🧵The US National Climate Assessment has been a politiczed mess from the start due to its institutional design, which places it in the White House

The NCA proved too tempting for both Ds and Rs to put a thumb on the scale

Links at end of thread . . .

https://twitter.com/afreedma/status/1953460171134427541

The idea it was perfect under Democrats, as @afreedma & other advocacy journos suggest, is simply wrong

The most recent NCA was totally capture by interest groups and companies that would benefit from the report - UCS, TNC, EDF, CAP, Stripe etc

Below just a few of its authors

🧵Let's take a quick look at the implications of the regulations that have followed from the 2009 EPA endangerment finding

According to @C2ES_org the 2021 GHG standards for light vehicles would reduce projected CO2 emissions by a cumulative 3.1 billion tons to 2050
c2es.org/content/regula… Over the next 25 years the world would emit 925 gigatons of CO2 assuming constant 2025 emissions and ~690Gt assuming emissions are cut in half by 2050

That means that the projected impact of the regulations would reduce global emissions by 0.0003% (constant) & 0.0004% (halved)

🧵
The percentage of a percentage trick is increasingly common & leads to massive confusion

Here a undetectable difference of 0.01 events per year per decade is presented as the difference between a 31% and 66.4% increase (in the *likelihood* of the event, not the event itself) The resulting confusion is perfectly predictable

Here is a reporter (NPR) explaining completely incorrectly:
"The phenomenon has grown up to 66% since the mid-20th century"

False

The new hurricane damage time series trick

Step 1: create Frankenstein dataset w/ an increasing trend where there was not an increasing trend before

Step 2: Attribute the increasing trend to climate change

Step 3: Use Frankenstein dataset to impeach other research w/ no trend The reason that the blue and red numbers are different is that they are different measures of hurricane losses

E.g., the red numbers include inland NFIP damage
The blue numbers do not, on purpose, because NFIP only started in 1968

They are apples and oranges

A Frankenstein dataset results from splicing together two time series found online

Below is an example for US hurricane damage 1900-2017
Data for 1980-2017 was replaced with a different time series in the green box
Upwards trend results (red ---)

Claim: Due to climate change! The errors here are so obvious and consequential that it is baffling that the community does not quickly correct course

Read about it here
Is my analysis flawed?
osf.io/preprints/osf/…

We’ve reached the point where an IPCC author is openly rejecting the conclusions of the IPCC out of concern over how their political opposition is correctly interpreting the AR6

The integrity of the IPCC on extreme events is now under attack

https://twitter.com/timosbornclim/status/1852304604194545823

The IPCC explains that a trend in a particular variable is DETECTED if it is outside internal variability and judged with >90% likelihood

For most (not all) metrics of extreme weather detection has not been achieved

That’s not me saying that, but IPCC AR6

🧵
You won't believe this

The US National Academy of Sciences has a new study committee on Extreme Event Attribution

Among its sponsors are the Bezos Earth Fund and Robert Litterman

Who are they? . . .
The Bezos Earth Fund sponsors World Weather Attribution, an advocacy group promoting the connection of weather events w/ fossil fuels in support of press coverage & lawsuits

Robert Litterman is on the board of Climate Central which founded WWA & collaborates on climate advocacy

1/3

Climate science is broken

I provided PNAS with irrefutable evidence that a paper it published used a fatally flawed “dataset” compiled by interns for corporate marketing

I asked for a retraction

PNAS investigated & found no problems at all with the dataset

The PNAS reply below
I documented how the “dataset” was created (including contributions of two of my former students)

It was never intended for scientific research, just for selling insurance products

In the next Tweet I’ll link to my post with all of the details

If climate science cannot pass this simple test, it has a serious problem

I have been digging into methodological and data errors in Grinsted et al. 2019, some of which you can see in the thread below

This nerdy thread on US hurricane loss data documents how bad data gets created (surely accidentally) . . .

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1760773545397834047

A time series of base (i.e., current-year) loses was first compiled from annual reports published in the Monthly Weather Review by Chris Landsea in 1989 for 1949-1989

I extended the data using same methods to 1996

Chris and I extended back to 1900 for Pielke and Landsea 1998

Last month I revealed based on files part of the public record of the Michael Mann trial how Mann coordinated peer review of a paper of mine to ensure that it "would not see the light of day"

I only had a snippet of the relevant Mann email

Now I have the whole thing

And JFC... First
New: the editor of GRL, Jay Familigetti, originally sent our submission to Mann!

