Roger Pielke Jr.
@thehonestbroker.bsky.social
undisciplined scholar and recovering academic @AEI @DNVA1 @CUBoulder @UCL | Subscribe to The Honest Broker ➡️ http://rogerpielkejr.substack.com
Again false
Let’s say you have a tabulation that you say represents global average temperatures
I plot the data to have a look and it looks like the below
Just by looking at the plot we can conclude that the data cannot be used to say anything about the real world
You are a researcher?! 🤷♂️
Let’s say you have a tabulation that you say represents global average temperatures
I plot the data to have a look and it looks like the below
Just by looking at the plot we can conclude that the data cannot be used to say anything about the real world
You are a researcher?! 🤷♂️
October 31, 2025 at 3:13 PM
Again false
Let’s say you have a tabulation that you say represents global average temperatures
I plot the data to have a look and it looks like the below
Just by looking at the plot we can conclude that the data cannot be used to say anything about the real world
You are a researcher?! 🤷♂️
Let’s say you have a tabulation that you say represents global average temperatures
I plot the data to have a look and it looks like the below
Just by looking at the plot we can conclude that the data cannot be used to say anything about the real world
You are a researcher?! 🤷♂️
Thanks for the long post on my work
However, you got off on the wrong foot by falsely claiming that I say that the decline in BDD cost-per-disaster is real
I do not and it is not (see below)
It is an artifact of a tabulation that is not fit for analysis
So we agree
Cheers👍
However, you got off on the wrong foot by falsely claiming that I say that the decline in BDD cost-per-disaster is real
I do not and it is not (see below)
It is an artifact of a tabulation that is not fit for analysis
So we agree
Cheers👍
October 27, 2025 at 1:19 AM
Thanks for the long post on my work
However, you got off on the wrong foot by falsely claiming that I say that the decline in BDD cost-per-disaster is real
I do not and it is not (see below)
It is an artifact of a tabulation that is not fit for analysis
So we agree
Cheers👍
However, you got off on the wrong foot by falsely claiming that I say that the decline in BDD cost-per-disaster is real
I do not and it is not (see below)
It is an artifact of a tabulation that is not fit for analysis
So we agree
Cheers👍
ChatGPT on problems with stacking the IPCC AR7 author team for extreme events with people from the “extreme event attribution” community - with 9 of 20 authors
October 14, 2025 at 9:51 AM
ChatGPT on problems with stacking the IPCC AR7 author team for extreme events with people from the “extreme event attribution” community - with 9 of 20 authors
Coming shortly at THB . . .
September 16, 2025 at 11:31 AM
Coming shortly at THB . . .
Via Judy Curry on Climate Etc
September 8, 2025 at 11:58 AM
Via Judy Curry on Climate Etc
"Where were you when I needed you?"
Climate scientist Jos de Laat on the DOE CWG and the biases of the climate beat
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/where-were...
Climate scientist Jos de Laat on the DOE CWG and the biases of the climate beat
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/where-were...
August 18, 2025 at 3:44 PM
"Where were you when I needed you?"
Climate scientist Jos de Laat on the DOE CWG and the biases of the climate beat
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/where-were...
Climate scientist Jos de Laat on the DOE CWG and the biases of the climate beat
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/where-were...
Tomorrow at THB
August 14, 2025 at 11:26 PM
Tomorrow at THB
Not my area of expertise
That said . . .
Below left is what ChatGPT tells me IPCC AR6 says
Below right is summary from DOE CWG
Seems to be some legitimate differences of view
I don't think any of this is outrageous
Also, I don't think any of this is at all relevant to EPA endangerment finding!
That said . . .
Below left is what ChatGPT tells me IPCC AR6 says
Below right is summary from DOE CWG
Seems to be some legitimate differences of view
I don't think any of this is outrageous
Also, I don't think any of this is at all relevant to EPA endangerment finding!
