’t attack you is a good sign. Keep up the good work.
The question is why anyone of any persuasion regarding climate change would adhere to RCP8.5 in the face of clear data to date, as well as current trends and built-in forces in the world energy picture that repudiate it? I suspect that these people have an agenda that might go something like this: They believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that even though RCP8.5 greatly exaggerates future CO2 emissions, they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that even with a more reasonable scenario with reduced emissions, the world is headed to disaster. And further they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that the world is slow to join the persuasion, and so they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that they are justified in promulgating a view of the future that they know can't happen because they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that it is for the greater good to convince more people of what they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) can't happen. Are you able to follow that? Good!
What I found fascinating is how the infamous Oreskes turned legitimate scientific criticism of Mann’s well-trashed and contrived hockey stick fable (see Climategate, Michael’s Nature trick, et al.) into an example of a right-wing witch hunt against legitimate science, while failing to note that the real witch hunt is from the left, destroying the lives and careers of anyone who dares to question "the science." Ironic, in that science is about asking questions, challenging the consensus. I also had to laugh to keep from crying when Oreskes asserted that some dubious proposition of "the science" is true beyond a reasonable doubt - is not merely a well-grounded proposition, but a FACT. How you managed to avoid projectile vomiting at that point, Roger, is beyond me.
1. We know that mass advertising works to influence mass opinions.
2. We know that Wall Street loves economic transformation to bet on, and the billionaires also desire economic transformations to bet on.
3. We know that tech has changed the landscape for mass advertising... making it easier and cheaper to reach millions of eyes and ears.
4. We know that Wall Street firms and the billionaires whose assets they manage have acquired controlling ownership in almost all of the media and big tech.
5. We know about the WEF Great Reset.
6. We can put this all together and conclude that the global billionaires, through their Wall Street holdings, have taken control of all the primary institutions of consumer (voter) influence and are pushing memes and narratives to causes massive economic shifts that the billionaires and Wall Street have bet on ahead of the "transformation".
7. Science is just another industry that has it's hand in this cookie jar.
8. We know that there is a mild warming trend. We don't know that man is causing all of it or even some of it. We absolutely don't know what the outcomes for the planet will be if we force scarcity of fossil fuels and try to government-spend our way to accelerated green energy... OR alternatively if we do NOT implement policy to hobble fossil fuel production and just let the private economy get innovative over time to create more sustainable energy alternatives.
9. But we know there are a lot of people motivated to profit off the narrative of climate crisis and the related government policies and spending.
So, in the end the climate crisis narrative looks to me to be a very sophisticated scam that the COVID era gave us evidence of how the scam works. Gin up fear and related opinions in the population so that the population shifts to a new paradigm that the Wall Street cabal previously bet on along with their connections in government that profit from it too.
Roger, thanks for giving RCP8.5 another lambasting. Too bad they didn't give you more time because you have a lot more to say, particularly about climate extremes we are supposedly already experiencing today.
On a totally different subject, I note that at each of your postings at least one of the paid subscribers takes the time and trouble to post a comment that assures us with the greatest confidence that greenhouse gases do not produce any warming, but actually produce a cooling. I think we should thank them for that information.
Thank you for your testimony today. From my perspective spot on regarding many of the issues surrounding climate change particularly in the weaponization of climate information. Also the conflicts on interest. The media is not as interested in truth as clicks - if it bleeds it leads and bad news seems to sell.
Excellent testimony, particularly the part on scenarios.
I think you need to be careful when discussing conflicts of interest. As far as Whitehouse quoting your testimony on conflicts of interest, I don't think he was sincere. More than likely he would use that to disqualify Steve Koonin due to the 5 years or so that he worked for BP (in a 40 year career) or Judith Curry because her CFAN company does work for commercial groups. There are lots of others who might have similar circumstances.
Wow! I always knew that people who depended upon the climate issue for their livelihood would find it hard to be objective, but never realized the extent of the misuse of the scenario you cited.
From your opening statement:
"RCP8.5 projects that all global energy consumption will come from coal."
Did you mean to say all that global electrical consumption will be generated from coal?
I believe that the proposition that Orestes referred to in her testimony as FACT is the attribution of more extreme weather to climate change. Is this what she had in mind (from WUWT):
‘A team of climate scientists with the group World Weather Attribution analyzed the record-breaking storm, dubbed Bernd, focusing on two of the most severely affected areas. Their analysis found that human-induced climate change made a storm of that severity between 1.2 and 9 times more likely than it would have been in a world 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.1 F) cooler. The planet has warmed just over 1 C since the industrial era began.”
Read more: https://theconversation.com/is-climate-change-to-blame-for-extreme-weather-events-attribution-science-says-yes-for-some-heres-how-it-works-164941
‘How can anyone say with a straight face that attribution science is adding value to the conversation, when the best they can achieve is an uncertainty of 900%, and a bottom limit of no change in severity whatsoever?’
