What does it say about an institution when you have to distort the facts or lie in order to succeed?
This seems to be the defining characteristic of our time: our institutions have failed us by pursuing goals contrary to what their stated purpose is.
How can I trust what any “expert” or “scientist” says if there’s the possibility that what they’re saying is misrepresented in order to suite a narrative or gain clout in their chosen profession?
Exactly, the real point of this piece is the LIE! After all the suffering caused during the pandemic by lies, Patrick T. Brown contributes to the cesspool for the purpose of getting published? So now this piece is to serve as his mea culpa and it gets published? What a week! This and photos of Fauci wearing a mask.
I think that publishing the article in Nature and then having this piece in the FP makes his statement more powerful. It means that a scientist is on the record disparaging Nature, instead of being considered a whiner for not getting published. Controversial? Yes. Effective? Hopefully.
Not having read his original article, I can’t say if his argument for not disavowing it is valid. Glad TFP tackled the issue of climate change finally.
I think there is still too much leftwing/NYTimes in Bari, reflexive belief in the climate narrative goes deep, i bet she really had to convince herself to publish this and give it widespread views.
This site talk about all sorts of instances of the corruption of science for political ends but she has avoided connecting this particular dot.
I'm just glad she finally did, i don't think there exists another story as important as this.
Bari's main driver in leaving the main stream press....was people's distrust in the media and her editors distrust in her.
She doesn't have to believe in Climate Change or not. The reason she published this story...because it has everything in it that caused her to come to substack and eventually TFP. Right??
I imagine that she has studiously avoided thinking about the climate bullshit, just too much cognitive dissonance for all those who truly believed.
Note that this piece still says "climate change" affects the fires and makes them worse, which the data shows opposite, so there is some cover still there for Brown and Bari.
But i will take it, someone from inside the peer review process and Bari publishing, two wins for whatever reason they chose to do this
Get all the opinions you want from wherever you want, but today you have to do your own primary research and base your beliefs on that. If you do you'll find that over the last few years NYT has been wrong about many of the key stories of our times: Russia Collusion, Hunter Laptop, COVID, Global Warming reporting. That's just fact. Maybe they'll turn it around someday under new management, but it doesn't make sense for them to do so as it would alienate too much of their paying subscriber base.
Similar thing happened to Dr. Judith Curry. She changed her views on climate change and hurricanes, then got attacked and resigned from Georgia Tech.
CLINTEL's World Climate Declaration that there is no climate emergency has 1600 signatories including Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser: https://clintel.org/
She was shown where she'd made mistakes, because she is a scientist she corrected herself and was attacked for it.
Any scientist who tells the truth gets attacked and their careers endangered. With Curry, add Pielkie, and the Canadian Susan Crockford who did not question any science regarding melting arctic ice, she merely pointed out that the polar bears seem to be quite well regardless and for that she was done.
Once again, we see the name Micheal Mann, affectionately known as Piltdown Mann, whenever science needs to be corrupted he's your Mann.
His contribution in this case isn't climate change research. His contribution is the exposure of how that work is presented to non-scientists like me. His message is, if you rely on journals like Nature and Science, you are being fed by something closer to the editorial page than the news page. Caveat emptor. In the private corridors of Nature, Science, et. al., I think they agree. They sell more subscriptions this way.
Steve Koonin wrote Unsettled, and has given interviews since. He said he has been shunned by some members of his field. But, so what? Who wants to be friends with intellectually dishonest so called scientists?
It details how facts are omitted and manipulated by the propagandists who present the results of various studies, including the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023 parroted by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to reinforce the global warming narrative. It’s a fascinating 20 minutes or so for a public desperately in need of facts and a renewed faith in scientists.
An excellent interview, to be sure. Koonin is a Democrat who is intellectually honest and a truth teller, fleshing out the entire “climate change” narrative. He was not afraid of uncovering the lies and half truths.
How many GW prediction have to not come true before these sheep realize they have been had?
1. The opportunistic, lying, scum sucking, politician Al Gore made a fictional movie called An Inconvenient Truth. In that he said the oceans would rise 21 feet and if we didn't do something right away within the next ten years we would all be doomed. Well that work of fiction came out in 2006 and the oceans didn't rise 21 feet.
2. In 2014 the lying swine said the artic ice cap would completely melt in 2014. Didn't happen.
3. 97% of all, ALL, scientist believed in global warming. The sheep took this lie at face value. Forbes ran two articles debunking that lie. There has to be thousands of scientists in the world. Did the lying left poll all of them?
The sheep believe anything their lying political leaders tell them.
The above is just three examples of lying. If someone came up to you and said buy XYZ. it is due to go through the roof and you invested a lot of your money on that stock tip and XYZ went bust. If the same guy or gal came up to you three years later and said buy ABC it is due to explode. You would tell him or her to get lost.
When it comes to money people would not believe the same lie but when it comes to an abstract the sheep will believe anything and all things their political idols tell them.
Well these GW lies are costing all of us money. Our scum sucking politicians are spending billions of our dollars on a lie.
It is hard for me to believe that smart people are not only believing these scurrilous lies but propagating them.
The industrialize nations run on energy and the GW crowd want to destroy the industrialized nations and replace them with a workers' paradise. If you don't believe me there were a Marxist husband and wife team at Columbia University that taught exactly that.
not one since 1890 unreal people are so gullible . Think of all the young people that are true believers in this cult of BS that is damage that will take years to undo, if ever
Yes, this is true. But many will not have this courage and will be seduced by success, acceptance and prestige. They will rationalize that they haven’t actually “lied” and that they have to play the game to justify the money, work, and time invested in their education and professions. And then the voice of their conscience continues to weaken and finally is rendered silent.
Great comment - you are right, it's as if they decide to live with their own cognitive dissonance as a "small price to pay" for success, hard work put in. I see this happening over and over again, not just on this issue - and it's scary.
Yes, it’s a scary thing to contemplate when we consider how much competence and dedication to truth and reality is necessary for the world to function well.
Koonin says he doesn't question "the science" part, i'm not sure if that is true, but he certainly questions the outcome.
His book Unsettled is a takedown of all the ludicrous garbage we see in the media every day, endless examples of alarmist narrative control, and for his effort part of the Climatism elite like Hausfather attacked him pretending to fact check the book.
You can find this "fact check" online as well as Koonin's reply to it. Hausfather accused him of creating straw men and then knocking them down, but of course Koonin did not create them, the media and alarmist activist groups created them.
THANK YOU!!! Like we have a BIGGER problem here if everyone is lying to their institutions and THESE are the institutions that are supposed to “protect the people”
I wrote a similar topic on the institution of medicine here:
Ditto to drug policy/harm reduction research, gender medicine, the list goes on as post-Modern scientism takes over the processes of generating and defining "evidence".
I was planning to make a similar comment. It seems academia in all of the various sciences has become no more than a poisonous serpent. Off with their heads!
BettyB, your comment is unfair to poisonous serpents! At least serpents are creatures of instinct--the modern academic serpent is much more calculating in how they dispense their venom. No kidding, academia has become that bad.
And it is not just the sciences--this mess started in the Humanities and Social Sciences and migrated outward from there.
So I've studied A LOT about our modern day institutions and I'm finishing up my book on this topic. My overall thesis is that our modern institutions (from health, to science, etc) were made from a 1) less than 200 years old, 2) profit driven agenda.
Trickle-up economics ensures concentration of influence, and concentration of influence ensures concentration of outcome. Analyzing whether things are "profit" driven is irrelevant - every single thing on earth exists to maximize its own outcomes. What matters is where the profit comes from. Think of everything like the human body - sugar is great for me, until it kills me. The same is true of all outcomes. If my profit, like my nutrient concentration, is diverse and dependent on a multitude of factors I can, and will, serve multiple masters, which means I'm beholden to none of them. If my "profit" all comes from the government (when you control half the economy, guess who everyone's largest buyer is...) I'm beholden to one master, and I will serve that master.
And don’t forget citations. If paper A had a specific bias and paper B has the same bias because it builds on paper A, there is a dangerous positive feed back pushing all papers to have extreme bias built in.
Not only that, but the biased upon biased papers are swooped up as data for ChatGPT to construct from and spit out as facts that our school children are being encouraged to access
Yup - and so even people who are willing to be skeptical, willing to learn and investigate a topic on their own and not just uncritically accept a position/conclusion, will be led down a path of incomplete/inaccurate/biased information - and will think "well I did my own research" and believe they are arriving at the studied, objective, enlightened position.
The more corrupted sources of information there are, the less chance ANYONE can get at the truth even if they want to/are skeptical and willing to probe more.
Unfortunately the reality is even worse than that, as quite often the people who cite paper A in paper B haven't actually read paper A, they've just seen someone else cite it so feel free to do the same. I've noted this in my own discipline of wildlife biology. Again, if it supports the accepted hypothesis, it doesn't raise eyebrows when you cite the already often-cited paper.
I read the IPCC papers put out by the UN in about 2009 and there was no crisis in the papers. Political aids erroneously summarized the findings for their politicians and the media and it became a n incorrectly presented position, a political football, with a life of it's own. Ditto Septer's comment!!!
It's hubris, plain and simple. The journals' editors all believe they know best what the earth needs and that unshakable belief reinforces their sense of self importance. That same self importance is foundational to their belief in their rightness. It's a feedback loop. Likely they are insufferable in other ways as well. Avoid them at parties.
What does it say about a scientist (or any person) who publishes something he absolutely knows to be false? This is Alexander Solzhenitsyn territory: you choose to live in freedom by telling the truth or you choose to be a slave and live by lies.
Sure the journals are to partially to blame. But a couple dozen scientists can start a competing journal. And yet they don't. Instead they knowingly spout lies in journals to buttress their professional reputations, while repenting of their lies on substack to buttress their public reputations. It's not brave; it's blatantly self-serving.
What the author published was not so much false, but rather unnuanced. So yes - the evidence suggests that climate change IS leading to more fires. BUT the omission of other factors that are increasing fires in some regions was political. The lie of omission. We see this sort of stuff in media all the time too - CNN and Fox. Overt lies are rare.
In Nature, he said fires were caused by climate change. He comes here and says fired really aren't primarily caused by climate change. One of those is a lie.
I believe he and others have started a competing journal. He cites it in this piece, The Breakthrough Institute. I followed the link, it looks promising.
Our broken institutions are, like almost all things in life, a matter of incentives. You have to change the incentives of our institutions if we have any hope of changing our outcomes (and you are right that almost all our institutions are irrevocably broken and need to be completely restructured). I see two primary ways of accomplishing the restructuring of their incentives: 1. We need to DRASTICALLY reduce taxes, and eliminate income tax altogether, such that our government is no longer everyone's largest payer (and therefore the controller of all incentives), or 2. only work with organizations that don't take money or direction from the government (almost impossible - but at least those are transparent about how it impacts their business like "X" (twitter) is attempting to do allow us to understand the cause and direction of the biases and can be a reasonable stand in in a world where the government messes with literally everything).
We live in the Truman Show, with every narrative written by the same writers. We want freedom back (for all the reasons it is so important to the continued evolution of humanity) we need the return of consumer-driven markets and a HIGHLY skeptical press, otherwise we'll just keep getting exactly what we're literally paying for in the form of the highest effective tax rate in human history paid to the largest bureaucracy in human history who ultimately dictates not just outcomes, but inputs in the first place, across basically every endeavor we oversee.
They are true believers. Their beliefs enable them to be both virtuous and make a living. The narrative has been established.It will take a period of Global Cooling To Defeat The Narrative but only a fool wants a cooler world.
Almost everyone here is missing the mark. There's an insidious group of scientists who push the climate change agenda and ignore practical solutions? Why? The author hits on it but misses the real target. In the United States, and therefore the rest of the free world, Democrats are driving the narrative for the sole purpose of accumulating money and power. The entire system is now subservient to this goal. Science, Journalism, Corporations, the Security State... all of it now reflects the single purpose of moving the Democrat Party toward absolute, permanent power. It's shocking how quickly this has happened but to think anything that could possibly be politicized to benefit Democrats' pursuit of power happens in isolation is to deny reality.
"How can I trust what any “expert” or “scientist” says if there’s the possibility that what they’re saying is misrepresented in order to suite a narrative or gain clout in their chosen profession?"
Yes! And yet it happens all the time. I have little trust in "experts" right now.
This article and your comment - make it times 10 regarding Gender Ideology (how did a pseudo scientific theory become established fact?)/Gender "Medicine" (for the young especially)/"Gender" Therapists"/"Gender Affirmation"/"Gender" Education in schools.
