Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
So happy to have Roger Pilka Juniorback on the show. He is,
for a little while longer, stilla professor at the University of Colorado,
where he teaches and studies and researchesat the intersection of science and public policy.
He also has his own fantastic substack called The Honest Broker, which
(00:21):
you can find at Roger Pilkat Juniorand that his last name is spelled p
I E l k E and thenJunior's chaire Roger Pilka Junior dot substack dot
com or just go to my blogat Roskimisky dot com and you can find
it. So first, Hi,Roger, thanks for being here, appreciate
it. Thanks for having me rossgreat to be here. So I want
to just set up the macro themehere and then delve into two recent pieces
(00:46):
that you posted at The Honest Broker. So I'm a science nerd. I'm
also a deep believer in the importanceof truth and honesty for their own sake,
I suppose, but in addition tothe fact that it's inly important for
public policy, and there are somethings that are more difficult for the average
(01:06):
citizen to learn about and understand thanother things, and some of the things
that are difficult to understand are science. So when scientists lie to us,
especially in areas that relate to importantpublic policy, whether it comes to restrictions
on freedom or massive expenses of money, when these scientists lie to us,
(01:30):
we're kind of defenseless and we're morescrewed than when regular politicians lie to us
about stuff that we already understand andwe can tell that they're lying. So
with that as first of all,do you want to say anything about that
as a macro concept before we delveinto these two examples. Yeah, I
mean, the only thing I wouldsay to that is, you know,
we have to be careful in havingthese pristine worlds of science versus politics.
(01:55):
There's a big overlap between the two, and you know, politicians often well
science and scientists often act politically,so sorting that out, you're right,
is very difficult. You wrote apiece for the Honest Broker subsect a couple
days ago called Proximal Origins, ScientificIntegrity and Shadow Science Advice. Why don't
(02:15):
we start? And this is preparedtestimony for the House Select Subcommittee on the
Coronavirus pandemic that you were asked togive. Why don't we start with what
proximal origins both words capitalized is Proximalorigins refers to a peer reviewed academic paper
that was published in March twenty twentythat made the claim that it was implausible
(02:40):
that there was a research related incidentthat was the origin of COVID nineteen.
So, in other words, ifthe lab in Wuhan, they're saying,
well, it didn't come from there, it must have come from somewhere else,
and it had a huge impact onthe public discussions and the discourse in
the months and years after. Okay, now, before we again, I
want to take you on a littletangent to the macro before we come back
(03:02):
to this, I'd like you totell me from your perspective as someone who
studies this stuff and in a certainway I don't want to overstate it,
but in a way you are aphilosopher of science. I would like you
to tell me whether you think there'sas important a difference as I think there
is between being wrong and being intentionallymisleading. Yeah, of course, I
(03:25):
mean, but you know, thescientific method and research and data is plenty
flexible enough out there for people tocreate perspectives and studies that are slanted in
a particular direction without lying or engagingin research misconduct. This is why it's
so important to have assessments of scienceand come together in a formal way and
(03:47):
look at not just the latest studyor the most popular study, but all
the relevant studies and put it togetherinto a coherent whole. One of the
things that you say in your congressionaltestimony about the proximal Origins paid is not
just that it was wrong, inwhich case it might not even be worth
testifying about, but rather that whenthe people were putting it together arguing against
(04:11):
the lab leak theory, and doctorFauci was involved with this, and his
boss, Francis Collins was involved withthis, they knew that there was a
reasonable chance that they were on Theydidn't believe what they were saying, right,
Yeah, I mean its proximal originsis incredible because you know, you
see what it's published out in theliterature, and you know what we might
call in the front stage. Butbecause of the Congressional investigations, investigative reporters,
(04:35):
Internet solutions, we also have evidenceof their discussions backstage. So what
they were saying when they were writingthe paper, and what we know is
that what they wrote in the paperdoes not accurately reflect what they believed.