August 6, 2025 at 4:29 PM
Not my area of expertise
That said . . .
Below left is what ChatGPT tells me IPCC AR6 says
Below right is summary from DOE CWG
Seems to be some legitimate differences of view
I don't think any of this is outrageous
Also, I don't think any of this is at all relevant to EPA endangerment finding!
That said . . .
Below left is what ChatGPT tells me IPCC AR6 says
Below right is summary from DOE CWG
Seems to be some legitimate differences of view
I don't think any of this is outrageous
Also, I don't think any of this is at all relevant to EPA endangerment finding!
Open for discussion
I will post a series of Tweets on the DOE CWG report
I invite discussion/critique
Especially from the climate scientists who have been most critical about the report and its authors
Let's start with Chapter 1
I will post a series of Tweets on the DOE CWG report
I invite discussion/critique
Especially from the climate scientists who have been most critical about the report and its authors
Let's start with Chapter 1
July 30, 2025 at 7:07 PM
Open for discussion
I will post a series of Tweets on the DOE CWG report
I invite discussion/critique
Especially from the climate scientists who have been most critical about the report and its authors
Let's start with Chapter 1
I will post a series of Tweets on the DOE CWG report
I invite discussion/critique
Especially from the climate scientists who have been most critical about the report and its authors
Let's start with Chapter 1
This crowd has me blocked so please share
July 10, 2025 at 10:37 PM
This crowd has me blocked so please share
The summary of my Oslo talk on the decades-long battle between Republicans and very-left scientists/academics is now the third-most-read post ever at THB
June 24, 2025 at 10:59 AM
The summary of my Oslo talk on the decades-long battle between Republicans and very-left scientists/academics is now the third-most-read post ever at THB
Another slide from my talk last week at Uni Oslo
June 24, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Another slide from my talk last week at Uni Oslo
I want to be sure to give @hausfath.bsky.social a chance to respond
No subtweets here😀
No subtweets here😀
June 5, 2025 at 1:42 PM
I want to be sure to give @hausfath.bsky.social a chance to respond
No subtweets here😀
No subtweets here😀
Read the whole thing:
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-is-a-...
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-is-a-...
June 5, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Read the whole thing:
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-is-a-...
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-is-a-...
The Trump administration is incorrect in its "Gold Standard Science" EO
RCP8.5 is not a "worst case scenario"
It is already fasified
That is: a scientific idea or claim that has been proven incorrect through empirical evidence
RCP8.5 is not "unlikely"
It is impossible
RCP8.5 is not a "worst case scenario"
It is already fasified
That is: a scientific idea or claim that has been proven incorrect through empirical evidence
RCP8.5 is not "unlikely"
It is impossible
June 3, 2025 at 7:32 PM
The Trump administration is incorrect in its "Gold Standard Science" EO
RCP8.5 is not a "worst case scenario"
It is already fasified
That is: a scientific idea or claim that has been proven incorrect through empirical evidence
RCP8.5 is not "unlikely"
It is impossible
RCP8.5 is not a "worst case scenario"
It is already fasified
That is: a scientific idea or claim that has been proven incorrect through empirical evidence
RCP8.5 is not "unlikely"
It is impossible
Climate scientist Michael Mann ordered to pay $477,350.80 in legal fees to two defendents that he sued
That's on top of $530,820.21 ordered to pay another defendent
All told, counting the penalty for misleading the court, "in bad faith," Mann is out almost $1.1M
That's on top of $530,820.21 ordered to pay another defendent
All told, counting the penalty for misleading the court, "in bad faith," Mann is out almost $1.1M
May 22, 2025 at 9:27 PM
Climate scientist Michael Mann ordered to pay $477,350.80 in legal fees to two defendents that he sued
