Esteemed Pielkeologist, Eli Rabett points me to a post from Roger Pielke Jr complaining that he is being persecuted by the "liberal blogosphere".
Apparently what prompted this was a comment from Brad DeLong on why he considers Pielke Jr to be dishonest:
I do remember that what knocked my view of your work over the edge was one of your attacks on Hansen.
Ah. "[Pielke] claims that [Hanson's] scenario B was off by a factor of 2 on CO2. This sounds like a lot until you discover that means that emissions grew by 0.5% per year instead of 1% a year. And that works out to scenario B having the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere within 1% of what has actually happened. Pielke is being much more than a little unfair by calling a prediction that got within 1% of the correct answer as not being 'particularly accurate or realistic'."
Well, DeLong was quoting me so Pielke has a go at me in his post. First he complains that:
Neither [Romm nor DeLong] links to my own words on my blog, apparently afriad of what might happen if people view what I have to say directly, rather than their cartoonish caricatures.
And then we get:
But even the big fish apparently see some gutter behavior as not really becoming of professionals (though Romm doesn't seem to care), as to more effectively attack someone's reputation they also rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to "trash" someone's reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation. Among these minnows are controversialist bloggers like Tim Lambert, who are professionally unqualified to engage in the substance of most debates (certainly the case with respect to my own work), yet earn their place exclusively by making mountains out of molehills (e.g., Lambert carpet bombs the internet with references to his post on the fact that I once botched a Google search, making insinuations of associated evilness in my soul) and ad hominem attacks (Pielke viciously attacked Al Gore!! Pielke is the Devil!!), without out once engaging the substance of my work (e.g., Al Gore agreed with my critique of his slide show and subsequently removed a slide from his show, I complemented [sic] Gore for his commitment to accuracy).
The big fish then feed on the minnows, for instance, Real Climate and Brad DeLong have cited Tim Lambert as an authority, including on my own work, yet to my knowledge Lambert has never actually engaged anything I've published in the peer reviewed literature much less any substantive arguments that I've made. Of course he doesn't -- he is not qualified to do so.
I almost don't know where to begin with this.
1) After complaining that DeLong and Romm don't link to his words when criticising him, he doesn't link to my words. Probably because he can't on account of his charges against me being fabrications.
2) In the very same sentence that he makes an ad hominem attack on me he alleges that I make ad hominem attacks. Does Pielke think ad hominem attacks are OK or not?
3) In the sentence directly following his claim that I see it as my sole job to trash Pielke's reputation with "innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation", Pielke attempts to trash me using innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation.
3a) Far from "carpet-bombing" the internet with references to my post about Pielke's botched Google search, I have never once referred to it. (Link goes to a not-botched Google search.)
3b) Even those (not me) who have referred to that post are not insinuating that Pielke is evil, but rather that he is incompetent.
3c) I have never blogged anything about Pielke attacking Gore. You can see all my posts about Pielke here.
3d) I have never said that "Pielke is the Devil!!" I believe that readers of my posts about Pielke are capable of drawing their own conclusions about his character. See for example, this post and the first 50 comments there.
3e) I have engaged with the substance of Pielke's work. See, for example, my post about Pielke's critique of Hansen's emission scenarios.
3f) Pielke is a political scientist. I am a computer scientist. Seems to me we are equally qualified or unqualified to comment on Hansen's work. And can you imagine what Pielke would say if Michael Mann had said that Ross McKitrick was professionally unqualified to comment on his work?
Update: Thers reckons that Pielke's metaphor mixing is even more violent than Tom Friedman's. That's a big call.
- Log in to post comments
How about considering this conclusion ... he's losing, he knows it, and having sacrificed his credibility in a losing cause at a relatively young age, RPjr foresees a bleak future,
Hi Tim-
I see that in addition to being unable to perform basic inflation adjustments that you also cannot tell the difference between the singular and the plural. So, please don't get a big head, I characterized you as being among the minnows ;-)
All best ...
Roger, I know how to make basic inflation adjustments and you know that I know. No surprise to see you piling on more ad hominem.
