November 17, 2025 • 19 mins
HOW HAVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS REALLY DONE WITH THEIR PREDICTIONS? Climate science is about predicting what the weather is going to do in the future, which is super hard. We're constantly told what is going to happen in 100 years when we can't accurately predict the weather out two weeks. Dr. Matthew Wielicki took the time to compare what the climate scientist predicted with what actually happened, and it went about as well as you can expect. You can find his Substack about it here, but it is paywalled because this is how he pays his bills but he is on today at 1 to talk about it.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
If you know me, you know I love to talk
about climate change, one of my favorite topics, and mostly
I'm being critical of what passes for climate science. But
the guy that I'm bringing on again is well, he's
even more critical than I am, only he brings receipts
and not just opinions. His name is doctor Matthew wie Leaky,
and he writes a great substack blog. It's called Irrational Fear,
(00:22):
and I link to it on my blog today.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
If you want to go check it out.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
It is paywalld, but it is worth every penny and
it's not very expensive.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
So welcome back to the show. First of all, Matthew,
thanks Mandy, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
So you did something that I often wonder, and that
is you went back and looked at predictions and about
the climate and really just said were they right right now?
What's fascinating me is I love it when I see
in the newspapers we're fact checking no stradamis right, the
very famous prognosticator from hundreds of years ago, and yet
(00:56):
there's never that same intellectual curiosity about climate change predictions.
You have that intellectual curiosity. What did you find in
this rather voluminous report.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Yeah, I think that. I mean, we have to have
some accountability for past practices. I think, you know, we
will hear a lot of rhetoric from the media, and
you'll hear some of the normal characters. We'll say things
like the oceans are boiling. We all know that's not true.
I don't think anybody's going to make policy on that.
But the official documents that the government puts out, which
primarily comes from the Global Change Research Act that started
(01:30):
in nineteen ninety, we make what's called the National Climate
Assessment every year, well every like five years or so,
and that document is used to drive policy. It gets
involved in every policy decision that we have as a country.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
And so I wanted to go back and look at
some of these.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
So I went back and looked at the National Climate
Assessments one and two. So the first one was published
in two thousand and the second one was published in
two thousand and nine. They're not exactly always five years apart,
and so when I started to dig into this, I
kind of started to see a lot of the same
rhetoric that they were talking about before, and increase in
heat waves and increase in hurricanes, heavy precipitation, and you know,
(02:11):
if you only have predictions that are relatively close, it's
hard to judge them. But we have now twenty five
years since the first report came out, and that's a
decent amount of time to start to look into these
And with most of these things that I looked into,
I realized why they're not going back and checking on themselves.
It is because most of these predictions aren't happening. Sometimes
they have the trend actually completely wrong in opposite other
(02:34):
times it's just moving and oscillating and you know, natural
variability and there is no real clear trend. And so
it's just this lack of accountability from all of these
past predictions and how many times can you cry wolf
before the public and hopefully the policymakers stopped listening.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Well, And that's really my point, and that's one of
the reasons that I wanted to have you on because
it's not just hey, look at these goofy climate scientists.
They got all this stuff wrong. We are using these
reports to make policy that is having, in my view,
an incredibly detrimental effect on our economy. In oil in Colorado,
we've shut down oil and gas. We know that energy
(03:11):
prices of skyrocket, and I've got a story on my
blog today about now we're almost a ten percent delinquency
for utility bills, and utility prices have gone up twelve
percent in the last year. These are all choices that
are being thrust upon the American people based on science.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
You know, we're always supposed to trust the science.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
But if we're not checking the science for accuracy, then
we are making massive trillion and trillion dollar decisions based
on garbage. Maybe not garbage, but certainly not good science.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Yeah, and the foundational pillar of all of this is
the science, right, because we're making these sacrifices. We're going
to be willing to pay a little bit more on
energy because the weather was going to get really bad.