That's right
A paper by Pielke & @ClimateAudit was sent to Mann to peer review

Mann wisely didn't accept but instead recommended hostile reviewers so that "it would not see the light of day"

🧵
"The U.S. installed 1,700 miles of new high-voltage transmission miles per year on average in the first half of the 2010s but dropped to only 645 miles per year on average in the second half of the 2010s"

Take that 645 miles/year to the next Tweet...

gridstrategiesllc.com/wp-content/upl… The US has 240,000 miles of high voltage transmission capacity

An expansion of 645 miles/year is just about 0.3%/yr

Take that 0.3%/year HV grid expansion to the next Tweet

SpringerNature held off sending my submission for peer review because:

"We thought it prudent to seek advice on the potential risks of publishing claims that may appear to criticise the actions of government bodies"

Now under review

Read it here:
osf.io/preprints/soca…
I was only informed of the evaluation of my paper for political risk after that review took place

This is a plain vanilla policy evaluation, but that should not matter

So in addition to passing peer review it had to pass political review

Just when you think you've seen it all

Biden: LNG exports—>historic hurricanes & floods
But is that true?
🧵⤵️

https://twitter.com/javierblas/status/1750831386238341213

How about hurricanes?
Not increasing

🧵
I have a new favorite example of bad statistics on disasters

By 2085, climate-fueled natural disasters will cost more than $100 trillion, or more than the entire US GDP

Big if true!

What is the methodology? EM-DAT of course

Misinterpretation Left
What EM-DAT says right:
"what the figure is really showing is the evolution of the registration of natural disaster events over time"

Whoopsy

Our peer-reviewed research on US hurricanes and their impacts is widely cited in the literature, cited by the IPCC & consistent with NOAA and WMO assessments

Here is how the US National Climate Assessment dismissed it and then ignored it, choosing not to cite or challenge The US National Climate Assessment doesn't like this research so it ignores it

🧵
G20 Declaration
Important note related to climate & out-of-date climate scenarios underlying major international discussions and agreements

A major misuse of science right in front of us . . .

https://twitter.com/MEAIndia/status/1700472082654495154

The G20 relies on scenarios of the NGFS, a non-governmental, unaccountable organization funded by climate advocacy groups
ngfs.net/sites/default/…

🧵Against cherry picking

Weather is amazing
It happens everywhere on Earth all the time
Sometimes weather is extreme
Extreme weather has impacts
It is also visually compelling

Weather is also a renewable resource for hyping climate change irrespective of what research may say An example
US wildfires area burned through 14 Aug from 2013-2023

2023 is the lowest area burned in the last 11 years

What does this tell us about climate change?

That it is a hoax? No
That it does not affect fires? No

2023 & this trend tell us nothing about climate change

🧵👀
Following the released of FOIA emails yesterday showing scientists associated with the "proximal origins" paper that sought to "debunk" any lab-related origin of COIVD-19

I thought I'd go back and look at the timeline of earlier FOIA emails (Fauci-Farrar) on PO origins The origins of the "proximal origins" paper
(here: )

apparently began 1 Feb 2020 with a phone call between Kristian Andersen and Tony Fauci in which KA relayed concerns of an "engineered virus"

Source for all emails:
https://t.co/yrvw5W9F3o https://t.co/85hQxih47Pnature.com/articles/s4159…
documentcloud.org/documents/2331…

🧵
OK, a thread titled "why do this?"

I'm reading a new paper claiming attribution of all increased burned area in CA to climate change
Turco et al in PNAS today
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…

They start their data in 1971 even though reliable data exists much earlier, so I'm curious In the data description they use a dataset called FRAP - CalFire Fire Resource and Assessment Program

They make a point that they compared the FRAP data to data used in references 1 and 48

OK I go have a look at the SI Appendix to explore these different data wondering why 1971

Andrew Dessler blocks me on Twitter
He just wrote a Substack post about my research on hurricanes

Had he not blocked me then he'd have known that he is repeating a rather large mistake by the IPCC 😎
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/a-tip-from-a…

These guys are scared to death of engaging me directly I just left a comment at Dessler's post (screenshotted below)

I'm happy to see him engaged my peer-reviewed research and the IPCC (though he apparently is unaware of the most recent NOAA statement)

Here is his post:
theclimatebrink.substack.com/p/climate-chan…

🧵
How much economic growth would be necessary for everyone to be at current Denmark per capita GDP?

According to some numbers from @MaxCRoser the global economy would have to increase by about 7.2x

Lots of assumptions but let's go with it
ourworldindata.org/poverty-minimu… Is it even possible to increase the global economy by 7.2x?

Sure it is

That's about the amount of GDP growth from ~1960 to today, ~60 years
data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.G…