Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. on Climate Alarmists' Talking Points: Scaring People with Misinfo Will Not Get Them Behind Climate Policies

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says humanity needs to consider the risks of climate change, but this cannot be done through scaring people into believing an imminent apocalypse.

Are we now living in a climate crisis? “The word 'crisis' is not a scientific term,” environmental research and science policy expert Dr Roger Pielke Jr. gives an answer. Scientists, including those who produce the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), do not use such vocabulary when talking about climate, he explains. “If you look in the IPCC reports, you won't find things like apocalypse or catastrophe or crisis or existential threat or climate emergency or any of these terms in them. These terms show up in politics and advocacy,” Pielke says.

Pielke recommends that anyone interested in climate issues should familiarise themselves with what the IPCC reports – and they run to thousands of pages – actually say. “There are some surprising conclusions there that are quite at odds with what you will see when you turn on the TV or you go to your favorite media outlet,” he explains. Pielke is talking here in particular about the occurrence of extreme weather events. In the media at large, it is now commonplace to link all weather events of the slightest complexity to man-made climate change. We are told that mankind, by using fossil fuels, is causing more storms, hurricanes, floods, landslides, etc. But these claims do not match reality. According to Pielke, the IPCC estimates that only a small fraction of the changing weather can be attributed to human activity. Specifically, he says, heat waves are increasing in some parts of the world, while rainfall is increasing in others. “However, the IPCC also says that tropical cyclones or hurricanes have not seen an increase. They have not become more intense. The IPCC has not detected or attributed a change in those. The same goes for floods, drought, winter storms. The IPCC does not assess wildfire because that involves many processes beyond just climate processes,” Pielke notes. “When you look at the IPCC report, what you find is a much more nuanced, much more measured view of climate change than what you will find in political discussions or in the media,” he adds.

Although the media could give you an impression of the opposite, tropical cyclones or hurricanes have not seen an increase. Photo: NASA/Public domain.

Fear-mongering: tactics of activists

Unfortunately, it is true that influential politicians and climate activists are constantly telling us of an imminent climate catastrophe, for example calling the present time the boiling era, the coming of the climate hell, and explaining that the oceans are boiling. It is also true that the press amplifies these messages without justification.

So why is it presented in this way? According to Pielke, some 20 years ago, activists decided to link climate policy to extreme weather events in order to get their message across. “There is a theory of change underlying that if we make people alarmed, if we scare people if we associate climate change with some sort of immediate existential threat, then people will be more likely to support climate policies,” Pielke says. This means that even though there was no evidence then, and there is no evidence now, climate change will lead to more frequent and more powerful hurricanes, for example, and the reality is quite the opposite, activists started to claim this to be the truth. Pielke comments that such a strategy is not very fruitful in bringing about political change because the lie will eventually come out.

He cites another example: in 2018, the IPCC came out with its report, which mentioned the 1.5 C warming target by 2030 compared to pre-industrial era. “Some advocates and some of the media said that now there is 12 years to save the world. Well, 2030 is coming into view and I don't think anyone today believes that on January 1st, 2030, the world will disappear or explode or there will be a catastrophe,” Pielke notes. “Climate change is an inexorable process. It does not have hard thresholds that we can anticipate or predict. All else equal, we'd like to minimize our influence on the planetary system. 'Deadlineism', as it's been called, has not proven to be a particularly effective strategy for altering energy policy,” he adds.

According to Dr. Pielke, some 20 years ago, activists decided to link climate policy to extreme weather events in order to get their message across. Photo: https://rogerpielkejr.com

Pielke draws another analogy about scaremongering that might give pause for thought to the political activists who have adopted such tactics. “It's a little bit like the weapons of mass destruction argument in the United States and the United Kingdom to make arguments to invade Iraq. It led to some short-term decision-making but the intelligence communities lost a lot of credibility for a long time after that,” he says. “So be careful trying to scare people into action is my advice. Particularly because successful climate policy, and I think we should be successful in climate policy, is going to take many, many decades, and you cannot keep people in a state of fear for decades,” Pielke adds.

The planet's changing climate and human contribution

Pielke holds degrees in mathematics, public policy, and political science, and he has been researching and writing about environmental and climate policies already for decades. Currently, he is a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder Environmental Studies Department, but recently announced his retirement. He says he wants to focus more on policy research, and the think tank American Enterprise Institute, where he is a non-resident senior fellow, offers a better opportunity to do so. He is also an active writer – he has his own publication on Substack called The Honest Broker, in which he explores and analyses climate issues and related policies.

It is interesting to note that Pielke's father, Roger Pielke Sr., is a well-known climate and atmospheric scientist whose one major criticism has been that the impact of human activity on climate is too narrowly addressed. “Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide,” Pielke Sr. has written.

In his book, The Climate Fix, Pielke Jr., referring directly to his father's scientific contributions, has noted that for him, the question has never been whether human CO2 emissions have any effect on the climate. Yes, according to him, they do. But, like his father, he criticises the mere focus on this issue, which ignores other important factors, including human-induced ones, that affect climate and the environment.

Pielke Jr. says that when talking about climate, the first thing to understand is that we live on a planet that has historically had a highly variable and sometimes extreme climate. “If you take a look back to the 1870s, there was a massive El Niño event that if you look at reports, it may have killed up to 4% of the global population,” Pielke says. Because of weather events, or natural disasters, that are unfavourable to us, Pielke says humanity must constantly work to protect itself as best it can against them. “We’re inventive and as we get wealthier, we become much more resilient. We adapt better,” he adds.

