CLINTEL FOUNDATION

You take climate change seriously, support cutting emissions and publish research consistent with IPCC assessments. Then you find yourself labelled a “climate denier”.

That happened to @RogerPielkeJr. He studied losses from hurricanes and other weather disasters. Those losses are rising—but how much comes from climate change, and how much from having more people and more valuable property in harm’s way?

His findings were not well received. In his lecture at Clintel, he describes the political attacks that followed, including from the Obama White House.

He also walks through what the science says about extreme weather. Heatwaves, floods, hurricanes and droughts each tell a different story. And he explains why he challenges the attribution studies behind so many headlines.

His full first lecture, recorded on 11 October in Driebergen, the Netherlands, is now online. Around 57 minutes, with clear explanations and plenty of personal experience. Worth making time for.

🎥 Watch via the link in the first reply.

How strong is the case for climate alarm? What will Net Zero cost Europe?

@freedom_rsrch’s No Boiling Planet features Richard Lindzen, William Happer and Judith Curry on climate, and @FurfariSamuele and @lars_schernikau on Europe’s energy policy.

Watch the opening scene below.

Democrats campaigned on lower energy bills and reliable power. Now that they’ve won both chambers of Congress, climate activists and Democratic allies want to use that majority to roll back Trump’s energy agenda.

Charles Rotter asks who’ll get the committee gavels. Will it be the Democrats who made room for oil, gas, nuclear and renewables in the campaign, or the climate old guard?

Lower bills were the pitch. How did that become a mandate for climate ideology?

Did burning fossil fuels stop a new ice age?

About 2,000 years ago, the Barnes Ice Cap on Canada’s Baffin Island began to grow again. Researchers writing in Science say that marked the beginning of a new ice age. Around 1960, the ice cap began to shrink. The researchers attribute the reversal to warming driven by human greenhouse gas emissions.

Why might that be good news? Advancing ice sheets would cover land that could otherwise be farmed, and shorter growing seasons would raise the risk of crop failures. Even during the much milder Little Ice Age, failed harvests helped fuel famines.

CNN’s headline said there was no reason to celebrate. @LinneaLueken asks: if burning coal, oil and gas spared us thousands of years of cold and made it easier to feed ourselves, why wouldn’t that be good news?

What happens when young people grow up hearing that climate catastrophe is inevitable, then arrive at university to find a book defending sabotage on their reading list?

@CMorrisonEsq traces that message from children’s TV and school lessons to a first-year climate course at the London School of Economics. Its reading list recommends Property Will Cost Us the Earth, a collection introduced by Andreas Malm, who advocates sabotaging fossil fuel infrastructure. The collection’s editor, Jessie Kindig, has called destruction, sabotage and occupation “acts of love”.

What lesson are students supposed to take from that?