That's what they were telling us in two thousand. This
is why you have to make all these sacrifices. And
now we're seeing that that's not actually the case. These
trends aren't trending in any of the way that they predicted,
and so the foundational pillar, the reason for implementing all
(04:07):
of this change and radically transforming our energy sector for
the most part, is really not supported by the observational data.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Anymore.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
It existed in their models in two thousand, I believe
it did. I really think that they were convinced that
this was what going to happen. But you know, the
observational data is what we have to really go on,
and it's just not there.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
So let's talk about two things. Number One, hurricanes, because
they're flashy, right, And when I was living in Florida
in two thousand and four, in two thousand and five,
when we had a lot of storms make landfall, and
all of the climate alarmists, we're like.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Oh, there it is.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
This is just the beginning of hurricane nightmares. And then
after two thousand and four and two thousand and five,
it was like crickets for a really long time. So
let's start with hurricane data. What did they say was
going to happen versus what has happened.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
So you hear the common increase in frequency, intensity, and
recent heavy precipitation associated with hurricanes, increased landfalls that you know,
they kind of cover the gamut of all of it.
And when we go back now and look at the
last twenty five years, we see that hurricane landfalls are
well within natural variability. In fact, this year Florida didn't
(05:15):
get hit at all. That's not I mean, the US
coastline didn't get a direct landfall at all, so that's
pretty rare.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
None of this looks like it's trending.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
What you're seeing now is they play a lot of
these mental gymnastics where they're transitioning from frequency and intensity
to rapid intensification.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
This is a new metric that we haven't really.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Been able to measure since we've had these fancy satellites,
right and these crazy pilots willing to fly into these
hurricanes where now we can actually measure them hour by hour.
So you can see that as the story isn't working
out in the obser observational data, that they're morphing into
these new kind of more difficult to get metrics where
we can't really look back one hundred years and they say, well,
(05:57):
we might have not seen the intensity and frequency going up. Look,
they're rapidly intensifying. But overall, I mean, it's hurricane landfalls
that we should be concerned with. There's absolutely no data
that we're seeing a trend in that. Noah confirms that,
the EPA confirms that, so you know, that's the real
metric that we should be worried about, because that's where
we lose lives and property.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
I would go one step further in that now because
and this is me speculating, it seems that the meteorologists
who work in hurricane alley, who are going to be
talking to the people who are in the line of
the storm, they because they have bought into the narrative
that is going to make storms, you know, more powerful
and more damaging. Now we have a greater sort of
(06:40):
pre hurricane threat level coming from meteorologists, and that's damaging
because people stop listening when you keep telling them that
there's going to be a twenty foot storm surgeon, that
there's going to be damaging winds and everything's going to
be flattened, and then it doesn't happen.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
And I know this.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
From experience of living in a hurricane alley. People stop
listening and then that gets dangerous. So I wonder how
much of that sort of feeds into these prediction models
that are saying to people, this is going to be
the worst storm ever. And then when it kind of
comes through and it's a category two, which isn't that bad,
people just discount.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
That In the future I do. I'm very concerned about that.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
No, I think you're right.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
I think there is a big psychological aspect to that,
to whether the public is going to listen to experts
and warning systems. I think they play a lot of
games too. Now that everybody has a camera, you see
all the images. Now, you know, constantly somebody's showing an
image of a hurricane somewhere, because there's if there's not
one landing year, there could be a typhoon in the Philippines,
for example, And so you know this this this kind
(07:43):
of if it bleeds, it leads, really does it drives
this whole climate thing. The more destruction, the more the
narrative fits, and that drives everybody's fear up. And my
whole argument is it's not in the data. That's why
I name my substack irrational fear, because it's if you
look at the data, it's not a rational fear to
be afraid of hurricanes increasing and you know, damaging the
US coastline. Obviously it's going to happen. It's going to
(08:05):
happen again. But it's no trend that this is some
sort of runway train where where climate change is driving
these more you know, they call them super charged hurricanes, right,
that's just not in the observable data.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
So here in Colorado, we don't have to worry about hurricanes,
but we do have to worry about drought. And drought
is the big thing that we have to worry about
when it comes to food production and everything else.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Drought is what led us to the dust Bowl.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
While that and bad farming practices back in the nineteen
twenties and thirties. So what did they predict for drought
back in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Yeah, so they go back and forth.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
The first NCA one, so that's the National Climate Assessment one,
talks about heightened drought in the Southwest and regional droughts
in the west. The second one increases that even into
the south and the southeast. The NOAH and the EPA
monitor this constantly. We have real time now remote sensors
(08:59):
all over the place. So we have what's known as
a Palmer Drought Index, and that's essentially just a scale
that we use to try to identify for really getting
much drier or much wetter regionally.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
And as a whole nation. And if you look back
at that, we have data that goes.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Back to eighteen ninety, and there's just no reason to
think that this is trending in any direction. We recently
did have a little bit of a drought area, but
the late twenty tens were kind of wet, the nineties
were very wet, and so you have this oscillation where
you kind of move in and out, and that has
a lot to do with ocean circulation patterns and these
these large long term scales that we don't really fully
(09:38):
understand yet because we haven't been monitoring the Earth's system
for that long. But nothing in the data would suggest
that we're driving towards drought. I think that the infrastructure
that we have for managing water has not been updated
in a long time. California, for example, hasn't added any
surface capacity since the late seventies, even though their.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
Population had as doubled.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
So we have a lot of mismanagement in water, but
it's not coming from the fact that climate is increasing drought.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
And you know, even.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Though there are areas that have seen increased drought and
there's areas that have seen increased precipitation, there's just no overall.