What they believed was that a lableak was a possibility, So rather than
dismissing it entirely as they did inpublic, in private they said, well,
(04:58):
it's a remaining possibility. And sothat's what the big problem is here,
is that their research didn't reflect whatthey believed. I want to make
one point clear to listeners, sothat so that you don't think I'm going
further than I'm actually going. Iam not claiming that the people who wrote
Proximal Origins, or doctor Fauci oranybody thought or believed at the time that
(05:20):
it probably came from the lab.I am not saying that. I'm saying
that they did not know and couldnot have known, that it didn't come
from a lab. So when theywrite a paper or are behind the scenes
advising on a paper that claims italmost certainly couldn't have come from a lab,
(05:40):
they're lying. But that's not thesame as saying that they knew then
or even that we know now,even though I do believe now that it
probably came from a lab. Butyou want to add anything to that,
Roger, No, I think thatwas really well said. I mean,
what we want in these circumstances isan accurate reflection of our knowledge, and
if that knowledge is unser or wehave areas of ignorance, then we should
(06:01):
say So there was this big rushearly on to put the lab leak possibility
off the table, and that turnedout to be a mistake because it's back
on the table today. What wasthe significance of the publication of proximal Origins,
Yeah, so, I mean ithad a huge effect on the discourse.
(06:23):
The media decided, well, we'renot going to report on any research
or discussions of a lab leak possibility. It probably put off the creation of
an investigative body by the US government. And one of the problems here is
that, as you mentioned, AnthonyFauci and his boss Francis Collins were involved
(06:44):
with bringing Proximal Origins together. Theyorganized the first meeting and participated in overseeing
its publication. What should have happenedis the US government, the Department of
Health and Human Services, should haveput together a formal committee with a balanced
group of experts who were out inthe public to actually explore this question.
Rather than having This is what Imean by shadow science advice. It was
(07:05):
behind the scenes and we didn't getto see the machinations there. What should
happen now? I mean, ina way, the horse is out of
the barn, but still, whatshould happen now? And why is it
important that it happened now given thatthe horse is out of the barn?
Yeah, I mean this is Itis absolutely incredible to me that, you
(07:26):
know, four years after the pandemic, the world scientists politicians has not come
together to investigate the origins. Imagineif nine to eleven occurred and instead of
the nine eleven Commission we said,well, it doesn't matter who cares.
The reason it's important is because thereis continuing efforts to conduct research to make
(07:48):
viruses more virulent, more transmissible,and it is quite possible that a future
lab League whatever you believe about COVID, but a future labileeue could occur.
So we really have to understand whathappens so that we can put in place
effective regulations so if a lab Leaguedid ocer, we can make sure it
doesn't happen again. We're talking withRoger Pilka Junior, the proprietor of the
(08:11):
Honest Broker sub stack. If youjust look up Roger Pilka Junior subsect,
you'll find the link and you actuallycan read it for free. And I
don't know why. Well, Ido know why Roger does that. We
talked about it last time on theshow. But I encourage you to become
a paid subscriber as I am becauseI support Roger's work and it's just such
(08:33):
important stuff that he does. Youmay hesitate to go down this next road
with me, so just tell meyou don't want to. If you don't
want to. Why do you thinkthe people who did the Proximal Origins paper
and the shadow advisors behind the scenes, like Fauci, thought that that was
a good idea. Why did theywant to tell the world it couldn't have
(08:56):
been a lab league. Yeah,I think there's a couple answers to this.
I mean, if you take alook at the record, it's kind
of a Keystone Cops sort of thing. They all started out saying, well,
we need a formal investigation from theWorld Health Organization. That wasn't going
to happen, and they wound upproducing this paper that took on a life
of its own and became much moresignificant than I think any of them ever
(09:16):
anticipated. I don't think they intendedit to be shadow science advice that influenced
health the world thought, but itturned out that way. So you know,
the obvious interest of the research communityis they don't want to be the
ones that were to blame if theUS government was involved in the funding,
the Chinese government was involved in theresearch. Boy, that is a big
(09:39):
black eye for a lot of importantpeople. So I fully understand why they
wanted to have the lab leak offthe table. That's why we want balanced,
independent investigations so that people with interestsdon't shape the outcomes. So,
folks, that's one example of somethingwhere there were massive public policy implement implications,
(10:00):
especially for our freedoms every bit asmuch as for our money, uh,
based on reactions to COVID and soon, and scientists were I'm going
to say lying to us. Rogermight not use a word quite that harsh,
but that's what I'm going to say. I want to switch to another
topic that's related, and in away, I actually think what's going on
in this one is more egregious interms of offence to science, and this
(10:22):
is a piece Roger wrote called climatecooking and the subhead on his substack how
a few billionaires helped push climate scienceto the extremes. And what I want
to focus on with you, Roger, which you already focus on because I'm
a data nerd, is this ideaof RCP eight point five and how much
(10:43):
prominence it still has in all ofthese discussions about how what we must do
and all the money we have tospend and we have to make people stop
driving cars, on and on andon. So what is what is OURCP
eight point five and where did itcome from? And then we'll talk about
why it's inappropriate for it to beused. Now, Yeah, let me
start by saying, you know,climate change is real. I'm a big
(11:05):
supporter of policies focused on emissions andadaptation. At the same time, I'm
a big additude for getting the scienceright. And for a long time,
we're talking more than a decade,climate science and policy has been dominated by
the most extreme scenario available about thefuture. This scenario says that we are
going to burn massive amounts of coal, They're going to be massive amounts of
(11:26):
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Wenow know what's wrong, and the scientific
community and policy community has had avery difficult time getting itself off that scenario.
