Climate in the age of Trump
No, this item is not about Trump’s climate measures and whether they’re brilliant and long overdue or evil and insane.
Rather, they’re about the issue of truth and honesty in public policy. And we mention Trump because his adversaries frequently accuse him of a carelessness with truth, or complete disregard for it, that is poisoning the well of discourse.
To which we reply physician heal thyself. Especially in view of Roger Pielke Jr.’s lament after a Swedish radio expose of a torrent of “Climate Misinformation from the United Nations” covering everything from sea level rise to women and children hardest hit to the mythical surge in weather disasters since the 1970s.
As he asks pointedly, “Does anyone care?” because the issues are supposedly so important yet the claims were so easy to falsify. In RPJ’s words, alas, “Lapses of scientific integrity in climate science have become normalized.”
Over decades. Long before Trump. And if the people chanting “follow the science”, including the scientists doing so, don’t care about truth, why would a politician?
Including about the long-standing, highly-publicized-by-skeptics, suspiciously-tendentious tendency of American authorities to alter temperature data to cool the past and warm the present, which nobody in the scientific mainstream seems to care enough, or dare enough, to investigate.
For instance Weather Fox, from a network we’d been led to believe was prone to right-wing distortions of reality, explains/inquires “Why U.S. Thunderstorms Are Becoming More Extreme?” And you just know:
“As climate change accelerates, scientists are uncovering clear evidence that rising global temperatures, increased moisture in the atmosphere, and shifting wind patterns are fueling more intense and destructive thunderstorms across the U.S.”
But they’re not. Doesn’t anyone care?
Not apparently in today’s hyper-politicized and postmodern environment.
Least of all Weather Fox which, in another item that purported to be a balanced look at “Are Climate Scientists Getting It Wrong? The Debate Over Global Warming Data” instead patted the MAGA uncle on the head on point after point, such as:
“Some critics argue that climate scientists may be biased, influenced by political or financial pressures. However, the scientific community operates on a foundation of peer-reviewed research, ensuring that findings undergo rigorous scrutiny.
While biases can exist in any field, the collaborative nature of climate science helps minimize these effects. It’s similar to a jury deliberating a case – multiple perspectives are considered before reaching a consensus.”
Imagine writing on this topic without knowing that the “crisis of replicability” has been rocking the world of peer review for decades… or without mentioning it lest it cause talk.
And ignoring ClimateGate and other instances of peculiar handling of data, and instead saying “Studies show that over 97% of climate scientists agree that human activities are causing significant changes to the Earth’s climate.”
Alas, “Climate change denial remains a challenge, hindering efforts to address the issue effectively.” But nothing a few more pats on the head can’t solve:
“Combating denial requires open dialogue, transparency, and accessible information. By engaging with skeptics and addressing misconceptions, we can build a more informed and united response to climate change.
It’s about bridging gaps and fostering understanding, much like building a bridge that connects diverse viewpoints.”
By crushing dissent under foot and denying that there’s any basis for anyone to question militant orthodoxy, that is, since:
“Addressing climate change is not only a scientific and economic challenge but also a moral imperative. The impacts disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, highlighting the need for equitable solutions.”
The habit of just making things up runs deep. The Economist has an “Environment editor” who wrote early this year:
“When I tell people about my job, I’m frequently asked if I find it depressing. There is a sense – which grows stronger as summers get hotter and extreme weather events more devastating – that we have failed to do anywhere near enough to avert climate change.”
The trouble is, summers are not getting hotter and extreme weather events are not getting more devastating. What’s more, a lot of people who work in the field know it including, as we’ve repeatedly catalogued, the ones who contribute to IPCC technical documents.
There’s actually a lot of good data on a lot of this stuff, even if the data on summers would be better if American agencies were not engaged in chronic manipulation to cool the past and heat the present. And as Pielke Jr. has again been stalwart in pointing out, it doesn’t show that extreme weather events are getting more devastating.
Instead, adjusted for population and economic growth, they’re getting a lot less so. But the alarmists just don’t care. And our indictment here against Rachel Dobbs, the “Environment editor” in question, isn’t that she knows the truth and is intentionally concealing it. It’s that she doesn’t care.
That governments would say the thing that is not, deliberately or because they long ago forgot it matters, is hardly surprising.
The Canadian state bombards us with claims like “With wildfires increasing in frequency and severity across Canada — impacting our health, economies, communities and wildlife” and “Across the country, the impacts of climate change are becoming more severe and more frequent with extreme events like floods, wildfires and heatwaves on the rise” without a scrap of evidence of these nonexistent trends or interest in same.
But then it makes equally implausible claims on a daily, even hourly basis, on topic after topic, all while purporting to deplore Donald Trump’s similar habits. And really, we know or should know that politicians have always been this way and are getting more so.
Scientists are meant to be different, especially if they want to avoid hand-wringing about the mysterious public loss of confidence in science.
Climate Cosmos, which publishes its share of absurd pieces on climate, recently fretted refreshingly “Can We Trust Climate Science When Dissenting Voices Are Silenced?”
and answered refreshingly that we cannot, pointing to problems from the overwhelming share of research funding going to “studies that align with the prevailing consensus on climate change” to media coverage that is “like watching a movie where only the villain’s side of the story is told” which “not only skews the public’s understanding but also marginalizes voices that could contribute to a more balanced discussion” to, amazingly, social media platforms that “have been criticized for flagging or suppressing posts that question mainstream climate science.”
It manages to warn that “A common misconception is that scientific consensus equates to absolute truth” and cites the 1970s cooling scare.
But even this piece doesn’t finger the biggest problem: scientists who remain silent when they know something is wrong, factually, methodologically or morally.
See more here Climate discussion
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.