“A friend” points me towards Why does the New York Times hate science? by Joe Romm. Sigh. Experience teaches me that RP Jr can wipe the floor with Romm without even trying, largely because Romm falls flat on his face without any help from anyone else.

As far as I can tell (because it took me some time to fight through the ranting) Romm is complaining about RP’s post This post is about how the report summarizes the issue of disasters and climate change, including several references to my work, which is misrepresented where “the report” is the new CCSP report, which I haven’t read. RP is pointing out, yet again, that evidence for increased cost of GW in disaster related losses is thin at the very best, and that people seem very happy to quote outdated reports if they support their pov. Unfortunately, this is a message that many people don’t want to hear. RP’s reasonned calm and well-referenced post is attacked by Romm as “both the lamest and the most intellectually dishonest attack in his career” and Romms excuse for not engaging with any or RP’s arguments is “his entire post is the blog equivalent of waterboarding”.

Romm has an audience, I suppose, that wants to be fed this tripe. But it does him no credit. I’m certainly not listening to him any more. For those that *are* listening to him: why? What was the last useful thing you learnt from him?

[Hmm - mt sounds a bit doubty - perhaps he needs to prepare for a visit from the climate police?]

Comments

  1. #1 Magnus W
    2009/06/23

    Well, He does bring the latest things up so you don’t have to look for them.

    And Energy… and how the politics and media works… in the US…

    Or?

  2. #2 Phil
    2009/06/23

    It makes a change from seeing RP Jr and his fanboys foaming at the mouth

  3. #3 dhogaza
    2009/06/23

    which I haven’t read…

    Then how do you know that RP Jr’s representation is reasonable and accurate?

  4. #4 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/23

    FWIW Romm is right up there with Real Climate on rankings and beats the devil out of the rest of us inc RP combined

    [As I understand it, porno sites are popular too. I shall continue to use something other than raw popularity to measure quality -W]

  5. #5 Gareth
    2009/06/23

    RPJr is all over this like a rash because it allows him to imply that the entire field could suffer the same way. See here:

    Until the climate science community cleans up its act on this subject it will continue to give legitimate opportunities for opponents to action to criticize the climate science community.

    And of course “the opponents” are lapping this up…

    [I think you are misconstruing this, because of your own biases. You *want* RP to be wrong, but he isn't, he is correct. The impacts literature is far weaker than the basic-physical-climatology literature and people do keep misrepresenting it. Joe Romm doesn't care that people misrepresent it - his only part is to criticise those who notice and say so. What is your part? -W]

  6. #6 Gareth
    2009/06/24

    Neither Romm nor Pielke are saints in this. Both are playing politics. Romm gave up on politeness and adopted hyperbole a long time ago. Pielke, on the other hand, is quite happy to pretend an “academic” line while feeding the cranks with stuff they can misconstrue at will. A bit like a vaguely respectable Lomborg…

    I think you’re falling for his tactic in saying that the “impacts literature is far weaker than the basic physical climatology”, because you trust the stuff you know well, but are sceptical of the rest. In that you are not alone…

    My role? I try to communicate the balance of evidence, and that usually means ignoring them both… ;-)

  7. #7 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/24

    You continue to misunderstand the medium you feed. First you need eyes and being outrageous or outraged is a way of attracting them. Otherwise, what Gareth said

  8. #8 Deep Climate
    2009/06/24

    I admit I haven’t checked out the details of the argument between Joe Romm and RP Jr concerning attribution of financial damages to climate change.

    But RP Jr’s take on basic climate science is hardly credible, so I stopped taking him seriously a long time ago. I find it inexplicable that he talks up contrarians like Steve McIntyre and Lucia (of Blackboard fame), while making bizarre accusations against real climate scientists like NASA’s Gavin Schmidt.

    [RP Jr has f*ck*d up a few things - most recently the trends stuff. But I wouldn't agree on "hardly credible". What are you thinking of that is incredible? Examples are always good -W]

  9. #9 Maurizio Morabito
    2009/06/24

    I cannot understand why there are still people believing that “being outrageous or outraged” will result in anything useful. “Climate porn” (exaggerations and the likes) has been debunked as a communication tool long ago.

    Being high on ranking has little to do with the question “What was the last useful thing you learnt from [Romm]?”. I have generated a thousand views myself with a shameless “Great Tits” blog

  10. #10 Brian Schmidt
    2009/06/24

    I’d be interested in seeing criticism on the same issue by someone other than Roger. Anyone have links?

  11. #11 Deep Climate
    2009/06/24

    Pielke’s discussions of climate science have focused on temperature trends of late, as far as I know, so of course that’s what will form my impression. And he’s completely wrong on those, as far as I can tell. I’m happy to reconsider if you can point me to more credible scientific discussion on that or another topic.

    [Yep, the trends stuff was cr*p and an embarassment to him. A regrettable example of him piling into something he didn't understand and being to stiff-necked to admit error. However, no-one goes to RP Jr for basic cliamte science. His forte is the climate/politics interaction, and hurricane impacts in particular. He is good at that. If you can poke real holes in what he has said there, please let me know because I am honestly interested -W]

    I did find the AGU presentation by McIntyre and Pielke on spatial distribution of hurricanes. Can’t say I was impressed, as their conclusions appear to depend on the time frame examined, but YMMV. Certainly not a breakthrough overturning the peer-reviewed literature, but not as obviously wrong as all his trend stuff.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/disasters/001288agu_powerpoint_with_.html

    But the constant cheerleading for contrarians is also damaging to Pielke’s credibility. For example, in his interview at CEJournal, Pileke claimed that Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org “now publishes regularly in the peer reviewed literature”.

    McIntyre has exactly one peer-reviewed artcle in a recognized science journal (GRL in 2005), so at best this is highly misleading statement.

    http://www.cejournal.net/?p=607

    [Yep, that looks like cr*p too. And Lucia, from all I've seen, hasn't a clue. McI, however, does have a clue. Please don't assume some kind of guilt by association. McI is sadly wsated in the hole he has dug himself -W]

    I have a problem with this, too:
    “McIntyre’s views on climate science policy make good sense and are good for the community as a whole.” [posted on Prometheus in support of McIntyre's criticisms of the IPCC process]

    I see. The IPCC process is all wrong, and if we would just let the self-appointed climate science “auditor” fix it, all would be well.

    [The IPCC is not perfect. It could be improved. But (as I've just said above) McI has dug himself into his hole so deeply that he is doomed to be ignored. The complaints about data-sharing have some basis, but are so badly inflated that they have become meaningless -W]

  12. #12 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/24

    Sorry Maurizio, blogging is pamphleteering with a computer and that is something with a very long history where being outrageous has proved to be both useful and usual over the centuries. That does not mean it is for everyone, but thinking that no one will make use of the tactic is wrong, and thinking that it will be ineffective is also wrong.

