Comments for My view on climate change

Comment on Comment on Pielke Jr’s main conclusions by Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:10:31 +0000

I laid out my case for why the politicization of science by scientists matters in a book (THB). You may choose disagree with the arguments in that book. I’d welcome such a discussion. But to call such work a “smear campaign” or “science bashing” is to dodge the arguments I actually make in a rather ironic fashion.

I didn’t read the book nor do I intend to. But obviously the smears referred to were in the blogs. … sigh …

Comment on Comment on Pielke Jr’s main conclusions by Bart

Bart — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:59:01 +0000

Deep Climate,
Thanks for your feedback.
Mitigation doesn’t seem to be strictly defined. Even in the IPCC reports, it remains unclear whether mitigation refers to emission reduction only or to the whole pallette of trying to minimize the effects of climate change. However, to prevent confusion, we named the assessment we did “between adaptation and emission reduction”.
Joe Romm is a physicist by training afaik. 9 is the hot potato for sure. You’re right, Pielke has a tendency to support those who do the ‘real’ attacks. That’s a big part of what I take issue with.

Comment on What do we know? by Bart

Bart — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:11:37 +0000

Sully,
Without specifics it’s hard to respond to what you’re claiming. There are bound to be places and people where an honest exchange of ideas is not welcomed, and that may indeed also happen at the ‘warm’ side of the fence. But all too often, such claims are made regarding people and sites that are open to such honest exchange of ideas, but that are not open to the same old nonsense that keeps resurfacing. Without specifics I have no clue of you’re talking about the former or the latter. RealClimate is a prime example of the latter, though plenty of people disagree of course.

Comment on Who to believe? by Marco

Marco — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:21:39 +0000

Yeah right, mostly on “our side of the AGW debate”, and then vehemently defending the false claims of keeping data and methods secret. Do I really need to repeat the fact that McIntyre had the data Briffa used for FIVE years already? Do I really need to repeat the fact that you cannot blaim Phil Jones for not handing out data that is owned by commercial organisations?

Comment on Comment on Pielke Jr’s main conclusions by Bart

Bart — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:27:22 +0000

Roger,
Your opinions about scientists’ behavior seems to be more a blog activity than a research activity, and more based on opinion than on research.
It’s a little more than counterintuitive if you’d claim (you haven’t yet, but you haven’t refuted the claim either, so it’s still in the air) that Gavin has done more harm than Singer? What is your take on that?
I think I gave plenty of substance in my full length reply.

Comment on Comment on Pielke Jr’s main conclusions by Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:53:39 +0000

I might be a “louder” critic than you, but not one of the “loudest” I would think.

Anyway, FWIW, some comments on your comments:

#1: A couple of the conclusions of the 2006 Munich Re “consensus” are based on setting IPCC TAR 2001 in amber. But IPCC AR4 goes further in attribution of extreme events, as do a couple of key recent publications.

#3-5: Aren’t geoengineering/air capture mitigation too? And where does CCS fit in for you?

#6-7: I’m with you there.

#8: There’s lots of low-hanging fruit in efficiency in Canada and the U.S. – so I could not agree more. I have been working on a college project where we are approaching 20-30% reduction in natural gas consumption via procedural initiatives and retrofit. Very minimal investment and time so far, and huge payback.

#9: Romm is a scientist, no? Add him to Pielke’s bad-guy scientist pantheon.

Obviously this is the area of biggest concern. You said it all very well, I think.

But not only does Pielke denigrate scientists, he also supports their skeptic attackers like McIntyre and exaggerates their accomplishments to say the least. A low point was calling Pat Michaels sidekick Chip Knappenburger’s analysis of temperature trends “fair”.

#10: Rehash of #1 when you boil it down. Which scientific assessments? I know he doesn’t like CSSP. But what else? AR4?

There’s an annoying lack of specificity in many of these conclusions. Oh well, slippery is better than sticky.

Comment on Who to believe? by Steve Reynolds

Steve Reynolds — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:14:59 +0000

Well, you guys are certainly in agreement, but I am appalled by this rejection of a key ingredient for the scientific method to resolve this kind of issue in the needed time frame. There can be no excuse for keeping climate data and methods secret. It is not science if you can choose who checks your work.

You may think you are defending yourselves from ‘claims of fraud’, but in reality, you are encouraging those claims by making it look like you have something to hide. And remember, I’m saying this as someone mostly on your side in the AGW debate.

Since this appears to be on-topic at Peilke Jr’s blog now, I’ll continue the discussion there.

Comment on What do we know? by Sully

Sully — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:45:29 +0000

Six readers now :) Although I arrived too late for the survey. I was impressed with your exchange with Roger Pielke. One quibble. There is danger in scientists failing to launch broadsides at the popularizer exaggerators on both sides of what has become (and probably had to become) an acrimonious debate, dealing as it does with enormous interests shared at least in some measure by anyone who wants to read under a hundred watt bulb. I can’t be the only person who reacts to an apparently one sided debater / critiquer by turning him off – even if his core arguments seem reasonable.

I used to go, for instance to the warming side links at climate debate daily until I noticed that even reasonable sounding “denier” and cost effectiveness commenters were handled abusively, shut down, etc. while semi and sometimes complete loonies on the warming side were more tolerated. The managers of a lot of those sites “discuss” things like priests rather than scientists.

Comment on Comment on Pielke Jr’s main conclusions by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:31:25 +0000

This old post may also be relevant:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/sts-contrarianism-3451

Comment on Comment on Pielke Jr’s main conclusions by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:06:52 +0000

Another cross-posted reply …

-62-Bart

What can I say other than sometimes research leads to counter-intuitive conclusions?

If someone says to you that they find the idea that humans can influence the giant Earth system, you’d point them to research that shows this is so. In my area as well, there is research.

The issue is not strong words, but waging a political battle through science. I’m happy to discuss.