Just to show how ecumenical I am, I agree with (most of) RP Sr's post Comment On News Article On Weather Modification Titled ""Playing With Weather Stirs Debate In China". Which basically says "stop being such a bunch of credulous bozos".
I reviewed that "Human Impacts on Weather and Climate" for Weather, once, you know.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
There's a fair section of the - errm - normally-sane-side-of-the-climate-wars blogosphere that regards RP Jr as the spawn of the devil. Eli weighs in complaining about Nate Silver of 538 getting RP to write for him (Eli has form, dontchaknow). Now I'd be the first to agree that RP has said some…
Its shooting fish in a barrel, of course, but you must go and read Another uncertainty for climate models – different results on different computers using the same code [WebCitation].
The issue here is a well-known one - it dates back to Lorenz's original stuff on chaos. That trivial differences…
So... where to start? Back in the dim and distant days of a year or so ago, or back to the TAR, there was a problem: temperature trends at the surface and upper atmosphere were incompatible with how the models said they should relate: the models said the upper trends should be larger, obs said…
Asks RP Sr's paper in GRL (or rather, ask Thomas N. Chase, Klaus Wolter, Roger A. Pielke Sr and Ichtiaque Rasool). Interestingly, they conclude "not really". This of course is contrary to what everyone knows, so their paper has been ignored, to RP's annoyance. And if I had demonstrasted…
But, if the superfreakonomics guys are using it to push their love of geoengineering solutions to global warming, does this mean they're ... credulous bozos?
It's interesting to see how large China's weather modification bureau is. Google around and the numbers are amazing.
That's because they've got a *serious* desertification problem. And of course, in a country with a population that size, lots of people have to be kept busy doing useless things. But the main thing is that the central government needs to be able to pretend they've got a plan other than abandonment.
The RPs have a lot in common with the WaPo:
Like a Stopped Clock, WaPo Finally Gets One Right
Coming soon: WMC on "With whom should I agree?"
od^7?
see RPjr: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-climate-scientists-talk-t…
[At least in that regrettable piece RP Jr makes it clear that he is a social scientist, not a climate scienitst. If he could remember that more often, things would be better. As to the 7 - no; I'm done with RP Jr on the science front; the game is no longer interesting -W]
> see RPjr
Yeah, that's a meta-concern meta-troll thread developing there. Amazing.
There ought to be an academic field interested in the study of how this stuff happens and how people pile into it.
This is so fascinating because I am both (physical scientist, biologist/social scientist, anthropologist) but to make money must lean more on the phy. science side and like to vent in these climate forums.
This parallels so closely real issues I have with conservation biology (of which I have my own "auditing" background).
I have met RPjr and think he understands the key realities of policy implementation as perhaps only a social scientist can, which is superior or more realistic in my view than most physical scientists.
"there ought to be an acedemic field . . ." careful what you wish for, Hank.
. . .and WC - the inline response from a while ago about your snark being on hair-trigger - very, very, very, very funny!
Hare trigger, Tom.
Eli's been staying away from that one cause if he don't John Fleck won't respect him. In any case. . .