  13. #13 thingsbreak
    2009/06/25

    I’ve said this about Lomborg as well, but you don’t seem to acknowledge it. It should be a huge red flag when someone’s “errors” are always in the same direction. RealClimate, which is by no means beyond criticism, at least challenges papers/reporting that are both too “alarmist” and too “conservative”/denialist.

    Off the top of my head, RPJr. has been “wrong” (to put it charitably) about:

    - Aforementioned temp trends [you participated, no need for reference]
    - What AR4 ensemble (temp) modeling actually sets out to do WRT natural variability vs. what it intentionally does not [too many times to reference]
    - Claims that climate models (specifically AR4) predict monotonic warming [Ref]
    - Endorsing/publishing a guest post flat out lying about Hansen re: his characterization of coal trains and energy execs misleading he public [Ref]
    - Gore talking about Cyclone Nargis [Ref]
    - Hansen endorsing “air capture” [Ref]
    - Gavin Schmidt “admit[ted]” to “stealing a scientific idea” [Ref]

    Anyone have any examples of RPJr. getting things wrong in favor of IPCC or better yet the “alarmist” position?

  14. #14 thingsbreak
    2009/06/25

    FYI, I submitted a post with enough links to get it caught in the spam filter.

  15. #15 calypso
    2009/06/25

    TB didn’t you call Pielke on his “guest post” and didn’t he have it taken down immediately and apologized? And didn’t you give him credit for that? Seems like kind of a big misleading oversight in your list of mortal sins, all of which focus on blog opinions (which we know ain’t worth much). Lets see a take down of his peer reviewed work instead. Got any of that?

  16. #16 thingsbreak
    2009/06/25

    TB didn’t you call Pielke on his “guest post” and didn’t he have it taken down immediately and apologized?

    No, actually. At first he ignored the criticism. Then after comments at Michael Tobis’s site when he did acknowledge me, he basically denied any responsibility for the content of the post that he hosted under his own (vs. Prometheus’s general) name. Additionally, similar attacks had been made (and to my knowledge have not been withdrawn) against Bill McKibben as well.

    Seems like kind of a big misleading oversight in your list of mortal sins

    I made no claim of “mortal sins” (but please, continue to conflate mild and sourced criticism of others with enforcing religious orthodoxy). I provided links for others to verify my claims.

    all of which focus on blog opinions (which we know ain’t worth much). Lets see a take down of his peer reviewed work instead. Got any of that?

    RPJr. our host and myself clearly disagree that blogs are of little worth. But to answer your question, I rather doubt that RPJr. is able to get idiocy like ‘the AR4 models show monotonic warming’ into a refereed journal. E+E maybe, but I don’t think he’s gone that far ’round the bend ;). Besides, I for one don’t really have the chutzpah to wade in and opinionate on fields where I am ignorant of relatively basic facts so I won’t attempt to wade into poli-sci or disaster trends, where RPJr. does his peer reviewed work. If only he would do the same…

  17. #17 calypso
    2009/06/25

    TB, I went to your link and saw that you had written the following:

    “Roger has promptly and courteously responded, noting that the post is being pulled and Michael Zimmerman “will be rewriting it in light of comments from [me] and others”. I sincerely thank Roger and Michael for the way they are handling this.”

    And to learn that your complaint is about a post that he didn’t even write? Thin gruel, and more than a bit misleading on your part.

    I also looked for the quote from him that you cited, ‘the AR4 models show monotonic warming’ and I couldn’t find it, or anything like it. Again pretty thin gruel. Is that the best you’ve got?

    If your argument is that you disagree with some of the things he writes, well, join the club. But you’ll have to do better if your aim is to impeach his argument with Romm, who does not come off looking so well in this debate.

  18. #18 calypso
    2009/06/25

    TB, I went to your link and saw that you had written the following:

    “Roger has promptly and courteously responded, noting that the post is being pulled and Michael Zimmerman “will be rewriting it in light of comments from [me] and others”. I sincerely thank Roger and Michael for the way they are handling this.”

    And to learn that your complaint is about a post that he didn’t even write? Thin gruel, and more than a bit misleading on your part.

    I also looked for the quote from him that you cited, ‘the AR4 models show monotonic warming’ and I couldn’t find it, or anything like it. Again pretty thin gruel. Is that the best you’ve got?

    If your argument is that you disagree with some of the things he writes, well, join the club. But you’ll have to do better if your aim is to impeach his argument with Romm, who does not come off looking so well in this debate.

  19. #19 thingsbreak
    2009/06/25

    TB, I went to your link and saw that you had written the following:

    Yes, that was in response to comments we exchanged after my post, after I again brought it to his attention at MT’s, after he initially claimed he bore no responsibility for a column he hosted in his own name, etc. Your point?

    And to learn that your complaint is about a post that he didn’t even write? Thin gruel, and more than a bit misleading on your part.

    How on earth is this misleading? “Endorsing/publishing a guest post flat out lying about Hansen re: his characterization of coal trains and energy execs misleading he public” It’s exactly what I said. And honestly, what was far more telling about that whole exchange was that he clearly knew what Hansen actually wrote (he referenced the comments in a different post), so he either: 1) read the guest post and knowingly allowed Zimmerman to smear Hansen for something he didn’t say, or 2) didn’t even bother to read a post he hosted on his column at Prometheus. Which of the two options is the more irresponsible, I couldn’t say.

    I also looked for the quote from him that you cited, ‘the AR4 models show monotonic warming’ and I couldn’t find it, or anything like it. Again pretty thin gruel. Is that the best you’ve got?

    It’s at May 1, 2008 11:05 AM in the linked thread. In response to the question “When has anyone ever proclaimed that anthropogenic warming would be monotonic?” he writes, “Um, IPCC. Figure 10.26″. This is not only false, it’s laughable. Obviously IPCC has never claimed anthropogenic warming would be monotonic, and the various assessment reports are replete with discussions about natural variability. Either he is completely clueless as to a very basic facet of the debate, or he intentionally is trying to put words into IPCC’s mouth so he can attack them for something they never said.

    Caught out, he has no choice but to lamely attempt to redefine monotonic warming at May 1, 2008 02:17 PM as no 10 or 20 year period of cooling! Either that or he just simply didn’t know what monotonic actually means. Again, I leave to you to decide which is more irresponsible.

    Honestly, I’m not quite sure why you’re attempting to defend the indefensible.

  20. #20 calypso
    2009/06/25

    TB, very thin gruel. Very. Even Romm can do better than this sort of semanticizing.

  21. #21 David B. Benson
    2009/06/25

    Regarding the general point and not the personalities, I suggest considering the reports from Munich Re and Swiss Re as well as the actions of US insurance companies in Gulf Coast states.

