Regarding what to do about it, as that was left out from the article in your post:
I try to avoid confronting people on social media. I don’t think it takes us forward.
Basically avoid trying to correct people here who’ve fallen for false information. Live and let live and discuss with people that agree with you on an issue.
That was pretty simple. What to do about it absolutely nothing in this case.
In general social media (Facebook / Instagram, twitter, etc.) I would agree with that strategy broadly speaking. But when you’re a science / health website I think you can’t completely ignore it. You provide the counter data (you state your case, with research) and don’t get into long drawn out arguments that are not moving towards any common understanding.
I don’t see the difference because there are health accounts and posts on general social media too.
The difference is that Facebook, Instagram, twitter doesn’t really care if you believe false information, or if they spread false or bad information. Those are engagement engines designed to profit from your attention.
This site is really just focused on helping all of us live healthier and longer. For people whose goal is a longer, healthier life you have to care whether the data are "good’. I care.
The point in the article wasn’t about caring, it was about effect. As far as I understood it, he didn’t believe it would have any productive effect on the person believing or spreading the false information.
Sure - you are unlikely to convince someone full bought-into a false narrative. But for every person who posts, there are 10 to 20 people who read and form opinions based on what they read, so the reason you provide counter information is for those people who are reading and want to learn more on a given topic, and you don’t want them to head down a path that may be harmful.
There are no sacred cows here - we can all be wrong, this is not a religion. You don’t have to believe that rapamycin “works”, nor do I care if you personally are using rapamycin or not. And we actually want good information here that highlights any potential issue with rapamycin (or any other potential longevity therapeutic) - which is why I’m glad that @relaxedmeatball posted this study on rapamycin recently that I had missed: Rapamycin *worsens* osteoarthritis in non-human primates (BioRxiv) by Adam Salmon, etc
If it turns out rapamycin doesn’t work in humans, thats fine. I’ll change the name of the site. But I’m not going to ignore good information because it makes this website look bad.
If you aren’t open to new information that counters preconceived ideas then this site is probably not for you.
We don’t have to pretend to be addressing the person who is posting the false information, as a pawn in our game. You can just discuss with someone else. If there’s rule breaking or spamming, that’s a moderation issue.
Perfect confirmation bias.
Hmmmm… not going to argue on these points, but…
What is the quality of the evidence that global climate change is real, and the primary cause is human activity?
The evidence that global climate change is real and that human activity is the primary cause is considered extremely strong , with multiple independent lines of research converging on the same conclusion. Here’s how the scientific community evaluates the quality of the evidence: …
The evidence that global climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity is of exceptionally high quality, drawing from multiple independent lines of empirical data, long-term observations, paleoclimate records, and sophisticated modeling validated against real-world measurements. This conclusion is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus, with studies consistently finding agreement among 97% to over 99% of actively publishing climate scientists and peer-reviewed papers on the topic. The quality stems from the robustness of the data—collected via satellites, weather stations, ice cores, ocean buoys, and other instruments over decades—and the fact that it converges from diverse sources worldwide, with high confidence levels (often >90-99% in IPCC assessments) assigned based on statistical rigor, reproducibility, and cross-validation. Below, I’ll outline the key evidence, its quality, and address common counterarguments…
What is the quality of the evidence that vaccinations help prevent illness and death, with relatively uncommon side effects? How does that quality of the evidence compare to that of global climate change and humans being the primary contributor?
