Pielke Jr. on the US National Climate Assessment

NYT article on US Nat’l Climate Assessment/Trump is right & wrong

“Trying to politicize or dismiss climate science is one thing when the warnings come from Democrats or academics. But this report comes from his administration’s very own agencies.”

It is right that Trump Admin has politicized the Nat’l Climate Assessment

But that is by design
So too did Clinton, Bush & Obama

The NCA is run from the White House by political appointees

Political interference is a feature not a flaw



The NYT incorrectly asserts that the NCA is run by the federal agencies

That is wrong
Egregiously wrong

It is run out of the White House

See the history here:


The 4th assessment (Obama) was highly politicized as well
It misused RCP8.5 throughout & promoted the most extreme scenarios

Somehow, work funded by Bloomberg/Steyer came to play a major role in the report, authored by scientists with undeclared COIs



The NYT implies politicization of the NCA is OK from Ds & academics:
“Trying to politicize or dismiss climate science is one thing when the warnings come from Democrats or academics.”

We can expect the Biden Admin to also politicize the NCA, as this is built into its fabric…

Politicized climate science is OK if Ds do isn’t a recipe for scientific integrity in climate science advice

Everyone wants their folks in charge, but that is not how science advice is supposed to work

Climate change is real & serious which is why we need advice with integrity

Here is how to fix the National Climate Assessment, for both Ds and Rs

The importance of climate change does not mean that scientific integrity is optional, it means that it is necessary



Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on January 2, 2021.

4.5 11 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rory Forbes
January 2, 2021 11:02 pm

“Climate change is real & serious which is why we need advice with integrity”.

There is no doubt that “climate change” is real. The phrase is a tautology. No one has ever suggested that it isn’t real, since change is the default condition of climates. However anyone who is still trying to pretend that the planet’s climates are in some way broken and in need of repair needs medical assistance or a reality check.
My advice … stop flogging the dead horse and start redirecting the vast sums being wasted.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 3, 2021 1:36 am

“ start redirecting the vast sums being wasted.”

All the money is stimulus 😜

Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Derg
January 3, 2021 10:26 am

I can only assume you’re trying to be sarcastic, Derg. I can only respond … if one must feed the goose vast quantities of platinum to get the golden eggs, it’s money ill spent.

Reply to  Derg
January 3, 2021 11:04 am

Capital, control, and productivity are fungible… nay, redistributive. That said, save a bird, whack a wind turbine. #HateLovesAbortion

Reply to  Derg
January 3, 2021 1:15 pm

Only in government can one make a career out of proclaiming that moving money from one pocket to another will make one richer.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
January 4, 2021 5:40 am

Broken window economic fallacy.

Reply to  Derg
January 4, 2021 5:38 am

It isn’t stimulus if the money supports businesses that couldn’t stand on their own two feet without it and kills off businesses that could.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 3, 2021 3:01 am

The deniers are those who deny natural climate variability. Climate change is real. That’s what the climate does.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  commieBob
January 3, 2021 10:29 am

Yes, that’s what I said. I’m fed up with the debate about CO2. It’s utterly pointless.

Last edited 2 years ago by Rory Forbes
Reply to  commieBob
January 3, 2021 1:00 pm

Deniers are also the average people in America, driving their kids to little-league practice, Church on Sunday morning or Grandma’s house for Sunday evening dinner and being told they are the problem, they are ‘killing’ the planet. No one with certainty can tell me the weather a week from Tuesday, yet I’m supposed to believe that because I drove to work Man’s existence is in peril 5300 Tuesdays from today…pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining

Mike McMillan
January 2, 2021 11:07 pm

By 2100, the economy will have more than tripled (assuming the dems lock in the election fix and outlaw Republicans), so a 10% loss due to beneficial climate change is acceptable.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
January 3, 2021 12:08 am

…and by 2101 friendliness will have quadrupled, timeousness will have risen by -15% and sadness will have grown by 123%.
See? I can also put idiot numbers next to words that describe things which cannot be quantised.
Go steal a friggin’ dictionary, dude!
“Growing economy”!!!
Protocol 20v4: “…affairs were drawn up for them by our agents, and every time gave satisfaction to short-sighted minds by promises that in the future economics  and improvements  (economic growth??)  were foreseen…. Economics from what? From new taxes? – were questions that might have been but were not asked by those who read our accounts and projects.”

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  Mike McMillan
January 3, 2021 12:18 am

Generating wealth reducing jobs on the basis of an erroneous assumption is nor a sensible policy.

Joel O'Bryan
January 2, 2021 11:16 pm

It is going to take a real crisis, and not COVID-19, to force the Dems to stop using Climate Change as their Trojan Horse to more power. I can think of a few scenarios, none are pleasant for anyone, including the nanny Bloomberg billionaire class as most include lots of people dying. And responding to whatever that crisis is, will require massive allocations of fossil fuels to respond. And more wind mills, solar panels, batteries, and EVs won’t be on the list of needed actions.

