Thread by @AukeHoekstra

I like this nuanced rebuttal by @RogerPielkeJr of a new book claiming we should not mitigate climate change because the science is "not settled". I know Roger for a while now and I dare you to read the substack post and then (!) add your own analysis to this thread.

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1566438550345617408

Basically this thread is about the question:

Should we strive for clarity and an 'us vs them' approach in communicating climate change,

OR should we stick to the science and the facts, even when they are messy and confusing?

Like Roger, I think it should be the latter.

Roger is extremely knowledgable on both policy making and extreme weather (he one of the world's leading experts on hurricanes) and he's convinced climate change is a large problem we have to tackle, but he's often vilified by people who's mission it is to combat climate change.

The reason is that he often points out lazy media stories on climate change. E.g. by pointing out that there were few tropical hurricanes by historic standards in 2021 and that the IPCC never predicted the inundation of Pakistan (rather the opposite).

I learned to value his opinion in the enormous twitter discussion on the RCP8.5 scenario that @MLiebreich kicked off with the tag #RCP85isBollox and in which I ended up tweeting the most. Later @RogerPielkeJr wrote an article with @jritch detailing why it's bollox.

I've also given a guest lecture on one of his courses and found (to my surprise) that's he's the opposite of a political hack or 'generally icky' (a description of @drvolts if memory serves).

Rather he is fond to point out where scientific facts and media/zealots clash.

My point here is not whether Roger is always right (I disagree with him often) but whether we should welcome people like him that don't toe a party line in the climate debate. And I think we should.

I'm mostly vegan, avoid flying, drive an EV, live in a wooden energy positive house, and making plans to mitigate climate change is my life. But dividing the world in 'us' (that combat climate change) and 'them' is unhelpful and unscientific in a time where we need science.

We need urgent action but this is a marathon, not a sprint. To convince skeptics and take the best actions, we must stay aligned to the facts, even if new facts challenge our assumptions or communication strategy.

For example: it's clear burning fossil fuels causes about 70% of global warming with most of the rest caused by deforestation, cows, and cement. It's also clear we have many low carbon alternatives, but which combination of them is optimal is still a puzzle. Let's admit that.

Or it's clear global warming is decimating species and will cause tens if not hundreds of millions of climate refugees and could accelerate further. (Not a big chance but why play Russian roulette?) But right now people die because of poverty and incompetence, not climate change.

Finally I think it's unhelpful to use climate change as a doomscenario. Rather we should focus on what kind of world we want and how we are going to get there. So don't focus on the fear but on the goal.

For me it's a more biodiverse world with extra room for nature in which humanity lives prosperously and more equal with few beggars and billionaires and a system of governance that listens to everyone's wishes. And I would love life to spread beyond earth. (What's your goal?)

Anyway, I think it's time to allow a more nuanced discussion on climate change. Of course we should point out who follows the science and who doesn't but casting nuance as heretical only gives us less chances to solve this and more books like "Unsettled".
/end