• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Good Climate Change News Is Also Fit To Print

by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
November 03, 2022, 8:59 AM
in News and Opinion
A A
1
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

nytimes websiteCall it the calamity of climate journalism. After 40 years, writers are still serving up a binary issue, with idiotic back-and-forths over who is a denier in ways that work, sometimes deliberately, to undermine clear thinking and any concession to the changing science.

Better can be done and last weekend a newish New York Times writer, David Wallace-Wells, in his customary excess of words, reprised his own concession since writing a 2017 New York Magazine article titled “The Uninhabitable Earth.” [bold, links added]

He now says: “Just a few years ago climate projections for this century looked quite apocalyptic.”

He acknowledges a new consensus that had reduced expected warming to “between two and three degrees” Celsius, or less than half the forecast of, say, the 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment.

If the name Wallace-Wells is familiar, almost three years ago, when he was writing for a different publication, this column welcomed him aboard the successful effort to junk a worst-case emissions forecast, known as RCP 8.5, that everywhere was presented as the objective climate future.

Now I can offer concessions of my own. I once complained the term RCP 8.5 never appeared in the Times’s print edition. Now it has. I said it might be five years before the paper recognized the less-dire warming consensus. It’s been less than two.

One of my snarks still holds up, though. I said when the predicted climate catastrophe fails to materialize, activists would credit themselves.

Mr. Wallace-Wells attributes half of the improved picture to the abandonment of the faulty RCP 8.5 and half to technological advances, but this is problematic at the very least.

Technological advance is usually assumed. A quirk of RCP 8.5 was that it specified stagnating technology except, strangely, for the technology to allow a sextupling of global coal consumption.

He also leaves out a second reason that, again, has nothing to do with climate activists and everything to do with science correcting its errors.

The consensus-bearing U.N. climate panel, after 40 years, modified its all-important “climate sensitivity” estimate using real-world temperature trends to corral its discordant and unreliable computer simulations.

Result: lower expected warming and lower estimated risk of worst-case warming.

All of this is so completely the opposite of new or news that you can only roll your eyes, but at least the truth is reaching Times readers.

This brings us to a second lengthy and instructive rumination in the Times, by a former Journal colleague who stands on a Greenland glacier and discovers himself moving along some nonspecific spectrum from less worried to more worried.

I’ve stood on glaciers in Alaska and Iceland but doing so left my climate questions unanswered. Already known for decades was that faster warming was observed at the poles.

For just as long, scientists worried that poorly understood processes might cause faster-than-expected melting and sea-level rise.

But his piece is timely and significant for a different reason. With the consensus that modeled outcomes won’t be as bad as previously thought, researchers are already shifting their concern to the possibility of unexpected, low-probability, high-consequence tipping points and doom loops.

Rapid ice-cap melting is one such speculative scenario. Thermohaline inversion as dramatized in a mediocre 2004 Hollywood blockbuster is another. A dangerous permafrost-methane feedback response is a third.

For years the late Martin Weitzman of MIT and Harvard insisted the known unknowns were our real concern.

The problem with outlier climate scenarios, however, is the problem with all uncertain end-of-the-world scenarios, like those usefully listed by Richard Posner in a 2004 book that reports that “the number of extreme catastrophes that have a more than a negligible probability of occurring in this century is alarmingly great, and their variety startling.”

Which of these low-probability, high-consequence disasters should we spend resources preparing for at the expense of things people need and want now?

A sign of the conversation shifting from climate certitudes to climate uncertainties is a new paper from Cambridge’s Luke Kemp and colleagues. It offers a recommendation about “bad-to-worst-case” climate scenarios: Study them more.

In a countering article, Matthew G. Burgess, Roger Pielke Jr., and Justin Ritchie also endorse more research but warn against marching such low-probability scenarios to the center of the conversation to mislead voters and policymakers.

This brings us to a third, epic-length piece of climate-related journalism, posted on Substack by the liberal political analyst Ruy Teixeira.