You made specific claims about me in your post that are false and you know that they are false.
I was the only "minnow" you mentioned so don't pretend that the clear intent of your post was not to make all those false claims about me.
Aristotle:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
Pielke:
Aristotle can't tell singular from plural! Those premises don't imply that conclusion at all!
Gee, I wonder if RPJr. is attacking a "minnow" in hopes that said "minnow" might link to his blog and drive up his ranking. Roger, wanna' compare rankings of your new Pielke blog to Deltoid?
I'm sure that even *you* can get that math right.
:)
Eli has never been esteemed. Occasionally steamed. . .
Man, am I tired of reading blog posts like this. Can't you guys move on to talking about something that matters?
You're a minnow and Brad DeLong is a shark? In Climate Change work??
Yet another statement that wouldn't pass a DeLong fact-check.
Eric, you're posting on _Tim's_ blog.
You obviously meant to post that on _Pielke's_ blog.
Easy mistake to make, seeing as Pielke has got a voice on here and on his blog, nobody else has.
> Among these minnows are controversialist bloggers like Tim Lambert...
Tim is in the reality-based camp - the one supported by every major science academy on the planet, by the near-total unanimity of published climate scientists. There's nothing controversial about his position - unlike the cherry-picking, distortion and misrepresentation of climate science by Junior.
And if Tim is a minnow, that must make Junior a weasel.
> I believe that readers of my posts about Pielke are capable of drawing their own conclusions about his character.
I've developed a clear conclusion: he's sneaky, he cherry picks, he lies by omission, he enjoys the attention he receives from his oh-so-innocent contrarianism and then whines when it's not complimentary, he's intellectually dishonest, he's a hypocrite, he's a cry baby.
In summary, an odious little man.
Oh, one other: he wraps faux civility around the insults that he weasels out. That's a really obnoxious character trait in my book.
Roger, you're a tedious wanking pissant.
With best wishes and much respect,
David.
DavidCOG said:"
Roger, you're a tedious wanking pissant.
With best wishes and much respect,
David."
That should be "with all due respect", shouldn't it?
Indeed t_p!
Roger, with all due respect, you're an arsehole.
Pity he won't let comments on his blog. Obviously too afraid of closing down open debate by having all that debating going on in comments on that blog...
You're confusing Sr. with Jr. Jr. allows comments on his blog. However, I'll endorse this:
And this:
Among other accurate descriptions posted above ...
@David (#10)
I got the same conclusion about Junior - but not FROM Tim's posts about him; rather, my opinion of Jr. is from his OWN posts at both Prometheus (re: his inability to choose an appropriate statistical test) and his new blog (re: his *ahem* "suggestion" that Steig plagiarized Hu Mac), his OWN book ("Honest" broker indeed) and his OWN published stuff (e.g. the recent Klotzbach debacle - double the Pielke fun!). And I've not even mentioned the folks he hangs out with at the Breakthrough Institute too....
Hoist. Own. Petard.
very good reply Tim. the [link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/nature_climate_blog_off_to_roc…) is really useful to judge Tim's approach to Pielke, and his replies. you will see for yourself, that the facts support Tim.
but just a couple of additional points:
they also rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to "trash" someone's reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation.
this is the most accurate description of the denialist blogosphere, that i have read in a while. but attributing it at non-denialists, is at best a massive case of the splinter-beam-eye thingy.
You're a minnow and Brad DeLong is a shark?
well, using the Pielke categories, of giant fish, big fish and minnows, and also accepting that he placed Brad DeLong in the middle category, where to place Pielke? welcome to the minnows!
The big fish then feed on the minnows, for instance, Real Climate and Brad DeLong have cited Tim Lambert as an authority, including on my own work,
those people quote and link other blogs, not to endorse them, but to save time. time that would be wasted to debunk a moronic argument, that others had debunked before.
your conclusion, that they cite Tim as an authority on your professional work, is not founded on facts. (like many of the things that you claim)
Tim has debunked several of your blogging errors. the best response would be, to stop posting crap.
Damn, Pielke Jr....the venom over you...you just suck. Such fail.