It still dominates our discussion, andyou know that's good news if you're
worried about climate change. It doesn'tmake the problem go away, just makes
it more manageable. But it's reallya story of why science can't keep up
(11:48):
with our understandings in the early daysof the United Nations IPCC accumulating and putting
out these various models. Am Icorrect that RCP eight point five? Which
I does that mean an eight pointfive degrees celsius increase in average temperatures?
Is that what eight point five means? No, it's so it refers to
what's called radiative forcing eight point fivewatts per meter squared. What people need
(12:13):
to know, it's a temperature changeof something like five or six degrees celsius
by twenty one hundred, and theestimates now is that we're headed to like
two point four. So it's way, way way off where we think we're
headed. Okay, back at thetime when RCP five eight point five was
first put out as one potential path, at that moment, was it already
(12:33):
the most extreme of the potential pathsthat was you know, published as a
reasonable potential path or at least oneof the most extreme. And if so,
why was it accepted by so manyas their baseline rather than saying we're
rather than as worst case. Yeah, I mean, I mean this is
(12:54):
this is part of the problem.It goes back twenty years, two thousand
and five, when these scenarios wewere first proposed and selected. And yes,
RCP eight point five was the mostextreme of the four scenarios that were
selected to study and use in policyanalysis. I mean, for scientists,
there's a reason why you might wantto use an extreme scenario because you can
(13:15):
then you know, better detect inyour models, you know, the signal
of climate change versus natural variability,and so on. For policy advocates,
the more extreme the scenario, themore easy it is to sell climate policy.
If you're a researcher and you publishan extreme study with extreme results,
much easier to get it into ajournal, much easier to get it cited
in a major newspaper. So there'sa lot of interlocking incentives that kind of
(13:39):
pushed us towards the extreme and havekept us from course correcting. Now that
we've discovered it's implausible. Okay,So I'm going to ask you a question
that is similar to a question Iasked about the last topic. Why is
it important to get this right?Why is it important to If this is
what it takes shame scientists out ofusing a model that they must know is
(14:05):
not the path that the climate ison, why is it important to get
it right? Yeah? So,I mean, the first thing to say
is this is probably the best keptsecret in all of climate science. Everyone
in the climate community is fully awareof this. There are already efforts underway
to develop the next generation of scenarios, leaving RCP eight point five behind,
even as studies come out still everyday using it. The reason why it's
(14:31):
important is we're making multi trillion dollardecisions about the future of the global economy
based on projections that are out ofdate. If this was the economy and
we were using data from twenty yearsago to manage the economy, we say
that's crazy. You know. Tome, the whole idea that we're going
to manage climate policy based on twentyyear old scenarios is itself a huge problem.
(14:56):
We need to figure out how toupdate these scenarios every year update our
knowledge, so that means changing howwe do research. Well, so be
it. This is too important atopic to let out of date. Science
persists the way we have. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And I
will say, without putting words inRoger's mouth, that the reason that folks
(15:16):
are still using this wrong and extremeprediction of climate catastrophe is they can make
more money by doing that. Theycan get the grants, they can get
the clicks, they can get allthis stuff. I'm not going to put
Roger in a position of saying thatstuff about Dema, because he's nicer about
it than i am. Roger PilkaJunior is a professor at the University of
(15:37):
Colorado for another some months and thenhe will be professor emeritus. Please subscribe
to Roger's substack. It's called TheHonest Broker. You can just go look
up Roger Pilka Junior substack and youwill find it, and it's on my
blog at Roskiminski dot com. Andplease become a paying subscriber. Roger did
not ask me to ask you that. I just want you to do it
(15:58):
to support his fine work. Roger, thanks so much for your time.
