Environmental studies and science policy expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says that portraying climate change as an immediate existential threat is not accurate and harms the needed climate policies.
Thank you Hannes.. for the open 'Comment' forum, which promotes exchanges, perhaps even debate, and by extension, the possibly expanding participants and readers knowledge.
Consensus is the opposite of science, consensus is built by those who gain ($$, control) from its conclusion. Beware the word Settled.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” – Richard P. Feynman
Question: how can 1-2 degrees change make an apocalypse when most land locations have 10-20 degrees or more temp fluctuations every day!? I understand warming over here causes catastrophe over there, and ocean temps drive storms, but then that has been & will continue to happen no matter what we do, natural events may outweigh human inputs, and our cO2 reduction efforts are more about Control than actual Reduction. If we really CARED about cO2 emission reduction we wouldn’t buy all our sh*t from China where they build a coal fired power plant each week or so to build our sh*t. AI Servers will soon burn more energy than many countries’ annual energy consumption, but it’s supposed to tell us how to lower cO2 levels. Gee, that sounds intelligent. Carbon capture is the latest high-tech grift of public monies, they don’t even have to prove the cO2 stays in the ground, and it really makes no difference.
Bottom Line: TPTB need an existential threat that is hard to SEE and hard to model so only EXPERTS can understand the ‘truth’, similar to Virology where invisible particles, very difficult-to-isolate and test against controls, are the cause of illness. In both cases they shove their ‘science’ down our throats through extreme policies that remove our freedoms. In both cases they squash dissent, it’s NOT science, it’s just Tryanny with a phd. If we ARE able to reduce / eliminate cO2 from the atmosphere, then, THEN we will discover what an earth catastrophe really looks like. If we are able to Inject every baby with toxic adjuvants & nanotech, then, THEN we will discover what the catastrophic End of Humanity looks like.
Computer models are not the earth, complex systems hold surprises for the patient observer, humility is the hallmark of science, trust the silenced. Those doing the silencing are making lots of money based on keeping other theories quiet. Galileo was silenced. Mammals evolved under much higher cO2 levels. Clear cutting the rainforests may have MUCH MORE apocalyptic risk than burning fossil fuels, and cO2 is helping those forests grow back quicker. Geoengineering is never mentioned, so we can’t even know its effect on extreme weather events, but it could be massive.
We need to reduce actual POLLUTION, not cO2. The opposite is happening. The endless focus on cO2 is helping Big Industry quietly pollute our planet with far more dangerous toxins than co2(non-toxic), like Fracing Chemicals in our groundwater, Biocides in our food and Nuclear Waste. Example: Spraying Glyphosate on wheat directly before or after harvest gets zero attention yet is patently killing far more people via cancer than warmer air or oceans. Also, way way way more people die from Cold than from Heat.
Please watch this to see how manipulated climate ‘science’ is:
“Temperature readings have been manipulated at the primary climate data centers in the United States, in order to support the global warming agenda.
“Now, that's a strong new statement that's never been said on television before, but I want to emphasize that after a thousand hours or more of research, a computer programmer and a certified consulting meteorologist found that temperature data has been manipulated at US government climate centers. The altered temperatures seem designed to support the global warming agenda.
“This is breaking news. The two key centers involved are the National Climate Data Center at Asheville North Carolina, and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City.
“Here’s what this means: When you see a news report that the government has found that a certain month or season of the year was the warmest in history, or that five of the warmest years on record were in the last decade, don't believe it. Those reports are based on manipulated data.
“This information from the US parallels what we learned in late November from the huge leak at the East Anglia University Climate Center in England.
“There are four key revelations about the US data centers: First, the computer programs used at those centers to calculate world temperature averages have been dramatically altered so that the final computer product no longer averages actual temperatures from actual locations. Instead, those researchers are pulling numbers from locations which may be hundreds of miles away and applying them to that area.
“Secondly, the number of weather observation points has been dramatically reduced from about 6,000 to only about 1,000.
“Third, the vast majority of the weather stations that were eliminated were those in cooler locations at higher latitudes and elevations.
“And fourth, the temperatures themselves are being altered by so-called homogenization, a process that seems to always result in warmer output readings.