    For the latter, actions speak louder than words.

  22. #22 thingsbreak
    2009/06/25

    TB, very thin gruel. Very. Even Romm can do better than this sort of semanticizing.

    Oh FFS, at least be adult enough to acknowledge that your criticisms were unfounded. You might not like the examples that I cited, but I in no way misrepresented them. Also, my entire point in offering them was to see if anyone had examples where he got things wrong in the other direction so that I might reevaluate my own thinking on the matter. Instead I get unfounded accusations as to the accuracy of the examples, and when rebutted, am rewarded again with the admonition “thin gruel” muttered into the shirtsleeve of a retreating scold.

  23. We get that you don’t like me. We get that you compare my blog to pornography. We get that you criticize others for not providing facts to support their position even though you provide none to defend your rant. We get that you didn’t even read the report whose trashing by Pielke you have just endorsed.

    Now how about some facts to back up your attacks. Please identify a single scientifically inaccurate statement in the paragraph that Pielke excerpted from the report and then used to impugn the soundness of the entire report and the integrity of the authors.

    Please tell me how Evan Mills — who qualifies as a scientist in your definition — deserves to be smeared as a “Cooney” by a political scientist like Pielke?

    I thought you defended “real” scientists from fake ones. It appears you are just another contrarian who doesn’t care enough about the science to even read the stuff you are helping to attack.

    And please identify the scientifically inaccurate statements in my blog post that you trashed.

  24. And to set the record straight, the Pielke post you describe
    as “reasonned calm” is titled “Obama’s Phil Cooney and the New CCSP Report” — which you conveniently ignore in your hyperlink.

    [The name "Phil Cooney" means nothing to me. I'm not a colonial, remember -W]

    It begins:

    “Imagine if an industry-funded government contractor had a hand in writing a major federal report on climate change. And imagine if that person used his position to misrepresent the science, to cite his own non-peer reviewed work, and to ignore relevant work in the peer-reviewed literature. There would be an outrage, surely . . .”

    Pielke ends with:

    “One answer might lie in the fact that Evan Mills was a co-author of the report (p. 159). Do you think that had anything to do with it? His list of consulting clients is positively Phil Cooney-esque.”

    [Cooney, of course, was an oil industry lobbyist who used his White House position to "radically change" U.S. climate science reports. Mills is a highly credentialed, well published, highly respected, scientist.]

    “So a person responsible for misrepresenting science in a government report has ties and presumably financial interests with companies that have an interest in climate policy outcomes? No, couldn’t be. Could it?”

    Yeah that is reasoned and calm. It is a vicious smear against a real scientist by a political scientist — all based on one paragraph in a 193-page report by many of the nation’s top climate scientists which you haven’t even read (and if you did, you’d see it is quite a modest review of the literature).

    And as I demonstrated, the paragraph Pielke attacks isn’t filled with misrepresentations. It isn’t filled with a single statement that Pielke or anyone else has disproven. Indeed, the thrust of the paragraph is no different than a statement Pielke himself made in Nature, no different than the conclusion of a journal article Pielke himself has praised.

  25. #25 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/26

    Not to jump on a dead horse, but the interesting point here is who do you trust, the refereed literature or insurance company reports. The right answer is Mr. Dooley’s, trust everyone, but RTFR. The debate is not limited to a narrow range of sources, nor are the debaters. You can read Pielke’s post as another attempt to narrow the window of the acceptable to his opinion, so Eli will.

    The funny thing is that in this as in many other cases, Roger is only right for an extremely narrow reading of what he writes, so RTFR, which he is kind enough to link to, and clever enough to realize that only a few will. OTOH, his drive by on Evan Mills is simply inexcusable. Tasty tho.

  26. Wow!

    Thank you for making my case better than I ever could have.

    You have so little concern for what you write here, so little concern for the integrity of scientists like Even Mills, that you endorse Pielke’s smear of him as reasoned and calm without even bothering to spend 30 seconds on Google to find out how unreasoned and uncalm Pielke was being in compaing Mills to Cooney, an anti-scientific stooge of the fossil fuel industry and George “W.”

    But of course you never read the CCSP/USGCRP report — and as your amazing email to me this morning makes clear, you don’t even understand the (nonexistent) basis of Pielke’s entire argument.

    Did you even read Pielke’s full post or try to understand it? Seems not. Did you even read my response? Seems not. Why read when you can blog?

    Thank you, Eli, for pointing out to the other “W” that what Pielke wrote about is “simply inexcusable.”

  27. #27 Steve Bloom
    2009/06/26

    [The name "Phil Cooney" means nothing to me. I'm not a colonial, remember -W]

    Erm

    Also, re your view that RP Jr.’s forte is the climate/politics interaction, could you list an example or two of what you’ve been impressed by in that regard? I’ve been not too impressed.

  28. #28 calypso
    2009/06/26

    Joe Romm had his clock cleaned on this one. Move on. Does Evan Mills have thin skin or something? A blogger gave him a hard time. So what? Isn’t that what bloggers do (present comany included)? You guys are a bunch of whiners, especially Romm.

    And Romm calling Connelley a “contrarian,” that is frickin’ hilarious. Clueless Joe, Connolley is a “real scientist”. How can Joe ever win a debate with anyone when his standard line is to attack the man? He can’t except with those already convinced, like the 3 guys on this thread.

  29. #29 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/26

    Try to go lower calypso, AFAEK Evan Mills has not written a word on this. OTOH, he did not selectively edit RPJ’s CV either.

  30. #30 gravityloss
    2009/06/26

    Blogs are write only media it seems…

    I was going to write advice for William, then noticed I hadn’t read Joe’s piece!

    It gets recursive really quickly – people giving advice to others on what to say while not bothering to read the stuff prompting the saying in the first place! (Ok, there are stylistic advice you can give independent of content, but then, you don’t break a style (anger / arrogance) when giving them…)

    So I went meta above as a way to avoid reading the original sources but still trying to post something meaningful.

  31. #31 Deep Climate
    2009/06/26

    Joe Romm said:

    “I thought you defended “real” scientists from fake ones. It appears you are just another contrarian who doesn’t care enough about the science to even read the stuff you are
    helping to attack.”

    Take it easy, Joe. WC is a real scientist himself. But he’s simply not that well versed in the ins and outs of the contrarian universe. For example, he didn’t seem to be aware of RP’s cheerleading for the contrarians and against the real scientists, until it was pointed out to him. And I’ll wager he hasn’t spent much time at ClimateAudit or RP’s Prometheus, to name two blogs which are filled with constant innuendo and attacks against the real climate scientists.

    William, I admire your even-handed work on Wikipedia where you have definitely kept the record straight on a number of subjects. But my advice is that you had better stick to the science, unless you’re prepared to do a whole lot of research on the climate contrarian phenomenon a.k.a. the “War on Science”. Admittedly, it’s mainly a North American phenomenon, so maybe not worth your while.

