Share this page!

Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
Twitter logo
22 Oct, 4 tweets, 2 min read
For anyone thinking the RCP8.5 debate is over, think again - climate community standing behind it

Chief US gov't climate scientist NASA's Gavin Schimdt calls our critique of RCP8.5 "absurd"

And president of the National Academy of Sciences calls RCP8.5 as BAU "100% accurate"
I respond to their defense of RCP8.5 in this thread:

Schmidt's refusal to acknowledge the incredible work @jritch and focus on me suggests that this is once again more of a personal issue he has with me than anything else

That would explain why his letter pretty much agrees with & acknowledges our claims while posturing otherwise
Those Real Climate guys really can hold a grudge 😉

• • •

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
23 Oct
🧵
Why are climate scientists so mad at me?
Here's one answer
For almost 30 yrs I've been writing abt the conflicts between (a) the special interests of the climate science community and (b) the broader social responsibilities of this community

Pretty normal STS fare ... read on
My 1994 PhD dissertation was an evaluation of the then newly-created US Global Change Research Program
link.springer.com/content/pdf/10…

I argued that the USGCRP would do a lot of good science but have limited policy relevance (a conclusion later reached by a @theNASEM study) Image
I was a post-doc at NCAR when this paper came out
It resulted in a furor
NSF funded NCAR & the program officer who oversaw NSF funding was central to creation of USGCRP

My job was threatened
A huge debate ensued
UCAR leaders pushed back on the pressure
I kept my job
A preview...
Read 16 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
22 Oct
Scenario misuse in climate science is far deeper and nuanced than semantics of reference scenarios (as some would have us believe)

They are also very pedestrian mistakes, common to efforts to use scenario methods in research

Not surprising or unique to climate, but significant
The petulance, name-calling and invented quotes we saw earlier today suggests that our first recommendation won't be easily taken😉

Easier to attack messengers than hear their messages

We all all suffer the consequences when science gets off track and some try to keep it there
The responses I've had today the this discussion have me optimistic that the powerful few gatekeepers in the climate space of 2009 are not so powerful in 2021

The teeth gnashing & name calling remains the same, but most now see it for what it is, and that's good news
Read 5 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
22 Oct
🧵
@ISSUESinST several climate scientists & Marcia McNutt (@theNASEM pres) respond to @jritch & my recent article on misuse of climate scenarios, offering a unified defense of RCP8.5

I encourage you to read their responses in full:
issues.org/climate-scenar…

My comments follow...
Chris Field & Marcia McNutt offer three points

First they defend RCP8.5 as "business as usual" stating that characterization "remains 100% accurate"

What to say? That's just wrong.
RCP8.5 depends on the building of >33,000 new coal plants by 2100, on top of current ~6,000
🤷‍♂️
Second, they appear to contradict themselves by stating that RCP8.5 was in fact "until recently" properly viewed as a plausible or even likely future

Again, this is objectively false

The world has never been on track for ~40,000 coal plants by 2100
Read 12 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
20 Oct
With the IEA now projecting a near-term emissions trajectory <RCP4.5 I've been taking a peek at the gatekeeping on RCP8.5 debates over recent years

A rich vein to explore
Really remarkable public evidence of how scientific progress gets stunted by a few powerful people

Examples ImageImageImageImage
Despite @bradplumer recognizing implausibility of RCP8.5 in 2017 (props!) the NYT has apparently never written anything critical about the misuse of the scenario (my NYT search finds only 6 articles that explicitly mention RCP8.5 or "RCP 8.5")
With powerful figures Mann & Hayhoe (they weren't alone) warning critique of RCP8.5 is "denial," no wonder it has taken so long for researchers and journalists to deem its discussion to be legitimate

But now there can be no excuse

Amazing dynamics at play

A good paper here
Read 4 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
19 Oct
In my email today
Climate industrial complex

RCP8.5➡️peer reviewed research➡️aggressive media campaign➡️apocalypse coverage➡️fundraising

Non-profit Climate Central CEO made ~$325,000 in 2019 & 7 other employees bt $170k-$270k (IRS 990)

8 people's salaries are >30% of spending
How much should a non-profit CEO be paid?
For a non-profit of CC size (~$5m in expenses in 2019) $131k-178k

Source: analytics.excellenceingiving.com/2020-2021-nonp…

What's the difference between a for-profit climate analytics firm & a non-profit one, both living off of RCP8.5? 🤷‍♂️
I'm all for people making good money
Especially when they have paying clients for their services
But non-profit expectations are (and should be) different

Don't even get me started on sports organizations!
Read 5 tweets
Roger Pielke Jr. Profile picture
15 Oct
Latest haul of RCP8.5 headlines
Catnip for the climate beat and utterly irresponsible Image
The same group did the same analysis with the same conclusions based on RCP8.5 in 2015

Rinse, repeat

The exploitation of shoddy, inattentive peer-review processes by climate advocacy groups is extremely well done

Props to their cleverness
But that really shouldn’t happen
Some text peer reviewers can use when reviewing RCP8.5 (& similar) studies:

“RCP8.5 may have appropriate uses as an extreme, exploratory, implausible scenario, but it is absolutely and undeniably inappropriate to use to generate plausible or likely projections of the future.”
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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @RogerPielkeJr has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @RogerPielkeJr!

Read all threads by @RogerPielkeJr

:(