So true. The bizzaro, cowardly, revolutionary, commie virus has infected most if not all institutions. The revolutionary Obama commies are not letting crises going to waste in their march to 'fundamentally transform the nation.'
Good for you P Brown for coming clean. But no need. Those of us paying attention know science is anything but. Thanks for nothing Fauci, CDC, FDA, regime media, academia...
The era has many defining characteristics, but among the least attractive is its preference for--indeed, its insistence on--cost-free ethics; and in this respect the era has got exactly what it deserves. "I'll be trustworthy to the extent that this is compatible with what's best for me" is an ethical standard with a self-evidently fatal loophole.
I don’t know whether you are a hero or a coward. If I practiced surgery the way you practice science, I doubt my patients would appreciate my self interest... The fact that you are even studying the effects of climate change on wildfires - when there is ample evidence that that is not even a significant factor, speaks volumes. Take your mea culpa somewhere else. Grow a pair...
There’s an old saying: “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” I’m glad that the author was able to continue his research interests with more intellectual freedom at a private institution. Academia is utterly compromised, mostly because all of the research funding comes from government bureaucrats with ideological agendas (see also: Anthony Fauci).
Oh yes Dr Anthony Fauci the biggest liar of them all - his lies have brought us all to our knees it’s a disgrace that MSM still quote and interview him
Spoken like a true surgeon: white and black, good tissue or bad tissue.
Dr. Brown is neither a hero nor a coward. He’s just human. If you haven’t made compromises in your career, it’s probably because you never recognized them as such.
If you have never wondered whether surgery was the right course of action when a non-invasive solution existed, maybe it’s time to develop a more nuanced view of life. Do you tell your female colleagues to grow a pair? I hear they don’t make as many errors.
You don't think you do. But I work with surgeons - and most do things wrong from time to time (doing higher billing procedures when evidence is borderline, etc). I do wonder if a bit of narcissism exists in you i thinking you are so pure, while others are just evil (just from reading your other posts).
I give the author credit for at least touching on the more immediate factors that cause wildfires. I criticize him for maintaining a link to climate change itself rather than the religion that has sprung up around it as one of those factors. The great irony of the Maui fire is that it was most likely started by downed wires, wires and other infrastructure that has been neglected in part to finance the “snake oil” elixir of solar panels and windmills. It was compounded by cultural imbeciles that refused to provide the water that could have mitigated some of the 1,000 deaths that resulted.
And to all the fools that would have you believe that climate change is responsible for the combustible conditions that led to the tragedy, the truth is, all the islands have a wet and dry side. Lahaina is on the dry side of Maui. The potential for such a catastrophic firestorm has been well known for decades. But just as with the flooding and wind damage from hurricanes that occur elsewhere, preventative measures that could have been implemented have been ignored. Instead, money is diverted to “green infrastructure” boondoggles like windmills and the sonar mapping that kills whales and dolphins while lining the pockets of snake oil salesman that peddle them. All of which is abetted by "scientists" who publish "studies" that deceive a poorly informed public.
Worse than that, Tim, I believe that the Maui government officials were explicitly warned of the danger and ignored the warnings. In other words, criminally negligent homicide. Will they be prosecuted? You tell me.
I haven't been to Lahaina in quite some time so it would be difficult for me to say. I do recall that the last time I was there, forty plus years ago, the buildings were old and relied on the character of its whaling heritage to induce tourist visits however they weren't conducive to supporting a tourist mecca.
The likely scenario now is that developers will swoop in and buy up uninsured property at discounted prices and perform their best Disney recreation of a whaling village. My guess is the local pols will have dollar signs flashed before their eyes and ignore anything that could impede reconstruction. Whether the promise of such an opportunity influenced a lack of action by those in charge is something we’re unlikely to ever know.
The fact that this fire was a huge win for rich developers and a huge loss for native Hawaiian long-time residents of Lahaina is something that should be remembered at every point during the investigation.
It wouldn't have been a "catastrophic firestorm" if the local officials had released the water supply to fight the fire. The tragedy was human error, not "climate change."
Yes. Release ten thousand goats on the grass fields to reduce them to stubble, and release the water when the Fire Department demands it. I know little about emergency planning and even I know that--reduce the fuel before the fire, douse the fire as soon as it starts.
Is anyone else tired of paying billions of tax dollars to "experts" who keep dropping the ball when it's game time?
And this is why conservatives are going to keep on losing and losing. Purity tests work great on the Left because they took the time over the last 50+ years to capture all the institutions that matter. They don't work on the Right because conservatives need to reach some of the "independent" and "apolitical" people who mostly accept the default liberal-created/magnified Narratives. And since the mainstream media is one of the captured institutions, that involves communicating over the top or around them.
We absolutely need people like this who are or have been actually in the game exposing what really goes on beyond the curtain. Unless you're looking forward to group public showers in a dank cellar and whatever else the Left has in mind for all the plebes in order to "save the planet".
Hi Dr. Paramore, I hear you but - we are grateful for the exposure of this issue. And, I feel compelled to add that there are a great many plastic surgeons in this country right now who are happy to perform double mastectomies, etc. on confused teen girls in the name of Gender Ideology. They seem to be doing very well so far with the self interest. I do not think they will grow a pair but they might feel the lawsuits eventually. Jail time would be best.
Finally, there are many surgeons happy to chop off a pair for money.
I am not angry at confused teens and young adults - or even with mentally ill adults. They all need Real help. I am angry with the profiteers in medicine, pharma and government. And, I think that the Education establishment - led by state and local government - have fanned the problem - to say the least. I do not expect you to agree with this bit - and I must add that our young adult daughter is physically unharmed and seems to be improving - but
I think that after trial the consequences need to be more than loss of job/license/money - but more along the lines of public hanging - where the mamas "throw the first stone". Perhaps they could perform Gender Affirmation on such people? It IS all about #BeKind afterall - see https://pitt.substack.com/p/blissfully-almost-ignorant And, no - the mamas should not have medical degrees - or even degrees from Boston University.
Getting the piece published was important to establish his credibility, so as the journal publishes his paper he can immediately say "they only published it because I told them what they wanted to hear, now here is the actual research."
This effective rhetorical attack wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't been published first. I think Patrick and TFP are quite clever.
I think it's too easy to get trapped. Science is an interesting subject. It may have began as a genuine desire to study and grow in the field. However, to make it in the field requires so much time and even more money. Most people that got suckerd into having six figure debts, while having families to support and wanting to keep food on the table would sacrifice ethics just to stay afloat. It takes courage to admit you were wrong and make changes, which is what this author has done.
I appreciate the honesty. To me the significant thing is he had to abandon academia to do it. A lot of people sniff about political echo chambers but at least there are two of those.
"The fact that you are even studying the effects of climate change on wildfires - when there is ample evidence that that is not even a significant factor . . ."
Dr. Brown says climate change DOES add to wildfire strength and frequency. So I have no issue with him studying that for his report.
My complaint is that the two things he left out to ensure he'd be published in Nature instead of a "lesser" journal are FAR more important for citizens and policymakers to know than the climate change stuff: that firebugs start 80 percent of all wildfires, and that changing our forest management practices would by itself negate all climate change impact.
All of which makes his report the intellectual equivalent of "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Idk how surgeons are less susceptible to what the author had done. As we speak, medical students are complicit in affirming sex is not binary for humans, doctors are affirming people have gender souls, ob-gyns are treating patients with "neo vaginas", the AMA and APA supports "gender affirming care" and all their literature have erased the existence of women, and surgeons are performing "sex change" operations. Not you, of course, but seems to me a lot of patients are still flocking to these doctors and surgeons.
Consider the options for enhancement in surgical practice that would be missed if you did not actually read any research. This person is trying to change corrupt practice for the betterment of all who need to rely on progress in knowledge. Your attitude bespeaks a lack of understanding of te necessity of research and the fluid nature of knowledge.
Did you miss this part?? "I left academia over a year ago, partially because I felt the pressures put on academic scientists caused too much of the research to be distorted. Now, as a member of a private nonprofit research center, The Breakthrough Institute, I feel much less pressure to mold my research to the preferences of prominent journal editors and the rest of the field. " He is taking his mea culpa elsewhere and will be continuing to contributre
I’ve spent my career on telling the truth about the causes of suicide. The reality of it is that there are fewer two-parent homes and church attendees. These are not the only causes, but they are the causes with the biggest effect sizes. I can’t get much of it published in high impact journals. That’s too bad, but I won’t change the facts to fit the narrative.
Sometimes, you just have to tell the truth to a smaller group. That way, looking at yourself in the mirror remains possible. I can’t do my kind of work in academia, so I don’t. It’s called morality.
I have said for years that I believe the breakdown of the family unit has contributed to so many issues our society is facing now. Good to know my hunch may be right. I would love to see your work published on The Free Press, how about it Bari?
Truth is only wanted when it does not hurt the flow of $$ , or hurt the "research" of those higher up the food chain. It is almost as bad as religion ruling over science , we are going backwards
There is a childhood educator specialist on here (Peter gray) who would like to talk to you -- he’s just posted an open question in Re: to the shocking rise of suicide in young people over the past 60 years. I hope you guys can link up.
Where do you publish your info about "fewer two-parent homes and church attendees" impact on suicides? I believe it, but do you have research on these topics that is not moralistic in nature?
If this sounds like "1984," maybe because it is. Imagine turning our entire energy infrastructure into some sick joke based on "climate science" such as that peddled by this fakir? All the windmills, solar arrays and EVs won't make a bit of difference (even if one believes the CO2 hypothesis) when China and India and others are building coal-fired electric plants and other production facilities. Want to make me believe this garbage? Push for natural gas and nuclear generation. Otherwise you're only making things worse. Much worse A modern society needs reliable electricity. So called "renewables" are not. And millions will soon be unable to afford electricity - if it's even available.
My man! Dude, I wrote an entire analysis about 1984 and Brave New World and how those books literally primed us for this reality. Here's parts 1 and 2 of the three part analysis:
This is the second (non-Covid) FP article I can remember that addresses the UTTER CORRUPTION of science in our times -- worse now the Woke Era. [The other one concerned the universal assumption that amyloid plaques cause Alzheimer’s, despite evidence to the contrary, and despite decades of failure based on that assumption!]
It is, indeed, chillingly 1984ish. In the face of such widespread manipulation, the only LOGICAL response is to assume that everything *may* be compromised...but in our complex society, we cannot learn everything ourselves; we are reliant on experts (who are likely compromised). It’s like an ouroboros of corruption.
The author’s morals aside, the corruption of science is WAY more important than mere “culture wars”, and should be on everyone’s radar. Like the Soviet-era joke went: What do you get when you mix politics and science? Answer: Politics!
This whole thing is silly. The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter - solid and liquid, weighing about 7.7 sextillion tons. It gets its internal heat from decaying radionuclides and a nearby star. If the earth were the size of a beach ball, everything inside - except for a solid iron core - would be red-hot molten rock. The solid crust would be the thickness of its plastic envelope; the atmosphere would be a single coat of paint. And yet we are supposed to believe changes in the concentration of a single atmospheric trace gas is swamping these leviathans?
Earth's atmosphere is no more than a sliver - less than 50 miles thick, with half below 3 miles altitude. In that incredibly thin atmosphere, CO2 is a trace gas – 0.04%. 97% of CO2 comes from nature; only 3% is man-made, and of that 3%, the US accounts for 14%. You do the math: 0.000168 percent of the atmosphere is CO2 from the U.S. and theoretically available for “reduction.” Sheer lunacy.
Atmospheric CO2 is important. From a geological perspective, due to sequestration of carbon dioxide by coral and other hard-bodied animals who use it to make calcium carbonate shells, the earth is at a CO2 atmospheric low point -> 400 parts per million – extremely low, and near the 150 ppm threshold for a massive plant die-off – plants which, which, by the way, produce 100% of the oxygen that keeps all animals, including humans, alive.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is plant food; it is to plants what oxygen is to man. During the Cambrian period 500 million years ago, CO2 constituted over 5,000 parts per million of the Earth’s atmosphere. Then, 150 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, CO2 was 1,700 parts per million, more than four times what it is now, yet life thrived. In point of fact, high CO2 levels were the major reason the Earth was blanketed with lush foliage during those periods. In the past forty years the earth has undergone an unprecedented greening, widely believed to be the result of the modest, likely manmade, increase in atmospheric CO2. Along with nitrogen fertilizers, this has resulted in an explosion of planetary food production. What's not to like?
