2011-11-09 04:42:50Pielke wants to know...
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

...if SkS is planning a response to his latest questions.

"Two Questions To Skeptical Science Regarding i) The Relation of Global Warming To Climate Change and ii) The Predictive Skill Of Multi-Decadal Global Climate Models"

2011-11-09 05:17:44
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.95.215

More blimp-chasing?

2011-11-09 05:23:12Pielke is an Attention-Troll
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

All smoke and mirrors, all the way down.  Someone should break it to Pielke that the tail doth not wag the dogge.

I say we ignore Pielke; marginalize him.  He is a delayer and a dissembler; as such, not worthy of our time nor our attention.

2011-11-09 05:26:44
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

No, SkS is not.  You can tell Pielke that we were very clear that our last post was to be the final one on the subject.

His first question is dumb, and his second is just an attempt to draw more attention to his recent paper.  No reason whatsoever for us to respond.

2011-11-09 05:40:25
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.122.218

Plus, he wasn't very conscientious about trying to actually dialog in the discussion last time. If he's not really going to discuss, why should we waste our time?

2011-11-09 05:46:57
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I think I'll just play nice and say that right now the authors are overwhelmed with other pertinent climate topics.

2011-11-09 05:52:06
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.122.218

Rob,

I'm all for keeping the door open; but it wouldn't be bad if he got a hint that he's not meeting our minimum standard of intellectual dialogue.

2011-11-09 06:04:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi Rob,

Tell him to read the first line of our last post:

"The dialogue between Dr. Pielke Sr. and SkS has run its course, for reasons we will discuss below."

Did he also miss the title which inlcudes the words "Final Summary"?

And what everyone else has said above. 

2011-11-09 06:37:04Rob Honeycutt
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

You could also point out that Dana and others have cited him numerous times in recent posts about the BEST results.

2011-11-09 08:42:06
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I think it's probably going to be best just to suggest that everyone is busy on other posts.  I'm not looking to engage in a long discussion on any of the issues.  

2011-11-09 09:21:46
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.188

It's ok to play nice but still you can say that we have our schedule and priorities, it's not bad to reveal that he's not on the top of the list. Just in case.

2011-11-09 10:03:24
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Riccardo...  That's what I did.  I just said there is a long queue of posts to do and it's an all volunteer effort so people's personal time is limited.  

2011-11-09 10:43:36
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Rob, I'm sure that what you said was fine.  Pielke will still haunt SkS because he craves the attention.  Which is why he & Curry pander to the psychophants (I think I just coined a word!) of the dark side.  :)

 

Edit:  Meh.  Not so much.

1.  psychophant

One who attempts to garner favour by flattering influential people, but does so to a psychotic, often violent degree.

Usually someone who feels insignificant in their own life, this drives their need to tort the lives of others in a negative way to exercise any kind of power.

2. psychophant

psychophant: n. a person (most often found in chat) who sucks up by endorsing the craziest ideas or ridiculous subjects in hope of gaining attention to themselves.
2011-11-09 11:03:38
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

It's worth noting that nobody reads Pielke's blog.  On Alexa he's rated 144,732 in the USA (355k globally).  Alexa doesn't even monitor traffic for sites lower than 100,000.

Though he is better than Steve Goddard's, who's below 500,000 in the US.  Goddard had one huge spike in August, and other than that, nobody reads him.

SkS is 53,436 in the US (99k globally), for comparison (a few other 'skeptic' blogs like Jo Nova and Bishop Hill are in our ballpark, around 150k globally, FYI). 

My point being that Pielke needs us to get attention.  We don't get much out of it.  I think we gained some stature by out-debating him, but at this point, that's probably tapped.  So I can understand why he would want to continue the dialogue, but we don't get anything out of it, so there's just no point for us.  Not to mention that as neal notes, he was pretty horrid at actually discussing the issues at hand when we made the effort, and it was a rather unpleasant experience in general.

2011-11-09 15:53:39
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Rob, you're too kind.  If it were me, I'd suggest he goes and reads and digests a climate science textbook, say like the Physics of Planetary Climate.  He'd find his answers to such dumbass questions there, or on any one of a number of blog posts at SkS.  But then with my attitude, he'd not be contacting me anyway!

2011-11-09 21:19:48
JMurphy
John Murphy
aphex30@hotmail...
213.120.211.100

Maybe he could be informed that if he actually wanted constructive discussion, comments should be allowed on his own site ?

2011-11-09 23:41:30
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

By allowing comments RPSr would have to give up his coveted spot on the fence he has staked out; his blog would soon be like Curry's.

Either way, still no constructive comments on his website (but his Alexa number would skyrocket and he would have the adulation he so covets)

2011-11-10 07:56:37Psychophant
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
143.238.130.246
Definition 2 fits nicely. To Curry too.

Steve Goddard had a HUGE traffic spike in August, can't help but be curious as to what caused that.

I say ignore Pielke but I've advised that from the start. Blimps and all.

2011-11-10 23:17:47
JMurphy
John Murphy
aphex30@hotmail...
213.120.211.100

True enough about the second definition but I don't believe the exposure has done Curry any favours. She may look better in the eyes of those in denial but I think she has lost credibility among scientists, especially now that she is indulging in political denial-speak, e.g. calling some people "CAGW idealogues" ! That's not normal and I don't see how anyone, apart from those who believe such nonsense, could see it as being normal or rational.

She can only get more extreme and defensive as time goes by, and I reckon the same would be true of Pielke Sr if he were to speak his mind more often in response to comments on his blog - although he is already well on his way there, anyway !