Speaker 4 (10:14):
Long term trend.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
I think water mismanagement has a lot more to do
with our issues than climate change.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Is there any area of the initial climate assessment where
they nailed it right, like, dang, guys, great job, got
it one hundred percent. Is there any specific area where
you can say they got that right.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
So the thing that's most on trend, where we're actually
seeing something that's increasing, would be heavy precipitation events. So
these are short term events where we have a very
high increased amount of precipitation. We do start to see that.
There's some arguments that that has to do with just
having a little bit of warmer weather and warmer atmosphere
holds more moisture. You know, people have probably seen no
(10:54):
experience that you go skiing, you get very dry. You
go down to Florida, it's warm.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
And very wet.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
That's because that air capacity to hold water increases as
you increase temperature, and so that.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
Kind of makes sense to us.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Most people don't know that liquid fresh water is minuscule
on the planet. It's only about two percent of all
of the water budget. Most of that's locked up as ice.
So I would argue that if we could increase our
flood infrastructure and think about this a little bit, this
a little bit of increase in heavy precipitation may be
a really good thing for adding more fresh water to
the surface where places like the southeast, that's the primary
(11:28):
use of waters surface water. So I would say that's
the one place that they got it pretty close.
Speaker 4 (11:32):
We're seeing it.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
I wouldn't say it's abnormal increase, but we are seeing
a trend that is continuously increasing in these heavy precipitation.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Events in terms of key.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
So they got it exactly wrong. They got it exactly opposite.
We're seeing less days above ninety five degrees and they
predicted way more.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
So you know, it's hit or miss. But overall, I
would I would give them, you know, a D for
their predictions.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
So moving forward, and this is one of the things
that I've had people say, well, you know, science is
always getting better, the technology is always getting better.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
We're always able to know more.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
But to your point about the very brief amount of
time that we even have significant rudimentary sort of weather
you know analysis on a consistent basis, We've only been
doing this for what like one hundred and thirty years
with any real consistency, and that back then was with
(12:26):
again almost you know, ancient style of barometric pressure measurement
and things of that nature. So how do you how
would you argue or make the point that perhaps we're
maybe out ahead of our skis with proclamations that we
one hundred percent understand what we're seeing when we only
have that limited amount of data.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
Yeah, I think I think one hundred and thirty is
a very generous number. I would probably say more like
fifty years, because it's really satellites. Right, that the whole
climate crisis was sold to us as a global problem
and it was going to take this radical transformation because
things were going to go haywire.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
And in the early.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
IPCC assessments in the late nineties and even in this
first National Climate Assessment in two thousand, we just didn't
really have enough data to make to say one way
or the other. And so you know, it was fair
game to make these predictions. But we're twenty five years later,
and we have more and more satellites, we have more
and more technology, remote sensing stations all over the planet.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
We have the data.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
So if it was so obvious, right, the science was settled,
this was I was called a denier to question it.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
If it's so.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Obvious, how come we have to do more and more
gymnastical gymnastics to find the little things that are that
are that are kind of getting a little bit wacky.
If it was supposed to be so obvious and we
were going to supposed to have this radical transformation, I mean,
the way that it was sold to us was that
this was just going to be right in our faces.
I mean, there's going to be fires burning everywhere, and
there's no water and the last time you're ever going
(13:57):
to see a ski area because snow is going to disappear.
