Andy Rivkin writes Sustain What on Substack, and a post of his has been languishing in my starred email folder since the summer, my wanting to comment on the post titled “Human Progress versus Climate Evangelism.” Except that this post isn’t Rivkin’s but rather a “cross post” in the nomenclature of Substack, since the actual author is Roger Pielke Jr. on his own Substack called The Honest Broker.

Rivkin writes (and includes a bit of Pielke’s quotes, so here, basically, is a quote quoting someone else):

Hi all, I want to be sure you catch Roger Pielke Jr.’s exploration of 2025 worldwide stats for human peril when the climate system throws its worst at us. As he writes:

[A]t no point in human history have humans had less risk of death related to extreme weather and climate. Understanding why that is so is central to keeping that trend moving forward into the future.
Smart energy and climate policies, as I’ve long argued, make good sense. Climate evangelism centered on scaring people about the weather does not make sense — in politics, policy, or science.”

Even after 38 years of reporting on human-driven global warming, I concur.

The above quote that quotes another is not my taking joy in being meta. The cross-posted “The Last Gasp of the Climate Thought Police,” runs the subtitle “Climate cancelling had a good run — but my Cornell lecture showed its finally over.”

I may have been triggered because Pielke’s argument carries similarities to Bill Gates’ recent sermon on climate change that’s caused quite a tizzy down Belem way. (I posted on the Gates’ dictum recently on Substact, “Bill Gates–the long and the sort of it,” and in fuller detail on my website, in a post titled “The Headlines are Full of Bill Gates’ Latest Wisdom—It’s Hysterical!” I couldn’t resist diving into this recent brouhaha.

Apparently I can’t resist critiquing the Pielke post, either.

Before I proceed to scold Rivkin and Pielke, let me acknowledge that both writers have contributed mightily to the climate debate. Rivkin was among the first to cover climate change and spent a long time at The New York Times doing so, and he continues to do so these days with Sustain What, alongside the occasional playing on songs. Aside from the songs (hey, taste being quite variable among us humans), I’ve gotten a lot from Rivkin. I have noticed that he’s been beating a similar drum to Pielke for a while, and that drum is a running critique of the hysteria and mis-thinking that plagues some climate change writers and activists. I acknowledge that this aspect of the climate movement can be irritating, but this is a far smaller problem than that of climate change, I’m pretty sure.

Pielke’s main beat is about what we don’t know about climate change, and he isn’t a climate denier, but rather is focused on the practice of good science and scientific processes and, no surprise, he’s found plenty of fault in the world of climate change science, to which I’m tempted to say, “Duh.” Science, like every other human endeavor (with the possible exception to my making clams and linguini) is bound to faults and failures. Prejudices reign, whether intentionally or unconsciously, and errors get made, both in measurement and in the interpretation of what the measurement may mean. The undercurrent for both Rivkin and Pielke is that some climate folk exaggerate, and even some climate scientists, and, gosh, doesn’t that hurt the debate on how to progress with positive climate action? Sure, probably, but according to Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the 89 Percent Project, most people already have an understanding that progress on climate change is desired, some incorrect climate data interpretation not withstanding.

So why all this attention pointed at finding fault here and there in the work of some climate scientists and journalists? Beats me. It feels like a blood sport of some sort. Maybe Pielke hasn’t really left academia. A recent public battle of the “Red Team” experts critiquing Trump’s DOE Climate Report–some 85 climate experts, with Andrew Dressler of The Climate Brink one of the more noticeable public faces–had Pielke on the attack. Maybe he has some valid points, but boy did his attack on the attack against Trump’s DOE report bring joy to the anti-climate progress gang. And for what? It seems as much or more a matter of intra-department struggling over gets to teach the Whit Waltman seminar next semester. Now boys, play nice. We don’t want fighting while there’s a climate crisis, right?

A larger battle for Pielke is the climate attribution arena. I understand his frustration that too many journalists present connections to climate change causation for any specific extreme weather event, and this is beyond today’s science. Not because there is no causation, but because we can’t confidently prove it yet. This can be extremely important policy-wise and in the courts. It also makes the work of climate reporting simpler and headlines easier to think up. But really, how much does this matter for most of us?

Just because climate change attribution science can’t confidently prove a confident link to any one extreme weather event as yet doesn’t nix-nay the understanding that of course there’s a relation between climbing temperatures and the force and frequency of extreme weather. Sure, we’ve had fierce hurricanes in the past, and unusual floods, hot spells, and droughts, and any one of those may or may not be anything more than a tough bit of luck for those people and places devastated by the event, but there’s science and there’s practical sense, and the combination of the two—the understanding of basic principles such as warmer air holds more moisture and that temperature of the Earth is rising, along with a bit of common sense—convincingly argues that we should do something about treating the ongoing rise in greenhouse gases.

