I echo this -- since when does "cautious, high-training writers timidly announce massive change" become worse than "cynical, manipulative industry experts conceal worst outcomes" or "distracted, low-skill readers dismiss unpopular warning" ?
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498317086157774866
Similar to last year, too, the media takes that emphasis, reports it as absolute reality, and then starts the campaign of fear ("red alert") on the public, arguably, to whittle down their critical thinking skills for the sake of political gain.
The whole thing is circuitous to a painstaking degree.
Dr. Pielke's work on climate change effects has been criticized by Dr. Stephen Schneider, who said that with Pielke "one consistent pattern emerges-he is a self-aggrandizer who sets up straw men, knocks them down, and takes credit for being the honest broker to explain the mess-and in fact usually adds little new social science to his analysis"
Source: http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneide...
The IPCC has consistently understated the risks to prevent general panic. That is actually what this submitted article is about.
I will have to live with that, I'm sorry you are disappointed. I can't vet every source and if someone is a known bad source, there are usually many, many alternatives to invest my limited time reading.
We're crossing the point of no return as the younger kids have no concept of a world where "doing it for the clicks" wasn't a thing. Once they become adults, all hell will break loose because they don't know how to think, only emote.
Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12]
From his wikipedia page
What I _don't_ agree with is intentionally distorting the truth to scare people which, despite the claims that it motivates people, accomplishes nothing (objectively, as those "nudges" are rarely backed by concrete steps/plans—just more hyperbole and fearmongering to stoke the political fire).