That's on top of $530,820.21 ordered to pay another defendent
All told, counting the penalty for misleading the court, "in bad faith," Mann is out almost $1.1M
That's on top of $530,820.21 ordered to pay another defendent
All told, counting the penalty for misleading the court, "in bad faith," Mann is out almost $1.1M
Thanks ... I read your piece
After 14 paragrahs of ad homs you write:
"Clearly I’ve covered the ad hominem side of this"
Not a great start
Wang et al. is qualitativelty consistent with Michaux, the key difference is the IAMs they looked at have much less wind/solar than IRENA 1.5
After 14 paragrahs of ad homs you write:
"Clearly I’ve covered the ad hominem side of this"
Not a great start
Wang et al. is qualitativelty consistent with Michaux, the key difference is the IAMs they looked at have much less wind/solar than IRENA 1.5
May 22, 2025 at 3:14 PM
Thanks ... I read your piece
After 14 paragrahs of ad homs you write:
"Clearly I’ve covered the ad hominem side of this"
Not a great start
Wang et al. is qualitativelty consistent with Michaux, the key difference is the IAMs they looked at have much less wind/solar than IRENA 1.5
After 14 paragrahs of ad homs you write:
"Clearly I’ve covered the ad hominem side of this"
Not a great start
Wang et al. is qualitativelty consistent with Michaux, the key difference is the IAMs they looked at have much less wind/solar than IRENA 1.5
Tomorrow's THB is a banger
May 13, 2025 at 9:41 PM
Tomorrow's THB is a banger
NOAA is not a “climate agency”
It is an atmospheric and oceanic agency
@aaas.org sweeping it into the partisan climate wars is an effort to politicize the agency for clicks
@voosen.me
It is an atmospheric and oceanic agency
@aaas.org sweeping it into the partisan climate wars is an effort to politicize the agency for clicks
@voosen.me
April 11, 2025 at 7:36 PM
NOAA is not a “climate agency”
It is an atmospheric and oceanic agency
@aaas.org sweeping it into the partisan climate wars is an effort to politicize the agency for clicks
@voosen.me
It is an atmospheric and oceanic agency
@aaas.org sweeping it into the partisan climate wars is an effort to politicize the agency for clicks
@voosen.me
It's like a time machine over here
March 24, 2025 at 9:50 PM
It's like a time machine over here
Michael Mann not-so-subtly signaling that partisan politics motivates the judge in his case — Very Trump-like & dumb strategy
Judge Irving was in fact reappointed by Joe Biden:
“His performance as a judge has been exceptional. He has well-earned the highest category rating permitted by statute”
Judge Irving was in fact reappointed by Joe Biden:
“His performance as a judge has been exceptional. He has well-earned the highest category rating permitted by statute”
March 19, 2025 at 12:55 PM
Michael Mann not-so-subtly signaling that partisan politics motivates the judge in his case — Very Trump-like & dumb strategy
Judge Irving was in fact reappointed by Joe Biden:
“His performance as a judge has been exceptional. He has well-earned the highest category rating permitted by statute”
Judge Irving was in fact reappointed by Joe Biden:
“His performance as a judge has been exceptional. He has well-earned the highest category rating permitted by statute”
DC Court reduces Michael Mann's defamation award from $1,000,000 to $5,000
I wonder if Science, NYT, Wash Post and others who celebrated the original verdict will cover this at all
Mann was ordered by the court in January to pay $530,820.21 in National Review's legal cost
I wonder if Science, NYT, Wash Post and others who celebrated the original verdict will cover this at all
Mann was ordered by the court in January to pay $530,820.21 in National Review's legal cost
March 4, 2025 at 5:46 PM
DC Court reduces Michael Mann's defamation award from $1,000,000 to $5,000
I wonder if Science, NYT, Wash Post and others who celebrated the original verdict will cover this at all
Mann was ordered by the court in January to pay $530,820.21 in National Review's legal cost
I wonder if Science, NYT, Wash Post and others who celebrated the original verdict will cover this at all
Mann was ordered by the court in January to pay $530,820.21 in National Review's legal cost