"In the very same sentence that he makes an ad hominem attack on me he alleges that I make ad hominem attacks."
In Pielke's defence, it was a very long sentence. He probably forgot.
As an aside, if I was king of the internet, I would ban all use of the term 'ad hominem' on penalty of something very bad indeed. Especially in conjunction with the word 'attacks'. We have a perfectly functional English word to use when people call you names, and that word is 'namecalling'. It rolls right off the tongue and has the added bonus of being generally far more accurate term than 'ad hominem'.
(Tim, that was not an attack at you, I wouldn't shoot the messenger.)
From where I sit, apolitical people who nonetheless enjoyed sharing code instead of withholding it for capitalist profit MADE the goddamned internet using TAXPAYER MONEY then a bunch of goddamned Heinlein cultists who had already dominated BBSes by being a bunch of assholes set out to dominate the internet "industry" / bubble, and largely succeeded, as a reading of, for instance, Cyberselfish would teach you.
And this is the liberal blogosphere that persecutes scientists for not agreeing with other scientists? How'd they manage that in the new right-wing, privatized intertubes?
Zomg. We not-themmers must be frikking Gods!
Former Skeptic:
> I got the same conclusion about Junior - but not FROM Tim's posts...
My opinion is not formed solely by Tim's work on this website, it's formed by several years of reading about climate science and the sociopathic dishonesty that attempts to discredit it. There's a clear and obvious reason why Junior is beloved by the anti-science cabal - he plays a tune that they like to hear.
But, like Lomborg, Junior is careful to keep saying "I accept the science!" while denying that much, if anything, should be done about it. He's also happy to defame respected climate scientists even when he is "professionally unqualified to engage in the substance of most debates".
~~~
dhogaza:
> ...he's losing, he knows it, and having sacrificed his credibility in a losing cause at a relatively young age, RPjr foresees a bleak future,
Yup. That sounds about right.
Never mind, I'm sure the Heartland Institute will pay a few bucks for him to stand on a platform and say something comforting to the faithful in the years ahead.
You probably didn't mean it, Bud, but your invocation of "namecalling" instead of dealing with the substance of either Pielke's or Lambert's arguments smacks of an ad hominem argument, meaning you're dealing with the persons involved instead of the substance. I think we can agree to dispense with the ad hominem attacks in the interest of reasoned discussion?
.... I kid! I kid!
I notice the mask has slipped a bit and Pielke Jr. has taken to bashing "Liberals". I'm waiting for him to come out as a teabagger.
Reading Freakonomics has converted me to the contrarian cause. I am going to post on Pielke's web outlets whenever he starts one of these things, but not responses to them, cuz they are dragging things into interpersonal politics territory. I will just look up things Pielke's gotten wrong lately and earlier and post about them.
I think that's the best response, really.
Yeah, I've been pointing out for years that techies tend to be science fiction fans, Heinlein's iconic, and most of his books portray a libertarian utopia where a mighty yet benevolent leader transforms society into some sort of libertarian wet dream. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", for instance.
Right out of Ayn Rand, except far more entertaining.
I think most techies sucked into that libertarian mold envision themselves as being more or less like a protaganist in a Heinlein novel. As a teen I enjoyed his stuff but never bought into the political message ...
Actually, Tim, as a computer scientist I would have thought you'd be much better qualified to comment on Hansen's work than a political scientist - at least you have some mathematics.
I knew where Pielke Jr. was coming from some years ago when he defended Bjorn Lomborg from what I think he termed as politically motivated attacks (which was utter bollocks) while at the same time he was giving the corporate-funded shills and lackeys a free pass.
As far as I was concerned, with respect to Lomborg it was always about the shoddy science and a truckload of cherries picked to support a pre-determined worldview. Since then, Pielke's obvious contrarian bias (at least to me) has become more and more apparent. This latest posting by him is an abomination.
Hard as it is to believe after the Pielke vs Annan train wreck, Pielke was a math major.
The mask that slipped here was the one that dressed up Pielke's exceptionally superficial ambitions: oh, to be a blogosphere shark, and not a minnow. How pathetic. He's like a teenage girl, dreaming of pop stardom.
