Summary of Marcel Crok: Twenty years covering the climate debate | Tom Nelson Pod #157

00:00:00 - 00:55:00

Marcel Crok of the Netherlands discusses his involvement covering the climate debate in this section of the podcast. He previously worked on a hockey stick draft project in 2004, which led him to research the hockey stick graph and find independent experts to confirm their findings. At the time, their findings were politically incorrect and met criticism, but this intrigued him and led him to focus on climate change full-time. He mentions that even with the acceptance of all IPCC assumptions, climate sensitivity estimates range between 1.5 and two, indicating that natural climate change may also be a factor. Crok disagrees with the idea that all warming since 850 is due to greenhouses, and he discusses the Dutch media's focus on science journalism and less polarization compared to the US media. Crok also talks about his organization Clintel Foundation and the World Climate Declaration, a group of scientists who signed a declaration agreeing that there is no climate emergency.

• 00:00:00 In this section, Marcel Croc of the Netherlands discusses his involvement in covering the climate debate. He was previously a chemistry and physical chemistry student at the University of Leiden before becoming a science writer and journalist. His editor at the time tasked him with writing about a "hockey stick draft" in 2004, which he found interesting. He spent hundreds of emails and phone calls with Meech and McKitrick, the authors of the rejected Nature paper, and a German scientist who also criticized the hockey stick. This experience intrigued Croc and led him to specialize in the climate debate, working full-time on climate-related content.
• 00:05:00 In this section of the transcript, Marcel Crok discusses his experience of working with McIntyre and McKitrick, specifically on the topic of the hockey stick graph. He explains how their collaboration led to a joint effort to research and understand the details of the hockey stick graph, and to find independent experts to confirm their findings. He acknowledges that at the time, their findings were politically incorrect and were met with criticism from society and the scientific community. However, this intrigued him and led him to focus on climate change full-time. He also mentions that while he wasn't the first person in the mainstream media to write about the hockey stick graph, he was one of the earliest to poke holes in the science behind it.
• 00:10:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses a specific tree species that was used in the original Hockey Stick Temperature Reconstruction (HTI) in the Northern Hemisphere. The Bristol Conifer Pine tree, a species found in a mountain area in California, was the only tree used in the HTI, despite there being many other possibilities. Researchers later discovered that the increase in the tree ring widths of the Bristol Conifer Pine was actually due to CO2 fertilization, which meant that the HTI was not a accurate temperature signal. Despite this, the Bristol Conifer Pine was still used as the basis for the HTI reconstruction for the entire Northern Hemisphere.
• 00:15:00 In this section, Marcel Crok discusses his experiences covering the climate debate over the past twenty years. He mentions that even with the acceptance of all IPCC assumptions, climate sensitivity estimates range between 1.5 and two, indicating that natural climate change may also be a factor. Crok disagrees with the idea that all warming since 850 is due to greenhous
• 00:20:00 In this section, Marcel Crok discusses the climate debate in Netherlands, particularly the country's media coverage. He describes the Dutch media as more open and less polarized compared to the US media, with a focus on science journalism. Crok also notes that it is easier for alternate viewpoints to be published in European countries like Germany, France, and England, whereas the mainstream media in these countries tend to be very alarmist. He gives examples of recent political developments in Italy and Sweden, where more conservative governments have been formed, leading to plans for new nuclear power stations. Crok then talks about his own organization, Clintel Foundation, which aims to publish books, reports, and articles, and engage in court cases, to promote climate intelligence. He is excited to have Joanne Nova, an expert in climate science, join his team to bring a better perspective on the climate debate.
• 00:25:00 In this section, Marcel Crok discusses the World Climate Declaration, a group of scientists, engineers, and other experts who signed a declaration agreeing that there is no climate emergency. Nick Lewis and Nick Le didn't sign but agreed with the conclusion that the conclusion nine years ago was primarily due to human activities, such as greenhouse gases. The declaration has 1,800 signatories, and lately, Nobel Prize winner John Clauser decided to join. The group also faced legal challenges in the Netherlands with Earthrise Foundation v. Shell, a court case that ordered Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% worldwide by 2030. The ice caps are melting, and the oceans are rising, yet scientists and governments around the world are ignoring warning signs and continuing to produce fossil fuels without a plan to address the emergency. We must take immediate action to reduce our carbon emissions to prevent the worst effects of global warming.