    #25 ER. Yeah, what he said. As usual.

  32. #32 Brian Schmidt
    2009/06/26

    Re “What was the last useful thing you learnt from [Romm]?”

    I’d say it was that no-till farming might not store carbon:

    http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/21/no-till-farming-does-not-save-carbon-and-is-not-a-carbon-offset/

    I’d also say that Joe overstated the case when you review the comments, but I wouldn’t even know the concept was debatable if Joe hadn’t brought it up.

  33. #33 Tenney Naumer
    2009/06/26

    [Redacted. Please remember civility folks. There are real people at the ends of the wires -W]

  34. #34 Luke Warmer
    2009/06/27

    William – congratulations on becoming a “contrarian”.

    I LoL when I read that. You see dogma won’t allow for any alternative interpretation of the facts however rational. It surely can’t be too long before you’re labelled a denier.

    BTW Deep Climate’s response labels you a “real scientist” but as I understand it you’re now working in the “real” world and so (whatever your education, employment history, aptitudes or understanding) you are technically no longer a scientist. In fact you’re in danger of, in your own words, “going Emeritus”.

    The road to Copenhagen is going to be paved with exaggeration, distortion, plain lies and pure politics. I hope you will grok our PoView soon. Keep up the good work.

  35. #35 Deep Climate
    2009/06/28

    Nice try, Luke.

    Sure, William’s a little out of it, but he’s not so far gone. He’s still ours – you can’t have him.

    But speaking of “gone emeritus”, how about that poor guy with 32 years at the EPA, cutting and pasting stuff from blogs and calling it a “suppressed” report. (These blogs are not the ones that WC thinks might be OK, but the other kind). Very sad indeed.

    See:
    http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michaels-and-the-friends-of-science/

  36. #36 Hank Roberts
    2009/06/28

    Chuckle. Nice to see William cited by the more and more embarrassed Fuller, after deepclimate’s plagiarism report:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/langswitch_lang/pl#comment-128390

    So I went to Fuller’s column and cited William there.
    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d27-Next-generation-questions-for-global-warming?#comments

    Sad what’s happened to newspapers and the people who used to be journalists.

  37. #37 Hank Roberts
    2009/06/28

    PS.

    No offense to Joe but William is right that RPJr will win any public argument. Joe gets upset publicly and visibly; RPJr stays smooth and chirpy almost all the time in comment threads, which is how good PR has to be done. Perhaps he goes home afterward and kicks the cat, but only his veterinarian knows for sure. That’s why the cats belonging to most bloggers stay healthy, their owners are in pajamas and slippers. But I digress.

    Question for William though, I can see how RPJr can be right about attributing consequences — we know the global warming signal, long anticipated, is just beginning to emerge from the noise, so the same has to be the case, even more so, for consequences (because none of the consequences are pure events, they too have lots of noise).

    But I thought that was at the “duh” level when I first read the statements. We know there are people who leap into discussion of what must be going to start to be happening. That’s PR too. RPJr can blow that stuff out of the water by just stating the obvious, the same thing Hansen was saying decades ago — that the signal is weak and emerges only late.

    The ohter side of this — that we know it’s coming even though we can’t say what the specifics are — seems solid.

    With RPJr’s record — he seems to clearly lean in one direction all the time, near as I can tell, as you point out about the ‘trends’ issue — what I don’t get is why there’s anything special in what he says about consequences. Of course we can’t say very much yet about what’s happening now.
    So? This is not a big deal.

    What RPJr manages to do very successfully, I think, is set off people who can be riled up to embarrass themselves.

    I hope your bucket-of-water approach works on the catfight.
    The hardest damned thing in science is learning how to deal with the sophisticated PR types.

    Joe, a teaching story, I hope:

    I watched this happen with DDT–one of the early researchers spoke at my college in the 1960s, in a public debate with a PR rep for the manufacturer; the PR guy wiped the floor with the scientist, who was young, heartfelt, and utterly unprepared for the arch wording and needling he got; the college audience applauded the PR guy; the scientist, by the time we talked to him over dinner, was sorting out the experience, but he was just anguished about the damage he had been trying to explain from his research. He knew he’d lost and had to do better).

    Rule One of Sidewalk Preaching: do not get in an argument with crazy people; passers-by will not be able to tell which of you is the crazy one and will simply cross the street to get away from the argument, and not learn anything from you.

    Or to put it another way: “You’re not here to die gloriously. You’re here to make the other guy do that.”

  38. #38 Hank Roberts
    2009/06/28

    re
    > http://www.cejournal.net/?p=607
    > [Yep, that looks like cr*p too.

    I’d sure welcome a longer commentary on that, written out carefully for journalists who desperately need detailed clues.

  39. #39 Hank Roberts
    2009/06/28
  40. #40 Deep Climate
    2009/06/28

    But RP Jr needs to win on style, because he sure can’t win on substance.

    Have you all seen the cherrypicking uncovered by WC’s friend Eli?
    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/06/ethon-rtfr-with-move-of-his-food-source.html

    Commenting on Piele’s take on a new paper by Schmidt et al:
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/schmidt-et-al-replication-of-pielke-et.html

    To quote myself:

    A couple of things have always nagged at me about Pielke:
    a) A lot of his cites (and his own work) are based on IPCC 2001, rather than more recent analyses of AGW-cyclone links.
    b) He seems to studiously avoid analyzing or even discussing the 1970-present time frame.

    So here we have both problems on display in a nice neat concise package.

    It seems that Pielke is selectively quoting from Schmidt et al’s chain of reasoning to give the appearance of “speculation” about a link between hurricane losses and AGW.

    But the conclusion in Schmidt et al (from the abstract) is stronger:
    “This increase [in losses over 1971-2005] must therefore be … more likely than not, also due to anthropogenic forcings.” [Emphasis added]

    And Pielke fails to mention that Schmidt’s “no trend” statement applies to 1950-2005, but not 1971-2005.

    So maybe we need a whole new category; how about “gone emeritus jr”?

  41. #41 Deep Climate
    2009/06/28

    I think “gone jr emeritus” has a better ring to it. I’m open to suggestion though.

  42. #42 Deep Climate
    2009/06/28

    #40 will make more sense when my other comment comes out of moderation. Or not.

    Meanwhile, #38 HR

    Hank what would you like a longer commentary on exactly? It seems pretty straightforward to me – RP jr is making stuff up about the resume and worth of fellow bloggers McIntyre and Lucia. It’s a mutual admiration society/”scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours” kind of thing.

    There’s nothing wrong with it per se, but when combined with that sort of stretching of the truth it’s unacceptable. RP never did come clean on the McI pub record.

