Pennsylvania state climate assessment just published
Relies centrally on RCP8.5 as BAU
Prepared by yet another "climate consultancy" that trades in RCP8.5 analyses penncapital-star.com/energy-environ…
The PA report also confuses growth in wealth with climate trends, using the widely misused "billion dollar disaster" metric of @NOAA
I have no idea how much public money across the US is being spend on "climate consultants" to produce dodgy reports based on RCP8.5 and billion$ disasters, but it has to be an awful lot ... It's like spending public health money on homeopathy instead of vaccines
Unlike public health, where researchers would be the first to call out mis-spending on homeopathy over vaccines -- in climate, the research community is also deeply vested in RCP8.5 (& to lesser degree billion$ disasters), so blowing the whistle is ... complicated
I shouldn't be the one pointing this out
The same "climate consultant" that is being paid by the state to promote RCP8.5 in PA is also hired by the state to promote the solution to the problems posed by RCP8.5 dep.pa.gov/Citizens/clima…
This is a totally unacceptable COI
Climate change is real and important
It is not a magical phrase that eliminates the need for rigor in and scrutiny of science, policy & business
In fact, climate change is so important that such attention matters more than usual
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“A new 46-person federal scientific integrity task force with members from more than two dozen government agencies will meet for the first time on Friday. Its mission is to look back through 2009 for areas where partisanship interfered with...” apnews.com/article/donald…
The idea presented in this piece that the politicization of science by presidents started with Ronald Reagan is laughable
Here is an Eisenhower anecdote from our science advisors project
The politicization of science in the White House has deep roots
President Biden’s OSTP political appointees just reassigned the climate scientist leading the US National Climate Assessment in order to present a “less nuanced” view of climate change
Back in 2001 I led a NASA workshop on the risks and benefits of (a) a controlled re-entry of the TRMM (precipitation measurement) satellite vs (b) extending the mission, collecting more data and having the satellite re-enter in uncontrolled fashion sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_…
At our workshop NASA estimated risk of injury of uncontrolled re-entry to be ~2 in 10,000 (0.021%) w/ significant uncertainties
This was based on a 35 deg orbital inclination, estimates of the debris field and estimated 2004 global population densities
"the extent to which the insurance industry directs, funds & validates the production & use of science for estimating risk is itself a full blown political enterprise that functions to prioritize industry interests"
Weinkle documents the co-optation of scientists by the insurance industry to create regulatory-friendly research that appears to be "independent"
The use of the resulting research by industry goes unchallenged and in fact, legitimizes the work of the (no so) "independent" experts as authoritative because industry is using it ... so a mutually reinforcing legitimization circle