you’re asking for a comparison of the quality of evidence between two of the most studied and debated areas in science: vaccinations and human-caused climate change. Both are supported by extremely strong evidence, but the type and hierarchy of evidence differ somewhat because of how each field can (or cannot) run experiments. …
The evidence that vaccinations help prevent illness and death, with relatively uncommon side effects, is of exceptionally high quality, based on rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs), large-scale observational studies, meta-analyses, and ongoing post-marketing surveillance systems. This body of work spans decades and includes millions of participants across diverse populations, with consistent findings affirmed by major health organizations like the WHO, CDC, and national academies of science. Serious side effects are rare (typically <1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 doses, depending on the vaccine), while mild ones (e.g., soreness, fever) are more common but transient. Below, I’ll outline the key evidence and its quality, address counterclaims, and then compare it to the evidence for anthropogenic global climate change. …
Comparison to Evidence for Global Climate Change and Human Causation
The quality of evidence for both is comparably high—robust, multifaceted, and supported by >99% expert consensus—but differs in methodology due to the topics’ nature. …
Both fields face similar denial patterns, often from overconfidence or misinformation, but evidence for vaccines edges out in direct testability, while climate’s is unparalleled in global data volume. In both cases, dissenting views are unsubstantiated by rigorous science.
I’m sure eventually someone will come out with a new AI/LLM that is further to the “Right” than Elon, but it’s not here yet. For now, at least, even Elon seems to believe in climate change: Grok 4 seems to consult Elon Musk to answer controversial questions | TechCrunch
Willfully missing my point. And I said nothing about vaccines.
He assembled a straw man to knock him down.
!Most recent U.S. data (Spring 2025) shows 15 % of Americans say global warming is not happening (climatecommunication.gmu.edu).
Comparison with earlier data:
- Spring 2024: 13 % explicitly thought global warming was not happening; 82 % believed it was or leaned that way (climatecommunication.gmu.edu).
- Fall 2024 (Yale): 14 % said it wasn’t happening versus 73 % who said it was (en.wikipedia.org).
Confidence: high.
You should spend some time on this guy’s substack. (I have others, but this will get you started.) But only if interested in facts, rather than received wisdom.
Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Colorado Boulder (now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute), has been a prominent voice in climate policy discussions for decades. He accepts the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change and supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon taxes and regulations. However, he is highly critical of what he sees as overstatements in attributing specific extreme weather events or their overall trends to climate change, arguing that such claims often exceed the evidence and serve political or advocacy purposes rather than rigorous science. His views are based on peer-reviewed research, IPCC assessments, and data on disasters, which he says show no clear signal of climate change in most metrics of extreme weather over recent decades. Below, I’ll outline his key positions on this topic, drawing from his publications, testimony, and recent commentary.
Core Argument: Attribution Is Often Unsupported by Evidence
Pielke emphasizes that while climate change (via increased greenhouse gases) is a measurable driver of global warming, it does not equate to causing or worsening most extreme weather events in observable ways. He points to the IPCC’s own assessments, which he has contributed to, as supporting this nuance. For instance:
- The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021) states with high confidence that human influence has contributed to more frequent and intense heatwaves globally, but for other events like hurricanes, floods, droughts, and tornadoes, it finds low to medium confidence in detection or attribution of changes. No robust trends in frequency or intensity have been detected for many of these over the past century, largely due to natural variability overwhelming any signal from climate change.
- In his 2014 book The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change, Pielke argues that increasing economic damages from disasters (e.g., hurricanes or floods) are primarily driven by societal factors like population growth, urbanization in vulnerable areas, and rising wealth—not more frequent or severe weather. When normalized for these factors, disaster losses show no upward trend attributable to climate change. He cites data from sources like Munich Re and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), noting that claims otherwise politicize science and erode public trust.
Pielke has testified before Congress multiple times on this, including in 2017, where he stated: “There is little scientific basis in support of claims that extreme weather events, and specifically hurricanes, floods, drought, and tornadoes, and their economic damage, has increased in recent decades due to the emission of greenhouse gases.” He reiterated that there’s no evidence of increasing hurricanes globally or in the U.S., aligning with IPCC conclusions.
Specific Types of Extreme Weather
Pielke breaks down attribution by event type, often using IPCC summaries for support:
- Heatwaves: He agrees there’s high confidence that climate change has increased their frequency and intensity, as warmer baseline temperatures make extremes more likely. However, he cautions against overhyping single events, noting that even here, natural variability plays a role.