At least that explains why his concern trolling leans denialist. Far more easy to make a name for yourself on that side given the dearth of literate candidates. Few links from Drudge, few more puerile sensationalist nonsense headlines and you're on your way.
PS Tim- minnow, shark, crayfish or nonsegmented worm, this blog kicks ass
Majorajam,
I agree with you 100%. This blog does kick serious ass and I deeply appreciate Tim's integrity and efforts. This is the only blog I write in to these days, specifically because of its impact and because it is a place where contrarian nonsense in a range of issues to tackled head-on.
Sod said it so well that it deserves repeating:
Of course, if Junior thinks that sod has it wrong, he need only come here and explain exactly how it is so...
From Dan Davies @ Crooked Timber. Although he was referring to the contrarian Superfreaks, it also is very apt for Junior over the top "oh-woe-is-me" whiny post on his blog:
"The whole idea of contrarianism is that youâre 'attacking the conventional wisdom', youâre 'telling people that their most cherished beliefs are wrong', youâre 'turning the world upside down'.
"In other words, youâre setting out to annoy people.
"Now opinions may differ on whether this is a laudable thing to do â I think itâs fantastic â but if annoying people is what youâre trying to do, then you can hardly complain when annoying people is what you actually do.
"If you start a fight, you can hardly be surprised that youâre in a fight. Itâs the definition of passive-aggression and really quite unseemly, to set out to provoke people, and then when they react passionately and defensively, to criticise them for not holding to your standards of a calm and rational debate.
"Esteemed Pielkeologist, Eli Rabett..."
Eli Rabett studies Pielke for the grant money...
**Update:** Thers reckons that Pielke's metaphor mixing is [even more violent than Tom Friedman's](http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/10/bitter-fish-in-crud…). That's a [big call](http://www.nypress.com/article-11419-flathead.html).
OMG. I'm in tears. "fish-f***-smoke" is the phrase du jour. Thanks Tim!
The untrammeled, ideological free market system doesn't penalize, and probably rewards, narcissism and sociopathy. It's easy to realize that, shrug, and move on. But I think a little reflection brings a realization that especially in that ideological sector you're simply going to see a lot of those traits in every discussion, including those that impinge on science.
BTW:
The Pielke, Jr. connection, coupled with its gloating about the death of environmentalism, taught me all I needed to know about the sort of breakthrough the breakthrough institute is progressive toward.
DeLong edits. Who would have thought? Tim would never stoop so low.
> ...he's losing, he knows it, and having sacrificed his credibility in a losing cause at a relatively young age, RPjr foresees a bleak future,
sounds a bit like dog over in RC.
Uses all the denialist tricks to avoid answering questions.
Shorter el gordo:
Ninjas hacked into Pielke's blog to make him look bad.
* * *
Oh no! The Warmist Ninja Inquisitors are everywhere! Is there no one we can trust now?
DeLong edits. Who would have thought? Tim would never stoop so low.
denilaist approach.
here is the Pielke comment, that Pielke claims was "refused":
Prof. DeLong, please do tell where you find that my work deserves the comments that you approvingly publish: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/economist-brad-delong-calls-m… I'll be happy to feature your response on my blog.
doesn t sound like a comment that gets supressed. unless you deal in conspiracy theories.
notice the title of the answer piece by Pileke in the web adress. he obviously changed the title later. but here it still reads:
economist-brad-delong-calls-me-stupid
when what DeLong said was:
People like Chris Horner and Anthony Watts and Roger Pielke are dishonest and wrong, but they're not stupid or ignorant people
so what is the basis of el gordo's claim, that "Delong edits":
. My default is that everyone's comments are automatically published. (I do prune them later, if I think they are actively misleading. But I don't refuse to publish.)
editing actively misleading posts. sounds like a serious crime. to el gordo.
If there was a question in all your ranting over there, Mark, I missed it.
You're an pig-ignorant asshole, though. That's a statement. Not a question.
> If there was a question in all your ranting over there, Mark, I missed it.
Yes.
Several times.