As for the supposed ill effects of a 1° atmospheric temperature rise - the earth has no specific optimum temperature; only a range in which it must remain for life as we know it to exist. At higher temperatures, tropical life-forms proliferate more; at lower temperatures, arctic ones do, yet note: The tropics boast 10 times as many species as does the Arctic because warmth breeds life. And “cold weather is responsible, directly or indirectly, for 17 times as many deaths as hot weather,” as even The New York Times, citing a Lancet study, had to admit in 2017.
So our “leaders” – innocent of the most basic science – and more importantly, math – skills plan to turn the world’s economy upside down and LITERALLY starve millions of people in service to a cadre of lunatics who don’t know what they are talking about. Uh-huh. Or maybe the object is not saving the planet. Maybe it's something else entirely.
Climate alarmism is a testament to how scientifically illiterate Americans have become, how unable they are to think and question, how willing they are to genuflect to self-proclaimed annointed ones. Worshipping the golden calf.
True. But if we could only get all of the deluded to crazy glue their tongues to the tarmac, we'd have a very good reckoning. After all, they claim to be doomed anyway.
The object is not saving the planet. I believe your assessment is pretty close to the truth. The object of all this climate hysteria is a long term goal of human population reduction on a very large scale. The left says, people are causing climate change along with all the attendant catastrophes, therefore people are bad. This is why they are so militant about abortion, it helps reduce the population. Transgenderism with the drugs and surgeries are a way to keep young people from producing offspring and there is plenty of evidence of how militant the left is about transgenderism. Feminism, the defamation of religion and faith in God and the elevation of science as a religion are just some of the many factors that are contributing to unsustainable, low birth rates in many “highly developed” countries. The left’s goal is to reduce the population of humans by any and all means including infectious diseases.
The left wants a two-tiered human population. It will consist of ultra-rich and powerful elitists and just enough of a poor, virtually enslaved underclass of useful idiots to serve the elitists. Public education, once a ticket to prosperity for the middle class, is now being dumbed down for the sake of “equity” so that children feel good about being stupid. The elite will educate their children in private schools that no commoner will be able to afford and thereby retain power over their serfs/servants.
You may think I’m a kook and on a certain level, I hope I am but there’s a lot going on that gives me pause. Even now, consider the new “Disinformation” law recently passed in the EU that will put you in jail if you tell the truth as you understand it, and it doesn’t happen to go along with the government’s “truth”...
You have to love Europe, and now Canada. They serve as windows into the ultimate results of the Leftist agenda, and we can watch them slide down the poop-chute from afar. Unfortunately it's not stopping our own breakneck slide down the same ramp.
Not one western country or China or Japan is producing at a replacement rate and it will not be long before the world population begins to decline, unless people start having more children.
In the 1990s, when the DEA cops fitted their black Ninja helicopters with infrared cameras that made marijuana plants stand out like neon signs, my childhood buds in West-by-God-Virginia responded immediately: they scattered a few seeds in the mountains for the Ninjas to find in their yearly autumn overflights, then lined their closets with aluminum foil, HID lamps, and tanks of CO2.
Then, every fall, the Ninjas overflew, found a few plants in the mountains and had a little camp-out to catch the miscreants - who, of course had planted the mountains as decoys and never returned. So every year, regular as a Metamucil patient, he cops called the newspapers, declared twelve plants worth $40 million dollars, burned them all, and decamped in high dudgeon, proclaiming themselves the Keepers of Our Democracy. (Wait a minute; that's somebody else...)
So the cops got more funding, got to camp out, Saved the World - while the Press got a scoop, the locals felt they were being protected from the Drug Fiends, and everybody enjoyed the festivities.
In the meantime, the Good Ol' Boys got to grow their pot in peace, and welding gas/CO2 suppliers like AirGas and Linde sold a lot of CO2.
There is a current article by a Nobel Prize winner (physics) John Clauser in The Epoch Times, where he makes the point that computer models - upon which all climate hysteria is based - are inaccurate, so inaccurate in fact as to be worthless.
A major factor in that inaccuracy is their failing to account for water vapor in the atmosphere, which is highly variable and massively influential in planetary albedo. When water condenses, it turns white - the most solar-reflective color - in clouds, in ice, and in snow. These three forms of water in combination cover a high percentage of the earth's surface, reducing "insolation" - solar energy absorption - massively.
Even with clouds/snow/ice factored in, climate computer models still suffer from the age-old problem of "too many variables, too few equations." To my eye, national - and even global - policies that starve millions of people are not justified on such bogus science, commonly known among scientists as the WAG method: a wild-ass guess.
Funny you should say that. I have two bumper stickers on my 2005 Dodge Ram diesel: "I Love CO2 and So Should You." and "STOP the Climate Hoax." In over a year, nobody's said a thing about them. I'm thinking about adding one above the exhaust pipe: "My Carbon Footprint Is Bigger Than Yours."
I wish that were true - but the original article stands as testimony to the fact that doing the math (ie, looking at the facts) and common sense have very little power when faced with a “Science” community that is (far) more interested in echo amplification.
Well, Thoughtful, you are no doubt right that the "scientific" community, at this point, is deaf to arguments that run counter to the new dominant ideology of "climate change"...but I do think having some common sense facts handy in our personal exchanges on this issue might in time have an impact. With their credibility shattrered, The "scientists" will be the last ones to get on board. Witness these comments on The FP...few if any seem ready to defend the hoax to our group. I take that as a Good Sign.
We are in agreement, Jim, that the catastrophic framing of rising CO2 concentrations is deeply harmful to society. That is not a difficult case to make. But your flat-Earth ignorance of basic climate science does not help the cause.
Your math is fundamentally flawed, both because many of these numbers are a magician-like distraction and because the few relevant numbers you share fail to take into account water vapor, which is far more abundant in our atmosphere and amplifies the influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in a positive-feedback loop. Roger Pielke, Sr., wrote a very good primer on his son's Substack back in December 2022.
We desperately need more intelligent and better informed conversations about our variable and changing climate. Those that categorically deny anthropogenic global warming are no more helpful than those that insist we're on the precipice of an existential crisis. Jim meet Greta; you are mirror images of each other.
You are correct - water vapor is not in my calculations, because nobody is saying that humans cause water vapor. As for any amplifying effect, I'd like to see the research - and especially the numbers - that support such claims.
But more to the point, the earth has been much hotter and much colder well before humans started their first CO2-spewing fire to cook their meat, making "anthropogenic global warming" by definition an extraordinary claim - which as we all know, demands extraordinary proof. Nonlinear climate computer models, which - aside from always failing spectacularly to agree with temperatures already observed, go wildly askew with the tiniest change in any variable (the definition of a nonlinear system). These computer models hardly represent ordinary proof, let alone extraordinary, but these GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) models are all they have. In the meantime, a little basic math and some basic thinking reveals the Emperor's New Clothes vividly.
re: "flat-earth" ignorance and "deny anthropogenic global warming." Didn't your mother ever tell you that when someone starts calling you names, that's ironclad proof that they know they've lost the argument? As for "not helpful" and the need for "more intelligent and better-informed conversation," that misses the entire point of the article, doesn't it? Questioning accepted orthodoxy, particularly an orthodoxy as shaky as this one, is PRECISELY what we should ALL be doing.
Here is another primer from NASA, more directly focused on water vapor. No, human beings are not directly increasing the absolute amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, but it is a very powerful amplifier because of positive feedbacks: more greenhouse gases increase temperature which increases absolute humidity which increases temperature more through an amplified greenhouse effect, and so on. Leaving that out of your calculations is a fatal flaw. This is very basic atmospheric science.
Again, on a policy matter we broadly agree. We do not face imminent catastrophe. There is no existential risk for life on Earth, including human life. Anthropogenic climate change is not an emergency that demands radical action. But we are significantly changing the general conditions of the atmosphere, steadily raising its average temperature, and this is having significant impacts at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. The devil is the details, of course, and this is where the science remains uncertain--the desirable public policy responses even more so. There is no need to call modern climate change a "hoax" in order to be highly critical of the way society is responding to such climate change in a generally panicked way, with all bets on mitigation through a forced fast conversion to "net zero". The Pielkes, father and son, are excellent guides, and it's a shame that Junior has been marginalized while crazed catastrophists such as Michael Mann--the Fauci of climate change--are still so celebrated. But denying the very basics of climate science and a greenhouse effect enhanced by modern human activity does not help.
Humans aren't responsible for water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere, which makes the globe hotter b/c of the "positive feedback loop". Nowhere in your response is C02 mentioned.
Then you conclude that anthropogenic climate change (ie caused by humans) is real (but not a threat). However, humans aren't responsible for increasing water vapor in the atmosphere, as you said, right? So how did you come to that conclusion?
My guess is that you think there is enough CO2 released by humans to contribute to warming. But you must remember the facts the original poster stated: CO2 is a trace gas – 0.04% of the atmosphere. 97% of CO2 comes from nature; only 3% is man-made.
3% of 0.4% is pretty small, so how does this small percentage have such an incredible impact?
The NASA link I shared does a good job of explaining this positive feedback loop. It operates as part of both the natural greenhouse effect and the enhanced greenhouse warming linked to anthropogenic carbon emissions. (Note that a greenhouse is a pretty poor metaphor despite being widely used, as explained well by Pielke, Sr. and others.)
To state the positive feedback loop as simply as I can, more CO2 -> warmer temperature -> more water vapor in atmosphere -> warmer temperature -> more water vapor, and so on. This is a self-dampening feedback loop, so rather than temperatures climbing to infinity, they settle at a new, higher steady-state equilibrium.
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to an increase in the atmosphere's energy input. Full stop. Because CO2 (along with CH4 et al.) is a trace gas, the direct temperature increase from the energy-absorbing CO2 is trivial, but this direct signal is amplified by all of that water vapor, including the additional water vapor triggered by warmer temperatures. To use another metaphor, perhaps just as poorly chosen, the water vapor is like a lever. The CO2 is the modest power generated by a human body pulling or pushing on that lever, but the metaphorical leverage of the water vapor amplifies that force into something very much more powerful.
For those who like numbers, and who are especially interested in energy--including the folly of believing we can or should rid ourselves entirely of fossil fuels anytime soon--I also recommend the writing of the geographer Vaclav Smil. I think he includes a primer on anthropogenic climate change somewhere in his most recent book, but even if not, it is a great read on the wicked problem that is the energy transition and the pursuit of a decarbonized but still prosperous future.
Finally, focusing on the small size of the numbers involved, even of water vapor which is "only" 2-3% of the atmosphere, bear in mind that the amount of climate change we are discussing is itself small: just a few degrees Celsius in even the most pessimistic of future scenarios, which as an addition to the total quantity of thermal energy in the atmosphere is very small. But small differences matter on the margin. During a hurricane, for example, a storm surge of "only" ten feet can wreak enormous destruction to low-lying coastal areas, even though that additional ten feet is trivial compared to the many thousands of feet that the ocean is deep.
In expressing our skepticism about climate-related policy, rather than denying the undeniable basics of atmospheric science, we should push back against our leaders and our loudest voices when they make highly speculative, alarmist claims, such as anthropogenic global warming leading to more hurricanes. As Pielke, Jr. argues so well, this presumed connection between a warmer average climate and more hurricanes is not what has been happening and is not what "the science" is saying. The physical science working group of the IPCC, in fact, is quite direct in saying that there is no evidence that global warming is making hurricanes worse. To circle back to the original article above, despite the author's recent paper in Science, "the science" also is far from clear how wildfires are being impacted by climate change. More so than for hurricanes, there is evidence that in some locations, more frequent catastrophic fires can be expected. But that is just part of the story, which is why going all in on a mitigation strategy tied to a rapid transition to "net zero" is foolhardy. If the protecting lives and property from wildfire is the goal, there are so many better options involving land management, planning, design, infrastructure, and more. Better that we adapt to a changing planet than vainly try to keep it from changing--mitigate the change so far as it is cost effective, but be ready to adapt, too, as our ancestors often did (imperfectly) through previous "little ice ages" and "medieval warm periods". I fear we are learning that lesson of the imperative of adaptation too slowly, in part because we are stuck having dumb arguments.
Someone who caves to the narrative to be published, and then comes here speaking the truth made this article infuriating from start to finish.
I think of every doctor, scientist, teacher, employee, citizen who has been speaking against all the recent narratives - with guts, with loss of work, loss of relationships and they are the ones to commend.
