whilst I respect the views and opinions of Professor Roger Pielke Jr. , he is a POLITICAL SCIENTIST
[ and an academic and author known for his research on the intersection of science, policy, and politics. ] NOT a climate scientist like Richard Lindzen , William Happer , Steven Koonin , Ian Plimer , Judith Curry , Nir Shaviv , Ivar Giaever , John Christy and Henrik Svensmark for example.
Political scientists study the origin, development, and operation of political systems, governments, and policies................"A political scientist like Professor Roger Pielke Jr. works at the intersection of science, technology, and public policy, acting as a bridge between scientific research and political decision-making. While general political scientists study government systems, policy, and behavior, Pielke specifically focuses on how scientific information is used—or misused—to create policies on contentious topics like climate change, natural disasters, and sports governance."
HOWEVER , I am pleased to see that he is reporting on and holding the arrogant IPCC to account and has managed to change the "outlook"[ 'modelling' prediction of the future ] from "worst case scenario" to "plausible outcome" which is of course nowhere near as drastic.[ In his words , the IPCC had continuously and deliberately "over-egged-the-pudding" by predicting the worst possible case ! ]
The work and ideas of Bjorn Lomborg are far more compatible with what is required:
Adaption and Technological Solutions. Much more affordable , practical and optimistic !
And Climate Change is ranked very low on Lomborg's list of priorities.....much more important things are being ignored and/or neglected , because of the hysteria surrounding "Catastrophic Climate Change" which will , in all probability NEVER HAPPEN ! Much of it due to the activities of St.Greta of Green Garbage , and Al Gore [ the bloody instigator of scurrilous lies and rumours ] and their ilk , who have all greatly benefitted financially from their efforts.....and created extreme division and anxiety in alarmed and susceptible victims !
Failed prediction after failed prediction and never a let-up in the propaganda and media support for this rubbish ! Thank goodness that a "chink of light" and some reality has finally modified the IPCC reports away from PERPETUAL DOOM & GLOOM to merely a situation that can be dealt with should it ever arise !
Let us hope that the MODIFIED VERSION of the IPCC loses it's arrogance and adopts some "proper science" and gets back on track !
The problem is policies can get worse; reversing the positive trajectory-see Trump spending billions to force coal plants to keep operating or someone like Bolsonaro basically having a public policy focusing on bulldozing the Amazon.
One can have debates about the relative differences between 2.3 C to 2.7 or whatever but we giving unknown feedback loops that could ignite this century we are NOT out of the woods of the worst case scenarios.
“ …why climate policy must be rooted in energy abundance, adaptation, and honest risk management rather than panic or moral crusades.”
Dude, this can *never* be the case!
The primary purpose of “climate policy” is to justify leftists attaining and retaining political power, and using the authoritarian power of government!
If we did as you suggest, 97% of this would vanish.
Roger summarized with this: "For me, the climate science element as it relates to policy is ridiculously simple. We’re emitting greenhouse gases, we’re doing other things that affect the climate system. We’re not smart enough to know exactly how that’s gonna pan out, if we’re gonna be at the benign end or the more serious end. So the best thing we can do is to reduce that influence we’re having on the system. "
That matches this statement:
"No engineer would continue loading a bridge after discovering cracks and saying, "Let's wait until it collapses to be sure." The Precautionary Principle says we should treat the atmosphere with the same common sense."
But Roger downplays any urgency all the way through the interview;
So at what point do our (and apparently Roger's) science based beliefs in precaution engage?
MARIAN ,
whilst I respect the views and opinions of Professor Roger Pielke Jr. , he is a POLITICAL SCIENTIST
[ and an academic and author known for his research on the intersection of science, policy, and politics. ] NOT a climate scientist like Richard Lindzen , William Happer , Steven Koonin , Ian Plimer , Judith Curry , Nir Shaviv , Ivar Giaever , John Christy and Henrik Svensmark for example.
Political scientists study the origin, development, and operation of political systems, governments, and policies................"A political scientist like Professor Roger Pielke Jr. works at the intersection of science, technology, and public policy, acting as a bridge between scientific research and political decision-making. While general political scientists study government systems, policy, and behavior, Pielke specifically focuses on how scientific information is used—or misused—to create policies on contentious topics like climate change, natural disasters, and sports governance."
HOWEVER , I am pleased to see that he is reporting on and holding the arrogant IPCC to account and has managed to change the "outlook"[ 'modelling' prediction of the future ] from "worst case scenario" to "plausible outcome" which is of course nowhere near as drastic.[ In his words , the IPCC had continuously and deliberately "over-egged-the-pudding" by predicting the worst possible case ! ]
The work and ideas of Bjorn Lomborg are far more compatible with what is required:
Adaption and Technological Solutions. Much more affordable , practical and optimistic !
And Climate Change is ranked very low on Lomborg's list of priorities.....much more important things are being ignored and/or neglected , because of the hysteria surrounding "Catastrophic Climate Change" which will , in all probability NEVER HAPPEN ! Much of it due to the activities of St.Greta of Green Garbage , and Al Gore [ the bloody instigator of scurrilous lies and rumours ] and their ilk , who have all greatly benefitted financially from their efforts.....and created extreme division and anxiety in alarmed and susceptible victims !
Failed prediction after failed prediction and never a let-up in the propaganda and media support for this rubbish ! Thank goodness that a "chink of light" and some reality has finally modified the IPCC reports away from PERPETUAL DOOM & GLOOM to merely a situation that can be dealt with should it ever arise !
Let us hope that the MODIFIED VERSION of the IPCC loses it's arrogance and adopts some "proper science" and gets back on track !
Love the truth and research and equanimity.
The problem is policies can get worse; reversing the positive trajectory-see Trump spending billions to force coal plants to keep operating or someone like Bolsonaro basically having a public policy focusing on bulldozing the Amazon.
One can have debates about the relative differences between 2.3 C to 2.7 or whatever but we giving unknown feedback loops that could ignite this century we are NOT out of the woods of the worst case scenarios.
“ …why climate policy must be rooted in energy abundance, adaptation, and honest risk management rather than panic or moral crusades.”
Dude, this can *never* be the case!
The primary purpose of “climate policy” is to justify leftists attaining and retaining political power, and using the authoritarian power of government!
If we did as you suggest, 97% of this would vanish.
How dare you make such a reactionary suggestion!
You should be canceled…
Roger summarized with this: "For me, the climate science element as it relates to policy is ridiculously simple. We’re emitting greenhouse gases, we’re doing other things that affect the climate system. We’re not smart enough to know exactly how that’s gonna pan out, if we’re gonna be at the benign end or the more serious end. So the best thing we can do is to reduce that influence we’re having on the system. "
That matches this statement:
"No engineer would continue loading a bridge after discovering cracks and saying, "Let's wait until it collapses to be sure." The Precautionary Principle says we should treat the atmosphere with the same common sense."
But Roger downplays any urgency all the way through the interview;
So at what point do our (and apparently Roger's) science based beliefs in precaution engage?
Have you mentioned solar?...admittedly, I left the podcast for a few seconds