Yesterday, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. responded to Seth Borenstein’s Tweet about his article in the Associated Press on the upcoming 30 year anniversary of Dr. James Hansen’s Climate Predictions from 1988. Borensteins title was: ”
Warned 30 years ago, global warming ‘is in our living room’
Thirty years later, it’s clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were right. But the change has been so sweeping that it is easy to lose sight of effects large and small — some obvious, others less conspicuous.
Pielkes retort: “…how climate change is making us dumb”. Here is the series from Pielke’s Twitter feed:
Pielke’s paper: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1
Pielke adds:
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1008817296427503616
Today, Seth Borenstein is likely to have another episode of “dumb and dumber”, stay tuned.
Can’t believe (sure I can) that Seth is so dumb as to use economic damage as as indicator of the strength of hurricanes. So Seth, if Katrina had hit in, say, 1600 instead 2005 and had caused only a few thousand dollars of damage, would that mean is was therefore a very weak storm? Because that’s the “logic” you’re using.
If not Climate Change, then what? Clearly something is making people dumb.
Smart phones.
I saw the headline of that story on the front page of my local newspaper and before even looking at the author I blurted out “Seth Bornstein!” almost like an epithet. Why does Seth continue to be employed as a climate writer when he is so obviously bad at reporting on climate science? Talk about fake news, sheesh.
I know that the Atlantic will stay cool until winter.
Vegetation in Siberia has an impact on the level of carbon dioxide.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
Question about Pelke’s item 3:
“The collective damage done by Atlantic hurricanes in 2017 was well more than half of the entire budget of our Department of Defense, said MIT’s Kerry Emanuel.”
The graph below that comment purports to show Atlantic hurricane damage as a percentage of DoD budget, per year. Why does the graph’s bar for 2017 only rise to about 15% – and does not go above 50% as the MIT professor claimed?
Am I misinterpreting something?
This seems appropriate. One of my favorites:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c&w=854&h=480%5D
I didn’t know anyone bothered to argue with Borenstein.