Should papers, editors and media accept the whole story for publication- yes! But it relies on the people submitting to have the courage to speak truth even if it it’s denied over and over. That’s how we get change.
All the journals that straddle the academic and general interest areas - Nature, Science, Scientific American - have been captured by progressive ideology. All have had papers published referring to "pregnant people". It's become my litmus test for whether or not to trust a publication.
Agreed. This paper bugged me quite a bit. It’s great to speak out about the problems researchers are facing but to contribute to the narrative just to make a name for yourself makes things worse for the people that are trying to fight against the narrative.
I know people that would use this article as a weapon to prove their mainstream bias when the reality is that information was withheld and edited out to fit the narrative. So as much as an article here on FP seems to raise awareness, the damage has already been done. The attempt to gain credibility just created a tool that will be used to mislead people. It doesn’t help build a body of knowledge that combats the mainstreams narrative.
An honest paper with credible research dealing with the actual realities of climate change - the ones referenced in this article - would have significantly more impact than this FP article even if it’s in a less prestigious journal. Like Megan said that’s how change happens. If the authors career was focused on publishing honest information and he got more and more researchers on board to help combat the narrative and present a more balanced view of the problem then maybe something would change.
Otoh if he spoke out but was not published in these journals, the Wokesters and the journal would accuse him of being jealous and deny his research was rejected because it doesn't fit their narrative. They'll just claim his research was weak or wrong.
Presumably he could have stuck with the organization he was working for and churned out more academia-accepted articles that would have earned him prestige, but he chose not to.
Agreed. He scored a crossover hit by getting published in Nature and then changing his tune a little bit, he got published in the FP. Money without morality makes people think and act differently.
Personally I think doing so, especially in the drug arena, has lessened the respectability of law enforcement. And prosecutors with their "[W]e don't get to pick our witnesses" BS. They not only pick them, they recruit and pay them. Very few CIs do so out of altruism.
My reaction too. Tepidly heartwarming is as positive as I can rate this.
But the author could make appropriate moral amends by donating his Nature magazine paycheck to the unemployment fund for those scientists who have the integrity to come out against the Klimate Krazy Kabul (the new KKK).
I spent 90 minutes of my Labor Day yesterday cleaning the floor and listening to Bari ask Walter Russel Mead on “Honestly” why people have lost faith in institutions and is populism gaining momentum? (Not the sexiest choice of long weekend activities for sure.) I’m tired of hearing the media lament why we don’t trust institutions while simultaneously giving us the exact answer.
Bari is part of the problem. She refuses to cover the biggest political scandal of our time (maybe ever) The Biden Crime Family Bribery Scandal. By doing so, she delegitimates her own insittution, i.e., The FP.
Maybe we are just collectively getting mightily sick of Ivy League twits presuming to tell us what is going on...we need an entirely new set of "elites."
Whether or not that's the "biggest political scandal of our time," it's not really that important in the grand scheme of things. It's an ephemeral problem, limited to political corruption.
The best articles recently on TFP have been about how technology has affected, defined, and started to rip us apart as people. I think the the three articles by teenagers last week, the one about dating in the modern world, and several others have started to highlight just how damaging digitization and social media have been to us, a species completely unprepared for these things. Similarly, we've invented and created medical technologies (hormone therapies, SSRIs, perhaps upcoming brain-computer interfaces...) that have completely severed our connections with our own bodies. Not to mention gain-of-function research which may have created new diseases, or various chemicals in our water and food supply which have so drastically altered our very natures.
The Bidens may seem important right now, but they're simply a little blip in determining our future as a species, or even if such a future can exist. But climate narratives are extraordinarily important in that aspect.
So that's the new position..."yes, Biden has been selling the US out to numerous foreign governments, including China and Ukraine, but hey, that's not really important, we should be talking about climate change."
We've come a long long way from "Biden knows nothing about his son's business dealings." Which was obvious BS from the start. But your take is that, Joe's corruption does not even merit one major article in the FP? Please.
BTW: to what "extraordinarily important" "climate narratives" are you referring to? Because the only climate narrative worth listening to now is the one that reveals the whole thing to be a mass hysteria producing giant hoax...you did read the article,didn't you?
“The Bidens may seem important right now, but they're simply a little blip in determining our future as a species”
Biden has started a proxy war with Russia to hide the depths of his crimes in Ukraine resulting in 0.5 million dead young men. Also Russia is a nuclear power so that blip might end with a bang.
I've learned more about the Biden family's financial dealings in The Free Press than I have from the mainstream media. I'd say Bari and Matt and Michael have shed as much light as anyone, and Nellie/TGIF more often than not provides to other new information.
Agree with your point that the Biden family finances story (like Twitter Files, civil rights violations, etc.) deserves a lot more coverage. But I've also worked in this business, and thus would not point a finger at Bari, whose news operation is all of, what, three years old? It takes a large amount of resources to cover this story like the Post did Watergate or the NYT did the Pentagon Papers. The Free Press is a small staff dealing with explosive growth, so they are doing a lot of things right.
If we want to single out news outlets for criticism, shouldn't we start with the big city dailies, the networks, and other large news organizations that have lost all semblance of journalistic objectivity, independence, ethics, and even curiosity?
What is particularly perverse about all of this is the fact that the climate cult is systematically and intentionally driving our children into mental illness, all for the sake of following their doomsday religion.
I wrote about the addiction these frauds are foisting upon our kids here-
Confession is good for the soul but you don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know other than the fact that you too are not to be trusted. Yes, plant food has created a lusher world and fires in a lusher world will do more damage to housing built into the lusher world.
I don’t trust any climate scientist who ignores the history of the climate. I trust America’s top atmospheric physicist and the man who has gathered the temperature record. Those who don’t know their names are Climate Illiterates. So do what you have to do to make a living but stop calling yourself a Climate Scientist while you ignore the temperature record and cooler temperatures in parts of the world not affected by the UHE.
The word science has become meaningless. These days, it's more about cherry picking facts that support whatever view you want to push rather than in an inexorable search for the truth.
I call it "scientism" -- this "dogmatic" approach to science where we no longer actually search for true science, but instead we SELECT the data points that MATCH the agenda we want to push forward. I've touched alot on this and here are some of my works:
I [use] the term scientism frequently as well. Anyone that has that silly placard that says, "in this house… we believe the science" is a member of this death cult.
So many warnings. Trofim Lysenko is the first that comes to mind. The idea that "science" must first and foremost be "politically correct".
Second is Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
We have a values crisis. Not a climate crisis. Over the last few generations, we have dismissed the concepts of right and wrong and replaced them with career advancement and fame. I do not blame the author for his effort at career management. He is the product of a long line of poseurs who he has seen achieve accolades despite being startling wrong in their work.
That line include Paul Ehrlich and his Malthusian predictions through the climate cooling scare that suddenly become a warming scare and leads directly to Dr Fauci and our COVID publicity seekers. Wealth is more important than honor in our world today. Our media is full of proven liars. Yet they still get air time and invitations to speak at college graduations.
I beseech you, please share with me one institution that you feel you can trust in our society today. Today’s “heroes” are constructed out of thin air to support a Potemkin village of a society.
But then again, fall is right around the corner and that’s always a nice time of the year. So we have that going for us, right?
I was not born yet when Paul Ehrlich was making his prognostications, but I recently saw a clip of an interview with him. What a smug prick. And he was dead wrong.
But still worshipped by some segments of society. I also remember Carl Sagan predicting during the first Iraq War that If Saddam set fire to his oil wells it would catastrophically cool the planet. Smug is an excellent word.
I like this author's approach to practically explaining the motivations that unconciously lead to bias, and actionable advice on how to prevent such biases. It takes positive approach to a bleak picture of the wider scientific community in Western Society.
I'd like to humbly submit one more admitedly half-baked reason for the mass bias we see in so much scientific research and the way media presents it. At the end of the day, humans are seen as merely another animal to most of these people. Ironically, rejecting the belief in God has created a desperate need to feel they understand and control everything around them. That leads to Trust the Science, faith in humans as the high power. Good luck with that.
A couple posters have already beat me to the punch, good. Shame on you Patrick. You think you are some sort of hero? You are worse than the syncophantic fools who are oblivious to the publishing game. To redeem yourself you need to retract your article. Make it your mission to expose how those lauded journals like Nature have become worthless rags.
I think we need to ultimately understand that climate change is nothing more than an excuse for big corporations to steal the earths resources. Once we know that, everything makes sense
Don’t be so quick to blame big business when big government is doing everything it can to shape the incentives, set the agenda, and ultimately control (or destroy) industry. The perverse focus of government on reducing emissions at the expense of energy production (no natural gas or nuclear for you!) and even food production (see articles on how the Netherlands--5th largest food producer in the WORLD--is trying to get their farmers to give up farming so the land can be turned into marsh) is what we need to be fighting against.
What does it say about an institution when you have to distort the facts or lie in order to succeed?
This seems to be the defining characteristic of our time: our institutions have failed us by pursuing goals contrary to what their stated purpose is.
How can I trust what any “expert” or “scientist” says if there’s the possibility that what they’re saying is misrepresented in order to suite a narrative or gain clout in their chosen profession?
Exactly, the real point of this piece is the LIE! After all the suffering caused during the pandemic by lies, Patrick T. Brown contributes to the cesspool for the purpose of getting published? So now this piece is to serve as his mea culpa and it gets published? What a week! This and photos of Fauci wearing a mask.
I think that publishing the article in Nature and then having this piece in the FP makes his statement more powerful. It means that a scientist is on the record disparaging Nature, instead of being considered a whiner for not getting published. Controversial? Yes. Effective? Hopefully.
Not having read his original article, I can’t say if his argument for not disavowing it is valid. Glad TFP tackled the issue of climate change finally.
TFP is barely beginning to scratch the surface of a huge story. Don't know why.
I think there is still too much leftwing/NYTimes in Bari, reflexive belief in the climate narrative goes deep, i bet she really had to convince herself to publish this and give it widespread views.
This site talk about all sorts of instances of the corruption of science for political ends but she has avoided connecting this particular dot.
I'm just glad she finally did, i don't think there exists another story as important as this.
Bari's main driver in leaving the main stream press....was people's distrust in the media and her editors distrust in her.
She doesn't have to believe in Climate Change or not. The reason she published this story...because it has everything in it that caused her to come to substack and eventually TFP. Right??
It was her story as told by Patrick T. Brown.
I imagine that she has studiously avoided thinking about the climate bullshit, just too much cognitive dissonance for all those who truly believed.
Note that this piece still says "climate change" affects the fires and makes them worse, which the data shows opposite, so there is some cover still there for Brown and Bari.
But i will take it, someone from inside the peer review process and Bari publishing, two wins for whatever reason they chose to do this
What would be the perfect amount of NY Times? Should she expunge her Wall Street Journal props too?
I’m talking about a worldview in which you “trust the experts”.
She has clearly seen that is not true regarding Covid, gender transition, etc.
But climate change, for a certain demographic really is a religious thing.
We are causing it and there is no debate, science is settled, consensus, all greatest hits/lies.
I think it’s very big for someone like her to publish this, a large step.
It’s something, it’s not nothing, therefore I will take it.
I have been prodding her to at least consider it.
Get all the opinions you want from wherever you want, but today you have to do your own primary research and base your beliefs on that. If you do you'll find that over the last few years NYT has been wrong about many of the key stories of our times: Russia Collusion, Hunter Laptop, COVID, Global Warming reporting. That's just fact. Maybe they'll turn it around someday under new management, but it doesn't make sense for them to do so as it would alienate too much of their paying subscriber base.
I completely agree, Pat.
Mea culpas are preferable to continued adherence to a lie.
Especially when the mea culpa is accompanied by exposure of the racket creating the lies.
Similar thing happened to Dr. Judith Curry. She changed her views on climate change and hurricanes, then got attacked and resigned from Georgia Tech.
CLINTEL's World Climate Declaration that there is no climate emergency has 1600 signatories including Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser: https://clintel.org/
She was shown where she'd made mistakes, because she is a scientist she corrected herself and was attacked for it.
Any scientist who tells the truth gets attacked and their careers endangered. With Curry, add Pielkie, and the Canadian Susan Crockford who did not question any science regarding melting arctic ice, she merely pointed out that the polar bears seem to be quite well regardless and for that she was done.
