Have you heard of climate realism?  It varies depending on who uses it, but in general the term refers to acknowledging that while fossil fuels are contributing to climate change, it’s not an existential threat demanding immediate, drastic action.  It describes a view that the proper response to climate change is mitigating the downside while understanding that reliable, abundant and affordable energy from fossil fuels prevents a whole host of problems we could have if we simply left them in the ground.

This is the view held by recently appointed Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, former CEO of Liberty Energy.  I don’t think he coined the phrase “climate realist,” but it is certainly how he has described his own views on climate change.

Wright’s climate realism seems to have rubbed Colorado Public Radio’s (CPR) environmental advocate Sam Brasch the wrong way.  In a recent article Brasch seems to set up an exploration of Secretary Wright’s views, and perhaps the concept of climate realism itself, but in the end is really there to tell us why this view is wrong.  Along the way Brasch commits a major science error by playing fast and loose with the distinction between actual data and computer modeling.   Hint: they are not at all the same.

Sleight of hand journalism

With the exception of the oddly-phrased description of Wright as a “fracking CEO” (at least in the audio version of the article), the CPR article actually starts out decently balanced.  Wright’s views and past defense of fossil fuel production are given a reasonable airing, but this doesn’t last long.  Near the bottom half Brasch opens the floor to those who will say what his editors presumably won’t let him say directly, that climate realism is actually (quoting one of the advocates brought in to do the dirty work) “lukewarmerism,” a view that allows for the worst kind of hypocrisy.

That is, climate realism allows for the wearing of the robes of climate change while denying the things we already know to a certainty: fires are getting worse, hurricanes more intense, and flooding is increasing.

This advocate’s words are bolstered later by Brasch linking to a Politifact (hardly considered an unbiased arbiter of truth) post questioning the notion that wildfires were worse in the past than now, and then the following quote (with link left intact), “Over the last few decades, however, more reliable information has shown that climate change has led to a steady increase in the total area impacted by fires globally.”

To say that Brasch lies here would not be correct nor fair.  That said, Brasch is decidedly not being a forthright broker of information.  There is some sleight of hand going on over data versus modeling that I’ll point out, because it’s something Brasch has done more than once.

Simulations aren’t data

Wright’s contention about wildfires is based on data.  Arguments for and against this claim, even concerns about the validity of the argument, are perfectly reasonable. From my own reading, it seems that there are genuine questions about whether or not wildfires are increasing or decreasing over time.  One bit of convergence I have seen in reading up on the issue seems to be that fires are getting larger, but perhaps not more frequent.  Less agreement seems to happen around the question of why.

But if we argue about the severity of wildfires, it’s something we can measure.  We can count all reported fires above a given size in a year, we can use satellite pictures to measure burned area.  Climate change leading to a steady increase in total area impacted, as shown by “more reliable information” is a misleading statement because it’s comparing apples to oranges.  Wright and others reference measurements, but the “information” Brasch uses to make his all-too-emphatic statement about climate change is a computer simulation.

Computer modeling has its place, but it is not, repeat not, data. Brasch sneaking this into the argument about wildfires (and climate realism in a larger sense) reflects a basic misunderstanding of science.  As a rough rule, simulations and theory, until they are repeatedly subject to experimental verification, are fodder for debate.  They do not settle the matter.  They do not rise to the same level of evidence as does data.

What could have been a chance for readers to learn the perspective of a cabinet-level government official instead becomes a a chance for CPR to show why those views are wrong.  Doing so requires Brasch to be less than forthright to sustain his contentions.  For something billed as journalism, this falls well short of the mark.

Cory Gaines teaches college physics and is a regular contributor to Complete Colorado.  He lives in Sterling on Colorado’s Eastern Plains.  He also writes at the Colorado Accountability Project substack