Despite it being in every post you snipped a quote mine out of.
Just like Girma did. Or Ducky does. Or el chubby. You've even had denialist Skecsis say you were right, that's how wrong you are!
PS "I didn't see any question" is no proof there was no question. It merely shows that you refuse to read one.
PPS As to the ranting, who was going "STFU!!! SFTU!!! YOU DON'T KNO!!!"?
Oh, that was you, wasn't it...
Rodger Pielke Jr has accused me of slandering him. I wonder where I fit in his fish and the liberal blogosphere analogy.
I criticized him after he complained about the comment policy on RealClimate. RPJr took a comment of mine on RealClimate and incorrectly attributed it to scientist Judith Curry on his blog. I could not get a comment through on Prometheus to address RPjr's mistake.
When I brought this up on RealClimate he complained that RealClimate was participating in slander by posting my comment.
Just because you claim there was a question, is not proof that there was a question.
However, each and everyone of your posts proves that you're an immature, pig-ignorant asshole.
#44: I don't remember that incident, but it sounds typical of the good old Jr.
> Just because you claim there was a question, is not proof that there was a question.
Ah, poor old dog.
Here's the question.
> I ask: do you think Hank and I smarter than this economist?
And the link.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-…
(PS what a complete tosser dog is. head so far up his rectum that he's licking his own tonsils).
PS As to dog getting all high and mighty about being a twat:
all the way down to:
Joseph O'Sullivan: Yeah, it seems that RP Jr. is completely blind to the similarities and contrasts between how he treats others and how others treat him.
As I pointed out to him on his "Big Fish" blog post, he seems to think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and interpretations of the facts when it suits him. (So that it is fine for him to characterize Joe Romm as having ordered the media not to talk to him even though it is absurb to suggest that what Romm said constituted an order or even that Romm had any authority to order the media to do anything). However, then when he comes up with an interpretation of certain events, such as that regarding Gavin Schmidt and Steve McIntyre, it is perfectly fine for him to make his version of the events the gospel so much so that he then inserts his interpretation into Gavin's mouth saying that Gavin "admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a 'real scientist' of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it."
As I noted, if I applied his logic, I could just as justifiably say, "Roger Pielke Jr. admits to completely fabricating a claim that Joe Romm ordered other people to do something when in fact Romm didn't even vaguely have the authority to issue such an 'order'."
It must be nice to go through life without having the curse of self-awareness.
Totally off-topic, but since Mark insists ...
I DID NOT.
Why I did do was to point out that Krugman said that most economists had not, unlike your claim, predicted the burst. And that I trusted Krugman's professional opinion more than your pig-ignorant one. Krugman was on record - in print, in the NY Times- warning of his fears that the house of cards would collapse, and in his *eight page* essay that I pointed you to (that you've not read) tries to answer why the majority of economists did NOT (as you claim) predict it.
Maybe you're right, and Krugman's wrong, but I doubt it.
Not exactly, given that you've been screaming about something I never said for two days now. If you'd actually take the time to pay attention to what people actually say, we'd all be better off.
And, of course, Hank pointed out that you misrepresented his post, as well.
As far as you being smarter than Krugman, I think it's obvious that I respect Krugman, and that I think you're a pig-ignorant asshole. Therefore, using logic, you might be able to answer that question yourself.
However, as I said, it's clear that *you* think you are.
Perhaps this time you won't miss the sarcasm dripping from that comment ...
Enough of Mark. Sorry, I just get tired of his constant, unfounded attacks on people, which typically are based on his claiming they've said things they've never said.
Tiresome.
And of course, you never noticed, dog.
And of course, you never answered.
and of course that error doesn't stop the question being answered.
But you'll grab any straw to avoid answering a question.
And of course you're still as full of shit as you were before.
"Oh STFU I know and you never do! Oh, OK you're not always wrong.".
You have lost every shred of moral imperative to demand of others they ask the question since you use every denialist trick available to avoid answering a question.
You are a pathetic joke now.
You said "just because you say there's a question doesn't mean there was one". Yet here again you were found out in an outright lie.
