Reminder
I'm giving the Regius Lecture in Political Science one hour from now
Here is a short 🧵with some slides from my talk to whet your interest ...
My focus is on "following the science?" and will focus on COIVD-19, science advice and @EScAPE_Covid19
Among things I'll discuss is the lack of US preparation for the pandemic in the context of science advice, including data ... as this jaw-dropping revelation from @alexismadrigal @yayitsrob reveals
I'll talk about "shadow" science advice and how it can both foster legitimacy of expertise and also tear it down ... the key is knowing the difference so that we can counter the latter and encourage the former
And in the talk I'll thank my great collaborators in @EScAPE_Covid19 and I do so here as well, especially these folks whose initial work I draw up in my talk today

• • •

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

16 Mar
Over a decade, the creators of the RCP scenarios warned against using RCP8.5 as a "reference" scenario for the other RCPs (figure left)

This advice was ignored, with at least 5,800 papers doing exactly that (figure right)

So too do various reports of the IPCC & USNCA
There is of course no problem using RCP8.5 in research

However, we should all be clear that it has no relation to the planet that we live on, Earth, past, present or future

I propose we rename RCP8.5 as Tatooine so that it is abundantly clear that it is a fictional world
In fact, it is not just RCP8.5 that is problematic

Key aspects of the real world (Earth) are rapidly departing from the imagined worlds of the RCP/SSP universe

Consider coal consumption, for instance
Read 5 tweets
14 Mar
🧵Since daylight savings time just went into effect here in CO (but not in AZ), my talk Monday is at ...

2PM in Tempe AZ
3PM Boulder
5PM Washington, DC
9PM London
10PM Berlin
6AM (Tues) Tokyo
8AM (Tues) Sydney
10AM (Tues) Auckland

Zoom link below and some preview slides follow
Title slide Image
To avoid any confusion Image
Read 5 tweets
6 Mar
Welcome new followers🙏

I can't promise you'll agree with everything I write
In fact, I can guarantee you won't

I welcome your thoughtful engagement

Warning: Immediate muting of name callers, misrepresenters etc
sorry/not sorry

Plz follow my newsletter
rogerpielkejr.substack.com
My next 2 newsletter topics

➡️transgender athletes
➡️vaccine hesitancy

One/both may get you worked up
So long as they make you think, that's OK

The goal of engagement is not agreement but a respectful exchange of ideas that makes everyone smarter & more understanding of others
Want to know my politics?

Label me a socialist/globalist/elitist & I wouldn't disagree
Fully reject politics of MAGA, populism, scientific authoritarianism

I'm a policy expert with highly nuanced views on some topics that don't easily fit into simple political bins
Deal with it
Read 4 tweets
4 Mar
🧵Via Chetty et al 2020 opportunityinsights.org/paper/undermat…

Family incomes of Univ of Colorado System students in these distributions of income:

Top 25%= 58% of students
Top 10%= 41%
Top 5% = 28%
Top 1% = 8%

If this is actually System (all 4 campuses) then CU Boulder is even more skewed
Of 1191 public universities in the Chettey et al 2020 database, only the University of Michigan has a greater proportion of rich students than does Univ of Colorado

Likely why CUB has (tie for) lowest average debt at graduation among PAC-12 schools
brookings.edu/opinions/biden…
At the same time, CU Boulder has the fewest Pell Grant recipients among PAC-12 schools
Read 4 tweets
1 Mar
🧵Some technical details following my post on the SCC

Here are cumulative CO2 emissions (FFI) to 2300 for each of the 5 USG scenarios (4 are BAU & 1 is policy), along with the extended RCP8.5 & 2 net-zero scenarios (for 2100 and 2200)

Let me emphasize how ridiculous this is🤡
Looking at the high (USG2) and low (USG5) scenarios gives a 2300 temperature increase of as much as >9 degrees C

I have annotated the figure with the red line indicating 3 deg C which occurs as early as ~2070 under USG2
Ok, now let's look at the IAM damage functions
Here I have annotated the figure by adding the red line denoting 3 deg C

Note that the vast majority of damage occurs >3 deg C (& up to 3C is ~0 +/-)
Read 7 tweets
28 Feb
How unrealistic are the scenarios underpinning the US "social cost of carbon" estimates?

Very

Figure below compares average cumulative CO2 emissions to 2300 assumed in US SCC scenarios with hypothetical net-zero scenarios for 2100 and 2200

Read more: rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-biden-ad…
Interesting/Odd

Research highlighted by US gov't to serve as basis for new SCC estimates all comes from just one group -- the Climate Impacts Lab

Left panel - IWG figure
Right panel - Original
It is interesting and odd because the Climate Impact Lab is a spin-off of a Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson funded effort that really launched RCP8.5 into a more prominent position in science and policy

Details--> forbes.com/sites/rogerpie…
Read 5 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!