As always really really great stuff andimportant stuff. Thanks Ross, I always
appreciate talking with you all right.Likewise,
So happy to have Roger Pilka Juniorback on the show. He is,
for a little while longer, stilla professor at the University of Colorado,
where he teaches and studies and researchesat the intersection of science and public policy.
He also has his own fantastic substack called The Honest Broker, which
(00:21):
you can find at Roger Pilkat Juniorand that his last name is spelled p
I E l k E and thenJunior's chaire Roger Pilka Junior dot substack dot
com or just go to my blogat Roskimisky dot com and you can find
it. So first, Hi,Roger, thanks for being here, appreciate
it. Thanks for having me rossgreat to be here. So I want
to just set up the macro themehere and then delve into two recent pieces
(00:46):
that you posted at The Honest Broker. So I'm a science nerd. I'm
also a deep believer in the importanceof truth and honesty for their own sake,
I suppose, but in addition tothe fact that it's inly important for
public policy, and there are somethings that are more difficult for the average
(01:06):
citizen to learn about and understand thanother things, and some of the things
that are difficult to understand are science. So when scientists lie to us,
especially in areas that relate to importantpublic policy, whether it comes to restrictions
on freedom or massive expenses of money, when these scientists lie to us,
(01:30):
we're kind of defenseless and we're morescrewed than when regular politicians lie to us
about stuff that we already understand andwe can tell that they're lying. So
with that as first of all,do you want to say anything about that
as a macro concept before we delveinto these two examples. Yeah, I
mean, the only thing I wouldsay to that is, you know,
we have to be careful in havingthese pristine worlds of science versus politics.
(01:55):
There's a big overlap between the two, and you know, politicians often well
science and scientists often act politically,so sorting that out, you're right,
is very difficult. You wrote apiece for the Honest Broker subsect a couple
days ago called Proximal Origins, ScientificIntegrity and Shadow Science Advice. Why don't
(02:15):
we start? And this is preparedtestimony for the House Select Subcommittee on the
Coronavirus pandemic that you were asked togive. Why don't we start with what
proximal origins both words capitalized is Proximalorigins refers to a peer reviewed academic paper
that was published in March twenty twentythat made the claim that it was implausible
(02:40):
that there was a research related incidentthat was the origin of COVID nineteen.
So, in other words, ifthe lab in Wuhan, they're saying,
well, it didn't come from there, it must have come from somewhere else,
and it had a huge impact onthe public discussions and the discourse in
the months and years after. Okay, now, before we again, I
want to take you on a littletangent to the macro before we come back
(03:02):
to this, I'd like you totell me from your perspective as someone who
studies this stuff and in a certainway I don't want to overstate it,
but in a way you are aphilosopher of science. I would like you
to tell me whether you think there'sas important a difference as I think there
is between being wrong and being intentionallymisleading. Yeah, of course, I
(03:25):
mean, but you know, thescientific method and research and data is plenty
flexible enough out there for people tocreate perspectives and studies that are slanted in
a particular direction without lying or engagingin research misconduct. This is why it's
so important to have assessments of scienceand come together in a formal way and
(03:47):
look at not just the latest studyor the most popular study, but all
the relevant studies and put it togetherinto a coherent whole. One of the
things that you say in your congressionaltestimony about the proximal Origins paid is not
just that it was wrong, inwhich case it might not even be worth
testifying about, but rather that whenthe people were putting it together arguing against
(04:11):
the lab leak theory, and doctorFauci was involved with this, and his
boss, Francis Collins was involved withthis, they knew that there was a
reasonable chance that they were on Theydidn't believe what they were saying, right,
Yeah, I mean its proximal originsis incredible because you know, you
see what it's published out in theliterature, and you know what we might
call in the front stage. Butbecause of the Congressional investigations, investigative reporters,
(04:35):
Internet solutions, we also have evidenceof their discussions backstage. So what
they were saying when they were writingthe paper, and what we know is
that what they wrote in the paperdoes not accurately reflect what they believed.