And, in the best traditions of Girma and Billy Bob you try to skip away from the evidence of your lies.
And in case anyone thinks that dog is hard done by, compare his complains of misattribution with these honkers:
All the evidence is there. Every scam avoidance tactic, every complete misreading, every attempt at a slam to avoid the question.
dhogaza #46
The incident is here, comment #73:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise…
Oh, Mark ...
You really need to buy yourself a new sarcasm detection meter.
For what it's worth ($0.00) I'm not a fan of Mark's, and I think he's often so eager to attack that he doesn't bother reading what people actually write. My complaint has little to do with his lack of manners and lots to do with his lack of accuracy. But I haven't followed this latest tiff (thank goodness).
Also, for what it's worth ($0.25), nothing wrong with being a minnow! Cyprinidae are very successful, interesting, diverse.... Perhaps RJP thinks Tim is one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_pikeminnow
> My complaint has little to do with his lack of manners and lots to do with his lack of accuracy.
Steve L, you'll have to add dog to that then, else you're being inconsistent.
If you don't want to beleive me then read RC and follow dog's evasions (and note: the clarifications he's made here came long after the personal attacks and irrational interpretations from dog).
> I haven't followed this latest tiff
Wise.
If we had Usenet-grade killfile-by-thread, nobody would have to see it who didn't want to. Programmers? Please?
Funny isn't it?
The people profiting while ignoring climate change, while arguing for their favored incompatible and contradictory notions, all luv each other in public, never disagree, always put their common political/economic goal ahead of the science, and so easily all stand together.
Focus. There's a lesson here. Somewhere.
Fair enough, Mark, but I'm just going from my own personal experience in being misinterpreted. I'd rather not go back and read all the stuff you guys are engaging in just for the purpose of being consistent. I hope the both of you can drop it, or you can get your own blogs to host your fight and let curious people watch there.
Mark, when you attack people for things they don't say, sometimes it takes awhile to understand your miscomprehension in order to set the record straight. What do you expect people to do? Imagine every possible reading comprehension error you can possibly make, then respond to every one?
Why don't you just take the time to read for comprehension, as several people over the last few months have suggested?
I'd rather Mark learn to read, but I guess that's expecting too much.
Sorry for the crap showing up here, but you know, in this case I honestly can say "he did it first" (brought the RC thread up here).
Why did he do that? It's a bit crazy.
Anyway, Mark, feel free to have the last 10,000 words on this.
> Fair enough, Mark, but I'm just going from my own personal experience in being misinterpreted.
citation needed
> I'd rather not go back and read all the stuff you guys are engaging in just for the purpose of being consistent.
So you missed dog's raving STFU rant on here? It did last a long time.
Or is there a reason you won't blackball dog like you wish to do with me?
Speaking of fish, I applaud this illustration.
Don't miss it if you're trying to figure out which fish you are. Look carefully at those in the background.
http://www.abcgallery.com/B/bruegel/bruegel154.html
Hat tip to this response by Herr Doktor Bimmler, in the related thread noted above: http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/10/bitter-fish-in-crud…
Hank Roberts:
> There's a lesson here. Somewhere.
If I were a PR flack, I might say 'hey look, the incident between dhogaza and Mark shows that we are not afraid of disagreement!'
But I'm not a PR flack... so, dhogaza and Mark, please take your mud-wrestling to one of the open threads and reserve this thread for talking about Pielke. Thank you.
I think I'm done with Mark, though it's difficult to back off when someone outright lies about what you've posted, and I don't know why the hell he brought the RC thread up over here.
However, just happen to be watching an old movie on TV, "The Big Knife" ...
"Hank, I can't leave him. Despite all the horrible things he does to me, I'm part of his life ..."
Not a good omen :(
As Utah Phillips said (I think): I'm trying to lower my social cholesterol -- no more fatheads. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathead_minnow
Thanks for the fish stuff, Hank. Unfortunately even if someone developed good user tools for web-use, I'd never figure them out. I'm not wise to avoid studying tiffs, just lazy.