That is a question the answer to which I’m sure Oreskes doesn’t have or even care about, because ... FACT! She should be ashamed of herself for telling big lies, if, that is, she were capable of shame, which I doubt.
Well you won’t change the administrations view or policy but educating Congress is a great start. The fact that the Democrats didn’t attack you is a good sign. Keep up the good work.
Thank you!
Congratulations! Two Democrat Senators! A ray of hope for science and for civilisation. The world owes you a lot.
The Guardian fabricates a quote attributed to me https://twitter.com/rogerpielkejr/status/1671672032591740935?s=46&t=WMSRPCBBWz_Ojw7zB5V3AA
The question is why anyone of any persuasion regarding climate change would adhere to RCP8.5 in the face of clear data to date, as well as current trends and built-in forces in the world energy picture that repudiate it? I suspect that these people have an agenda that might go something like this: They believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that even though RCP8.5 greatly exaggerates future CO2 emissions, they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that even with a more reasonable scenario with reduced emissions, the world is headed to disaster. And further they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that the world is slow to join the persuasion, and so they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that they are justified in promulgating a view of the future that they know can't happen because they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) that it is for the greater good to convince more people of what they believe (or it is profitable for them to convince people to believe) can't happen. Are you able to follow that? Good!
What I found fascinating is how the infamous Oreskes turned legitimate scientific criticism of Mann’s well-trashed and contrived hockey stick fable (see Climategate, Michael’s Nature trick, et al.) into an example of a right-wing witch hunt against legitimate science, while failing to note that the real witch hunt is from the left, destroying the lives and careers of anyone who dares to question "the science." Ironic, in that science is about asking questions, challenging the consensus. I also had to laugh to keep from crying when Oreskes asserted that some dubious proposition of "the science" is true beyond a reasonable doubt - is not merely a well-grounded proposition, but a FACT. How you managed to avoid projectile vomiting at that point, Roger, is beyond me.
Here is how I see the entire field:
1. We know that mass advertising works to influence mass opinions.
2. We know that Wall Street loves economic transformation to bet on, and the billionaires also desire economic transformations to bet on.
3. We know that tech has changed the landscape for mass advertising... making it easier and cheaper to reach millions of eyes and ears.
4. We know that Wall Street firms and the billionaires whose assets they manage have acquired controlling ownership in almost all of the media and big tech.
5. We know about the WEF Great Reset.
6. We can put this all together and conclude that the global billionaires, through their Wall Street holdings, have taken control of all the primary institutions of consumer (voter) influence and are pushing memes and narratives to causes massive economic shifts that the billionaires and Wall Street have bet on ahead of the "transformation".
7. Science is just another industry that has it's hand in this cookie jar.
8. We know that there is a mild warming trend. We don't know that man is causing all of it or even some of it. We absolutely don't know what the outcomes for the planet will be if we force scarcity of fossil fuels and try to government-spend our way to accelerated green energy... OR alternatively if we do NOT implement policy to hobble fossil fuel production and just let the private economy get innovative over time to create more sustainable energy alternatives.
9. But we know there are a lot of people motivated to profit off the narrative of climate crisis and the related government policies and spending.
So, in the end the climate crisis narrative looks to me to be a very sophisticated scam that the COVID era gave us evidence of how the scam works. Gin up fear and related opinions in the population so that the population shifts to a new paradigm that the Wall Street cabal previously bet on along with their connections in government that profit from it too.
The link for the full hearing sent me to a pdf of your testimony. Is anyone else having that problem?
Thanks for getting the word out, sir. How can we obtain copies of other witnesses' testimony?
Roger, thanks for giving RCP8.5 another lambasting. Too bad they didn't give you more time because you have a lot more to say, particularly about climate extremes we are supposedly already experiencing today.
On a totally different subject, I note that at each of your postings at least one of the paid subscribers takes the time and trouble to post a comment that assures us with the greatest confidence that greenhouse gases do not produce any warming, but actually produce a cooling. I think we should thank them for that information.
Thank you for your testimony today. From my perspective spot on regarding many of the issues surrounding climate change particularly in the weaponization of climate information. Also the conflicts on interest. The media is not as interested in truth as clicks - if it bleeds it leads and bad news seems to sell.
Excellent testimony, particularly the part on scenarios.
I think you need to be careful when discussing conflicts of interest. As far as Whitehouse quoting your testimony on conflicts of interest, I don't think he was sincere. More than likely he would use that to disqualify Steve Koonin due to the 5 years or so that he worked for BP (in a 40 year career) or Judith Curry because her CFAN company does work for commercial groups. There are lots of others who might have similar circumstances.
Wow! I always knew that people who depended upon the climate issue for their livelihood would find it hard to be objective, but never realized the extent of the misuse of the scenario you cited.
Incredibly important testimony. Thank you!
Great work Roger.
I'm sharing with some of my local politicians.
Bon Courage.