Once again, we see the name Micheal Mann, affectionately known as Piltdown Mann, whenever science needs to be corrupted he's your Mann.
https://polarbearscience.com/
It’s the Lie of omission. His article was truthful, but without important nuance. This tragedy increasingly exists in all academia.
His contribution in this case isn't climate change research. His contribution is the exposure of how that work is presented to non-scientists like me. His message is, if you rely on journals like Nature and Science, you are being fed by something closer to the editorial page than the news page. Caveat emptor. In the private corridors of Nature, Science, et. al., I think they agree. They sell more subscriptions this way.
How else could he prove his point? He did both together!
Steve Koonin wrote Unsettled, and has given interviews since. He said he has been shunned by some members of his field. But, so what? Who wants to be friends with intellectually dishonest so called scientists?
I caught one of Koonin's recent interviews this weekend. Here's the link:
https://www.hoover.org/research/hot-or-not-steven-koonin-questions-conventional-climate-science-and-methodology
It details how facts are omitted and manipulated by the propagandists who present the results of various studies, including the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023 parroted by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to reinforce the global warming narrative. It’s a fascinating 20 minutes or so for a public desperately in need of facts and a renewed faith in scientists.
An excellent interview, to be sure. Koonin is a Democrat who is intellectually honest and a truth teller, fleshing out the entire “climate change” narrative. He was not afraid of uncovering the lies and half truths.
Thank you for sharing the link for Steve Koonin it was absolutely brilliant.
Great interview
How many GW prediction have to not come true before these sheep realize they have been had?
1. The opportunistic, lying, scum sucking, politician Al Gore made a fictional movie called An Inconvenient Truth. In that he said the oceans would rise 21 feet and if we didn't do something right away within the next ten years we would all be doomed. Well that work of fiction came out in 2006 and the oceans didn't rise 21 feet.
2. In 2014 the lying swine said the artic ice cap would completely melt in 2014. Didn't happen.
3. 97% of all, ALL, scientist believed in global warming. The sheep took this lie at face value. Forbes ran two articles debunking that lie. There has to be thousands of scientists in the world. Did the lying left poll all of them?
Here are 2 Forbes papers:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=5303ac2e3f9f
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=7197429b1157
The sheep believe anything their lying political leaders tell them.
The above is just three examples of lying. If someone came up to you and said buy XYZ. it is due to go through the roof and you invested a lot of your money on that stock tip and XYZ went bust. If the same guy or gal came up to you three years later and said buy ABC it is due to explode. You would tell him or her to get lost.
When it comes to money people would not believe the same lie but when it comes to an abstract the sheep will believe anything and all things their political idols tell them.
Well these GW lies are costing all of us money. Our scum sucking politicians are spending billions of our dollars on a lie.
It is hard for me to believe that smart people are not only believing these scurrilous lies but propagating them.
The industrialize nations run on energy and the GW crowd want to destroy the industrialized nations and replace them with a workers' paradise. If you don't believe me there were a Marxist husband and wife team at Columbia University that taught exactly that.
https://mydixie.org/albenson/columbia-university-and-the-marxists/
not one since 1890 unreal people are so gullible . Think of all the young people that are true believers in this cult of BS that is damage that will take years to undo, if ever
Brilliant post LP so on point think we buggered here in America, these lying scumbags have captured everything .
Thanks, Skinny.
It’s a pleasure.
And you didn't even get into Climate Gate.
Billions have been made off the climate change hoax. Get on the band wagon of lies and get paid. Expose the lie and get shunned.
I'm on Koonin right now too. Now that's an honest approach to "the big lie", his book is on my nightstand.
I’m going to buy the book after listening to Steven.
Yes, this is true. But many will not have this courage and will be seduced by success, acceptance and prestige. They will rationalize that they haven’t actually “lied” and that they have to play the game to justify the money, work, and time invested in their education and professions. And then the voice of their conscience continues to weaken and finally is rendered silent.
Great comment - you are right, it's as if they decide to live with their own cognitive dissonance as a "small price to pay" for success, hard work put in. I see this happening over and over again, not just on this issue - and it's scary.
Yes, it’s a scary thing to contemplate when we consider how much competence and dedication to truth and reality is necessary for the world to function well.
Koonin says he doesn't question "the science" part, i'm not sure if that is true, but he certainly questions the outcome.
His book Unsettled is a takedown of all the ludicrous garbage we see in the media every day, endless examples of alarmist narrative control, and for his effort part of the Climatism elite like Hausfather attacked him pretending to fact check the book.
You can find this "fact check" online as well as Koonin's reply to it. Hausfather accused him of creating straw men and then knocking them down, but of course Koonin did not create them, the media and alarmist activist groups created them.
It was very illuminating
I have his book beside me on my computer table. A fascinating eye opener although he sure does love graphs.
THANK YOU!!! Like we have a BIGGER problem here if everyone is lying to their institutions and THESE are the institutions that are supposed to “protect the people”
I wrote a similar topic on the institution of medicine here:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-dark-side-of-medicine-see-no
Ditto to drug policy/harm reduction research, gender medicine, the list goes on as post-Modern scientism takes over the processes of generating and defining "evidence".
I was planning to make a similar comment. It seems academia in all of the various sciences has become no more than a poisonous serpent. Off with their heads!
BettyB, your comment is unfair to poisonous serpents! At least serpents are creatures of instinct--the modern academic serpent is much more calculating in how they dispense their venom. No kidding, academia has become that bad.
And it is not just the sciences--this mess started in the Humanities and Social Sciences and migrated outward from there.
Ha ha…can’t disagree with you there!
It is the "scientific" version of the emperor has no clothes.
So I've studied A LOT about our modern day institutions and I'm finishing up my book on this topic. My overall thesis is that our modern institutions (from health, to science, etc) were made from a 1) less than 200 years old, 2) profit driven agenda.
We need to seriously question their origins:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/donating-to-a-good-cause-how-billionaires
Consider giving this a read - https://butthedatasays.substack.com/p/has-the-american-dream-been-eaten?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 - I'd argue that the issue with our institutions is the same as the issue faced by every institution before us - they were captured by taxes.
Trickle-up economics ensures concentration of influence, and concentration of influence ensures concentration of outcome. Analyzing whether things are "profit" driven is irrelevant - every single thing on earth exists to maximize its own outcomes. What matters is where the profit comes from. Think of everything like the human body - sugar is great for me, until it kills me. The same is true of all outcomes. If my profit, like my nutrient concentration, is diverse and dependent on a multitude of factors I can, and will, serve multiple masters, which means I'm beholden to none of them. If my "profit" all comes from the government (when you control half the economy, guess who everyone's largest buyer is...) I'm beholden to one master, and I will serve that master.
That's the issue of our broken institutions...
And don’t forget citations. If paper A had a specific bias and paper B has the same bias because it builds on paper A, there is a dangerous positive feed back pushing all papers to have extreme bias built in.
Not only that, but the biased upon biased papers are swooped up as data for ChatGPT to construct from and spit out as facts that our school children are being encouraged to access
Yup - and so even people who are willing to be skeptical, willing to learn and investigate a topic on their own and not just uncritically accept a position/conclusion, will be led down a path of incomplete/inaccurate/biased information - and will think "well I did my own research" and believe they are arriving at the studied, objective, enlightened position.
The more corrupted sources of information there are, the less chance ANYONE can get at the truth even if they want to/are skeptical and willing to probe more.
It is a domino effect.
Unfortunately the reality is even worse than that, as quite often the people who cite paper A in paper B haven't actually read paper A, they've just seen someone else cite it so feel free to do the same. I've noted this in my own discipline of wildlife biology. Again, if it supports the accepted hypothesis, it doesn't raise eyebrows when you cite the already often-cited paper.
I read the IPCC papers put out by the UN in about 2009 and there was no crisis in the papers. Political aids erroneously summarized the findings for their politicians and the media and it became a n incorrectly presented position, a political football, with a life of it's own. Ditto Septer's comment!!!
Gaslight of America
It's hubris, plain and simple. The journals' editors all believe they know best what the earth needs and that unshakable belief reinforces their sense of self importance. That same self importance is foundational to their belief in their rightness. It's a feedback loop. Likely they are insufferable in other ways as well. Avoid them at parties.
What does it say about a scientist (or any person) who publishes something he absolutely knows to be false? This is Alexander Solzhenitsyn territory: you choose to live in freedom by telling the truth or you choose to be a slave and live by lies.
Sure the journals are to partially to blame. But a couple dozen scientists can start a competing journal. And yet they don't. Instead they knowingly spout lies in journals to buttress their professional reputations, while repenting of their lies on substack to buttress their public reputations. It's not brave; it's blatantly self-serving.
What the author published was not so much false, but rather unnuanced. So yes - the evidence suggests that climate change IS leading to more fires. BUT the omission of other factors that are increasing fires in some regions was political. The lie of omission. We see this sort of stuff in media all the time too - CNN and Fox. Overt lies are rare.
In Nature, he said fires were caused by climate change. He comes here and says fired really aren't primarily caused by climate change. One of those is a lie.
I believe he and others have started a competing journal. He cites it in this piece, The Breakthrough Institute. I followed the link, it looks promising.
I missed that. I see it now. OK, so I've got to cut the guy some more slack. He's doing his part to improve things.
Our broken institutions are, like almost all things in life, a matter of incentives. You have to change the incentives of our institutions if we have any hope of changing our outcomes (and you are right that almost all our institutions are irrevocably broken and need to be completely restructured). I see two primary ways of accomplishing the restructuring of their incentives: 1. We need to DRASTICALLY reduce taxes, and eliminate income tax altogether, such that our government is no longer everyone's largest payer (and therefore the controller of all incentives), or 2. only work with organizations that don't take money or direction from the government (almost impossible - but at least those are transparent about how it impacts their business like "X" (twitter) is attempting to do allow us to understand the cause and direction of the biases and can be a reasonable stand in in a world where the government messes with literally everything).
We live in the Truman Show, with every narrative written by the same writers. We want freedom back (for all the reasons it is so important to the continued evolution of humanity) we need the return of consumer-driven markets and a HIGHLY skeptical press, otherwise we'll just keep getting exactly what we're literally paying for in the form of the highest effective tax rate in human history paid to the largest bureaucracy in human history who ultimately dictates not just outcomes, but inputs in the first place, across basically every endeavor we oversee.
Great comment BTDS!
They are true believers. Their beliefs enable them to be both virtuous and make a living. The narrative has been established.It will take a period of Global Cooling To Defeat The Narrative but only a fool wants a cooler world.
Or an avid skier…
or. menopause
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
Almost everyone here is missing the mark. There's an insidious group of scientists who push the climate change agenda and ignore practical solutions? Why? The author hits on it but misses the real target. In the United States, and therefore the rest of the free world, Democrats are driving the narrative for the sole purpose of accumulating money and power. The entire system is now subservient to this goal. Science, Journalism, Corporations, the Security State... all of it now reflects the single purpose of moving the Democrat Party toward absolute, permanent power. It's shocking how quickly this has happened but to think anything that could possibly be politicized to benefit Democrats' pursuit of power happens in isolation is to deny reality.
"How can I trust what any “expert” or “scientist” says if there’s the possibility that what they’re saying is misrepresented in order to suite a narrative or gain clout in their chosen profession?"
Yes! And yet it happens all the time. I have little trust in "experts" right now.
This article and your comment - make it times 10 regarding Gender Ideology (how did a pseudo scientific theory become established fact?)/Gender "Medicine" (for the young especially)/"Gender" Therapists"/"Gender Affirmation"/"Gender" Education in schools.
This is how it happens.
So true. The bizzaro, cowardly, revolutionary, commie virus has infected most if not all institutions. The revolutionary Obama commies are not letting crises going to waste in their march to 'fundamentally transform the nation.'
Good for you P Brown for coming clean. But no need. Those of us paying attention know science is anything but. Thanks for nothing Fauci, CDC, FDA, regime media, academia...
The era has many defining characteristics, but among the least attractive is its preference for--indeed, its insistence on--cost-free ethics; and in this respect the era has got exactly what it deserves. "I'll be trustworthy to the extent that this is compatible with what's best for me" is an ethical standard with a self-evidently fatal loophole.
Wolf!!
I don’t know whether you are a hero or a coward. If I practiced surgery the way you practice science, I doubt my patients would appreciate my self interest... The fact that you are even studying the effects of climate change on wildfires - when there is ample evidence that that is not even a significant factor, speaks volumes. Take your mea culpa somewhere else. Grow a pair...