I mean I heard all of these things that no
more snow was on the front of New York Times,
and we're just seeing that all of this rhetoric was
just for one reason, and it was for creating an
emotional response and essentially taking money from the Western world.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
That was the motive.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
We now have the observational data none of it was
coming true, and so why are we doing all this?
Speaker 2 (14:22):
So I agree wellheartedly.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
I mean the reality is is that this is why
I find this so concerning, that we're not having genuine,
robust discussions about the wrongness of these predictions as we're
decapping our own economy.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I mean, especially here in Colorado, our governor.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Is all in on net zero and it is going
to cost a small fortune to move Colorado to where
he wants it to be. And if it's all based
on bad intel, that is criminal. And yet because of
the way the climate industry works, and Matthew, you probably
know some of the scientists that I've spoken to since
I got my first show in two thou and five.
(15:00):
If you have a theory that you want to test
that does not end with it's man made global global
climate change, it's man's fault. It is emissions. If that's
not your theory, you can't get funding. No one will
fund your study because the dogma is so entrenched that
we can't even look at at other alternatives, like perhaps
(15:22):
we should be spending this much time and energy on
mitigation instead of trying to change the climate. It feels
like a don keyxty like quest based solely an ego
at this point.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Yeah, I mean, I'll tell you from a personal experience
as a young academic trying to land some of my
first grants and seeing the ideological stances that the funding
agencies like NSF and NAH and NASA were taking. It's
just I mean, you could you could see it all right?
You know, this was had nothing to do with science,
This has nothing to do with finding the truth or
(15:55):
anything like that. It was just let's just push this
mantra down the road that has to stay alive no
matter what. And we're just going to keep going down
this road regardless of what the observational data says. And
if there's no money to do it, none of these
young academics are going to go try to prove this anyway,
so we'll have this what I call manufactured consensus.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Right.
Speaker 3 (16:15):
It's not a conspiracy where there's somebody up there like
pulling the strings, but it is a conspiracy in the
way that the system essentially is manufacturing a consensus, bying
by having funding agencies, journals, essentially anyway to make your
academic record. If you make that so ideological, then if
you don't follow the you know, toe the line, you're out.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
I experienced that personally, and.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
So it creates this kind of false sense of consensus.
But really what you're doing is just kicking out people
that don't agree. And so I think we should start
with getting rid of some of these funding agencies and
their ideologies. They should be about the truth, regardless of
where it takes you, especially now that we have all
this observational data that proves that a lot of these
predictions were incorrect.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
A text sur just as this, Mandy oh As chat
if climate change is real? And see what your answers.
I will all do that chat is my personal assistant. Now,
I'm Matthew, So I asked Chad everything. Does your guests
have an opinion on the movie Climate. Somebody's trying to
get me to watch this movie. I don't really care.
I don't know what it's about.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Is it called Climate the movie?
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Because I'm in that that's mad for a skeptical take.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
I'm not sure. I haven't. I haven't. Is there a
new one coming out? I can look.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
I don't know if that's it or not.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
I only get so much information regarding water mismanagement. Recently
visited Hoover Dam. Does that play into the water mismanagement.
I'm gonna go one step further, Matthew, and to partially
answer this question in my view, because now we have
the states trying to figure out how to divvy up
the Colorado River, and they're supposed to have already done this,
and they can't come to an agreement. My question is
(17:45):
is why is California getting any of the water because
they are literally on the Pacific Ocean, build desalinization plants
and leave our water alone.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
I mean, but that's a whole different conversation.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Well, unfortunately, desalization takes a lot of energy, and they
are very energy poor at the moment because they are
also just gung ho on this you know, green energy thing.
