4 ms·

The IPCC report—again, just like last year—put a major emphasis on implausible scenarios throughout the report over more likely, realistic scenarios. https://t

The IPCC report—again, just like last year—put a major emphasis on implausible scenarios throughout the report over more likely, realistic scenarios. https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498317086157774866 https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498317086157774866 Similar to last year, too, the media takes that emphasis, reports it as absolute reality, and then starts the campaign of fear ("red alert") on the public, arguably, to whittle down their critical thinking skills for the sake of political gain. The whole thing is circuitous to a painstaking degree.

throwaway5752 5y ago
https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Pielke_Jr https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Pielke_Jr. Dr. Pielke's work on climate change effects has been criticized by Dr. Stephen Schneider, who said that with Pielke "one consistent pattern emerges-he is a self-aggrandizer who sets up straw men, knocks them down, and takes credit for being the honest broker to explain the mess-and in fact usually adds little new social science to his analysis" Source: http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneiders-criticism-of-roger-pielke-jr-a-self-aggrandizer-trickster-and-careerist http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneide... The IPCC has consistently understated the risks to prevent general panic. That is actually what this submitted article is about.
- rglover 5y ago
  Read what he (Pielke) actually said and backs up with citations. The character-attack-as-argument defense just makes you look unintelligent.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    "makes you look unintelligent" I will have to live with that, I'm sorry you are disappointed. I can't vet every source and if someone is a known bad source, there are usually many, many alternatives to invest my limited time reading.
    - harpersealtako 5y ago
      did you vet Dr. Stephen Schneider as well?
hall0ween 5y ago
Comparing what you wrote with the quotes below, I get the sense that you and Pielke Jr., might have different opinions on climate change: Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12] From his wikipedia page
- rglover 5y ago
  No, I agree with those statements (generally speaking). I also believe in investment in proven solutions like nuclear being implemented/invested in now so that, by the end of the century, we're more likely to be in a better position. What I _don't_ agree with is intentionally distorting the truth to scare people which, despite the claims that it motivates people, accomplishes nothing (objectively, as those "nudges" are rarely backed by concrete steps/plans—just more hyperbole and fearmongering to stoke the political fire).
bandyaboot 5y ago
Orwellian theories are fun and all, but the media emphasizes the most extreme scenarios because those headlines and stories get the most clicks.
- rglover 5y ago
  Great, but being the ones responsible for informing the public, that's not a justification for the behavior. If that continues (which it's likely to do), you end up with a highly-reactionary population that's going to do anything but solve the problem. We're crossing the point of no return as the younger kids have no concept of a world where "doing it for the clicks" wasn't a thing. Once they become adults, all hell will break loose because they don't know how to think, only emote.

throwaway5752 5y ago

https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Pielke_Jr https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Pielke_Jr. Dr. Pielke's work on climate change effects has been criticized by Dr. Stephen Schneider, who said that with Pielke "one consistent pattern emerges-he is a self-aggrandizer who sets up straw men, knocks them down, and takes credit for being the honest broker to explain the mess-and in fact usually adds little new social science to his analysis" Source: http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneiders-criticism-of-roger-pielke-jr-a-self-aggrandizer-trickster-and-careerist http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneide... The IPCC has consistently understated the risks to prevent general panic. That is actually what this submitted article is about.

rglover 5y ago
Read what he (Pielke) actually said and backs up with citations. The character-attack-as-argument defense just makes you look unintelligent.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  "makes you look unintelligent" I will have to live with that, I'm sorry you are disappointed. I can't vet every source and if someone is a known bad source, there are usually many, many alternatives to invest my limited time reading.
  - harpersealtako 5y ago
    did you vet Dr. Stephen Schneider as well?

hall0ween 5y ago

Comparing what you wrote with the quotes below, I get the sense that you and Pielke Jr., might have different opinions on climate change: Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12] From his wikipedia page

rglover 5y ago
No, I agree with those statements (generally speaking). I also believe in investment in proven solutions like nuclear being implemented/invested in now so that, by the end of the century, we're more likely to be in a better position. What I _don't_ agree with is intentionally distorting the truth to scare people which, despite the claims that it motivates people, accomplishes nothing (objectively, as those "nudges" are rarely backed by concrete steps/plans—just more hyperbole and fearmongering to stoke the political fire).

bandyaboot 5y ago

Orwellian theories are fun and all, but the media emphasizes the most extreme scenarios because those headlines and stories get the most clicks.

rglover 5y ago
Great, but being the ones responsible for informing the public, that's not a justification for the behavior. If that continues (which it's likely to do), you end up with a highly-reactionary population that's going to do anything but solve the problem. We're crossing the point of no return as the younger kids have no concept of a world where "doing it for the clicks" wasn't a thing. Once they become adults, all hell will break loose because they don't know how to think, only emote.