He touches on all the same matters and mentions many of the same names, on the way to describing the political and policy disaster his fellow Democrats created for themselves by adopting the overdone and unscientific “climate crisis” stylings of Greta Thunberg.

Call it progress. I won’t rehearse why a carbon tax that was simultaneously pro-growth and anti-carbon would have best served global society in adapting to an uncertain climate future. From any kind of politics, authoritarian or democratic, it’s unrealistic to expect ideal policy outcomes.

Yet I can’t help but wonder how events might have been different if climate news coverage over these many decades had not veered into moronic nonsense, from which it is only fitfully starting to emerge.

h/t Jake R.

Read more at WSJ

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Energy

Newsom’s War On Oil Could Send California Gas Prices To $9, Analyst Warns

May 9, 2025
Energy

The Climate Scaremongers: More Lies From The UK’s Crackpot Climate Change Committee

May 9, 2025
Energy

UK’s Green Agenda Blows Up As Ørsted Kills Massive Offshore Wind Project

May 9, 2025

Comments 1

  1. Spurwing Plover says:
    3 years ago

    The NYT’s has been a leftists propaganda rag since the 1930’s when it covered up for Stalin and Hitler and later Castro and the Viet Cong and are behind the 1619 project

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • newsom presser gas pricesNewsom’s War On Oil Could Send California Gas Prices To $9, Analyst Warns
    May 9, 2025
    Refinery closures and Newsom’s hostility to energy companies could push California gas prices from $6 to $9 a gallon, analyst warns. […]
  • protest time is upThe Climate Scaremongers: More Lies From The UK’s Crackpot Climate Change Committee
    May 9, 2025
    The UK’s Climate Change Committee is ramping up the panic, but real-world data shows no rise in floods, heat deaths, or costs—just more failed predictions. […]
  • yorkshire offshore windUK’s Green Agenda Blows Up As Ørsted Kills Massive Offshore Wind Project
    May 9, 2025
    Orsted scrapped the Hornsea 4 offshore wind project, dealing a massive blow to Ed Miliband’s green vision and raising questions about UK net zero targets. […]
  • ev charging station16 States, DC Sue Trump Admin Over EV Charger Funds, Most Have Built None
    May 9, 2025
    17 states sue the Trump administration for access to $5 billion in EV charger funding, despite most failing to build a single charger. […]
  • weather montageNOAA Quietly Kills Its Billion-Dollar Disaster Database And Report After Years Of Criticism
    May 9, 2025
    NOAA has quietly retired its Billion-Dollar Disaster list after years of criticism over transparency, accuracy, and scientific integrity. […]
  • german wind farmHow Wind And Solar Sent Energy Prices Sky-High in ‘Green’ Countries
    May 8, 2025
    Adding more green energy makes power more expensive, not cheaper—due to unreliable output, required fossil fuel backup, and taxpayer subsidies. […]
  • bernie sanders fox newsBernie Sanders Defends Private Jet Use, Says ‘He’s Too Important’ To Fly Coach
    May 8, 2025
    Bernie Sanders and AOC are facing criticism for using private jets while promoting their climate-focused “Fighting Oligarchy” tour. […]
  • blackout stationGreen Energy Suicide: The West Pays The Price For Its Net-Zero Delusions
    May 8, 2025
    Green energy policies clash with reality as Europe and the U.S. face blackouts, soaring costs, and a collapsing power grid. […]
  • wright trump exec orderDOE Scraps $4.5M Website And Logo Project Meant To Showcase Green Agenda
    May 8, 2025
    The DOE canceled a $4.5 million contract the Biden admin awarded for a new agency website and logo that highlighted the green energy transition. […]
  • desantis bill signing‘Dead On Arrival’: DeSantis Signs Law Banning Geoengineering And Weather Modification In Florida
    May 7, 2025
    DeSantis has signed legislation shutting down geoengineering and weather modification projects in Florida amid rising voter concerns. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch