How we talk about disasters has changed dramatically (since ~2006)
The IPCC definition of "climate change" as a detectable change in the statistics of weather (and outcome metric) has been increasingly rejected in favor of "climate change" defined as a causal actor that changes weather
These definitions are 100% incompatible
17 years ago I wrote about how the different definitions of "climate change" used by the FCCC and IPCC was problematic for connecting science and policy sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publicat…
The increasing use of "climate" (or "climate change") as a causal actor adds to this dissonance
I hypothesize that today "climate change" is used often today as shorthand to refer to "emissions" (GHGs or CO2)
So instead of:
emissions-->alter weather statistics over 30 yrs+
we get:
climate change-->alters weather
One casualty of our changing conception of "climate change" has been the notion of "climate variability"
As "climate change" has been redefined as a cause of weather & "climate variability" has been de-emphasized so too has the focus on detecting changes in climate (statistics) in favor of attributing weather events to climate (a cause)
The IPCC D&A framework may be on life support
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1⃣
First, improve the process for the WHO’s declaration of a public health emergency.
2⃣
Second, countries should agree on common standards for data collection and dissemination during a pandemic, to inform responses and enable relevant research to be undertaken.
3⃣
Third, nations should agree to establish international standards for the recommendation of vaccine and drug approval in a pandemic.
4⃣
Fourth, nations should agree on procedures for investigations of pandemic origins.
The fact that COVID-19 first broke out in a city housing one of the world's few high-level labs engaged in bat coronavirus research means a lab leak necessarily must be on the list of possible origins until it's conclusively refuted, regardless what theoretical arguments are made
The CDC current says that 15% to 70% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, with a best guess of 30% (deets below)
So if there was a lab leak, there is a meaningful chance that the leak would have been unknown to the lab or the individual(s) who may have been a vector
To hit a 2% of GDP target for US federal R&D spending (i.e., same as peak of space race) would require annual $ increases of:
30%-->2026
18%-->2030
13%-->2035
10%-->2040
US federal R&D $ has been more or less constant as a % of domestic discretionary spending for >40 years
Data @aaas@MattHourihan
Meaningful increases in R&D $ > increases in domestic disc $ would represent the most significant change in US R&D OVERALL budget policy in a half century
So key to watch is if federal spending increases dramatically overall, cause R&D ain't gonna eat someone else's lunch
A Biden OSTP investigation of Trump OSTP and agencies is fine, let's learn lessons ... but it should not come at the expense of pushing forward scientific integrity legislation such as led by @RepPaulTonko