What they believed was that a lableak was a possibility, So rather than
dismissing it entirely as they did inpublic, in private they said, well,
(04:58):
it's a remaining possibility. And sothat's what the big problem is here,
is that their research didn't reflect whatthey believed. I want to make
one point clear to listeners, sothat so that you don't think I'm going
further than I'm actually going. Iam not claiming that the people who wrote
Proximal Origins, or doctor Fauci oranybody thought or believed at the time that
(05:20):
it probably came from the lab.I am not saying that. I'm saying
that they did not know and couldnot have known, that it didn't come
from a lab. So when theywrite a paper or are behind the scenes
advising on a paper that claims italmost certainly couldn't have come from a lab,
(05:40):
they're lying. But that's not thesame as saying that they knew then
or even that we know now,even though I do believe now that it
probably came from a lab. Butyou want to add anything to that,
Roger, No, I think thatwas really well said. I mean,
what we want in these circumstances isan accurate reflection of our knowledge, and
if that knowledge is unser or wehave areas of ignorance, then we should
(06:01):
say So there was this big rushearly on to put the lab leak possibility
off the table, and that turnedout to be a mistake because it's back
on the table today. What wasthe significance of the publication of proximal Origins,
Yeah, so, I mean ithad a huge effect on the discourse.
(06:23):
The media decided, well, we'renot going to report on any research
or discussions of a lab leak possibility. It probably put off the creation of
an investigative body by the US government. And one of the problems here is
that, as you mentioned, AnthonyFauci and his boss Francis Collins were involved
(06:44):
with bringing Proximal Origins together. Theyorganized the first meeting and participated in overseeing
its publication. What should have happenedis the US government, the Department of
Health and Human Services, should haveput together a formal committee with a balanced
group of experts who were out inthe public to actually explore this question.
Rather than having This is what Imean by shadow science advice. It was
(07:05):
behind the scenes and we didn't getto see the machinations there. What should
happen now? I mean, ina way, the horse is out of
the barn, but still, whatshould happen now? And why is it
important that it happened now given thatthe horse is out of the barn?
Yeah, I mean this is Itis absolutely incredible to me that, you
(07:26):
know, four years after the pandemic, the world scientists politicians has not come
together to investigate the origins. Imagineif nine to eleven occurred and instead of
the nine eleven Commission we said,well, it doesn't matter who cares.
The reason it's important is because thereis continuing efforts to conduct research to make
(07:48):
viruses more virulent, more transmissible,and it is quite possible that a future
lab League whatever you believe about COVID, but a future labileeue could occur.
So we really have to understand whathappens so that we can put in place
effective regulations so if a lab Leaguedid ocer, we can make sure it
doesn't happen again. We're talking withRoger Pilka Junior, the proprietor of the
(08:11):
Honest Broker sub stack. If youjust look up Roger Pilka Junior subsect,
you'll find the link and you actuallycan read it for free. And I
don't know why. Well, Ido know why Roger does that. We
talked about it last time on theshow. But I encourage you to become
a paid subscriber as I am becauseI support Roger's work and it's just such
(08:33):
important stuff that he does. Youmay hesitate to go down this next road
with me, so just tell meyou don't want to. If you don't
want to. Why do you thinkthe people who did the Proximal Origins paper
and the shadow advisors behind the scenes, like Fauci, thought that that was
a good idea. Why did theywant to tell the world it couldn't have
(08:56):
been a lab league. Yeah,I think there's a couple answers to this.
I mean, if you take alook at the record, it's kind
of a Keystone Cops sort of thing. They all started out saying, well,
we need a formal investigation from theWorld Health Organization. That wasn't going
to happen, and they wound upproducing this paper that took on a life
of its own and became much moresignificant than I think any of them ever
(09:16):
anticipated. I don't think they intendedit to be shadow science advice that influenced
health the world thought, but itturned out that way. So you know,
the obvious interest of the research communityis they don't want to be the
ones that were to blame if theUS government was involved in the funding,
the Chinese government was involved in theresearch. Boy, that is a big
(09:39):
black eye for a lot of importantpeople. So I fully understand why they
wanted to have the lab leak offthe table. That's why we want balanced,
independent investigations so that people with interestsdon't shape the outcomes. So,
folks, that's one example of somethingwhere there were massive public policy implement implications,
(10:00):
especially for our freedoms every bit asmuch as for our money, uh,
based on reactions to COVID and soon, and scientists were I'm going
to say lying to us. Rogermight not use a word quite that harsh,
but that's what I'm going to say. I want to switch to another
topic that's related, and in away, I actually think what's going on
in this one is more egregious interms of offence to science, and this
(10:22):
is a piece Roger wrote called climatecooking and the subhead on his substack how
a few billionaires helped push climate scienceto the extremes. And what I want
to focus on with you, Roger, which you already focus on because I'm
a data nerd, is this ideaof RCP eight point five and how much
(10:43):
prominence it still has in all ofthese discussions about how what we must do
and all the money we have tospend and we have to make people stop
driving cars, on and on andon. So what is what is OURCP
eight point five and where did itcome from? And then we'll talk about
why it's inappropriate for it to beused. Now, Yeah, let me
start by saying, you know,climate change is real. I'm a big
(11:05):
supporter of policies focused on emissions andadaptation. At the same time, I'm
a big additude for getting the scienceright. And for a long time,
we're talking more than a decade,climate science and policy has been dominated by
the most extreme scenario available about thefuture. This scenario says that we are
going to burn massive amounts of coal, They're going to be massive amounts of
(11:26):
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Wenow know what's wrong, and the scientific
community and policy community has had avery difficult time getting itself off that scenario.