There’s an old saying: “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” I’m glad that the author was able to continue his research interests with more intellectual freedom at a private institution. Academia is utterly compromised, mostly because all of the research funding comes from government bureaucrats with ideological agendas (see also: Anthony Fauci).
Oh yes Dr Anthony Fauci the biggest liar of them all - his lies have brought us all to our knees it’s a disgrace that MSM still quote and interview him
Spoken like a true surgeon: white and black, good tissue or bad tissue.
Dr. Brown is neither a hero nor a coward. He’s just human. If you haven’t made compromises in your career, it’s probably because you never recognized them as such.
If you have never wondered whether surgery was the right course of action when a non-invasive solution existed, maybe it’s time to develop a more nuanced view of life. Do you tell your female colleagues to grow a pair? I hear they don’t make as many errors.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/female-surgeons-get-better-results-than-male-counterparts-7ba9b9c2
I wonder all the time. The difference is I don’t intentionally do the wrong thing. Black and white saves lives by the way.
I see the author as both a hero and a coward. Ultimately though, he has compromised my trust in whatever he publishes.
I see him as a liar and a coward.
Do not agree
You don't think you do. But I work with surgeons - and most do things wrong from time to time (doing higher billing procedures when evidence is borderline, etc). I do wonder if a bit of narcissism exists in you i thinking you are so pure, while others are just evil (just from reading your other posts).
excessive
they probably dont make as many errors as they dont take as many chances. and ye females should "grow a pair' and stop being victims
Well said!!
I give the author credit for at least touching on the more immediate factors that cause wildfires. I criticize him for maintaining a link to climate change itself rather than the religion that has sprung up around it as one of those factors. The great irony of the Maui fire is that it was most likely started by downed wires, wires and other infrastructure that has been neglected in part to finance the “snake oil” elixir of solar panels and windmills. It was compounded by cultural imbeciles that refused to provide the water that could have mitigated some of the 1,000 deaths that resulted.
And to all the fools that would have you believe that climate change is responsible for the combustible conditions that led to the tragedy, the truth is, all the islands have a wet and dry side. Lahaina is on the dry side of Maui. The potential for such a catastrophic firestorm has been well known for decades. But just as with the flooding and wind damage from hurricanes that occur elsewhere, preventative measures that could have been implemented have been ignored. Instead, money is diverted to “green infrastructure” boondoggles like windmills and the sonar mapping that kills whales and dolphins while lining the pockets of snake oil salesman that peddle them. All of which is abetted by "scientists" who publish "studies" that deceive a poorly informed public.
Worse than that, Tim, I believe that the Maui government officials were explicitly warned of the danger and ignored the warnings. In other words, criminally negligent homicide. Will they be prosecuted? You tell me.
I haven't been to Lahaina in quite some time so it would be difficult for me to say. I do recall that the last time I was there, forty plus years ago, the buildings were old and relied on the character of its whaling heritage to induce tourist visits however they weren't conducive to supporting a tourist mecca.
The likely scenario now is that developers will swoop in and buy up uninsured property at discounted prices and perform their best Disney recreation of a whaling village. My guess is the local pols will have dollar signs flashed before their eyes and ignore anything that could impede reconstruction. Whether the promise of such an opportunity influenced a lack of action by those in charge is something we’re unlikely to ever know.
The fact that this fire was a huge win for rich developers and a huge loss for native Hawaiian long-time residents of Lahaina is something that should be remembered at every point during the investigation.
No they won’t Bruce.
It wouldn't have been a "catastrophic firestorm" if the local officials had released the water supply to fight the fire. The tragedy was human error, not "climate change."
Yes. Release ten thousand goats on the grass fields to reduce them to stubble, and release the water when the Fire Department demands it. I know little about emergency planning and even I know that--reduce the fuel before the fire, douse the fire as soon as it starts.
Is anyone else tired of paying billions of tax dollars to "experts" who keep dropping the ball when it's game time?
We’ve had “experts” wreaking havoc for a long time, going back (and likely before) to the Vietnam era “Best and Brightest.”
Maybe we should be looking for “well, they’re not geniuses, but they shouldn’t mess things up too much.”
how about if they kept the dry grass cut and managed ? less fuel ?
No, NO , we need more bird killing windmills.
CNN still flogging it as such.
Yes and we need to be explicitly clear that they're lying. They are a disinformation outlet.
This wasn’t even a mea culpa. He explicitly said that he published a good paper.
And this is why conservatives are going to keep on losing and losing. Purity tests work great on the Left because they took the time over the last 50+ years to capture all the institutions that matter. They don't work on the Right because conservatives need to reach some of the "independent" and "apolitical" people who mostly accept the default liberal-created/magnified Narratives. And since the mainstream media is one of the captured institutions, that involves communicating over the top or around them.
We absolutely need people like this who are or have been actually in the game exposing what really goes on beyond the curtain. Unless you're looking forward to group public showers in a dank cellar and whatever else the Left has in mind for all the plebes in order to "save the planet".
Hi Dr. Paramore, I hear you but - we are grateful for the exposure of this issue. And, I feel compelled to add that there are a great many plastic surgeons in this country right now who are happy to perform double mastectomies, etc. on confused teen girls in the name of Gender Ideology. They seem to be doing very well so far with the self interest. I do not think they will grow a pair but they might feel the lawsuits eventually. Jail time would be best.
Finally, there are many surgeons happy to chop off a pair for money.
Absolutely agree
HH, MD
I really appreciate you chiming in as a doctor.
I am not angry at confused teens and young adults - or even with mentally ill adults. They all need Real help. I am angry with the profiteers in medicine, pharma and government. And, I think that the Education establishment - led by state and local government - have fanned the problem - to say the least. I do not expect you to agree with this bit - and I must add that our young adult daughter is physically unharmed and seems to be improving - but
I think that after trial the consequences need to be more than loss of job/license/money - but more along the lines of public hanging - where the mamas "throw the first stone". Perhaps they could perform Gender Affirmation on such people? It IS all about #BeKind afterall - see https://pitt.substack.com/p/blissfully-almost-ignorant And, no - the mamas should not have medical degrees - or even degrees from Boston University.
We have been here before: https://pitt.substack.com/p/echoes-of-eugenics-what-the-doctors
History does not exactly repeat but it does rhythm.
Thank you, HH, MD!
Getting the piece published was important to establish his credibility, so as the journal publishes his paper he can immediately say "they only published it because I told them what they wanted to hear, now here is the actual research."
This effective rhetorical attack wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't been published first. I think Patrick and TFP are quite clever.
I think it's too easy to get trapped. Science is an interesting subject. It may have began as a genuine desire to study and grow in the field. However, to make it in the field requires so much time and even more money. Most people that got suckerd into having six figure debts, while having families to support and wanting to keep food on the table would sacrifice ethics just to stay afloat. It takes courage to admit you were wrong and make changes, which is what this author has done.
He's the latter, but he's making $ off it.
How about a properly organized refutation rather than a cheap judgement
I appreciate the honesty. To me the significant thing is he had to abandon academia to do it. A lot of people sniff about political echo chambers but at least there are two of those.
"The fact that you are even studying the effects of climate change on wildfires - when there is ample evidence that that is not even a significant factor . . ."
Dr. Brown says climate change DOES add to wildfire strength and frequency. So I have no issue with him studying that for his report.
My complaint is that the two things he left out to ensure he'd be published in Nature instead of a "lesser" journal are FAR more important for citizens and policymakers to know than the climate change stuff: that firebugs start 80 percent of all wildfires, and that changing our forest management practices would by itself negate all climate change impact.
All of which makes his report the intellectual equivalent of "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Idk how surgeons are less susceptible to what the author had done. As we speak, medical students are complicit in affirming sex is not binary for humans, doctors are affirming people have gender souls, ob-gyns are treating patients with "neo vaginas", the AMA and APA supports "gender affirming care" and all their literature have erased the existence of women, and surgeons are performing "sex change" operations. Not you, of course, but seems to me a lot of patients are still flocking to these doctors and surgeons.
Maybe reread the article
Consider the options for enhancement in surgical practice that would be missed if you did not actually read any research. This person is trying to change corrupt practice for the betterment of all who need to rely on progress in knowledge. Your attitude bespeaks a lack of understanding of te necessity of research and the fluid nature of knowledge.
He did.
Did you miss this part?? "I left academia over a year ago, partially because I felt the pressures put on academic scientists caused too much of the research to be distorted. Now, as a member of a private nonprofit research center, The Breakthrough Institute, I feel much less pressure to mold my research to the preferences of prominent journal editors and the rest of the field. " He is taking his mea culpa elsewhere and will be continuing to contributre
I’ve spent my career on telling the truth about the causes of suicide. The reality of it is that there are fewer two-parent homes and church attendees. These are not the only causes, but they are the causes with the biggest effect sizes. I can’t get much of it published in high impact journals. That’s too bad, but I won’t change the facts to fit the narrative.
Sometimes, you just have to tell the truth to a smaller group. That way, looking at yourself in the mirror remains possible. I can’t do my kind of work in academia, so I don’t. It’s called morality.
Amen and Thank you! How do we know if he is telling TFP the truth when he is willing to mold his research to fit the publication?
I have said for years that I believe the breakdown of the family unit has contributed to so many issues our society is facing now. Good to know my hunch may be right. I would love to see your work published on The Free Press, how about it Bari?
Please send us some links to your work. Id love to read it.
Acranberg@me.com
Same for the author.
Truth is only wanted when it does not hurt the flow of $$ , or hurt the "research" of those higher up the food chain. It is almost as bad as religion ruling over science , we are going backwards
I’d also like to see some of your work!
There is a childhood educator specialist on here (Peter gray) who would like to talk to you -- he’s just posted an open question in Re: to the shocking rise of suicide in young people over the past 60 years. I hope you guys can link up.
https://open.substack.com/pub/petergray/p/d1-how-might-we-explain-the-huge?r=dfb9f&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Where do you publish your info about "fewer two-parent homes and church attendees" impact on suicides? I believe it, but do you have research on these topics that is not moralistic in nature?
If this sounds like "1984," maybe because it is. Imagine turning our entire energy infrastructure into some sick joke based on "climate science" such as that peddled by this fakir? All the windmills, solar arrays and EVs won't make a bit of difference (even if one believes the CO2 hypothesis) when China and India and others are building coal-fired electric plants and other production facilities. Want to make me believe this garbage? Push for natural gas and nuclear generation. Otherwise you're only making things worse. Much worse A modern society needs reliable electricity. So called "renewables" are not. And millions will soon be unable to afford electricity - if it's even available.
My man! Dude, I wrote an entire analysis about 1984 and Brave New World and how those books literally primed us for this reality. Here's parts 1 and 2 of the three part analysis:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-brave-new-world-of-1984-part
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-brave-new-world-of-1984-part-205
On a related note, I re-watched Idiocracy last night. Too familiar, and more so every day...
This is the second (non-Covid) FP article I can remember that addresses the UTTER CORRUPTION of science in our times -- worse now the Woke Era. [The other one concerned the universal assumption that amyloid plaques cause Alzheimer’s, despite evidence to the contrary, and despite decades of failure based on that assumption!]
It is, indeed, chillingly 1984ish. In the face of such widespread manipulation, the only LOGICAL response is to assume that everything *may* be compromised...but in our complex society, we cannot learn everything ourselves; we are reliant on experts (who are likely compromised). It’s like an ouroboros of corruption.
The author’s morals aside, the corruption of science is WAY more important than mere “culture wars”, and should be on everyone’s radar. Like the Soviet-era joke went: What do you get when you mix politics and science? Answer: Politics!
👍👍👍
This whole thing is silly. The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter - solid and liquid, weighing about 7.7 sextillion tons. It gets its internal heat from decaying radionuclides and a nearby star. If the earth were the size of a beach ball, everything inside - except for a solid iron core - would be red-hot molten rock. The solid crust would be the thickness of its plastic envelope; the atmosphere would be a single coat of paint. And yet we are supposed to believe changes in the concentration of a single atmospheric trace gas is swamping these leviathans?
Earth's atmosphere is no more than a sliver - less than 50 miles thick, with half below 3 miles altitude. In that incredibly thin atmosphere, CO2 is a trace gas – 0.04%. 97% of CO2 comes from nature; only 3% is man-made, and of that 3%, the US accounts for 14%. You do the math: 0.000168 percent of the atmosphere is CO2 from the U.S. and theoretically available for “reduction.” Sheer lunacy.