    Or to put it another way: none of them know what they’re talking about, but they know how to talk each other up.

    Some day I’m going to a post an analysis of Ross McKitrick’s home page where he lists all the M&M publications as “peer-reviewed science”.

  43. Deep Climate: W may be a real scientist by your definition, but not by W’s. Heck, he doesn’t even know if Chu and Holdren are still scientists.

    [Joe - this is a rather revealing comment, and one I shall pick up on again, so you may wish to consider rephrasing. I notice that according to you, being a "real scientist" involves recognising whether C+H are scientists or not. To me, this appears to appalling parochial and tribal. Further, you seem to have a considerable degree of sensitivity about the concept "real scientist" which isn't a terribly meaningful term (and I don't just say that because I'm not in science any more) -W]

    Hank: If you are implying Pielke is “crazy” that is it farther than I would go. I tend to think he is all too calculating in his attacks on the integrity of leading US climate scientists.

    W: We get that you know far more than I do and can’t possibly learn anything useful from my blog. One thing you certainly know that I don’t is how Pielke can tell Nature magazine in 2006, “Clearly since 1970 climate change (i.e., defined as by the IPCC to include all sources of change) has shaped the disaster loss record” and then spend the next three years smearing the integrity of anyone else who says anything similar.

    Another thing you know that I don’t know is how the following pretty innocuous paragraph from the USGCRP report can possibly be used as the sole basis of a harsh assault on the credibility of the climate report and the integrity of the authors:

    “While economic and demographic factors have no doubt contributed to observed increases in losses, these factors do not fully explain the upward trend in costs or numbers of events. For example, during the time period covered in the figure to the right, population increased by a factor of 1.3 while losses increased by a factor of 15 to 20 in inflation-corrected dollars. Analyses asserting little or no role of climate change in increasing the risk of losses tend to focus on a highly limited set of hazards and locations. They also often fail to account for the vagaries of natural cycles and inflation adjustments, or to normalize for countervailing factors such as improved pre- and post-event loss prevention (such as dikes, building codes, and early warning systems).”

    Another thing you know that I don’t is how Pielke could possibly suggest that the authors are stating or even implying that there is a high certainty of a very large connection between climate change and insurance losses, especially when that paragraph is immediately followed by this one:

    “What is known with far greater certainty is that future increases in losses will be attributable to climate change as it increases the frequency and intensity of many types of extreme weather, such as severe thunderstorms and heat waves.”

    The final thing you know that I don’t is how Pielke can possibly trash that first paragraph and its authors, while at the same time praising as “a valuable paper” a new study whose abstract concludes:

    “In the period 1971–2005, since the beginning of a trend towards increased intense cyclone activity, losses excluding socio-economic effects show an annual increase of 4% per annum. This increase must therefore be at least due to the impact of natural climate variability but, more likely than not, also due to anthropogenic forcings.

    So yes, you clearly know a lot of things that I don’t understand at all.

  44. #44 Hank Roberts
    2009/06/28

    Joe Romm writes:
    > Hank: If you are implying Pielke is “crazy”

    The word in quotes does not appear in the thread anywhere, let alone in anything I wrote.

    Of course I am fully aware of all Internet traditions, so the quotation marks don’t throw me for a loop.

    But really, Joe, where did you get that …. oh, wait, never mind. Invoking Rule One, I cross the street quietly and pass on.

  45. #45 Hank Roberts
    2009/06/28

    oh, wait, the search engine didn’t find it, but sure enough, I did use that word in quoting Rule One from the old Berkeley sidewalk days. No, the smooth chirpy one is rarely the one that anyone supposes may be a brick short of a kilogram.

  46. #46 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/28

    Hmm, if Roger is so smooth, why does Eli get under his skin? If the bunny may speculate, a lot of it is not getting mad, but not accepting any nonsense and being very blunt, in a light hearted, humerus** sort of way…

    ** We know, and OK, sometimes Eli hauls out the mole whacker.

  47. #47 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/28

    In this context, perhaps Eli should start where he came in:

    Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr. is consciously using his training as a political scientist and his platforms (Prometheus, otherwise known as Ethon’s Snack Bar, etc.) to shape the debate about global climate change. He is doing this to further both policy goals that he favors and his career.

    Nothing about this is wrong per se, but those who disagree with his policy goals and the assumptions from which they either precede or follow need to recognize that his playbook is political and scientific not solely scientific. Trying to meet him on the basis of science alone will, in the long run, be a losing game. In other words, the issue is not only the science, but the tactics.

    Prof. Pielke uses a number of tricks which can only be dealt with if they are recognized and called out. Among them are “working the refs”, complaining that he has been ill dealt with when, in fact he has not, close and tortured reading of texts, and when it suits his purpose, out come the scissors.

    You can’t deal with this by being outraged. You can by treating him, in Henry Farrell and Michael Berube’s words, with derisive mockery. (Names changed below to.., well…)

    His main line of attack is that of the standard political hack, concocting a farrago of innuendoes, and half-truths in order to beat down those whom he sees as his political opponents. However, when he’s attacked in the same terms as those he himself engages in, he’s perfectly happy to appeal to academic norms of reasoned debate in order to accuse his accusers of themselves being politicized. When climate scientists and bloggers on the contrary try to engage him in reasoned debate, they’ve lost the battle before they’ve started it. They grant his (often preposterous) claims a credibility that they don’t deserve, and set themselves up to have the bejasus beaten out of them through distortion, selective editing etc.

    Eli’s (and yours Mr. Phelps, should you care to accept it) job, therefore, is to contest that legitimacy, and to model a way of dealing with Pielke that does not give him what he wants: namely, (1) important concessions or (2) outrage. He feeds on (2), of course, and uses it to power the Breakthrough Institute and Massive Persecution Complex he runs out of Boulder; and most of the time, we give it to him by the truckload. Climate scientists and bloggers need to try (3), mockery and dismissal, and thereby demonstrate, as I put it on my blog, that when someone tries to blame increases in hurricane frequency on Evan Mill’s consulting fees, that person needs to be ridiculed and given a double minor for unsportsmanlike bullshit.

    Consider this modest contribution a gift from Rabett Rescue

  48. #48 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/28

    FWIW, the last paragraph is also a paraphrase of MB

  49. #49 Deep Climate
    2009/06/29

    Eli,
    That’s all well and good (and good fun too).

    But will it :
    a) Stop RP from attacking the real scientists
    b) Get him off Andy Revkin’s rolodex

    I guess (a) is “Mission Impossible”, so I’d settle for (b).

  50. #50 Hank Roberts
    2009/06/29

    Eli could give smoothie lessons; so could William, in a different way. Why in fact they do. Watch and emulate.

    Memo to Joe: even if it’s a fib, sometimes the best response to someone smart and competent on your side who criticizes your approah is “You may be right. I will think on it.”