“So, who are the men behind these stunning discoveries? E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer from San José, California, and certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph Deo from Hudson, New Hampshire.
Michael, you apparently have really discovered some significant problems with the American temperature data set, the one that our US government uses to proclaim that this month or this year is the first, or fifth, warmest in all history. Are you telling me that those proclamations are based on bad data?
“Yes, largely because the cold thermometers have been removed from the temperature data series.”
I don't exactly understand, but I want to begin with: Why did you get interested in this issue to start with?
“Well, I had been looking at the global warming issue, and thought it it should be looked at, to find out why it was happening. The more I looked, the more I found out it wasn't happening. When I looked in the data, I found a pattern of deletion of thermometers that was surprising, to say the least.”
What do you mean by that?
“At the peak, there were about 6,000 thermometers in the data series, and then around 1989 to 1990 it suddenly plummeted to around 1500.
“So, let's let's clear this up. Now, you are talking about around the entire globe of the world, planet earth, there were about 6,000 points where they were measuring the temperature and reporting it, and it was going into this data set.”
“That’s correct.”
And this was around 1970, and you're saying by 1990 they'd stopped taking the temperature at most of those places; you only had 1,500 left.
“Well, in most of those places someone was still measuring the temperature. You still had people in in China and the United States thinking they're taking the temperature. But when that temperature measurement went to the NCDC - National Climate Data Center - they dropped it from the data set.
“So, the global historic climate data set - what everyone uses for these maps - the data flows in, but it never flows out. So, now we have data sets in the 1990s, based on let's say 1500 temperatures, and previous years, on 6000.”
And were they comparing one to the other - that's apples and oranges, isn't it?
“I think it's worse than apples and oranges, but that's the metaphor. They were comparing a period from 1950 to 1980, where they had thermometers in cold places, with a current set of temperatures, where they had deleted the thermometers from the cold places.”
“Now, wait a minute, not only did they delete, but they deleted in a pattern?
“Yes. So, for example, in California, in the GHCN data set, there are four surviving thermometers: one at San Francisco Airport, and three down near LA. How do you measure the snowy Sierra Nevadas when your thermometer is on the beach in San Diego, or the temperature in Fresno, Bakersfield, or Death Valley, or any of them? Yes, they simply do not exist in the data set.”
And is this true all around the world?
“They exist in the baseline, but they don't exist in the current temperatures, and yes it's true around the world.
“One of the more startling ones I ran into is Bolivia. There's a wonderful baseline for Bolivia - a very high mountainous country - right up until 1990, when the data ends. And, if you look on the November 2009 anomaly map, you'll see a very red rosy hot Bolivia. How do you get a hot Bolivia when you haven't measured the temperature for 20 years?
Well, how do you?
“They take the temperature from places up to 1200 kilometers away, and copy it in. They fill in with what they've got, and what they've got is the beach in Peru, and the Amazon jungle.”
"climate change policy".. in the sense of preparedness policy that mitigates losses due to variable and often nasty weather/events; ok
"climate change policy" that would purport (pretend) to have an effect on future climate; either ideology, or extreme madness; which is where we in "the west" are (lead by madmen)
Really wanted to like this and even started to follow THB Substack because Roger really does seem like an honest guy but after 40 or so minutes, I'm sorry, I really wasn't convinced (I'm a climate crisis "denier" with an open mind). I took a look at THB too and feel the CO2 >>> warming argument seems rooted in the correlation of the 21st Century. We all know correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps, the global population growth and development is the result of more favourable conditions, resulting from a slightly warmer climate, that is inevitably associated with higher output of CO2? I find the much longer analyses to be more compelling, i.e. we are in the middle of a not unusual (and predictable) cycle. I'm not even convinced that the planet is doomed 5 degrees warmer than now. Actually, again, according to the evidence I've seen, it's more likely to be a better environment overall.
Agreed. Mankind has benefitted from any increase in CO2, and any of the regional and cyclic increases in temperature (variable weather), both of which are near historical lows.
These facts alone, put the notion of "climate crisis" into the realm of absurdity.
Thank you Hannes.. for the open 'Comment' forum, which promotes exchanges, perhaps even debate, and by extension, the possibly expanding participants and readers knowledge.
Consensus is the opposite of science, consensus is built by those who gain ($$, control) from its conclusion. Beware the word Settled.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” – Richard P. Feynman
Question: how can 1-2 degrees change make an apocalypse when most land locations have 10-20 degrees or more temp fluctuations every day!? I understand warming over here causes catastrophe over there, and ocean temps drive storms, but then that has been & will continue to happen no matter what we do, natural events may outweigh human inputs, and our cO2 reduction efforts are more about Control than actual Reduction. If we really CARED about cO2 emission reduction we wouldn’t buy all our sh*t from China where they build a coal fired power plant each week or so to build our sh*t. AI Servers will soon burn more energy than many countries’ annual energy consumption, but it’s supposed to tell us how to lower cO2 levels. Gee, that sounds intelligent. Carbon capture is the latest high-tech grift of public monies, they don’t even have to prove the cO2 stays in the ground, and it really makes no difference.
Bottom Line: TPTB need an existential threat that is hard to SEE and hard to model so only EXPERTS can understand the ‘truth’, similar to Virology where invisible particles, very difficult-to-isolate and test against controls, are the cause of illness. In both cases they shove their ‘science’ down our throats through extreme policies that remove our freedoms. In both cases they squash dissent, it’s NOT science, it’s just Tryanny with a phd. If we ARE able to reduce / eliminate cO2 from the atmosphere, then, THEN we will discover what an earth catastrophe really looks like. If we are able to Inject every baby with toxic adjuvants & nanotech, then, THEN we will discover what the catastrophic End of Humanity looks like.
Computer models are not the earth, complex systems hold surprises for the patient observer, humility is the hallmark of science, trust the silenced. Those doing the silencing are making lots of money based on keeping other theories quiet. Galileo was silenced. Mammals evolved under much higher cO2 levels. Clear cutting the rainforests may have MUCH MORE apocalyptic risk than burning fossil fuels, and cO2 is helping those forests grow back quicker. Geoengineering is never mentioned, so we can’t even know its effect on extreme weather events, but it could be massive.
We need to reduce actual POLLUTION, not cO2. The opposite is happening. The endless focus on cO2 is helping Big Industry quietly pollute our planet with far more dangerous toxins than co2(non-toxic), like Fracing Chemicals in our groundwater, Biocides in our food and Nuclear Waste. Example: Spraying Glyphosate on wheat directly before or after harvest gets zero attention yet is patently killing far more people via cancer than warmer air or oceans. Also, way way way more people die from Cold than from Heat.
Please watch this to see how manipulated climate ‘science’ is:
How US Govt manipulates Climate Data
https://youtu.be/2jasZcNQqsw?si=CWOQWTNXVpx-BFHt
Video Excerpt:
“Temperature readings have been manipulated at the primary climate data centers in the United States, in order to support the global warming agenda.
“Now, that's a strong new statement that's never been said on television before, but I want to emphasize that after a thousand hours or more of research, a computer programmer and a certified consulting meteorologist found that temperature data has been manipulated at US government climate centers. The altered temperatures seem designed to support the global warming agenda.
“This is breaking news. The two key centers involved are the National Climate Data Center at Asheville North Carolina, and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City.
“Here’s what this means: When you see a news report that the government has found that a certain month or season of the year was the warmest in history, or that five of the warmest years on record were in the last decade, don't believe it. Those reports are based on manipulated data.
“This information from the US parallels what we learned in late November from the huge leak at the East Anglia University Climate Center in England.
“There are four key revelations about the US data centers: First, the computer programs used at those centers to calculate world temperature averages have been dramatically altered so that the final computer product no longer averages actual temperatures from actual locations. Instead, those researchers are pulling numbers from locations which may be hundreds of miles away and applying them to that area.
“Secondly, the number of weather observation points has been dramatically reduced from about 6,000 to only about 1,000.
“Third, the vast majority of the weather stations that were eliminated were those in cooler locations at higher latitudes and elevations.
“And fourth, the temperatures themselves are being altered by so-called homogenization, a process that seems to always result in warmer output readings.