But that the main thing with the Colorado River Lake
Meat Lake POW.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
This was the Colorado River Compact. It was signed in
the twenties.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
The twenties were really an abnormally wet decade and so
when they originally signed this, they made predictions.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
This is one of the again a faulty.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
You know, we have to be very careful about our predictions,
and we have to understand that the planet's not just
going to go along with this. There's a lot of
natural variability. They estimated a significantly larger amount of water
than what they got for the next decades, and that's
what we think is now the average. We just think
that there was this little heightened blip in the twenties
and so the allocations were wrong from the start. And
(18:46):
you know, population has been growing dramatically and throughout the
Southwest and the west, and so you add all those
factors together, you make you have some water issues. But
none of this is really related to climate or CO two.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Doctor Matthew will his substack is a rational fear. It
is great worth the worth a small price of admission
to keep up to date on this, I put a
link on the blog today. Thanks so much for making
time for us again, Matthew, really interesting stuff.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Thanks Mandy
If you know me, you know I love to talk
about climate change, one of my favorite topics, and mostly
I'm being critical of what passes for climate science. But
the guy that I'm bringing on again is well, he's
even more critical than I am, only he brings receipts
and not just opinions. His name is doctor Matthew wie Leaky,
and he writes a great substack blog. It's called Irrational Fear,
(00:22):
and I link to it on my blog today.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
If you want to go check it out.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
It is paywalld, but it is worth every penny and
it's not very expensive.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
So welcome back to the show. First of all, Matthew,
thanks Mandy, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
So you did something that I often wonder, and that
is you went back and looked at predictions and about
the climate and really just said were they right right now?
What's fascinating me is I love it when I see
in the newspapers we're fact checking no stradamis right, the
very famous prognosticator from hundreds of years ago, and yet
(00:56):
there's never that same intellectual curiosity about climate change predictions.
You have that intellectual curiosity. What did you find in
this rather voluminous report.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Yeah, I think that. I mean, we have to have
some accountability for past practices. I think, you know, we
will hear a lot of rhetoric from the media, and
you'll hear some of the normal characters. We'll say things
like the oceans are boiling. We all know that's not true.
I don't think anybody's going to make policy on that.
But the official documents that the government puts out, which
primarily comes from the Global Change Research Act that started
(01:30):
in nineteen ninety, we make what's called the National Climate
Assessment every year, well every like five years or so,
and that document is used to drive policy. It gets
involved in every policy decision that we have as a country.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
And so I wanted to go back and look at
some of these.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
So I went back and looked at the National Climate
Assessments one and two. So the first one was published
in two thousand and the second one was published in
two thousand and nine. They're not exactly always five years apart,
and so when I started to dig into this, I
kind of started to see a lot of the same
rhetoric that they were talking about before, and increase in
heat waves and increase in hurricanes, heavy precipitation, and you know,
(02:11):
if you only have predictions that are relatively close, it's
hard to judge them. But we have now twenty five
years since the first report came out, and that's a
decent amount of time to start to look into these
And with most of these things that I looked into,
I realized why they're not going back and checking on themselves.
It is because most of these predictions aren't happening. Sometimes
they have the trend actually completely wrong in opposite other
(02:34):
times it's just moving and oscillating and you know, natural
variability and there is no real clear trend. And so
it's just this lack of accountability from all of these
past predictions and how many times can you cry wolf
before the public and hopefully the policymakers stopped listening.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Well, And that's really my point, and that's one of
the reasons that I wanted to have you on because
it's not just hey, look at these goofy climate scientists.
They got all this stuff wrong. We are using these
reports to make policy that is having, in my view,
an incredibly detrimental effect on our economy. In oil in Colorado,
we've shut down oil and gas. We know that energy
(03:11):
prices of skyrocket, and I've got a story on my
blog today about now we're almost a ten percent delinquency
for utility bills, and utility prices have gone up twelve
percent in the last year. These are all choices that
are being thrust upon the American people based on science.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
You know, we're always supposed to trust the science.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
But if we're not checking the science for accuracy, then
we are making massive trillion and trillion dollar decisions based
on garbage. Maybe not garbage, but certainly not good science.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Yeah, and the foundational pillar of all of this is
the science, right, because we're making these sacrifices. We're going
to be willing to pay a little bit more on
energy because the weather was going to get really bad.
That's what they were telling us in two thousand. This
is why you have to make all these sacrifices. And
now we're seeing that that's not actually the case. These
trends aren't trending in any of the way that they predicted,
and so the foundational pillar, the reason for implementing all
(04:07):
of this change and radically transforming our energy sector for
the most part, is really not supported by the observational data.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Anymore.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
It existed in their models in two thousand, I believe
it did. I really think that they were convinced that
this was what going to happen. But you know, the
observational data is what we have to really go on,
and it's just not there.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
So let's talk about two things. Number One, hurricanes, because
they're flashy, right, And when I was living in Florida
in two thousand and four, in two thousand and five,
when we had a lot of storms make landfall, and
all of the climate alarmists, we're like.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Oh, there it is.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
This is just the beginning of hurricane nightmares. And then
after two thousand and four and two thousand and five,
it was like crickets for a really long time. So
let's start with hurricane data. What did they say was
going to happen versus what has happened.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
So you hear the common increase in frequency, intensity, and
recent heavy precipitation associated with hurricanes, increased landfalls that you know,
they kind of cover the gamut of all of it.