I know that neither Rivkin or Pielke dismiss climate change, but I can’t see the value of pointing out publicly on the front pages (instead of in technical journals and working groups of the IPCC) some pretty arcane scientific arguments that are happily hoovered up by any and all sides seeking any rhetorical advantage.  It is like talking to the morons out there running around telling everyone that the sky is falling today. The sky—to murder this metaphor—is falling at some point, and pieces of the sky have already tumbled down, but, sure, the end of life on the planet isn’t part of this precipitation any time soon. But do you know what is soon? Soon, like twenty years ago already? The need to take action to stop the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as in this is already a big fucking deal and there’s little point in dilly-dallying. I’m sure Rivkin and Pielke and Gates agree that the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, but the next best time is now. So why, for goodness sake, undermine the urgency of climate change, however much that may not be the intention?

For Pielke, the title, “The Last Gasp of the Climate Thought Police,” shows his pique. Sure, nobody like thought police, but if there are “climate thought police,” how much does this matter? If you’re involved in academia—as Pielke has been until sometime in 2024, thought police are a professional hazard and something of a blood sport. You might not like it, but you can always just ignore it, as my mother used to say.

According to a quick Google AI search return, “Roger Pielke Jr. has transitioned from his long-term college teaching position at the University of Colorado Boulder to a new role as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute [emphasis mine]. While at CU Boulder, he was a professor in the Environmental Studies Program, where he taught about science, innovation, and policy, and directed the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.”

The plot thickens. You’ve likely heard about the American Enterprise Institute, but another quick look at Google AI has this to say about AEI:

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has received funding from fossil fuel corporations such as ExxonMobil and from foundations associated with the owners of fossil fuel conglomerates, such as the Charles Koch Foundation. 

Specific affiliations and support elements include:

• • ExxonMobil: Over the years, ExxonMobil has contributed significantly to AEI, with reports indicating contributions exceeding $4 million.
  • Koch-Affiliated Foundations: Foundations linked to the Koch brothers, involved in the petroleum industry through Koch Industries, have been major donors to AEI. Since 1997, contributions from these foundations have totaled over $2 million.
  • Other Fossil Fuel-Supported Think Tanks and Funding Sources: AEI has also received substantial funding from other conservative foundations that support organizations known for challenging climate science. These include Donors Trust & Donors Capital Fund, the Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust. 

AEI describes itself as an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) educational organization that relies on private donations and does not take institutional stances on issues. However, its financial connections to the fossil fuel industry have drawn scrutiny, particularly given its past work that has been characterized as questioning climate science. 

At least some of the problems the climate movement has with AEI darkens Pielke’s critique of some climate science. To my English Major’s mind, Pielke raises good points about scientific practice and he calls out—justifiably or not— examples of what he describes as sloppy science about climate change. The problem is that Pielke’s critiques are enthusiastically pointed to by interests that wish climate change to be ignored or under-attended, and Pielke has become something of a go-to guy for those who wish to counter climate change action. After all, this looks good: he’s a scientist, or sounds like one, anyway, although he is actually a political scientist. By the way, I don’t think that should be a strike against him, and in fact, some of my favorite ex-in-laws are political scientists I greatly admire.

But his recent Substact’s first several paragraphs start with his complaining about the pushback he got from his recent talk at Cornell University, and specifically the Cornell Atkinson Institute for Sustainability. Apparently a Cornell professor who is a “well-known climate activist,” according to Pielke, wanted the director of the Cornell institute fired for inviting him, and he mentions some social media digs from others, including a NASA scientist and the “ever-present “Michael E. Mann” and some supposedly hysterical guy from Hong Kong. It looks like he’s left academia but academia hasn’t left him.

Yeah, I get it. Nobody likes Negative Nancies. Unfortunately, Pielke only links to his Cornell talk in his Substack and doesn’t reprise it or even summarize a thesis or two he suspects may have upset some academics. The talk was titled “What Climate Science Says About Extreme Weather” and I’ve read Pielke on this specific topic a number of times. I’ve sometimes referenced him in talks and posts on the problems of climate change attribution to specific extreme weather events. I understand that the science for this sort of specific and exact attribution is not established. I get it that there is a long history of extreme weather events that long pre-date climate change or fossil fuels.

Big deal, I say. No kidding, I say. The issue of attribution is a second-order issue. What is well-established is that the increase in greenhouse gases within our atmosphere from man’s two-century long use of fossil fuels is affecting the weather and the climate, and climate change and its predictable negative consequences is a clear first-order issue. Considering the effect of climate change already experienced and sensibly forecast to worsen as greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb and considering the long period of time that CO2 persists in the atmosphere, maybe one should be extra careful to point out that one’s critiques of how science is sometimes being applied to climate change is VERY MUCH NOT dismissing climate change. Unfortunately, there’s not one line to this effect in Pielke’s post.

Keep in mind that Pielke’s Substack carries over a quarter-million subscribers, and as Peter Parker says, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

There’s anger, vindictiveness, and (fortunately) some humor in Pielke’s post, but the danger of “climate thought police” is definitely a First-World Problem, and a second-order one at that.

By the way, I’m sure that when it comes to climate change, the American Enterprise Institute has been a Negative Nancy about climate change far longer than the other side’s “climate thought police,” but there you go. What’s that expression? “You lay down with the dogs, you rise with the fleas.”?

