Share this page!

Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
Twitter logo
15 Jan, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Biden will name Dr. Eric Lander to serve as his top science adviser and will be elevating Lander's position as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to a Cabinet rank position for the first time. nbcnews.com/politics/meet-…
President Biden's choice for science advisor is @eric_lander
A geneticist
His MIT page: biology.mit.edu/profile/eric-s…
Lander has an outrageous 500,000 citations to his work and an H-Index of 280 scholar.google.com/citations?user…

Helping to prove the silliness of metrics (but I digress)
Lander will be the first non-physicist science advisor to the president, highlighting the central importance of health in 2021

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RogerPielkeJr

Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
5 Jan
So this is interesting
I'm perusing the "Plum Book" and it turns out that Kelvin Droegemeier is NOT actually the president's science advisor.
He carries only the title of OSTP director
And 9/14 positions are vacant Image
Actually, there is no such title as "science advisor"
Since establishment of OTSP in 1976 most "science advisors" have held the title of "special assistant to the president" but not under Bush or Trump
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R… Image
I think it almost certain that President Biden's "science advisor" will have the title of "special assistant to the president"

It matters: " The difference between an individual being the OSTP Director and the APST is more than semantic" Image
Read 10 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
5 Jan
🧵New IPCC scenario evaluation paper
A thread with points of agreement, disagreement & one big mistake

The new paper is Pedersen et al 2021, a welcome addition to the literature (especially because it confirms our work in @matthewgburgess et al 2020)
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Agreement:
IPCC scenarios -- notably RCPs & SSPs as basis for much current climate research -- overestimated GDP growth & CO2 emissions

Difference:
P21 looks at GDP
B20 looks at GDP/capita

Difference:
P21 looks only at "marker" scenarios
B20 looks at all IPCC baseline scenarios
One lesser error:
The paper confuses RCP RF pathways with RCP scenarios
It is a common error as we explain in PR21: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Burgess et al evaluates the RCPs: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
Read 10 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
2 Jan
🧵
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.”

nytimes.com/2021/01/01/cli…
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

See

rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/fixing-the-u…
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:

rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/fixing-the-u…
Read 7 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
31 Dec 20
🧵Another new paper shows implausibility of most commonly used climate scenarios - Liddicoat et al 2020 in JOC
doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D…

Assuming constant 2019 CO2 emissions to 2100 (10 GtC via @gcarbonproject) gives cumulative of 1200 GtC 1850-2100, about SSP2-4.5 in Table 5⤵️
Assume net zero CO2 by 2100 give cumulative 800 GtC 1850-2100, or ~10% more than SSP1-2.6 in Table 5

Assume net zero CO2 by 2060 gives cumulative 600 GtC 1850-2100, or ~15% more than SSP1-1.9 in Table 5

Contrast:
SSP5-8.5 has 2580 GtC 1850-2100
SSP3-7.0 has 1909 GtC 1850-2100
So:
To consider SSP5-8.5 plausible requires believing that from now until 2100 the world will _average_ annual FF emissions from CO2 of about 30 GtC, or 3x that of 2019, meaning no peak until >2080 at ~50 GtC/yr

No one believes this is plausible.

/END
Read 4 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
23 Dec 20
An evaluation of science advice in the pandemic (thus far) via @instituteforgov cc: @EScAPE_Covid19

Science advice in a crisis instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/s…
The @instituteforgov offers 3 main recommendations

1-Integrate science advice with other forms of advice

Me-Honestly, we would all be better off if we just started using the phrase "expert advice" rather than "science advice" (2021 goals!)
2- Gov't needs to better explain trade-offs

Me- This points clearly to the need for expert advisors to offer decision alternatives, with judgments of expected costs & benefits of alternative courses of action as well as the bases for those judgments, uncertainties, trade-offs.
Read 4 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
23 Dec 20
An interesting article from @jg_environ @michaelvandenb6 that says that it critiques arguments on climate policy advanced by me, Hulme, Sarewitz, Rayner

It is very confusing because it posits "critique" in the guise of enthusiastic agreement

Short thread
On climate policy JG & MV assert "our preference for an incremental process of muddling through with polycentric governance" as somehow counter to my views, Hulmes, Hartwell etc.

Actually, this perspective is identical to my own, example from The Climate Fix below
And that of Hulme:
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @RogerPielkeJr has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @RogerPielkeJr!

Read all threads by @RogerPielkeJr