Atmospheric CO2 is important. From a geological perspective, due to sequestration of carbon dioxide by coral and other hard-bodied animals who use it to make calcium carbonate shells, the earth is at a CO2 atmospheric low point -> 400 parts per million – extremely low, and near the 150 ppm threshold for a massive plant die-off – plants which, which, by the way, produce 100% of the oxygen that keeps all animals, including humans, alive.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is plant food; it is to plants what oxygen is to man. During the Cambrian period 500 million years ago, CO2 constituted over 5,000 parts per million of the Earth’s atmosphere. Then, 150 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, CO2 was 1,700 parts per million, more than four times what it is now, yet life thrived. In point of fact, high CO2 levels were the major reason the Earth was blanketed with lush foliage during those periods. In the past forty years the earth has undergone an unprecedented greening, widely believed to be the result of the modest, likely manmade, increase in atmospheric CO2. Along with nitrogen fertilizers, this has resulted in an explosion of planetary food production. What's not to like?
As for the supposed ill effects of a 1° atmospheric temperature rise - the earth has no specific optimum temperature; only a range in which it must remain for life as we know it to exist. At higher temperatures, tropical life-forms proliferate more; at lower temperatures, arctic ones do, yet note: The tropics boast 10 times as many species as does the Arctic because warmth breeds life. And “cold weather is responsible, directly or indirectly, for 17 times as many deaths as hot weather,” as even The New York Times, citing a Lancet study, had to admit in 2017.
So our “leaders” – innocent of the most basic science – and more importantly, math – skills plan to turn the world’s economy upside down and LITERALLY starve millions of people in service to a cadre of lunatics who don’t know what they are talking about. Uh-huh. Or maybe the object is not saving the planet. Maybe it's something else entirely.
Climate alarmism is a testament to how scientifically illiterate Americans have become, how unable they are to think and question, how willing they are to genuflect to self-proclaimed annointed ones. Worshipping the golden calf.
True. But if we could only get all of the deluded to crazy glue their tongues to the tarmac, we'd have a very good reckoning. After all, they claim to be doomed anyway.
The object is not saving the planet. I believe your assessment is pretty close to the truth. The object of all this climate hysteria is a long term goal of human population reduction on a very large scale. The left says, people are causing climate change along with all the attendant catastrophes, therefore people are bad. This is why they are so militant about abortion, it helps reduce the population. Transgenderism with the drugs and surgeries are a way to keep young people from producing offspring and there is plenty of evidence of how militant the left is about transgenderism. Feminism, the defamation of religion and faith in God and the elevation of science as a religion are just some of the many factors that are contributing to unsustainable, low birth rates in many “highly developed” countries. The left’s goal is to reduce the population of humans by any and all means including infectious diseases.
The left wants a two-tiered human population. It will consist of ultra-rich and powerful elitists and just enough of a poor, virtually enslaved underclass of useful idiots to serve the elitists. Public education, once a ticket to prosperity for the middle class, is now being dumbed down for the sake of “equity” so that children feel good about being stupid. The elite will educate their children in private schools that no commoner will be able to afford and thereby retain power over their serfs/servants.
You may think I’m a kook and on a certain level, I hope I am but there’s a lot going on that gives me pause. Even now, consider the new “Disinformation” law recently passed in the EU that will put you in jail if you tell the truth as you understand it, and it doesn’t happen to go along with the government’s “truth”...
You have to love Europe, and now Canada. They serve as windows into the ultimate results of the Leftist agenda, and we can watch them slide down the poop-chute from afar. Unfortunately it's not stopping our own breakneck slide down the same ramp.
"Public education...is now being dumbed down for the sake of “equity” so that children feel good about being stupid." -- Brilliant statement!
Not one western country or China or Japan is producing at a replacement rate and it will not be long before the world population begins to decline, unless people start having more children.
Commercial greenhouses add CO2 to achieve 1500-2000 ppm concentration. It reduces the need for fertilizer.
In the 1990s, when the DEA cops fitted their black Ninja helicopters with infrared cameras that made marijuana plants stand out like neon signs, my childhood buds in West-by-God-Virginia responded immediately: they scattered a few seeds in the mountains for the Ninjas to find in their yearly autumn overflights, then lined their closets with aluminum foil, HID lamps, and tanks of CO2.
Then, every fall, the Ninjas overflew, found a few plants in the mountains and had a little camp-out to catch the miscreants - who, of course had planted the mountains as decoys and never returned. So every year, regular as a Metamucil patient, he cops called the newspapers, declared twelve plants worth $40 million dollars, burned them all, and decamped in high dudgeon, proclaiming themselves the Keepers of Our Democracy. (Wait a minute; that's somebody else...)
So the cops got more funding, got to camp out, Saved the World - while the Press got a scoop, the locals felt they were being protected from the Drug Fiends, and everybody enjoyed the festivities.
In the meantime, the Good Ol' Boys got to grow their pot in peace, and welding gas/CO2 suppliers like AirGas and Linde sold a lot of CO2.
And they still do. Everybody wins.
Great story!
There is a current article by a Nobel Prize winner (physics) John Clauser in The Epoch Times, where he makes the point that computer models - upon which all climate hysteria is based - are inaccurate, so inaccurate in fact as to be worthless.
A major factor in that inaccuracy is their failing to account for water vapor in the atmosphere, which is highly variable and massively influential in planetary albedo. When water condenses, it turns white - the most solar-reflective color - in clouds, in ice, and in snow. These three forms of water in combination cover a high percentage of the earth's surface, reducing "insolation" - solar energy absorption - massively.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/nobel-winner-refutes-climate-change-narrative-points-out-ignored-factor-5486267
Even with clouds/snow/ice factored in, climate computer models still suffer from the age-old problem of "too many variables, too few equations." To my eye, national - and even global - policies that starve millions of people are not justified on such bogus science, commonly known among scientists as the WAG method: a wild-ass guess.
Thanks for doing the math on this, Jim Wills...that, and a little common sense, will go a long way towards breaking the Climate Change Hoax.
Funny you should say that. I have two bumper stickers on my 2005 Dodge Ram diesel: "I Love CO2 and So Should You." and "STOP the Climate Hoax." In over a year, nobody's said a thing about them. I'm thinking about adding one above the exhaust pipe: "My Carbon Footprint Is Bigger Than Yours."
I wish that were true - but the original article stands as testimony to the fact that doing the math (ie, looking at the facts) and common sense have very little power when faced with a “Science” community that is (far) more interested in echo amplification.
Well, Thoughtful, you are no doubt right that the "scientific" community, at this point, is deaf to arguments that run counter to the new dominant ideology of "climate change"...but I do think having some common sense facts handy in our personal exchanges on this issue might in time have an impact. With their credibility shattrered, The "scientists" will be the last ones to get on board. Witness these comments on The FP...few if any seem ready to defend the hoax to our group. I take that as a Good Sign.
Brilliant summary.
We are in agreement, Jim, that the catastrophic framing of rising CO2 concentrations is deeply harmful to society. That is not a difficult case to make. But your flat-Earth ignorance of basic climate science does not help the cause.
Your math is fundamentally flawed, both because many of these numbers are a magician-like distraction and because the few relevant numbers you share fail to take into account water vapor, which is far more abundant in our atmosphere and amplifies the influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in a positive-feedback loop. Roger Pielke, Sr., wrote a very good primer on his son's Substack back in December 2022.
We desperately need more intelligent and better informed conversations about our variable and changing climate. Those that categorically deny anthropogenic global warming are no more helpful than those that insist we're on the precipice of an existential crisis. Jim meet Greta; you are mirror images of each other.
Read it again - this time for comprehension.
You are correct - water vapor is not in my calculations, because nobody is saying that humans cause water vapor. As for any amplifying effect, I'd like to see the research - and especially the numbers - that support such claims.
But more to the point, the earth has been much hotter and much colder well before humans started their first CO2-spewing fire to cook their meat, making "anthropogenic global warming" by definition an extraordinary claim - which as we all know, demands extraordinary proof. Nonlinear climate computer models, which - aside from always failing spectacularly to agree with temperatures already observed, go wildly askew with the tiniest change in any variable (the definition of a nonlinear system). These computer models hardly represent ordinary proof, let alone extraordinary, but these GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) models are all they have. In the meantime, a little basic math and some basic thinking reveals the Emperor's New Clothes vividly.
re: "flat-earth" ignorance and "deny anthropogenic global warming." Didn't your mother ever tell you that when someone starts calling you names, that's ironclad proof that they know they've lost the argument? As for "not helpful" and the need for "more intelligent and better-informed conversation," that misses the entire point of the article, doesn't it? Questioning accepted orthodoxy, particularly an orthodoxy as shaky as this one, is PRECISELY what we should ALL be doing.
Please be specific. How is his math flawed?
Here is another primer from NASA, more directly focused on water vapor. No, human beings are not directly increasing the absolute amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, but it is a very powerful amplifier because of positive feedbacks: more greenhouse gases increase temperature which increases absolute humidity which increases temperature more through an amplified greenhouse effect, and so on. Leaving that out of your calculations is a fatal flaw. This is very basic atmospheric science.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Again, on a policy matter we broadly agree. We do not face imminent catastrophe. There is no existential risk for life on Earth, including human life. Anthropogenic climate change is not an emergency that demands radical action. But we are significantly changing the general conditions of the atmosphere, steadily raising its average temperature, and this is having significant impacts at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. The devil is the details, of course, and this is where the science remains uncertain--the desirable public policy responses even more so. There is no need to call modern climate change a "hoax" in order to be highly critical of the way society is responding to such climate change in a generally panicked way, with all bets on mitigation through a forced fast conversion to "net zero". The Pielkes, father and son, are excellent guides, and it's a shame that Junior has been marginalized while crazed catastrophists such as Michael Mann--the Fauci of climate change--are still so celebrated. But denying the very basics of climate science and a greenhouse effect enhanced by modern human activity does not help.
I'm a little confused by this response.
Here's what I think you said:
Humans aren't responsible for water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere, which makes the globe hotter b/c of the "positive feedback loop". Nowhere in your response is C02 mentioned.
Then you conclude that anthropogenic climate change (ie caused by humans) is real (but not a threat). However, humans aren't responsible for increasing water vapor in the atmosphere, as you said, right? So how did you come to that conclusion?
My guess is that you think there is enough CO2 released by humans to contribute to warming. But you must remember the facts the original poster stated: CO2 is a trace gas – 0.04% of the atmosphere. 97% of CO2 comes from nature; only 3% is man-made.
3% of 0.4% is pretty small, so how does this small percentage have such an incredible impact?
The NASA link I shared does a good job of explaining this positive feedback loop. It operates as part of both the natural greenhouse effect and the enhanced greenhouse warming linked to anthropogenic carbon emissions. (Note that a greenhouse is a pretty poor metaphor despite being widely used, as explained well by Pielke, Sr. and others.)
To state the positive feedback loop as simply as I can, more CO2 -> warmer temperature -> more water vapor in atmosphere -> warmer temperature -> more water vapor, and so on. This is a self-dampening feedback loop, so rather than temperatures climbing to infinity, they settle at a new, higher steady-state equilibrium.
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to an increase in the atmosphere's energy input. Full stop. Because CO2 (along with CH4 et al.) is a trace gas, the direct temperature increase from the energy-absorbing CO2 is trivial, but this direct signal is amplified by all of that water vapor, including the additional water vapor triggered by warmer temperatures. To use another metaphor, perhaps just as poorly chosen, the water vapor is like a lever. The CO2 is the modest power generated by a human body pulling or pushing on that lever, but the metaphorical leverage of the water vapor amplifies that force into something very much more powerful.
For those who like numbers, and who are especially interested in energy--including the folly of believing we can or should rid ourselves entirely of fossil fuels anytime soon--I also recommend the writing of the geographer Vaclav Smil. I think he includes a primer on anthropogenic climate change somewhere in his most recent book, but even if not, it is a great read on the wicked problem that is the energy transition and the pursuit of a decarbonized but still prosperous future.
Finally, focusing on the small size of the numbers involved, even of water vapor which is "only" 2-3% of the atmosphere, bear in mind that the amount of climate change we are discussing is itself small: just a few degrees Celsius in even the most pessimistic of future scenarios, which as an addition to the total quantity of thermal energy in the atmosphere is very small. But small differences matter on the margin. During a hurricane, for example, a storm surge of "only" ten feet can wreak enormous destruction to low-lying coastal areas, even though that additional ten feet is trivial compared to the many thousands of feet that the ocean is deep.