    Just because they’re on your side doesn’t mean you’re on their side — but everybody wants to save the world.

    You can pet a dog any old way; with a cat, you have to pet it in the right direction or it gets irate.

    Preacher Billy Sunday said people told him he was trying to pet the cat the wrong way — and his reply was that it was past time for the cat to turn around.

    William’s headline has a clue in it.

    To quote http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#keepcool :
    ______________________
    “Remember: When that hacker tells you that you’ve screwed up, and (no matter how gruffly) tells you not to do it again, he’s acting out of concern for (1) you and (2) his community. It would be much easier for him to ignore you and filter you out of his life. If you can’t manage to be grateful, at least have a little dignity ….
    _____________________

    If you can be set off by words on a screen and can’t hide it from the other readers — someone will set you up, and set you off, to ruin your effectiveness. They will do it at the time your good sense is most needed in this longest struggle for the fate of the world.

  51. #51 Hank Roberts
    2009/06/29

    I now have email within 12 hours from both RP and JR inviting me to butt out, saying … well, never mind. They may very well be correct, and I will think it over.

  52. HR: You wrote I shouldn’t enter into a public argument with Pielke (I don’t actually think I’m doing that but let that go for now).

    In that same post you offered “Joe, a teaching story, I hope” in which you wrote “Rule One of Sidewalk Preaching: do not get in an argument with crazy people; passers-by will not be able to tell which of you is the crazy one and will simply cross the street to get away from the argument, and not learn anything from you.”

    I thought the implication was fairly straightforward that you were advising me not to get into a public argument with Pielke since that would be the same as getting into an argument with “crazy people.”

    My response was conditional (i.e. giving you a chance to rephrase) and I think kind of mild : “If you are implying Pielke is ‘crazy’ that is it farther than I would go.”

    You then wrote

    “Joe Romm writes:
    “> Hank: If you are implying Pielke is “crazy”

    “The word in quotes does not appear in the thread anywhere, let alone in anything I wrote.”

    Uhh, that isn’t true. Anyway, I’m not trying to pick a fight with you here (even though you seemed to be trying to incite me). Feel free to revise and/or explain both of your comments above.

  53. #53 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/29

    Deep, done often enough, done with verve it will drive him into the closet with his nearest and dearest groupies. The goal is, as you put it, to get him off of Andrew Revkins Blackberry (we ARE modern here at Rabett Run. One of the things that happened is that Roger’s universe shrank when he could not take the heat on Prometheus. Being an industrious guy he kept the media connections, but with more and more papers taking comments on opinion pieces, this too is subject to deft balloon plunking. It’s something that Joe Romm has to watch out for also.

  54. W: What I find revealing is that after I have repeatedly detailed the wholly unjustifiable nature of the smear Pielke made against the USGCRP report and its authors — a smear you endorsed (and continue to endorse as “correct”) without actually bothering to read the report — you pick out one tangential sentence on scientists to respond to.

    But let’s go through this scientist stuff. Apologies to others for all of the repetition, but I see now that if one doesn’t do that, then people try to misrepresent what you said, as W did just now.

    I wrote to you:

    > Please tell me how Evan Mills — who qualifies as a scientist in your definition — deserves to be smeared as a “Cooney” by a political scientist like Pielke? I thought you defended “real” scientists from fake ones. It appears you are just another contrarian who doesn’t care enough about the science to even read the stuff you are helping to attack.

    Deep Climate then wrote “WC is a real scientist himself.”

    Now based on our previous email exhcange, we both know that you don’t qualify as a “real scientist” by YOUR own definition.

    [Which defn would that be? -W]

    So I thought that was worth pointing out to people. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with my definition of a “real scientist.”

    So I wrote: “Deep Climate: W may be a real scientist by your definition, but not by W’s. Heck, he doesn’t even know if Chu and Holdren are still scientists.”

    Then you wrote:

    >>[Joe - this is a rather revealing comment, and one I shall pick up on again, so you may wish to consider rephrasing. I notice that according to you, being a "real scientist" involves recognising whether C+H are scientists or not. To me, this appears to appalling parochial and tribal. Further, you seem to have a considerable degree of sensitivity about the concept "real scientist" which isn't a terribly meaningful term (and I don't just say that because I'm not in science any more) -W]

    I think what YOU wrote is revealing. You don’t consider yourself “in science” anymore. You don’t know whether Chu and Holdren are scientists.

    [I carefully said that I wasn't "in science". I said nothing about whether I was a real scientist, let alone providing a defn -W]

    But, to clear the record, as anyone who follows the thread above can plainly see, I NEVER said — as you claim — that “being a ‘real scientist’ involves recognising whether C+H are scientists or not.” I didn’t say it, nor do I believe it.

    I just wanted to point out to Deep Climate that you don’t consider yourself a real scientist anymore — which your comment above would seem to agree 100% with. And I also wanted to point out to people here that you don’t even know whether Chu and Holdren are still scientists — since I consider that position of yours absurd.

    I do not have “a considerable degree of sensitivity about the concept ‘real scientist’ — I think you do, however, and I thought it odd that you were endorsing a scientifically indefensible smear of a practicing scientist (if you prefer that term, although it is equally meaningless) by a political scientist who has made a habit of attacking the integrity of practicing scientists, including hundreds of members of the AAAS, as I have detailed.

    Hope that clears things up.

    [Yes, I think yuo've made your viewpoint clearer -W]

    If you think all this a really worth “pick[ing] up on again,” well, you may be in a minority of one on that, but this is your blog. But I’d appreciate your accurately representing what I have written here.

    [But I'd appreciate your accurately representing what I have written here - sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this -W]

  55. #55 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/29

    Eli thinks that there is a more useful distinction to be made, whether scientists in their current positions are functioning as scientists, and beyond that, whether they retain all or some of the tribal characteristics of scientists. (Great discussion to be had there, but you do need an anthropologist to get anywhere)

    Holdren and Chu are inarguably scientists. They are functioning as adviser to the President of the US and secretary of a large (somewhat) science based bureaucracy. I would argue that they are acting as scientists with respect to reality. Where they tend to deviate is by silence rather than affirmation of nonsense. Failing to make such distinctions leads to food fights.

  56. #56 bigcitylib
    2009/06/29

    Good Lord! Is Stoat going emeritus?

  57. #57 gravityloss
    2009/06/29

    Bigcitylib – not in a totally evil way though: William admits his ignorant arrogance out in front – making statements not even having read the papers.

    I think this is what he is trying to say, that people should not take his comments on this particular Romm/Pielke affair too – what’s a good word? – Substantially? as too insightful / deep / realistic? Because he himself says so.