Last edited 2 years ago by Joel O’Bryan
January 2, 2021 11:21 pm

“Climate change is real & serious”

Climate Change is NORMAL.….

…… and over the last 150 years has been HIGHLY BENEFICIAL.

Humans have only affected local climate/weather through urban and land use changes.

Human replenished atmospheric CO2 has not had ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on “global” climate.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  fred250
January 2, 2021 11:36 pm

Junior drank the kool-aide, tried to recover, and has relapsed. Climatism is disease that attacks thinking, characterized by an inability to dissect the many lies of the climate scam, mostly the cargo-cult pseudoscience of the GCMs.

Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 12:50 am

IMO your comment is the truth.
Roger’s comment is not the truth.
We are now at “war” and must “fight” the alarmists.
I have personally decided to always speak the truth in this “ fight”
I will call out alarmist BS whenever I see it.
HOWEVER in “war” it is also valid to deceive the enemy.
Saying “climate change is real and serious” is a valid Trojan horse to get invited into the enemies domain.

January 2, 2021 11:45 pm

As long as they continue to give superpowers to a trace gas, there is no hope of reasonable public policy.

Reply to  Phil
January 3, 2021 12:53 am

Actually this trace gas embodies the greatest super power known to human existence. Without this trace gas there would highly likely be no life on Earth. Certainly none of the life that sustains human existence.

Plant life almost fed itself too starvation. Mankind is slowly redressing the imbalance by burning the fossils that locked away all that carbon that was around a few hundred million years ago.

Reply to  RickWill
January 3, 2021 1:21 am

I think he meant thermal power, not chemical.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Phil
January 3, 2021 4:08 am

C02 – the God Molecule

Reply to  Gregory Woods
January 3, 2021 4:55 am

For Mark Carney, Prince Charles, van der Leyen, CO2 is a Godsend – green credit sluice gates opening with Manna from Heaven!
The high minded of course will not flinch at most of humanity washed away in the slurry.

January 3, 2021 2:08 am

It’s articles like this NYT’s slop that saddens me to the point where I’m convinced that the moral-ethical machine of all reportage is broken, fubar. News media, science journals, government policy accounting… the lot.

The article in of itself does no more than put another nail in the coffin of “journalistic integrity”. Something, if we had a healthy sum of, we’d have less need to go in search of “scientific integrity”.

Reply to  Philip
January 3, 2021 6:36 am

New York Slime has been dead a long time. It’s far past the date the Grey Lady should have been buried.

Ron Long
January 3, 2021 2:13 am

I had the impression that President Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Accords, and other CAGW-related decisions, on the basis of it being very bad business for the USA, that is, the funding excess and penalty system would weaken the USA substantially while China et al would get a pass to do what ever. Although President Trump stated several times that the “climate always changes” what level of science detail was included in his assessment about the correct position of the USA, re CAGW, was not clear to me. The next guys position on CAGW is abundantly clear, double down on stupid all the way to a crash.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ron Long
January 3, 2021 12:20 pm

The profiteers have stampeded the herd with fear mongering. The stampede will stop once the bill comes due. All stampedes eventually peter out because fear cannot be sustained. The Iron Law of Politics: One cannot be seen as raising taxes. Rising taxes and increasing the cost of living will “circle the herd.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
January 3, 2021 7:00 pm

Yes, Trump mainly emphasized economic problems, and unfairness problems, with the Paris Climate Accord. He didn’t spend much time disputing the alarmist claims that humans were causing the climate to change by burning fossil fuels.

I think he left that to Dr. Happer and others.

January 3, 2021 3:14 am

The media domination of the global doomsday narrative continues, with the same old tired tales regurgitated relentlessly – as exemplified by the BBC:
The major websites questioning in various ways the ‘dangerous climate change, we’re to blame’ dogma (as far as I see it) are Jo Nova, Watts up with That, Roy Spencer, and Not a Lot of People Know That, plus the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Hardly internet ‘click bait’ titles, are they?
Not, I suggest, the first place a member of the public might go to.
In my view, the sceptical side needs to get its act together. Grouchy posts on a website don’t achieve anything – people just argue amongst themselves time and again.
How about ‘Climate Lies’ as a good click bait title?
Present all of the tired propaganda, and counter it with referenced facts which anyone can look up – but don’t let the public comment on it. On no account let the trolls in, just stick to the facts.
The power of the internet needs to be harnessed, and in my view it isn’t happening.

Reply to  Carbon500
January 3, 2021 4:52 am

How about this fact :

CO2 Reduction is a Mass-Murder Policy Designed by Wall-Street and the City of London

Some would much prefer to debate the CO2 absorption-spectrum, while Davos openly declares it is Year Zero, and fully intends to reset the population.

One sees it is not the “internet”, rather a decades long assault on reason…

Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2021 6:05 am

Interesting. That got me to read Pielke’s “The momentum of outdated science is powerful.”