And when we go back now and look at the
last twenty five years, we see that hurricane landfalls are
well within natural variability. In fact, this year Florida didn't
(05:15):
get hit at all. That's not I mean, the US
coastline didn't get a direct landfall at all, so that's
pretty rare.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
None of this looks like it's trending.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
What you're seeing now is they play a lot of
these mental gymnastics where they're transitioning from frequency and intensity
to rapid intensification.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
This is a new metric that we haven't really.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Been able to measure since we've had these fancy satellites,
right and these crazy pilots willing to fly into these
hurricanes where now we can actually measure them hour by hour.
So you can see that as the story isn't working
out in the obser observational data, that they're morphing into
these new kind of more difficult to get metrics where
we can't really look back one hundred years and they say, well,
(05:57):
we might have not seen the intensity and frequency going up. Look,
they're rapidly intensifying. But overall, I mean, it's hurricane landfalls
that we should be concerned with. There's absolutely no data
that we're seeing a trend in that. Noah confirms that,
the EPA confirms that, so you know, that's the real
metric that we should be worried about, because that's where
we lose lives and property.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
I would go one step further in that now because
and this is me speculating, it seems that the meteorologists
who work in hurricane alley, who are going to be
talking to the people who are in the line of
the storm, they because they have bought into the narrative
that is going to make storms, you know, more powerful
and more damaging. Now we have a greater sort of
(06:40):
pre hurricane threat level coming from meteorologists, and that's damaging
because people stop listening when you keep telling them that
there's going to be a twenty foot storm surgeon, that
there's going to be damaging winds and everything's going to
be flattened, and then it doesn't happen.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
And I know this.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
From experience of living in a hurricane alley. People stop
listening and then that gets dangerous. So I wonder how
much of that sort of feeds into these prediction models
that are saying to people, this is going to be
the worst storm ever. And then when it kind of
comes through and it's a category two, which isn't that bad,
people just discount.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
That In the future I do. I'm very concerned about that.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
No, I think you're right.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
I think there is a big psychological aspect to that,
to whether the public is going to listen to experts
and warning systems. I think they play a lot of
games too. Now that everybody has a camera, you see
all the images. Now, you know, constantly somebody's showing an
image of a hurricane somewhere, because there's if there's not
one landing year, there could be a typhoon in the Philippines,
for example, And so you know this this this kind
(07:43):
of if it bleeds, it leads, really does it drives
this whole climate thing. The more destruction, the more the
narrative fits, and that drives everybody's fear up. And my
whole argument is it's not in the data. That's why
I name my substack irrational fear, because it's if you
look at the data, it's not a rational fear to
be afraid of hurricanes increasing and you know, damaging the
US coastline. Obviously it's going to happen. It's going to
(08:05):
happen again. But it's no trend that this is some
sort of runway train where where climate change is driving
these more you know, they call them super charged hurricanes, right,
that's just not in the observable data.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
So here in Colorado, we don't have to worry about hurricanes,
but we do have to worry about drought. And drought
is the big thing that we have to worry about
when it comes to food production and everything else.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Drought is what led us to the dust Bowl.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
While that and bad farming practices back in the nineteen
twenties and thirties. So what did they predict for drought
back in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Yeah, so they go back and forth.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
The first NCA one, so that's the National Climate Assessment one,
talks about heightened drought in the Southwest and regional droughts
in the west. The second one increases that even into
the south and the southeast. The NOAH and the EPA
monitor this constantly. We have real time now remote sensors
(08:59):
all over the place. So we have what's known as
a Palmer Drought Index, and that's essentially just a scale
that we use to try to identify for really getting
much drier or much wetter regionally.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
And as a whole nation. And if you look back
at that, we have data that goes.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Back to eighteen ninety, and there's just no reason to
think that this is trending in any direction. We recently
did have a little bit of a drought area, but
the late twenty tens were kind of wet, the nineties
were very wet, and so you have this oscillation where
you kind of move in and out, and that has
a lot to do with ocean circulation patterns and these
these large long term scales that we don't really fully
(09:38):
understand yet because we haven't been monitoring the Earth's system
for that long. But nothing in the data would suggest
that we're driving towards drought. I think that the infrastructure
that we have for managing water has not been updated
in a long time. California, for example, hasn't added any
surface capacity since the late seventies, even though their.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
Population had as doubled.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
So we have a lot of mismanagement in water, but
it's not coming from the fact that climate is increasing drought.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
And you know, even.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Though there are areas that have seen increased drought and
there's areas that have seen increased precipitation, there's just no overall.