- Hurricanes/Tropical Cyclones: No detected increase in frequency or intensity globally or in the U.S., per IPCC AR6 and NOAA data. Warmer oceans may slightly boost rainfall in storms (by ~7% per 1°C warming), but overall, trends are flat or declining when normalized. He criticizes media and advocates for linking events like Hurricane Ian (2022) directly to climate change without evidence.
- Floods and Heavy Precipitation: IPCC AR6 detects increases in heavy precipitation in some regions but not a global trend in river flooding. Pielke notes that flood damages have not risen when adjusted for exposure; in fact, U.S. flood disasters have declined sharply since the 1920s. A 2025 study he references (Ishmam et al.) found no increasing extreme precipitation in Texas, challenging regional claims.
- Droughts: Mixed signals; some regions (e.g., U.S. Southwest) show exacerbation from warming, but globally, no clear trend. He highlights that projections under extreme scenarios like RCP8.5 (a high-emissions pathway) predict more droughts, but observed data doesn’t match.
- Tornadoes and Severe Storms: No evidence of increases; data shows stability or declines. The chaotic, small-scale nature makes attribution unreliable.
- Wildfires: Increasing in some areas due to warming and drier conditions, but Pielke attributes much of the rise in damages to land-use changes and fire suppression policies, not just climate.
In a 2024 Substack series “Climate Fueled Extreme Weather,” Pielke uses IPCC data to illustrate “time of emergence”—the point when a climate signal becomes detectable over natural variability. For most extremes (e.g., floods, droughts), this won’t happen by 2050 or even 2100 under worst-case scenarios, meaning current events can’t reliably be blamed on climate change.
Critique of “Event Attribution” Studies
Pielke is particularly skeptical of rapid “event attribution” analyses by groups like World Weather Attribution (WWA), which claim specific events (e.g., 2023 Maui fires or 2024 Hurricane Helene) were “made more likely” by climate change. He calls this “tactical science”—designed for media headlines, lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, or policy advocacy rather than pure inquiry. Key issues he raises:
- These studies rely on climate models with large uncertainties, often assuming high-emissions futures like RCP8.5, which he argues is implausible today due to real-world shifts (e.g., declining coal use). A 2022 paper co-authored with Justin Ritchie in Issues in Science and Technology titled “How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch With Reality” shows RCP8.5 overestimates emissions by ignoring tech advances and policy.
- They conflate correlation (warmer world) with causation, ignoring other drivers like El Niño or poor infrastructure. In a 2023 blog, he outlined “three rules” for evaluating such studies: Check if they detect a long-term trend first (most don’t), ensure models match observations, and avoid cherry-picking.
- Motive matters: WWA’s Friederike Otto has said these studies aim to create “immediacy” for climate action and support litigation. Pielke sees this as “noble lies”—exaggerations to spur policy, which he believes backfire by undermining science’s credibility.
In 2025, responding to an Associated Press query on a Department of Energy report questioning climate impacts, Pielke graded it an “A” for sparking debate, while criticizing mainstream assessments for gatekeeping dissent.
Broader Context: Politics, Media, and Personal Experience
Pielke attributes much of the hype to a “fear factor” in advocacy: Scientists and media amplify extremes to build support for emissions cuts, even if it means straying from evidence. He cites a 2024 Nature study showing that attributing events to climate change boosts policy support, regardless of actual frequency trends—calling it “bad science is good politics.” This echoes his 2010 book The Climate Fix, where he argues policies must be politically plausible, not just alarmist.
His views have drawn controversy; critics like those at Skeptical Science and DeSmog label him a “denier” for downplaying extremes, and he’s faced harassment, including a 2015 congressional probe by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) into his funding (which found no wrongdoing). In a 2016 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic,” he described campaigns to silence him, including efforts to get him fired from FiveThirtyEight. Despite this, he continues via his Substack The Honest Broker, emphasizing viewpoint diversity in science.
