3 hours ago
Major errors in two papers at the center of the climate liability movement
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/a-2...on-mistake
EXCERPT: A reproduction of their methodology with all four errors corrected results in totals from a $5 trillion gain to a $2 trillion loss, scattered around zero and nowhere near the published $28 trillion loss. By the standard Nature applied in the December 2025 Kotz et al. retraction, the journals have ample justification to retract both papers. The editors of Nature and Science Advances now face a test of their publication standards.
I invite Callahan and Mankin to respond to this analysis and I will be happy to publish their response here at The Honest Broker.
Callahan and Mankin claim to attribute specific losses to specific companies. With their data and code, I find no support for that claim. With correction of clear errors in the application of their methods or the use of equally reasonable choices in applying their method, I can turn their reported $28 trillion loss into net gains, or increase the 2025 total and the 2022 loss.
I found four errors in Callahan and Mankin’s 2025 calculation, and correct each to assess the significance for their reported results... (MORE - missing details)
Missing the boat on extreme event attribution
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/missin...reme-event
EXCERPTS: In July, the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) released a report on extreme event attribution, concluding that the methods have improved considerably, with the most confidence for extreme heat and heavy rainfall...
[...] When the report came out, there was a concerted effort by climate misinformers and their enablers to slime the report and the entire field more generally. These arguments are mainly personal attacks on scientists and accusations that scientists are pushing a political agenda. There is almost no actual critiquing of the science.
A good example is a video from a popular science communicator, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder. I’ve seen a number of Hossenfelder’s videos and generally like them. For example, I really liked her video on John Clauser, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist turned climate skeptic. She took Clauser’s arguments head-on and explained clearly where they go wrong.
Which is why her new video on extreme event attribution is so disappointing. She misses the boat here by attacking scientists’ motivations and crediblity rather than substantially engaging with the science. She starts with some quotes from people on reddit, as if that’s proof of anything. Seriously, you don’t believe the National Academies but you do believe literal internet randos.
She also quotes a news article from the late 2010s where a prominent scientist working on extreme event attribution, Dr. Fredi Otto, says that she often talks to lawyers about the science. [...] This is, Hossenfelder implies, a gotcha. Otto talks to lawyers. You don’t know what she tells them, but I suppose it looks bad. She also quotes a string of prominent critics but never tells her viewers who these people are... (MORE - missing details)
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/a-2...on-mistake
EXCERPT: A reproduction of their methodology with all four errors corrected results in totals from a $5 trillion gain to a $2 trillion loss, scattered around zero and nowhere near the published $28 trillion loss. By the standard Nature applied in the December 2025 Kotz et al. retraction, the journals have ample justification to retract both papers. The editors of Nature and Science Advances now face a test of their publication standards.
I invite Callahan and Mankin to respond to this analysis and I will be happy to publish their response here at The Honest Broker.
Callahan and Mankin claim to attribute specific losses to specific companies. With their data and code, I find no support for that claim. With correction of clear errors in the application of their methods or the use of equally reasonable choices in applying their method, I can turn their reported $28 trillion loss into net gains, or increase the 2025 total and the 2022 loss.
I found four errors in Callahan and Mankin’s 2025 calculation, and correct each to assess the significance for their reported results... (MORE - missing details)
Missing the boat on extreme event attribution
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/missin...reme-event
EXCERPTS: In July, the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) released a report on extreme event attribution, concluding that the methods have improved considerably, with the most confidence for extreme heat and heavy rainfall...
[...] When the report came out, there was a concerted effort by climate misinformers and their enablers to slime the report and the entire field more generally. These arguments are mainly personal attacks on scientists and accusations that scientists are pushing a political agenda. There is almost no actual critiquing of the science.
A good example is a video from a popular science communicator, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder. I’ve seen a number of Hossenfelder’s videos and generally like them. For example, I really liked her video on John Clauser, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist turned climate skeptic. She took Clauser’s arguments head-on and explained clearly where they go wrong.
Which is why her new video on extreme event attribution is so disappointing. She misses the boat here by attacking scientists’ motivations and crediblity rather than substantially engaging with the science. She starts with some quotes from people on reddit, as if that’s proof of anything. Seriously, you don’t believe the National Academies but you do believe literal internet randos.
She also quotes a news article from the late 2010s where a prominent scientist working on extreme event attribution, Dr. Fredi Otto, says that she often talks to lawyers about the science. [...] This is, Hossenfelder implies, a gotcha. Otto talks to lawyers. You don’t know what she tells them, but I suppose it looks bad. She also quotes a string of prominent critics but never tells her viewers who these people are... (MORE - missing details)