Let’s keep scratching away at building the clean energy transition and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. We’ll all have time for our favorite hobby horses later.

The post Let’s Not Worry So Much About “Climate Thought Police” first appeared on David Guenette.

I admire Climate Defiance and believe that in this age of corporate media and the algorithmic manipulation of what gets in front of those pursuing the news, actions such as those of Climate Defiance make sense. Any action that lays bare the stark moral issue central to the energy transition—which is that anything other than a full out effort to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible is wrong—and public shame is an underused tool when it comes to countering the atrocious behaviors of business and political leaders of today.

You can make the argument that Climate Defiance act like hooligans, but if so, they are holy hooligans in service to bringing moral clarity to violations of fundamental rights, such as the right to a decent biosphere. There are other fully fraught issues, too, and it is no surprise that the genocide in Palestine has entered into the scope of Climate Defiance. The Israeli government’s wanton destruction of civilians and the property and services upon which such people depend for survival is so absurdly disproportional to the horrific Hamas attacks and, admittedly, Hamas’ own absurd and insane hatred.

Even climate activists too often fail to see the crimes of the fossil fuel industry. Here’s a brief and extremely incomplete list:

1. Buying the favor of the Office of the President;
2. Buying the compliance of Republicans and far too many Democrats alike;
3. Lying about the industry’s knowledge of global warming, and lying from all the way to long ago, even while an outcome of climate denialism and delayism presents an existential threat to human civilization;
4. Pushing to grow the fossil fuel industry even in the face of the scientific consensus that exists about the dangers of climate change caused by man’s use of fossil fuels;
5. Pushing to grow the fossil fuel industry even in the face of economically competitive clean energy options.

These days the playbook of the fossil fuel industry is amplifying panic about electrical demand load growth because of data centers and AI, and, no surprise, allowing only that building more natural gas plants can keep the lights on. If there is demand growth, solar and wind and batteries and digitally intelligent grids for VPP and DER and demand response management are the fastest, cheapest, and less climate damaging solutions now available. We know how to do it, we’ve done it, and we can do much more of it.

There are pundits who suggest that climate change is a poor electoral issue, while economic issues such as affordability are the right ones. They’re right, kind of, but where these pundits go wrong is not seeing that the clean energy transition and affordability are the same thing in any and every practical perspective.

You want more expensive electricity? Use fossil fuels for power generation and while you’re at it, built a whole lot more fossil fuel use that gets baked in through the 2050s and beyond. Not that utilities can actually build that many gas plants, at least through 2030, despite the panic of insufficient generation spread by these self-centered, profit-focused ass—es. Check out “New Gas Generator Plants and the Plan to Flood the Electricity Demand Growth Zone.”

Guess what? I’m not someone who demands that no further drops of oil be pulled out of wells or that natural gas not sigh another cubic foot or, even, that any and all coal electricity production stop today. Clearly, a clean energy transition is a big and complex process that will take some years to complete. The real issue is how fast we can build out this transition. The idea of shutting the fossil fuel spigot too soon is catastrophic. But Big Oil—here in the States, anyway—has paid up to have clean energy buildout policies kneecapped so that Big Oil can keep exploring, extracting, and selling well beyond any reasonable climate threat sell by date.

That’s shameful.

I’m not suggesting there are only simple answers, but here’s a question I’d love to see explored in more detail, and which I’ve put to AI Deep Research:

Is there adequate fossil fuel production to support the economy and the build out the clean energy transition through 2040 (mine materials, manufacture solar, wind, and battery storage, install solar, wind, and battery storage, expand the capacity as needed for the electric grid, and make and install the hardware and software for VPP and DER and demand response grid capability) without extensive new fossil fuel exploration, well development, and other related infrastructure? Answer this focused on the United States and again worldwide.

Looking at the results of this query it seems like if we—the entire world in this case—weren’t kneecapping the clean energy transition, we could see a significant drop in fossil fuel demand:

IEA Net Zero Emissions (NZE) Scenario: This pathway describes a scenario consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It is predicated on unprecedented policy intervention and swift technological deployment. In the NZE, demand destruction is the defining feature: oil demand is projected to fall steeply from around 100 MMBbl/d in 2022 to 77 MMBbl/d by 2030, and natural gas demand drops from 4,150 billion cubic meters (bcm) to 3,400 bcm over the same period. The central strategic finding of this scenario, reaffirmed by the IEA, is that no new oil and gas fields are approved for development, and no new coal mines or extensions are required beyond projects already committed as of 2021. This scenario achieves sufficiency because policy-driven decline fundamentally outpaces the natural geological decline of existing assets. 

Of course, there are other scenarios that are far more pessimistic about dropping fossil fuel demand and the reality of Trump World today makes those scenarios more likely.

I guess Big Oil got what it paid for.

That’s shameful.

I’ll be posting my view on the 15-page report mentioned above, along with the report itself in a few days. This isn’t light reading,  after all.

I’m also sending in my donation to Climate Defiance. If this the least I can do, I’m sharing in the shame.

The post Climate Defiance first appeared on David Guenette.