Mark, citation here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/summer-sea-ice-ro… search page 3 and 4 of comments for "100 years". I did end up posting something useful (my opinion) on that thread eventually (#286).
Starting diet now.
I thought you were getting personal there, Steve!
:-P
Pielke et al have their agenda and they have been very successful in getting their message out:
"The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found a sharp decline over the past year in the portion of Americans who see solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. According to the survey, conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, fewer respondents also see global warming as a very serious problem; 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008. " WSJ 23 Oct 09
They disort the evidence, twist the words, but they are damned good at it.
Pielke Jr. might win an award for establishing the most refutable nonsense in the fewest amount of words. Tim Lambert has already covered many of them.
Pielke Jr. actually botched the "Google search" more than once in the same post, and still ended up with an inaccurate result. Moreover, he didn't seem to understand how inaccurate it is to use such a technique in examining news coverage on a particular topic.
Computer scientists familiar with models are arguably more qualified to discuss climate science than political scientists. Perhaps the status of Pielke Jr.'s father, a once reputable scientist becoming increasingly less competent,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/
is seen by Pielke Jr. as an advantage, although he also cites his authority in co-authoring a few peer-reviewed studies. I'm so glad he sees this as being important, although it hardly qualifies him to be yapping about the work of distinguished scientists like Hansen.
RPJ: "Of course he doesn't -- he is not qualified to do so."
I wonder if Pielke Jr. will extend this standard to folks like Anthony Watts, George Will, Chris Booker, etc.
TL: "And can you imagine what Pielke would say if Michael Mann had said that Ross McKitrick was professionally unqualified to comment on his work?"
It would just be more evidence that the "alarmists" and "hoaxsters" are trying to stifle debate.
FormerSkeptic (34) - same here 8^)) Still wiping spittle off the keyboard.
As long as we're discussing ad hominem people might like to hear one-time British Chief Scientist David King discussing the American Enterprise Institute planting sockpuppets in the audience to troll his talks.
Business Tackles Copenhagen
The first three minutes or so covers it, but the rest of the show is good. There's also some interesting stuff from Scripps Inst. on coastal erosion ...
Hank:
Killfile good. Often, very good.
Actually King has his Enterprise Institutes mixed up. It was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. See [the Myron Ebell Climate](http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/).
Pileke asked for examples for his dishonesty and deceit. and for problems with his professional work.
well, there is currently a major example all over the web:
his [father](http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/erroneous-claim-in-an-…) and [Anthony Watts](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/pielke-senior-erroneous-claim-in-…) are using an [article written by you](http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/Brown.pdf) to contradict this statement in an AP article:
âThough there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.â
but there is a serious problem with their approach (and the Pileke article):
first, you count positions (answers 6 and 7 in your poll), which suppose that the IPCC report is not representing serious warming issues enough, as a disagreement with the report. but those positions do not contradict the AP claim above! this alone changes the numbers in your poll to 17% vs 77%.
second, the vast majority of "sceptic" answers to his poll, fall into the fourth category:
4. There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2 with respect to other climate forcings. The IPCC WG1 overestimates the role of CO2 relative to other forcings, including a diverse variety of human climate forcings.
i strongly doubt, that people in this category can be seen as contradicting the AP claim above. that would leave the sceptic position with 7% vs 92%.
both his father and Anthony Watts got confused by the deceiving elements in his article, mainly the abstract. i am sure, that Roger Pielke will try to demonstrate his honesty, by correcting their errors.
Food for thought. The affirmative case of why anyone at all should listen to political scientists like Lomborg or Pielke, Jr. on climate science has never been made.
I find this whole episode rather weird and disturbing. It seems that only a few years ago, Pielke was writing very intelligently. But this fish metaphor - I can't read it without laughing out loud. It's so awful, and so different from what he was writing only a few years ago. What has happened to Pielke? Did Pielke hire Mary Sue to blog for him?
richard @ 69:
Back at ya: [Global survey has found that people from diverse backgrounds in the US and worldwide overwhelmingly want faster action, deeper GHG emissions cuts and stronger enforcement than either US climate legislation proposals or Copenhagen treaty conference preparations are currently contemplating](http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS223047+22-Oct-2009+PRN2…).