In expressing our skepticism about climate-related policy, rather than denying the undeniable basics of atmospheric science, we should push back against our leaders and our loudest voices when they make highly speculative, alarmist claims, such as anthropogenic global warming leading to more hurricanes. As Pielke, Jr. argues so well, this presumed connection between a warmer average climate and more hurricanes is not what has been happening and is not what "the science" is saying. The physical science working group of the IPCC, in fact, is quite direct in saying that there is no evidence that global warming is making hurricanes worse. To circle back to the original article above, despite the author's recent paper in Science, "the science" also is far from clear how wildfires are being impacted by climate change. More so than for hurricanes, there is evidence that in some locations, more frequent catastrophic fires can be expected. But that is just part of the story, which is why going all in on a mitigation strategy tied to a rapid transition to "net zero" is foolhardy. If the protecting lives and property from wildfire is the goal, there are so many better options involving land management, planning, design, infrastructure, and more. Better that we adapt to a changing planet than vainly try to keep it from changing--mitigate the change so far as it is cost effective, but be ready to adapt, too, as our ancestors often did (imperfectly) through previous "little ice ages" and "medieval warm periods". I fear we are learning that lesson of the imperative of adaptation too slowly, in part because we are stuck having dumb arguments.
Very well researched post. Thank you.
Best comment, and far better than the article. The author of the article is still in the midst of a cult, and cannot see the truth quite yet.
Someone who caves to the narrative to be published, and then comes here speaking the truth made this article infuriating from start to finish.
I think of every doctor, scientist, teacher, employee, citizen who has been speaking against all the recent narratives - with guts, with loss of work, loss of relationships and they are the ones to commend.
Should papers, editors and media accept the whole story for publication- yes! But it relies on the people submitting to have the courage to speak truth even if it it’s denied over and over. That’s how we get change.
All the journals that straddle the academic and general interest areas - Nature, Science, Scientific American - have been captured by progressive ideology. All have had papers published referring to "pregnant people". It's become my litmus test for whether or not to trust a publication.
Agreed. This paper bugged me quite a bit. It’s great to speak out about the problems researchers are facing but to contribute to the narrative just to make a name for yourself makes things worse for the people that are trying to fight against the narrative.
I know people that would use this article as a weapon to prove their mainstream bias when the reality is that information was withheld and edited out to fit the narrative. So as much as an article here on FP seems to raise awareness, the damage has already been done. The attempt to gain credibility just created a tool that will be used to mislead people. It doesn’t help build a body of knowledge that combats the mainstreams narrative.
An honest paper with credible research dealing with the actual realities of climate change - the ones referenced in this article - would have significantly more impact than this FP article even if it’s in a less prestigious journal. Like Megan said that’s how change happens. If the authors career was focused on publishing honest information and he got more and more researchers on board to help combat the narrative and present a more balanced view of the problem then maybe something would change.
Otoh if he spoke out but was not published in these journals, the Wokesters and the journal would accuse him of being jealous and deny his research was rejected because it doesn't fit their narrative. They'll just claim his research was weak or wrong.
Otoh if he spoke out but was not published in these journals, the aw
So is this your version of virtue signaling: "hey look at me. I'm a lying a-hole, but at least I'm aware of it?"
Good grief 😡
Well, at least he’s coming clean now. None of us is perfect, and we are all hypocrites to some degree.
How do we know he is telling the truth now? Seems to mold his facts to fit the audience...
Well, this ‘truth’ will close a lot of doors for him.
How do we know someone has conviction for a cause? Look at what they’ve sacrificed. This article involves some sacrifice.
Presumably he could have stuck with the organization he was working for and churned out more academia-accepted articles that would have earned him prestige, but he chose not to.
It's not like he could get this published in any mainstream newspaper.
Agreed. He scored a crossover hit by getting published in Nature and then changing his tune a little bit, he got published in the FP. Money without morality makes people think and act differently.
Whistleblowers play a big role in slowing down spewing, out-of-control heavy machinery. If they don’t have credibility no one will listen.
It's like the police having to rely on criminal informants. They are not perfect people, but they are coming clean.
Personally I think doing so, especially in the drug arena, has lessened the respectability of law enforcement. And prosecutors with their "[W]e don't get to pick our witnesses" BS. They not only pick them, they recruit and pay them. Very few CIs do so out of altruism.
My reaction too. Tepidly heartwarming is as positive as I can rate this.
But the author could make appropriate moral amends by donating his Nature magazine paycheck to the unemployment fund for those scientists who have the integrity to come out against the Klimate Krazy Kabul (the new KKK).
I spent 90 minutes of my Labor Day yesterday cleaning the floor and listening to Bari ask Walter Russel Mead on “Honestly” why people have lost faith in institutions and is populism gaining momentum? (Not the sexiest choice of long weekend activities for sure.) I’m tired of hearing the media lament why we don’t trust institutions while simultaneously giving us the exact answer.
Bari is part of the problem. She refuses to cover the biggest political scandal of our time (maybe ever) The Biden Crime Family Bribery Scandal. By doing so, she delegitimates her own insittution, i.e., The FP.
Maybe we are just collectively getting mightily sick of Ivy League twits presuming to tell us what is going on...we need an entirely new set of "elites."
Whether or not that's the "biggest political scandal of our time," it's not really that important in the grand scheme of things. It's an ephemeral problem, limited to political corruption.
The best articles recently on TFP have been about how technology has affected, defined, and started to rip us apart as people. I think the the three articles by teenagers last week, the one about dating in the modern world, and several others have started to highlight just how damaging digitization and social media have been to us, a species completely unprepared for these things. Similarly, we've invented and created medical technologies (hormone therapies, SSRIs, perhaps upcoming brain-computer interfaces...) that have completely severed our connections with our own bodies. Not to mention gain-of-function research which may have created new diseases, or various chemicals in our water and food supply which have so drastically altered our very natures.
The Bidens may seem important right now, but they're simply a little blip in determining our future as a species, or even if such a future can exist. But climate narratives are extraordinarily important in that aspect.
So that's the new position..."yes, Biden has been selling the US out to numerous foreign governments, including China and Ukraine, but hey, that's not really important, we should be talking about climate change."
We've come a long long way from "Biden knows nothing about his son's business dealings." Which was obvious BS from the start. But your take is that, Joe's corruption does not even merit one major article in the FP? Please.
BTW: to what "extraordinarily important" "climate narratives" are you referring to? Because the only climate narrative worth listening to now is the one that reveals the whole thing to be a mass hysteria producing giant hoax...you did read the article,didn't you?
“The Bidens may seem important right now, but they're simply a little blip in determining our future as a species”
Biden has started a proxy war with Russia to hide the depths of his crimes in Ukraine resulting in 0.5 million dead young men. Also Russia is a nuclear power so that blip might end with a bang.
I've learned more about the Biden family's financial dealings in The Free Press than I have from the mainstream media. I'd say Bari and Matt and Michael have shed as much light as anyone, and Nellie/TGIF more often than not provides to other new information.
Agree with your point that the Biden family finances story (like Twitter Files, civil rights violations, etc.) deserves a lot more coverage. But I've also worked in this business, and thus would not point a finger at Bari, whose news operation is all of, what, three years old? It takes a large amount of resources to cover this story like the Post did Watergate or the NYT did the Pentagon Papers. The Free Press is a small staff dealing with explosive growth, so they are doing a lot of things right.
If we want to single out news outlets for criticism, shouldn't we start with the big city dailies, the networks, and other large news organizations that have lost all semblance of journalistic objectivity, independence, ethics, and even curiosity?
What is particularly perverse about all of this is the fact that the climate cult is systematically and intentionally driving our children into mental illness, all for the sake of following their doomsday religion.
I wrote about the addiction these frauds are foisting upon our kids here-
https://www.sub-verses.com/p/the-climate-change-drug-dealers
And here-
https://www.sub-verses.com/p/our-children-are-not-tools-of-your
Patrick Brown
Confession is good for the soul but you don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know other than the fact that you too are not to be trusted. Yes, plant food has created a lusher world and fires in a lusher world will do more damage to housing built into the lusher world.
I don’t trust any climate scientist who ignores the history of the climate. I trust America’s top atmospheric physicist and the man who has gathered the temperature record. Those who don’t know their names are Climate Illiterates. So do what you have to do to make a living but stop calling yourself a Climate Scientist while you ignore the temperature record and cooler temperatures in parts of the world not affected by the UHE.
The word science has become meaningless. These days, it's more about cherry picking facts that support whatever view you want to push rather than in an inexorable search for the truth.
I call it "scientism" -- this "dogmatic" approach to science where we no longer actually search for true science, but instead we SELECT the data points that MATCH the agenda we want to push forward. I've touched alot on this and here are some of my works:
Why we need to question the science:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/how-trust-the-science-became-question
The Religious Tenents of "Scientism"
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-religious-tenants-of-scientism
I [use] the term scientism frequently as well. Anyone that has that silly placard that says, "in this house… we believe the science" is a member of this death cult.
Mike Hulme talks about scientism in his book “why climate isn’t everything”.. recommended, as is pretty much anything by Hulme.
So many warnings. Trofim Lysenko is the first that comes to mind. The idea that "science" must first and foremost be "politically correct".
Second is Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
Lies of omission are still lies.
Steven N, thanks for that Solzhenitsyn quote!
We have a values crisis. Not a climate crisis. Over the last few generations, we have dismissed the concepts of right and wrong and replaced them with career advancement and fame. I do not blame the author for his effort at career management. He is the product of a long line of poseurs who he has seen achieve accolades despite being startling wrong in their work.
That line include Paul Ehrlich and his Malthusian predictions through the climate cooling scare that suddenly become a warming scare and leads directly to Dr Fauci and our COVID publicity seekers. Wealth is more important than honor in our world today. Our media is full of proven liars. Yet they still get air time and invitations to speak at college graduations.
I beseech you, please share with me one institution that you feel you can trust in our society today. Today’s “heroes” are constructed out of thin air to support a Potemkin village of a society.
But then again, fall is right around the corner and that’s always a nice time of the year. So we have that going for us, right?
I was not born yet when Paul Ehrlich was making his prognostications, but I recently saw a clip of an interview with him. What a smug prick. And he was dead wrong.
But still worshipped by some segments of society. I also remember Carl Sagan predicting during the first Iraq War that If Saddam set fire to his oil wells it would catastrophically cool the planet. Smug is an excellent word.
Yes, Ehrlich has been dead wrong for fifty years, and is still talking as if he isn't.
Maybe the NTSB. At least so far they haven't insisted that social justice crashed the plane.
And the USPS is pretty good, all things considered
The national weather service NWS. Facts are still facts, and I can double check with my own thermometer
The local vote counters. Yours may be crooked, but mine are ok.
I like this author's approach to practically explaining the motivations that unconciously lead to bias, and actionable advice on how to prevent such biases. It takes positive approach to a bleak picture of the wider scientific community in Western Society.
I'd like to humbly submit one more admitedly half-baked reason for the mass bias we see in so much scientific research and the way media presents it. At the end of the day, humans are seen as merely another animal to most of these people. Ironically, rejecting the belief in God has created a desperate need to feel they understand and control everything around them. That leads to Trust the Science, faith in humans as the high power. Good luck with that.
I don’t think your thoughts are “half-baked”!
Yeah--the billboard held by the science activist in the pink hat shows how many of them see the average American.
A couple posters have already beat me to the punch, good. Shame on you Patrick. You think you are some sort of hero? You are worse than the syncophantic fools who are oblivious to the publishing game. To redeem yourself you need to retract your article. Make it your mission to expose how those lauded journals like Nature have become worthless rags.
What do you think he just did?
No, not here. Go back to the editors of Nature.
Nice to see the FP talk about climate change. I wrote this post back in January on the topic. My main argument here is WHY WE NEED CARBON TO LIVE
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-climate-change-is-wrong-dangerous
I think we need to ultimately understand that climate change is nothing more than an excuse for big corporations to steal the earths resources. Once we know that, everything makes sense
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-hidden-profits-of-climate-change
Don’t be so quick to blame big business when big government is doing everything it can to shape the incentives, set the agenda, and ultimately control (or destroy) industry. The perverse focus of government on reducing emissions at the expense of energy production (no natural gas or nuclear for you!) and even food production (see articles on how the Netherlands--5th largest food producer in the WORLD--is trying to get their farmers to give up farming so the land can be turned into marsh) is what we need to be fighting against.
You fail to take into account that the Patrick Browns of this world are true believers.