Speaker 4 (10:14):
Long term trend.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
I think water mismanagement has a lot more to do
with our issues than climate change.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Is there any area of the initial climate assessment where
they nailed it right, like, dang, guys, great job, got
it one hundred percent. Is there any specific area where
you can say they got that right.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
So the thing that's most on trend, where we're actually
seeing something that's increasing, would be heavy precipitation events. So
these are short term events where we have a very
high increased amount of precipitation. We do start to see that.
There's some arguments that that has to do with just
having a little bit of warmer weather and warmer atmosphere
holds more moisture. You know, people have probably seen no
(10:54):
experience that you go skiing, you get very dry. You
go down to Florida, it's warm.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
And very wet.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
That's because that air capacity to hold water increases as
you increase temperature, and so that.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
Kind of makes sense to us.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Most people don't know that liquid fresh water is minuscule
on the planet. It's only about two percent of all
of the water budget. Most of that's locked up as ice.
So I would argue that if we could increase our
flood infrastructure and think about this a little bit, this
a little bit of increase in heavy precipitation may be
a really good thing for adding more fresh water to
the surface where places like the southeast, that's the primary
(11:28):
use of waters surface water. So I would say that's
the one place that they got it pretty close.
Speaker 4 (11:32):
We're seeing it.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
I wouldn't say it's abnormal increase, but we are seeing
a trend that is continuously increasing in these heavy precipitation.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Events in terms of key.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
So they got it exactly wrong. They got it exactly opposite.
We're seeing less days above ninety five degrees and they
predicted way more.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
So you know, it's hit or miss. But overall, I
would I would give them, you know, a D for
their predictions.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
So moving forward, and this is one of the things
that I've had people say, well, you know, science is
always getting better, the technology is always getting better.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
We're always able to know more.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
But to your point about the very brief amount of
time that we even have significant rudimentary sort of weather
you know analysis on a consistent basis, We've only been
doing this for what like one hundred and thirty years
with any real consistency, and that back then was with
(12:26):
again almost you know, ancient style of barometric pressure measurement
and things of that nature. So how do you how
would you argue or make the point that perhaps we're
maybe out ahead of our skis with proclamations that we
one hundred percent understand what we're seeing when we only
have that limited amount of data.
Speaker 3 (12:49):
Yeah, I think I think one hundred and thirty is
a very generous number. I would probably say more like
fifty years, because it's really satellites. Right, that the whole
climate crisis was sold to us as a global problem
and it was going to take this radical transformation because
things were going to go haywire.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
And in the early.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
IPCC assessments in the late nineties and even in this
first National Climate Assessment in two thousand, we just didn't
really have enough data to make to say one way
or the other. And so you know, it was fair
game to make these predictions. But we're twenty five years later,
and we have more and more satellites, we have more
and more technology, remote sensing stations all over the planet.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
We have the data.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
So if it was so obvious, right, the science was settled,
this was I was called a denier to question it.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
If it's so.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Obvious, how come we have to do more and more
gymnastical gymnastics to find the little things that are that
are that are kind of getting a little bit wacky.
If it was supposed to be so obvious and we
were going to supposed to have this radical transformation, I mean,
the way that it was sold to us was that
this was just going to be right in our faces.
I mean, there's going to be fires burning everywhere, and
there's no water and the last time you're ever going
(13:57):
to see a ski area because snow is going to disappear.
I mean I heard all of these things that no
more snow was on the front of New York Times,
and we're just seeing that all of this rhetoric was
just for one reason, and it was for creating an
emotional response and essentially taking money from the Western world.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
That was the motive.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
We now have the observational data none of it was
coming true, and so why are we doing all this?