“The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science”

“Much of climate research is focused on implausible scenarios of the future, but implementing a course correction will be difficult”


Very good indeed.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2021 6:34 am

“Much of climate research is focused on implausible scenarios of the future, but implementing a course correction will be difficult”

How does one go about successfully correcting an implausible projected future end point?

I’d really like to see the math on that. 😁

Dave Fair
Reply to  Philip
January 3, 2021 12:23 pm

You missed the point of the comment, Philip.

Reply to  Dave Fair
January 3, 2021 7:53 pm

I think it was a valid question.
We have a very large percent of the population who “believe” man is the problem. That CO2 is to blame. My skepticism or “denial” if you like, isn’t enough to move those people off of their belief. It’s not enough to change the science or to put a halt to the government(s) funding further projects in answer to the theoretical man + CO2 = planet killer, settled science.
The obvious correction would be to say stand back, take all hands off the thermostat and return to practical, pragmatic solutions to reducing mans real environmental pollution.
Which would get you laughed out of the room, cancelled, deplatformed, demonetized, and demonized. So D+ for that approach.
So, as I say, show me the math. How do we turn off the madness that’s become a very profitable, job securing, socially morally righteous planet saving world view?
I expect we have to wait while those profiting the most from this industry of climate science keep moving the goal posts further and further from CAGW, towards something more benign that governments stop funding the nonsense. At that point corporate investment will fall off too. Unfortunately I don’t think the madness has reached its apogee, not when I read about people wanting to throw tinsel at the sun to diminish global warming, or this cattle mask farce.
Id like to say time is on our side but, crazy is behind the wheel and God alone knows where we will end up.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2021 8:40 am

Junior’s essay is just a modern realization of Mark Twain’s (paraphrasing it) wisdom:

“What gets us in trouble is not what we don’t know, but what we we think we know that simply ain’t true.”

Climate and changing climate and CO2 clearly falls into the latter case. Climate change alarmism-based policy is now fully based in what we think “we” know that simply ain’t true. “We” being the intellectual yet idiot class of academia morons with PhDs.

Last edited 2 years ago by Joel O’Bryan
George Daddis
January 3, 2021 6:41 am

Did Roger (Jr) not read his own book The Rightful Place of Science:Disasters and Climate Change? (2014)

As others have noted, the climate changes and Pielke’s book explains with hard data that the disasters are political exaggerations.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  George Daddis
January 3, 2021 8:43 am

He drank some more kool-aide and relapsed. The need for government grants in academia will do that.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 3, 2021 12:47 pm

Joel, having read Dr. Pielke, Jr.’s weather-related work over the years, I acknowledge that he makes vague statements about future climate change (undefined) being a problem. His proposed solutions are: 1) Investment in technology (happening now); 2) a worldwide CO2 tax (unachievable); 3) adaptation (rational); and 4) opposition to governmental and activist NGO fearmongering. People of a skeptical mindset should welcome him into the discussion.

Reply to  George Daddis
January 3, 2021 11:31 pm

He believes that disasters are exaggerated. He believes that climate is changing, sometimes catastrophically, caused by carbon in the environment and other first-order [anthropogenic] forcings. His “iron law” characterizes the range of probable responses given a popular orientation, plausible actions, and probable outcomes (e.g. correlation between energy and development). Baby… fetal steps, I suppose.

John F Hultquist
January 3, 2021 9:44 am

Real climate(s) change will come with:
– make Earth rotate in the opposite direction;
– replace the Isthmus of Panama with a 3,000 m. deep trench;
– raise by 3,000 m. the Mid-Atlantic Ridge above the Ocean surface;
– lower by 4,000 m. the <em>Cordillera de los Andes</em>;

– insert your own idea with emphasis on changing the climate of your current location

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John F Hultquist
January 3, 2021 7:04 pm

You’re giving Gates more ideas!

January 3, 2021 10:33 am

Climate the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation.


So in the term “climate change” the word “change” is redundant as the phrase “over a period of years ” implies that one “period of years” may exhibit a different climate than another “period of years” i.e. the climate may change.

January 3, 2021 11:01 am

So Pro-Choice, but is it viable to abort the baby and have her, too? The climate brokers seem to think that they can. There are certainly diverse social precedents for wicked solutions to what are purported to be hard problems.

Last edited 2 years ago by n.n
Reply to  n.n
January 3, 2021 11:24 pm

Have your cake and eat it, too? Yes, Pro-Choice is a popular quasi-religious (“ethical”) philosophy normalized by the ostensibly “secular” Progressive Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Temple/Clinic/Chamber/etc.

Diversity of color (i.e. low information attributes or color judgment)? Diversity of individuals, minority of one?

Last edited 2 years ago by n.n
January 3, 2021 1:14 pm

Politics is always, whatever the other side is doing.

Tom Abbott
January 3, 2021 6:52 pm

From the article: “Climate change is real & serious”

Well, I have to ask, where’s the evidence for that?

Declaring something is real that you can’t prove is real, is not scientific.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights