These actions and rhetoric are predicated on the perception that
climate change is an imminent threat to humanity, a perception that may
be based on what one expert, Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. of the
University of Colorado Department of Environmental Studies, calls the
“the unstoppable momentum of outdated science.”
“Ultimately, the issues associated with the misuse of scenarios in
climate research and assessment are a matter of scientific integrity,”
he concludes.
Pielke cannot be called a climate change denier. Indeed, he has long
been an advocate for action, but he is also a vigorous advocate for
accurate, dispassionate and politically neutral science as an essential
predicate to discussions of climate change policy.
“Responding to climate change is critically important,” writes
Pielke. “So too is upholding the integrity of the science which helps to
inform those responses"...
Pielke published a graph showing how carbon dioxide emissions
scenarios for the future, including the one “most commonly cited” by
climate researchers, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5),
diverge significantly from actual emissions to date (dark purple curve).
Click to enlarge
“The misuse of scenarios in climate research and assessment
documented in this paper includes the inappropriate identification of an
extreme, implausible scenario [RCP8.5] as a reference or ‘business as
usual’ baseline and the improper comparison of scenarios generated from
different integrated assessment models.”
Pielke writes, ”Evidence is now undeniable that the basis for a
significant amount of research has become untethered from the real
world.”
He says his literature review shows “almost 17,000 peer-reviewed
articles that use the now-outdated highest assessments of the IPCC and
the U.S. National Climate Assessment.”
His drive for accurate, truthful science has not come without criticism or derision. Climate alarmists routinely disparage
both Pielke and his father, Robert Pielke Sr., a climate scientist who
is likewise a critic of shoddy science. The “cancel culture” is particularly strong when it comes to adhering to climate change orthodoxy.
I always love the local news stories about what is going to happen to an area when sea levels rise--Manhattan will be under water!.
I love it, because to this day I have never seen such an article include the NOAA tide gauge chart for the area.
When I come across such an article, I often pull up the nearest tide gauge and laugh. Pretty much every long-term gauge in the world shows a perfectly linear trend going on a century, with absolutely no acceleration due to post-WWII industrialization.
The exceptions tend to be places with large land subsidence, not sea level rise, i.e. cities built on landfill or on a sand bar. And one island in the South Pacific which suffered an earthquake and saw the land suddenly drop away.
They couldn't post such a graph, because it would make a mockery of the doom-mongering.
Natural variability is not climate change.
ReplyDeleteI always love the local news stories about what is going to happen to an area when sea levels rise--Manhattan will be under water!.
ReplyDeleteI love it, because to this day I have never seen such an article include the NOAA tide gauge chart for the area.
When I come across such an article, I often pull up the nearest tide gauge and laugh. Pretty much every long-term gauge in the world shows a perfectly linear trend going on a century, with absolutely no acceleration due to post-WWII industrialization.
The exceptions tend to be places with large land subsidence, not sea level rise, i.e. cities built on landfill or on a sand bar. And one island in the South Pacific which suffered an earthquake and saw the land suddenly drop away.
They couldn't post such a graph, because it would make a mockery of the doom-mongering.