Fortunately, science and reality are not determined by Joe The Plumber's beliefs - primarily formed by what he sees out of his window at any given moment. Unfortunately, they shape political policy.
I'll bet that if that Pew poll had been conducted on a scorching August afternoon and not a snowy October morning the results would have been markedly different. If I had a pound for every time I've read the oh-so-witty "I shovelled four inches of global warming off my drive this morning", I'd have the deposit for an electric scooter by now.
Sod (#75),
There are multiple problems with the Pielke poll you're referring to.
http://climatesight.org/2009/09/30/what-if-the-ipcc-is-wrong/comment-pa…
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=882
thanks MarkB. i was aware of those problems, but those links are really good.
i was writing that post under the (false) premise, that the Pielke article
when i wrote the post above, i was planning to post it on the pielke site, under the fish topic. i noticed only later, that i couldn t publish it there. (no censorship, i just don t have an account on any of the accept groups)
that is also the reason for the "he/you" confusion in my post above.
you are right about the many errors in the Pielke poll. but even ignoring all those errors (which massively bias it towards the denialist position) and just counting those who are more pro-AGW than the IPCC and those who agree with the IPCC together, gives us a result that supports the AP claim.
i am still waiting for Roger, to correct his father and Anthony.
ps: whoever put "The lead scientists know what they are doing." as a part of one answer into the survey, didn t have the slightest clue what he is doing.
edit: some part got lost....
...i was writing that post under the (false) premise, that the Pielke article had got the basics right.
Sod (#80),
You'll be waiting a long time for Pielke Jr., self-appointed "honest broker" to consider any serious (or even mild) criticism of political bloggers like Anthony Watts or any deniers.
Pielke Jr. sure doesnât seem to like âliberalsâ either, a label used in his post towards anyone who disagrees with him, or is supportive of those who disagree with him, including Tom Friedman, a moderate Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist (who supported the invasion of Iraq among other things) and the credentialed climate scientists at RealClimate (whom heâs claimed are liars). His post doesnât read all that different than one by Rush Limbaugh (who he attempts to distance himself from). The difference is Limbaugh doesnât really pretend to be something heâs not, with a self-appointed âhonest brokerâ label.
Pielke's latest post reads:
"...have a look at Joe Romm's latest fit. I encourage everyone to have a look. Maybe I touched a nerve? ;-) It is sure going to be fun when my book comes out, stay tuned!"
Selling a book. Gaining attention. This always seems to be what deniers are about.
The difference is Limbaugh doesnât really pretend to be something heâs not, with a self-appointed âhonest brokerâ label.
i have also noticed the attempts by Pielke and Watts to distance themselves (sort of) from Rush.
both attempts are half-hearted ("inane" simply is not the right word. this simply also isn t the only insane point made by Rush. calling for a general boycot would be a good start...). both attempts generate comments, that demonstrate that their audience is completely insane.
but neither Roger nor Anthony are ready to call their audience on their beliefs. of course not. there would basically no one be left, when they dismiss the lunatics...
> It is sure going to be fun when my book comes
> out, stay tuned!"
Red herring alert; I wonder if he's managed to time it for, oh, right before Copenhagen in December..... nah, too paranoid.
Regardless, what if they gave a book-bashing party and nobody bothered to attend?
This thread has about finished, so I might get in the last word.
By now you would have all heard that Roger Pielke Jr is having a go at the CSIRO for gagging Clive Spash's paper.
Pielke Jr thinks it's political: Australian government allegedly interferes in peer review process. 'If CSIRO has indeed attempted to meddle in an international peer review process, then there could be significant fallout.'
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/australian-government-alleged…
If [this](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html) has legs its is very bad news. I don't trust carbon trading, and prefer (as Spash suggests) a direct tax or regulation.
I heard from an ALP source that when writing the CPRS plan, they were threatened with investester capital flight and a case with the Bank of International Settlements (The Reserve of all Reserve Banks). Since then big polluters have been placated with billions and billions in compensation, signifiantly sheilding coal plants from costs of carbon.