    [No. Thats not my defence. The report I haven't read is a red herring. Yes yes I know. -W]

    That’s his defence. And I think there is some idea to it! It’s also lazy and careless though. :(
    Just like this comment. More befitting of a comment rather than a blog post. Don’t know why it got so much attention?

  58. #58 Deep Climate
    2009/06/29

    Perhaps I should have said “actual” scientist rather than “real” scientist. The problem I was referring to is that Pielke tries to blur the distinction between actual climate scientists on the one hand and “outsiders” on the other (his word), which include folks like McIntyre or himself, who are non-scientists, or Blackboard Lucia, who may be a practicing scientist (I’m not sure), but certainly without any relevant expertise.

    WC most assuredly does have expertise in climate science, even if he’s no longer active in that field.

    Semantics aside, it should be clear that I’m firmly on Joe’s (and Eli’s) side on the original point, as well as regarding Pielke in general. It’s just that William is unaware of what is painfully obvious to the rest of us (and so probably was ill-informed in his original judgments on the matter).

    I would think William would rethink his position about Pielke in light of all the above information; at least, I certainly hope so.

    [I'm going to write the "Pielke post" at some point, but want to do it properly. I haven't seen anything new in the responses, thought I do see some things I've forgotten -W]

  59. #59 bigcitylib
    2009/06/30

    …because I’ve still got some Oregon Petition Cards if he wants ‘em. They won’t just send those to anybody. You have to have credibility.

  60. #60 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/30

    [I'm going to write the "Pielke post" at some point, but want to do it properly. I haven't seen anything new in the responses, thought I do see some things I've forgotten -W]

    Conclusively gone emeritus

  61. #61 Deep Climate
    2009/06/30

    Well, William, perhaps this is new. Now RP jr is also claiming legal expertise.

    [No, RP Jr is making a comment on a legal situation. You know the difference - why are you being deliberately inflammatory? -W]

    Apparently Alan Carlin’s EPA superiors were legally obligated to pass on a plagiarized, shoddy piece of rambling nonsense (originally put forward as supposed official NCEE branch review comments on the proposed endagerment finding on greenhouse gases).

    [Well, maybe they were and maybe they weren't. I don't know, and nor do I much care. I haven't read the thing, and I don't intend to. I'm going to take RC's word for it being a pile of worthless nonsense, science-wise. RP Jr, however, is more interested in administarive and legal process. It is perfectly clear that his post is about that, and not about the validity of the stuff. Why are you so worked up? -W]

    And apparently plagiarism is not necessarily a firing offence at government agencies.

    [Well I don't know. Ideally, plagiarism would be pounced upon and stopped. But I gather there is a lot of politics involved, so maybe the people concerned get protection or somesuch. If you care, I guess you should write to your senator or somesuch. I can't see why attacking RP for offering commentary is going to help anything -W]

    Conclusively gone jr emeritus.

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/senator-inhofe-takes-what-is-given.html

    [I notice you have no room to praise RP's defence of free speech: In January 2006 I wrote a post titled "Let Jim Hansen Speak" in which I called the actions of the Bush Administration to limit the ability of NASA"s most famous scientist to speak out on policy matters "incredibly stupid."

    Also, your paraphrase equating the suppression of the Carlin report with the muzzling of James Hansen in 2007 is imprecise. What RP said was EPA's actions to limit Carlin's ability to have input are simply put, incredibly stupid, for the exact same reasons that NASA's actions under the Bush Administration to try to muzzle Hansen were also incredibly stupid. These are different things, and as a scientist I hope you appreciate the importance of precise delineation of similar things -W]

    -W]

  62. #62 Eli Rabett
    2009/06/30

    Eli left basically the same comment over there. Carlin could be in very serious trouble if his position paper was not invited given the formal nature of rulemaking.

  63. #63 Deep Climate
    2009/07/01

    Eli #62,
    “Over there” is where? I can’t see your comment at RP jr.

    William # 61,
    No, I’m not a scientist and never claimed to be. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but I think both you and RP jr are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

    As for RP jr’s legal analysis (now that we have the text he is relying on), I already see a number of circumstances that don’t apply to the current situation, even based on the limited excerpt presented to bolster the RP’s case.

    [Fine. Now *you're* discussing legal matters - as you have every right to. Just as RP has every right to - yes? -W]

  64. #64 Hank Roberts
    2009/07/01

    Ah, so _Ethyl_ is where the precautionary principle was settled on for EPA endangerment. I never knew that. (For you youngsters, Ethyl made tetraethyl lead.*

    “A threatened or potential harm is sufficient to qualify as an endangerment._163″

    n.163 [161 United States v. Conservation Chemical Co. 619 F. Supp. 162, 192 (W. Dist. Mo. 1985).] at 192 (citing Ethyl Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S.
    _________
    From:
    Green Medicine: Using Lessons From Tort Law AND Environmental Law … 2007
    http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=stephanie_aleong
    __________________________
    * http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/75/4/344 (PDF downloads)
    Those in Europe who wonder why Americans act the way they do should really read this article and consider the time that elapsed from the first warnings until that Supreme Court case.

  65. #65 Hank Roberts
    2009/07/01

    Here’s that famous Munich Re chart:
    http://desdemonadespair.blogspot.com/2009/06/graph-of-day-losses-from-floods.html

    caption at that blogger’s page says:

    The approach of comparing the trends in weather-related and geophysical disasters is based on an analysis of loss-generating events in the publication Journal of Flood Risk. The article states that by “Assuming the socio-economic driving factors behind loss-generating events to be the same for all causes, the difference is likely to be due to climate change”. The validity of the approach has been reviewed with a number of experts. While it is a rough approach, particularly on shorter time series, it is seen as comparatively strong. Alternative analyses of number of affected, recorded losses of property and insured losses are associated with greater uncertainty than the frequency of events. …

  66. #66 Hank Roberts
    2009/07/01

    Oh, and do click the ‘Citing Articles’ link on the AJPH page.
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=link:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajph.org%2Fcgi%2Freprint%2F75%2F4%2F344

    This is why I want to see more reasoned writing from everyone about climate change and why the snarkiness saddens me, I look at the long history of public health and I see the same thing happening each time. Pride, ego, money, delay, trashing of people and their work, decades and even generations of delay and accumulated damage over time that could be avoided by early action.

    In any given day, week, year, the cost of prevention and adjustment is far higher than the minor cost of doing nothing.

    Having read a bit more, I’m starting to think rather higly of the decision in _Ethyl_.

    I found a bit more here on some law firm’s website:
    _________________
    —excerpt follows—

    … EPA lays the groundwork for its key determination that, while some level of scientific uncertainty may remain as to the mechanism for global warming, a precautionary approach demands regulation of large man-made sources of GHG emissions. EPA acknowledges “there are varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues,” but cites the Massachusetts case and Ethyl Corp. v. EPA (D.C. Cir., Cert. Denied 1976) for the proposition that “the Clean Air Act and common sense…demand regulatory action to prevent harm, even if the regulator is less than certain that harm is otherwise inevitable….