On the other hand, Pielke says, it is clear that the human footprint is something that also affects the climate, and thus the whole ecosystem. “Anyone who's been on an airplane and looked down can see that the human footprint is undeniable. And that changes weather patterns. It changes moisture in the atmosphere through agriculture,” he explains. “All of this adds up to what I describe as not certainties, but risks. All else being equal, we'd like to reduce those risks,” Pielke adds.

Is there a scientific consensus on climate change?

It is important to note that Pielke does not talk about the human impact on climate in the way that politicians and activists do, very often citing a 2013 study that claimed that '97% of climate scientists acknowledge anthropogenic global warming'. Pointing to this study as the supposed proof that there is a widespread consensus in climate science that humans are causing climate catastrophe has not been stopped by the fact that in 2014, another scientific study exposed the flawed methodology of that study and convincingly refuted its basic claim of 97%, which has, however, gone viral now.

In reality, says Pielke, there are many different positions in climate science. According to him, the so-called scientific consensus emerges as a result of these different views of different scientists. “A consensus is not like a biblical text. It's not something that you have to follow. It is a snapshot in time of what the center of gravity is and the entire distribution around that center of legitimate views in the scientific community,” he explains.

Therefore it is not quite the case that scientists who say the role of CO2 in climate change should not be overemphasised are outside this consensus. For example, climate scientist Judith Curry, who has also been Pielke's colleague at the University of Colorado, explains in her book Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response that the way CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, i.e. its warming effect, is quite clear to us. We also know, writes Curry, that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been increasing with rising surface temperatures since 1860. But what we don't know, she adds in her book, is how much of an impact humans are having on climate change. Nor, according to her, do we know how much the climate will actually change in the 21st century, or whether global warming is in any way dangerous.

According to Pielke, his former colleague Curry's estimates fall squarely within the bounds of what he defines as scientific consensus – in other words, that the claims are true and the questions are relevant. Pielke points out that there are a lot of things that scientists cannot assess when it comes to climate. “An example is the eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano, an underwater volcano in the Pacific that put massive quantities of water vapor into the stratosphere. The scientific community is only now beginning to publish studies about the possible effects of it on the climate system,” he explains.

During the interview, Dr. Pielke explained that climate science is currently facing an adaptation challenge because the most extreme scenario used to predict the unfavourable future, has proven to be too extreme. Photo: screenshot.

It is important to note that climate science is currently facing an adaptation challenge because the most extreme climate scenario, the one that has been and continues to be the most widely used to predict the unfavourable future, has proven to be too extreme, i.e. too hot. Its main assumption was that the entire global economy would become increasingly reliant on coal power, releasing more and more CO2, which in turn would warm the climate. Yes, China and India are increasing their use of coal, but for much of the world, this has not happened. The result, however, is that the most extreme models have moved so far beyond reality that they are no longer up to date. According to Pielke, one of the important features of science is that it corrects itself over time, acknowledges past misconceptions, and moves on. The scientific community itself has acknowledged the fallacy of extreme climate models and now a decision must follow. “Now, that has been recognized within the climate science community, and as they generate the next set of scenarios to inform climate research, there's a decision that's faced. Do we hold on to those extreme scenarios? They're very useful in political advocacy, but they're not reliable guides to our climate or economic future. Right now, the community is grappling with this question, and it's a real test of self-correction in science,” Pielke says.

Climate risk needs to be factored into policy making

As there are differing views on the future of climate change, Pielke says that the wise policy is one that takes risks into account first and foremost. “If we wish to manage risks, then my view very much is we don't pick the future we want or we like and bet on it. We make ourselves resilient to all the possibilities,” Pielke says. So he is convinced, for example, that inevitably humankind will have to reduce its CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

But there is an obvious problem here, he says: 85% of the world economy still relies on fossil fuels. It is also worth noting that there are some five billion people on Earth who cannot consume energy in the way we do in the West. However, they, too, want to improve their standard of living, and that means an increase in energy demand. “So it's easy to say that hey, let's switch from this to that, but in practice how to do that at a cost that is acceptable to people is the real question,” Pielke says. He adds that it makes sense to move gradually away from fossils, i.e. first away from coal, replacing it with, for example, natural gas, using nuclear energy, etc. All of this requires steady political leadership rather than slogans and cannot come overnight, he notes. “It's a wickedly complex problem, but it's not insurmountable. We do complicated things. The examples I often use are advancing human lifespan. Over 100 years, human lifespan on planet Earth has doubled. That didn't happen because of deadlines or targets,” Pielke says.

The right kind of climate policy, Pielke argues, is one that takes human energy needs very clearly into account, and cannot be achieved otherwise. Its core has to be progress, not a movement based on intimidation and coercion – and Pielke does not believe in the possibility of coercion in democratic societies. He himself supports a smart climate policy and notes that he is somewhere at the middle ground of the climate debate. “As a risk management problem, I'm not going to bet on the apocalypse, and as a risk management problem, I'm not going to bet on the fact that climate change is a hoax or it doesn't exist. We want to have energy and climate policies that are robust to that entire spectrum of views,” Pielke explains. “And let me just say, if you are a person who is of the apocalyptic bent or you're of the hoax side of things, then surely you would still get behind smart policies that make energy cheaper, cleaner, more secure, and more accessible. If those policies have the effect of accelerating decarbonization, well, then great,” he adds.