Though I must point out that this is "mad" in the sense of "angry", not "nut job". I mean RP Jr, and he is annoyed with Oreskes, saying What is it about the climate change debate that causes previously excellent scholars to go absolutely insane and disregard all standards of research integrity? I don't think Oreskes is insane, but I do think her standards have slipped. RP is kind enough to cite me.
Incidentally, why is it that social science types get to give their essays silly names? Real science folks papers have boring names like "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies". Her previous one was something like Beyond the Ivory Stoat. This one is "From Chicken Little to Dr. Pangloss: William Nierenberg, Global Warming, and the Social Deconstruction of Scientific Knowledge", and it doesn't even make sense, unless she is implying that pre-Nierenberg folks were all Chicken Littles. Which seems unlikely, given her obvious prejudices.
However, RP then goes off and defends Crichton and State of Fear, who was a wazzock and pile of sh*t*, respectively. So like Wally in Dilbert, he has managed equal amounts of sanity and anti-sanity, and it all balances out to zero.
- Log in to post comments
RP jr does seem particularly angry lately. It gets a little too intense. I don't read his stuff on Prometheus that often because of it.
On an unrelated(?) note, Hansen's "Target 350" paper has been published (with revisions).
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=217TOASCJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=…
Improved? Nuts? Thoughts?
[Link doesn't work for me -W]
The links must be dynamically created.
Try this:
http://www.bentham.org/open/toascj/openaccess2.htm
Choose volume 2.
It's the last paper on that page.
Thanks for commenting on the post about the late Michael Crichton on Prometheus. He was a smart man and a creative science writer. Scientists are not upset about the silly fiction in the novel "State of Fear". They are upset by Crichton's non-fiction advocacy against climate science, particularly Crichton briefing President Bush on climate change.
How could a public policy research center come to Crichton's defense? The issue is not one's personal feelings about climate change science and scientists. It is about the proper method for government briefings. Does Pielke actually believe that novelists provide advice on science and science policy, whether it be climate change, stem cell research, research and development funding or high school biology curriculum? Even if Crichton had written a novel extolling the excellent research by the climate science community, he still should not have been briefing the US President.