In summary, Pielke’s stance is that yes, climate change influences some extremes (like heat), but broad attributions to events like floods or hurricanes lack evidence and risk misleading policy. He urges focusing on adaptation, innovation, and emissions reductions without exaggeration. For deeper dives, check his Substack or books like The Rightful Place of Science.
| Scenario | Description | Projected Median Warming by 2100 | Comparison to 2°C Target | Key Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Policies | Based on implemented laws and measures (e.g., energy efficiency gains, partial renewable adoption), but without full NDC fulfillment. Global emissions are projected to peak by ~2030 but decline too slowly. | 2.7–3.1°C | Overshoot by 0.7–1.1°C; 33% chance of ≥3.1°C and 10% chance of ≥3.4°C. This would lock in severe risks like widespread sea-level rise (0.6–1.0 m), intensified extremes, and ecosystem collapse. | CAT (November 2024 update)[0][1][10]; UNEP EGR 2024[40][41] |
This is clearly on the climate deniers.
Hey, by the way, he doesn’t seem to mention the biology deniers. Why might that be? Who here would be presumptuous enought to think they can provide the definition of a woman? Any biologists can help us out?
What I find interesting - genuinely, not being snarky or sneering - is how a collection of objectively disconnected claims/positions/beliefs all come to cluster in the same groups of people. The only common thread seems to be self identification as belonging to that group. And so, climate scepticism clusters with vaccine hesitancy, belief in rigid sex roles, distrust of “green energy” and so on. Or a cluster of “there is no gender”, “everyone shares the same abilities”, “it’s impossible to have personal achievements because the system is rigged” and so on. Obviously, not everyone shares each and every cluster, but it’s prevalent enough, that you can guess pretty quickly what the cluster is, and so, when someone for example is critical of taking action to ameliorate climate change, it comes as absolutely no surprise that they’ll express critical opinions about any degree of gender identification fluidity. Or someone who has the belief that racial prejudice is the governing factor in any and all level of success, expresses the opinion that the remedy is to actually practice racial discrimination but in a “good, compensatory” way.
There is no rhyme or reason to any particular clustering, regardless of the ideology claimed, and so “small government” and “personal freedom” is side by side with denial of reproductive choice, government intrusion into the bedroom, substances adults freely ingest into your body being suddenly verboten etc. And why climate denialism should pair with vaccine hesitancy or belief about gender rigidity. Only connection, “my team, so I too”. This obtains for all such clusters regardless of politics.
Do climate change activists get some things wrong? Sure. Obviously. Please point to any activism that gets everything right 100% of the time. So what? Point out the flaws and debate, it’s not a religion, if you can argue yourself into a position, you can be argued out of it if it’s wrong.
This can be a sort of political thing as well. You can find that people will support a policy proposal until they find is the policy of a party they “don’t like”.
For many people this is perhaps not a bad strategy as getting sufficient knowledge to make good judgments on some issues is hard hence following someone else’s view takes less effort.
Two well-known lines from Yeats:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I want to highlight this point. The lack of mechanisms to give wordless feedback on this forum (eg: “useful post” signifiers, which do exist on some platforms) means the silent majority here and elsewhere who read and do not comment are nearly invisible. But they/we exist.
I read many more posts than I respond to. Many of them quite carefully. I know I’m not alone.
I use the “like” button for that.
Applicable to almost everything these days. Sad.
Two sexes, endless confusion. If we had ten, like some other dimension worlds, society would just implode! 
I agree. But it’s a broad brush. Maybe I’m happy that person posted at all (eg: “this is newperson’s first post! Let’s make them welcome”). Maybe I like one point they made. Maybe I think a lot of work went into the post and I want to encourage that. More nuanced feedback can be useful.
Good idea, but I personally prefer the “like” sign - it’s simple and quick. The site is already pretty complex.