“So, who are the men behind these stunning discoveries? E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer from San José, California, and certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph Deo from Hudson, New Hampshire.
Michael, you apparently have really discovered some significant problems with the American temperature data set, the one that our US government uses to proclaim that this month or this year is the first, or fifth, warmest in all history. Are you telling me that those proclamations are based on bad data?
“Yes, largely because the cold thermometers have been removed from the temperature data series.”
I don't exactly understand, but I want to begin with: Why did you get interested in this issue to start with?
“Well, I had been looking at the global warming issue, and thought it it should be looked at, to find out why it was happening. The more I looked, the more I found out it wasn't happening. When I looked in the data, I found a pattern of deletion of thermometers that was surprising, to say the least.”
What do you mean by that?
“At the peak, there were about 6,000 thermometers in the data series, and then around 1989 to 1990 it suddenly plummeted to around 1500.
“So, let's let's clear this up. Now, you are talking about around the entire globe of the world, planet earth, there were about 6,000 points where they were measuring the temperature and reporting it, and it was going into this data set.”
“That’s correct.”
And this was around 1970, and you're saying by 1990 they'd stopped taking the temperature at most of those places; you only had 1,500 left.
“Well, in most of those places someone was still measuring the temperature. You still had people in in China and the United States thinking they're taking the temperature. But when that temperature measurement went to the NCDC - National Climate Data Center - they dropped it from the data set.
“So, the global historic climate data set - what everyone uses for these maps - the data flows in, but it never flows out. So, now we have data sets in the 1990s, based on let's say 1500 temperatures, and previous years, on 6000.”
And were they comparing one to the other - that's apples and oranges, isn't it?
“I think it's worse than apples and oranges, but that's the metaphor. They were comparing a period from 1950 to 1980, where they had thermometers in cold places, with a current set of temperatures, where they had deleted the thermometers from the cold places.”
“Now, wait a minute, not only did they delete, but they deleted in a pattern?
“Yes. So, for example, in California, in the GHCN data set, there are four surviving thermometers: one at San Francisco Airport, and three down near LA. How do you measure the snowy Sierra Nevadas when your thermometer is on the beach in San Diego, or the temperature in Fresno, Bakersfield, or Death Valley, or any of them? Yes, they simply do not exist in the data set.”
And is this true all around the world?
“They exist in the baseline, but they don't exist in the current temperatures, and yes it's true around the world.
“One of the more startling ones I ran into is Bolivia. There's a wonderful baseline for Bolivia - a very high mountainous country - right up until 1990, when the data ends. And, if you look on the November 2009 anomaly map, you'll see a very red rosy hot Bolivia. How do you get a hot Bolivia when you haven't measured the temperature for 20 years?
Well, how do you?
“They take the temperature from places up to 1200 kilometers away, and copy it in. They fill in with what they've got, and what they've got is the beach in Peru, and the Amazon jungle.”
"expert" a subjective matter
'research academic'; ok
"climate change policy".. in the sense of preparedness policy that mitigates losses due to variable and often nasty weather/events; ok
"climate change policy" that would purport (pretend) to have an effect on future climate; either ideology, or extreme madness; which is where we in "the west" are (lead by madmen)
Really wanted to like this and even started to follow THB Substack because Roger really does seem like an honest guy but after 40 or so minutes, I'm sorry, I really wasn't convinced (I'm a climate crisis "denier" with an open mind). I took a look at THB too and feel the CO2 >>> warming argument seems rooted in the correlation of the 21st Century. We all know correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps, the global population growth and development is the result of more favourable conditions, resulting from a slightly warmer climate, that is inevitably associated with higher output of CO2? I find the much longer analyses to be more compelling, i.e. we are in the middle of a not unusual (and predictable) cycle. I'm not even convinced that the planet is doomed 5 degrees warmer than now. Actually, again, according to the evidence I've seen, it's more likely to be a better environment overall.
Agreed. Mankind has benefitted from any increase in CO2, and any of the regional and cyclic increases in temperature (variable weather), both of which are near historical lows.
These facts alone, put the notion of "climate crisis" into the realm of absurdity.