It still dominates our discussion, andyou know that's good news if you're
worried about climate change. It doesn'tmake the problem go away, just makes
it more manageable. But it's reallya story of why science can't keep up
(11:48):
with our understandings in the early daysof the United Nations IPCC accumulating and putting
out these various models. Am Icorrect that RCP eight point five? Which
I does that mean an eight pointfive degrees celsius increase in average temperatures?
Is that what eight point five means? No, it's so it refers to
what's called radiative forcing eight point fivewatts per meter squared. What people need
(12:13):
to know, it's a temperature changeof something like five or six degrees celsius
by twenty one hundred, and theestimates now is that we're headed to like
two point four. So it's way, way way off where we think we're
headed. Okay, back at thetime when RCP five eight point five was
first put out as one potential path, at that moment, was it already
(12:33):
the most extreme of the potential pathsthat was you know, published as a
reasonable potential path or at least oneof the most extreme. And if so,
why was it accepted by so manyas their baseline rather than saying we're
rather than as worst case. Yeah, I mean, I mean this is
(12:54):
this is part of the problem.It goes back twenty years, two thousand
and five, when these scenarios wewere first proposed and selected. And yes,
RCP eight point five was the mostextreme of the four scenarios that were
selected to study and use in policyanalysis. I mean, for scientists,
there's a reason why you might wantto use an extreme scenario because you can
(13:15):
then you know, better detect inyour models, you know, the signal
of climate change versus natural variability,and so on. For policy advocates,
the more extreme the scenario, themore easy it is to sell climate policy.
If you're a researcher and you publishan extreme study with extreme results,
much easier to get it into ajournal, much easier to get it cited
in a major newspaper. So there'sa lot of interlocking incentives that kind of
(13:39):
pushed us towards the extreme and havekept us from course correcting. Now that
we've discovered it's implausible. Okay,So I'm going to ask you a question
that is similar to a question Iasked about the last topic. Why is
it important to get this right?Why is it important to If this is
what it takes shame scientists out ofusing a model that they must know is
(14:05):
not the path that the climate ison, why is it important to get
it right? Yeah? So,I mean, the first thing to say
is this is probably the best keptsecret in all of climate science. Everyone
in the climate community is fully awareof this. There are already efforts underway
to develop the next generation of scenarios, leaving RCP eight point five behind,
even as studies come out still everyday using it. The reason why it's
(14:31):
important is we're making multi trillion dollardecisions about the future of the global economy
based on projections that are out ofdate. If this was the economy and
we were using data from twenty yearsago to manage the economy, we say
that's crazy. You know. Tome, the whole idea that we're going
to manage climate policy based on twentyyear old scenarios is itself a huge problem.
(14:56):
We need to figure out how toupdate these scenarios every year update our
knowledge, so that means changing howwe do research. Well, so be
it. This is too important atopic to let out of date. Science
persists the way we have. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And I
will say, without putting words inRoger's mouth, that the reason that folks
(15:16):
are still using this wrong and extremeprediction of climate catastrophe is they can make
more money by doing that. Theycan get the grants, they can get
the clicks, they can get allthis stuff. I'm not going to put
Roger in a position of saying thatstuff about Dema, because he's nicer about
it than i am. Roger PilkaJunior is a professor at the University of
(15:37):
Colorado for another some months and thenhe will be professor emeritus. Please subscribe
to Roger's substack. It's called TheHonest Broker. You can just go look
up Roger Pilka Junior substack and youwill find it, and it's on my
blog at Roskiminski dot com. Andplease become a paying subscriber. Roger did
not ask me to ask you that. I just want you to do it
(15:58):
to support his fine work. Roger, thanks so much for your time.
As always really really great stuff andimportant stuff. Thanks Ross, I always
appreciate talking with you all right.Likewise,
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.