Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
On The Heartland Institute’s Episode #126 of The Climate Realism Show, H. Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will also review the “Crazy Climate News of the Week,” including the idea that logging forests would make wildfires worse, climate change causing bridges to “fall apart like Tinkertoys, and NOAA being called out for pushing a false climate alarmist narrative.
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will have their first and probably only debate on Tuesday. Climate is likely to come up as a debate topic, after not being emphasized for a while. How should Trump handle this topic? We have some tips for him to win “bigly” on climate and energy policy.
On The Heartland Institute’s Episode #126 of The Climate Realism Show, H. Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will also review the “Crazy Climate News of the Week,” including the idea that logging forests would make wildfires worse, climate change causing bridges to “fall apart like Tinkertoys, and NOAA being called out for pushing a false climate alarmist narrative.
Join us LIVE on YouTube, Rumble, and X at 1 p.m. ET on Friday, Sept. 6 and participate in the chat. We’ll try to answer as many questions as we can.
The Met Office long ago ceased to be a serious scientific organisation. Here’s more evidence:
As part of our August climate theme of climate anxiety, Emma Lawrance, Neil Jennings and Jessica Newberry Le Vay from Imperial College London have written this guest post on concerns around the psychological impact of working in climate science fields and on others in society alarmed by climate change.
“Climate change can directly affect the emotional well-being of Earth [climate] scientists and professionals. Like the physical processes of climate change, the emotional effects are complex and multifaceted.”1
The unfolding climate crisis necessitates a rapid transformation of our societies. In practice, this means every career should be a ‘climate career,’ with calls in the UK for climate education to appropriately prepare children for a changing world2. It also means that the climate crisis should be the biggest on-going news story around.
Climate scientists have made it their life’s work to understand and predict what rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean for the climate, and what impact it will have on people and the natural world on which societies depend. They are increasingly sounding the alarm that action on climate change is not happening fast enough, while witnessing the spread of misinformation, which can sow doubt and delay meaningful action.
At the Climate Cares Centre at Imperial College London, we hear from climate experts on the psychological toll of this work and what it can mean for their mental health. What it takes to be faced with the facts of the crisis day after day. To see the gap between the need and pace of action. And to feel the backlash from talking about the result of carbon pollution publicly3 – from media commentators, social media trolls, and sometimes in their own personal relationships. Scientists speak of stress, anxiety, depression and burnout, all while facing a perceived need to separate their emotions from their work as a scientist.
Widespread impacts on mental health
While climate scientists may be particularly vulnerable to the psychological toll of climate awareness, the mental health consequences of the climate crisis are widespread. As well as the range of emotions and distress that climate awareness can understandably engender, the escalating consequences of a warming world – such as extreme weather, food and water insecurity, violence, forced migration – are leading to new cases of mental health challenges and worsening existing ones (such as post-traumatic stress, depression and suicide risk). Conversely, but vitally, climate actions can have win-wins for mental health, such as from cleaner air, greener cities, better housing, more equal societies, heathier ways to eat and move around, and stronger social bonds and communities.
However, the negative consequences of climate change on mental health and wellbeing can reduce the capacity of individuals, communities and systems to be able to take climate action and achieve the necessary transformation of societies. We hear of students turning away from studying climate- and environment-related subjects or leaving climate-related careers because of a lack of support to manage the emotional and mental health impact. While there is a relative paucity of research on the topic, burnout and overwhelm among climate researchers and policymakers may hold back action and put the necessary goal of every career being a climate career at risk.
Most people around the world care about climate change, more than they think others do, and want appropriate climate action from their leaders67. It is vital for those with the knowledge – in science, media and policy – to raise the alarm and highlight the urgent need for action. But different narratives can lead to different responses. At opposite ends of the scale, techno-optimism and fatalism/doomerism8 are narratives that lead to present-day inaction. Both fail to acknowledge the uncertainties, nuances and complexities of the present and future, and how these make it both essential and valuable for us to act faster now. Scientists must walk a tightrope of sounding the alarm, communicating the paths to different possible futures, and helping people hold the uncertainties in ways that still catalyse action. There is much to grieve and be angry about, and much to protect and work towards – a future where the climate crisis creates a reckoning of what we really value, fight for and want to have in abundance9.
House Republicans are pressing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) for answers about a signature dataset frequently cited as evidence that climate change is intensifying.
House Republicans are pressing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) for answers about a signature dataset frequently cited as evidence that climate change is intensifying.
Members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Committee wrote to NOAA Administrator Richard Spinrad on Wednesday demanding information about several aspects of the agency’s “billion dollar disasters” (BDD) dataset, which the Biden administration has cited to justify its pause on natural gas export terminal approvals, among other things. The lawmakers allege that the BDD data may be violating NOAA’s scientific integrity rules, and they also requested clarification on NOAA’s methodology and an explanation as to why the agency does not adjust for variables like GDP.
The metric’s critics have pointed out that economic statistics are an inappropriate proxy for climate change’s intensity or changing meteorological conditions. For example, identical storms in identical locations at two different times would render different damage totals because of increases in the amount of property in harm’s way and not necessarily because climate change has gotten any worse. (EXCLUSIVE: ‘Blatant Violations’: Watchdog Challenges Key Data Used By Biden Admin To Push Sweeping Climate Agenda)
“Since the 1990s, NOAA has published annual reports showing the number of disasters that have cost more than a billion dollars in damages,” the letter states. “Debate around the validity of the reports’ methodologies has resulted in NOAA making incremental but important changes. Since 2011, the reports’ cost estimates of all past disasters in the dataset have been updated annually to account for inflation in today’s dollars.”
“However, despite adjustments for inflation, the reports have not been adjusted for increases in population or wealth in the same capacity,” the letter continues. Due to these increases in population and wealth, even mild storms can sometimes appear to cause greater damage today. The lack of updated, comprehensive data in these models raises considerable concern given that these reports have been cited by both Congress and the President as the justification for different federal government actions concerning climate change.”
BDD data was used in a flagship climate report released by the Biden administration in 2023, and it was also cited as evidence to justify the administration’s pause on approvals for new liquefied natural gas export terminals by Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk in testimony provided to Congress in February.
The letter alleges that NOAA’s adjustments for inflation appear to be inconsistent in some cases. Additionally, the lawmakers wrote that the opaque methodology for deriving BDD data makes the data nearly impossible to independently replicate and verify.
The letter’s authors — Republican Reps. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, Max Miller of Ohio and Jay Obernolte of California — called on Spinrad to disclose why NOAA connects BDD data and climate change and the scientific basis it has for doing so, as well as for an explanation as to why the agency does not adjust its data for increases in population or wealth.
Roger Pielke Jr., a BDD critic and former environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, raised several of these issues in his own correction request submitted to NOAA in January. In response to his request, NOAA said that it would be taking some steps to improve the BDD data’s transparency.
NOAA referred the Daily Caller News Foundation to the statement it issued upon releasing their response to Pielke’s correction request when contacted for comment for this story. An agency spokesperson added that the agency will respond to the lawmakers’ letter via official channels.
“NOAA notes that the [request for correction (RFC)] did not identify specific data points that need correcting. In conducting its review of the RFC, NOAA has not identified any data inaccuracies in the Billion Dollar Disaster data set,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement shared with the DCNF regarding Pielke’s correction request. “NOAA has determined the U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters data set meets the threshold for influential scientific information (ISI) under NOAA’s Information Quality Guidelines. As a result, NOAA will review and update its management practices for the data set.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
You must be logged in to post a comment.