• 00:30:00 In this section, Marcel Crok discusses the legal battle his organization, Climate Integrity, faced campaigning against Shell's carbon emissions reduction pledges in the Dutch court system. The case had already been in the appeal phase when Crok's organization tried to intervene, but the judge rejected their arguments because "the facts were already frozen" and the parties involved had already agreed on a plan. Crok argues that this decision is unfair, and that it is impossible for Shell to satisfy its commitments within the given timeframe. He also criticizes Shell for prioritizing its image and public relations over real action on climate change.
• 00:35:00 In this section, Marcel Crok discusses a court case where he was attacked by a Public Broadcasting Company in the Netherlands for allegedly being funded by the oil industry to deny climate change. Crok mentions that this claim was invalidated by the judge, but he lost the case and had to pay the cost of the process. He also discusses a related question regarding funding for research to promote climate catastrophe and mentions reports comparing funding for the climate skeptic movement and the climate movement, including one by Matu Nisbet that looked at the funding for both sides. Crok also mentions that Clintel is 100% funded by donations, mainly small donations from private citizens, and discusses recent efforts to grow their organization and their role in countering the IPCC.
• 00:40:00 In this section, Marcel Crok discusses his idea for a central clearing house for climate policy organizations. He believes that such a centralized organization could connect smaller organizations, and argues that the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the CO2 Coalition, and the KMI are "focused on their own country" and should come together in a more coordinated effort. He also mentions Martin Durkin's follow-up to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and the debate that ensued over its broadcast in the Netherlands in 2007. Finally, he touches on the reliability of certain climate reconstructions proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, and suggests that Steve McIntyre would be a valuable guest on his podcast to discuss these issues in more detail.
• 00:45:00 In this section of the transcript excerpt, Marcel Crok discusses his thoughts on the CO2 issue based on his study of Antarctic Ice cores. He acknowledges the delay between temperature and CO2, but admits that it is difficult to determine with certainty whether the CO2 concentration in bubbles retains the same concentration for 700,000 years. He mentions a Polish scientist named Yarosi who heavily criticized ice corum studies. Crok expresses his plan to write new chapters for an update on a book he co-authored about the IPCC and other topics related to climate change. He also mentions the growing confidence of "green" activists who plan to attack other companies in the Netherlands. He expresses his desire to build a larger organization to support his work in environmental research and advocacy, but acknowledges the need for more funding to achieve his goals. Crok shares his research on the nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands, which he believes has little to do with the climate debate, but rather is a related issue of soil pollution caused by farmers.
• 00:50:00 In this section of the YouTube video, Marcel Crok discusses the nitrogen crisis and its impact on farmers in the Netherlands. The Dutch government has a fund of 25 billion euros to address the issue, but the alleged climate crisis is not being used as justification for the measures being taken. This is due to a judge who, in 2019, ruled that the Dutch policy for dealing with nitrogen emissions was invalid. This has led to economic activity being blocked, even for new house construction and windmill development. The new party "The Farmers Party" has won every provincial election since the controversy regarding farmers' livelihoods, indicating growing support for the farming community.
• 00:55:00 In this section, Marcel Crok discusses a previous project he worked on called "Climate Dialogue," which was funded by the government to discuss controversies in the climate debate. He later realized, however, that the government did not feel favorably towards the project, and it was ultimately killed after two years. Despite this disappointment, Crok believes that a similar project should be tried again in the future. He acknowledges that he needs to research the topic more, but he expresses his gratitude for the opportunity to have a discussion about it.