Speaker 2 (14:22):
So I agree wellheartedly.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
I mean the reality is is that this is why
I find this so concerning, that we're not having genuine,
robust discussions about the wrongness of these predictions as we're
decapping our own economy.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I mean, especially here in Colorado, our governor.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Is all in on net zero and it is going
to cost a small fortune to move Colorado to where
he wants it to be. And if it's all based
on bad intel, that is criminal. And yet because of
the way the climate industry works, and Matthew, you probably
know some of the scientists that I've spoken to since
I got my first show in two thou and five.
(15:00):
If you have a theory that you want to test
that does not end with it's man made global global
climate change, it's man's fault. It is emissions. If that's
not your theory, you can't get funding. No one will
fund your study because the dogma is so entrenched that
we can't even look at at other alternatives, like perhaps
(15:22):
we should be spending this much time and energy on
mitigation instead of trying to change the climate. It feels
like a don keyxty like quest based solely an ego
at this point.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Yeah, I mean, I'll tell you from a personal experience
as a young academic trying to land some of my
first grants and seeing the ideological stances that the funding
agencies like NSF and NAH and NASA were taking. It's
just I mean, you could you could see it all right?
You know, this was had nothing to do with science,
This has nothing to do with finding the truth or
(15:55):
anything like that. It was just let's just push this
mantra down the road that has to stay alive no
matter what. And we're just going to keep going down
this road regardless of what the observational data says. And
if there's no money to do it, none of these
young academics are going to go try to prove this anyway,
so we'll have this what I call manufactured consensus.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Right.
Speaker 3 (16:15):
It's not a conspiracy where there's somebody up there like
pulling the strings, but it is a conspiracy in the
way that the system essentially is manufacturing a consensus, bying
by having funding agencies, journals, essentially anyway to make your
academic record. If you make that so ideological, then if
you don't follow the you know, toe the line, you're out.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
I experienced that personally, and.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
So it creates this kind of false sense of consensus.
But really what you're doing is just kicking out people
that don't agree. And so I think we should start
with getting rid of some of these funding agencies and
their ideologies. They should be about the truth, regardless of
where it takes you, especially now that we have all
this observational data that proves that a lot of these
predictions were incorrect.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
A text sur just as this, Mandy oh As chat
if climate change is real? And see what your answers.
I will all do that chat is my personal assistant. Now,
I'm Matthew, So I asked Chad everything. Does your guests
have an opinion on the movie Climate. Somebody's trying to
get me to watch this movie. I don't really care.
I don't know what it's about.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Is it called Climate the movie?
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Because I'm in that that's mad for a skeptical take.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
I'm not sure. I haven't. I haven't. Is there a
new one coming out? I can look.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
I don't know if that's it or not.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
I only get so much information regarding water mismanagement. Recently
visited Hoover Dam. Does that play into the water mismanagement.
I'm gonna go one step further, Matthew, and to partially
answer this question in my view, because now we have
the states trying to figure out how to divvy up
the Colorado River, and they're supposed to have already done this,
and they can't come to an agreement. My question is
(17:45):
is why is California getting any of the water because
they are literally on the Pacific Ocean, build desalinization plants
and leave our water alone.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
I mean, but that's a whole different conversation.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Well, unfortunately, desalization takes a lot of energy, and they
are very energy poor at the moment because they are
also just gung ho on this you know, green energy thing.
But that the main thing with the Colorado River Lake
Meat Lake POW.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
This was the Colorado River Compact. It was signed in
the twenties.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
The twenties were really an abnormally wet decade and so
when they originally signed this, they made predictions.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
This is one of the again a faulty.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
You know, we have to be very careful about our predictions,
and we have to understand that the planet's not just
going to go along with this. There's a lot of
natural variability. They estimated a significantly larger amount of water
than what they got for the next decades, and that's
what we think is now the average. We just think
that there was this little heightened blip in the twenties
and so the allocations were wrong from the start. And
(18:46):
you know, population has been growing dramatically and throughout the
Southwest and the west, and so you add all those
factors together, you make you have some water issues. But
none of this is really related to climate or CO two.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Doctor Matthew will his substack is a rational fear. It
is great worth the worth a small price of admission
to keep up to date on this, I put a
link on the blog today. Thanks so much for making
time for us again, Matthew, really interesting stuff.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Thanks Mandy
The Mandy Connell Podcast 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.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com