    … In the past, EPA’s Section 202 “endangerment findings” have been announced together with proposed regulations for control of emissions. For example, EPA’s endangerment finding for lead in gasoline emissions was accompanied by proposed regulations. But in this proposal, EPA points out that “the threshold endangerment and cause or contribute criteria are separate and distinct from the standard setting criteria.”
    … EPA is keenly aware that any move it makes on GHG regulation under the CAA is likely to be both appealed and ultimately superseded by legislation. The Obama Administration also wants the United States to be an active participant at the United Nations global climate change summit in Copenhagen in December. Thus, EPA has streamlined its proposal, yet moved the Administration’s agenda forward incrementally for Copenhagen in the Fall. It has also carefully presented the Endangerment Finding as a single question for public comment and ultimately for the appellate court….”
    http://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/item.asp?item=3895

    ——end excerpt—–

    Pure speculation — perhaps the real business opportunity here for wannabes is to get involved in fighting off the eevil European precautionary principle by arguing that it’s just too expensive to take precautions without certainty they’re needed.

    We often hear about discounting _future_ costs from economists. But we rarely hear about the far more pervasive discounting of _past_ costs (“sunk costs”) by those arguing against implementing public health measures. That’s why delay seems so cheap in the books — the dead are dead, the dumb are dumber than they might have been from lead damage for an extra fifty years and the amount of lead spread across the landscape is hugely greater than it might have been had the _Ethyl_ decision happened in the 1920s instead of 1976.

    But nobody counts those as the costs of delay.

  67. #67 Hank Roberts
    2009/07/01

    Scratch the last sentence of the above, I knew that was wrong even as I hit Enter. The other blogger types will just say nobody could possibly have been sure that the damage was due to the new problem, that’s what I meant. But what we need is a comparison of hindsight and foresight to assess the ways delay is justified repeatedly over history.

    And it’s where we need counterexamples if there are any. What has the public health profession wasted the public’s money on, if anything?

    That’s where I do hope for more serious and reasoned assessment of the other blogger’s pages — and where I think the other blogger has, as Eli notes, many ways to divert that.

    TWTP has a good link on costs “via OIIFTG”

    http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/:

    “… many of the most salient issues in international environmental politics are salient specifically because they have a fundamental long-term component. Perhaps the best example of such an issue is climate change. Any change in behavior in the short-term to limit greenhouse gas emissions will only yield benefits over a generational time scale. It is precisely this sort of temporal disjuncture between costs and benefits that environmental economics cannot address adequately. This is the case because economic tools, for reasons to be discussed below, have trouble pricing environmental goods, and the farther the cost element of cost/benefit analysis is projected into the future, the less reliable estimates are likely to be. At a certain point, the compounding of this decreasing reliability makes the cost estimates analytically counterproductive….”

    http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/9/6/1/pages69611/p69611-2.php

  68. #68 Hank Roberts
    2009/07/01
  69. #69 Deep Climate
    2009/07/01

    HR,
    I hear you. Though you know there is something about a post entitled “Foaming at the mouth” that brings out other behaviours.

    Anyway, I think the points I raised at RP jr’s blog were reasonable ones.

    Further, I don’t think the legal precedent cited by RP jr in the Carlin EPA kerfuffle is applicable to the forwarding of unsolicited review comments (especially in this case).

    Rather it points up the need to make sure that the record (when examined after the fact) shows that such comments were dealt with properly and that they be properly archived, together with a record showing reasons for rejection.

    Regarding the equating Hansen muzzling and Carlin suppression, both were presented by RP as examples of political ineptitude. I strongly disagree, as the Hansen muzzling was clearly politically directed. The Carlin “suppression” not so much – it arose from longstanding conflict between a rogue employee and the organization, a conflict that is now being exploited for political gain.

    It’s too tiring to attempt to engage directly on these issues. I’m happy if you are willing to try, though.

  70. #70 Eli Rabett
    2009/07/01

    In Eli and Roger’s case, Eli’s input is not output by Roger, aka the black hole.

  71. #71 Eli Rabett
    2009/07/01

    WRT Roger (and please don’t accuse Eli of being a stalker, these are just a few he remembers) there was

    1. The USDA planting map thing that pretty much killed off climate feedback before it started.

    2. Roger’s strange way with climate sensitivity

    3. And, of course, there is the baseline game , apparently something that dad and the kids played around the kitchen table.

    Want more??

  72. #72 Eli Rabett
    2009/07/01

    WRT Roger (and please don’t accuse Eli of being a stalker, these are just a few he remembers) there was

    1. The USDA planting map thing that pretty much killed off climate feedback before it started.

    2. Roger’s strange way with climate sensitivity

    3. And, of course, there is the baseline game , apparently something that dad and the kids played around the kitchen table.

    Want more??

  73. #73 Hank Roberts
    2009/07/03

    Yeh, I gave up again on the other blogger for a while, again, after he claimed he’d missed the Hansen censorship, I cited the NYT and IG, and he dismissed it as snark.

    My measure is to imagine how this will all read to youngsters in 50 and 100 years, if they look back to assess how well we did by them managing what would become their world.

    I don’t discount them; I’m not an economist.

  74. #74 Eli Rabett
    2009/07/07

    In the words of JP Keynes, in the long run we are all dead. Eli tries to live by that.

  75. #75 Judith Curry
    2009/11/10

    Just spotted this thread . . . soooooooo entertaining

    [Welcome to the blog. Don't miss the more recent stuff :-) -W]

  76. Why does anyone have to foam at the mouth? Romm thrives on hyperbole and his self-righteous arrogance does not exactly clear the air on climate change. I would take the reasoned and balanced language on realclimate.org any day over Romm’s histrionics and sensationalism.

  77. #77 AshleeCalderon21
    2011/11/17

    Every body understands that life is very expensive, but people require money for various stuff and not every man gets big sums money. Therefore to receive good mortgage loans and car loan should be good solution.

  78. #78 CabreraFelicia27
    2011/12/22

    Set your life easier take the loans and everything you require.

  79. #79 Robles22Jocelyn
    2012/03/21

    The students have to get know a lot just about this topic, because that’s really good to find custom writing and already written essays at the writing services and it’s available to buy essay here!

  80. #80 LizaCleveland
    2012/04/20

    When you are in a not good position and have no money to get out from that, you would require to receive the mortgage loans. Because it will help you emphatically. I get small business loan every single year and feel myself good just because of that.

  81. #81 CobbKaitlin
    2012/05/11

    If you are willing to buy a house, you would have to receive the business loans. Furthermore, my sister all the time utilizes a consolidation loan, which occurs to be the most fast.