![]() | ||
2012-02-17 05:53:05 | Roger Pielke 'Challenge' | |
Chris Colose colose@wisc... 169.226.41.99 |
I don't know if anyone is interested in picking this up (or if we already did in the past), but Roger Pielke Sr. decided to move the goalposts when I e-mailed him about the tropical thermostat article we just published. Here is our correspondence (please keep this here). I really have no interest in this:
....
Roger Pielke,
.....
Hi Chris
.... He then e-mailed me a second time P.S. Skeptical Science never even responded to my request for their
.....
Roger,
....
Hi Chris | |
2012-02-17 07:03:16 | ||
Dikran Marsupial Gavin Cawley gcc@cmp.uea.ac... 88.108.208.125 |
ISTR that my discussion fizzled out because he refused to comment on the statistical significance (or lack of) of the evidence for his hypothesis (something along the lines of "global warming ended in 200X") and merely repeatedy said it was "obvious". I don't think this is an inreasonable question to ask, and I feel I was being constructive in helping him to express an hypothesis explicitly and unambiguously so that it could be properly discussed. IIRC I even gave suggestions on how he could provide a statistical argument to support his hypothesis. That sort of behaviour doesn't encourange me to want to discuss anything further with him if he can't acknowledge the problems with his position (finding the flaws in a scientiic position is a common component of peer-review, so Prof. Pielke shouldn't be uncomfortable with that). Also, it seems to me that the question 1. Is global warming (and cooling) a subset of climate change or does it is so vaguely worded as to be essentialy meaningless. To be constructive, perhaps rather than making challenges, he should state his hypothesis, present the evidence for and against, and we might have an interesting discussion.
| |
2012-02-17 08:00:46 | ||
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
No interest, we had several post exchanges with Pielke. He acted like a typical denier, making false statements, and then shifting the goalposts when we proved they were false, never admitting any of his errors. I think we gave very brief responses to his 2 questions, but he was determined that we focus exclusively on them, even though they're rather dumb questions. He's also asked several prominent climate scientists (i.e. Trenberth) the same questions as a bizarre series on his blog, and usually gets similar answers (i.e. 'this is kind of a stupid question', but phrased more politely). But no, we have no interest in re-opening that discussion with Pielke. I think we pretty much revealed that he has a bias in blaming climate change on anything but CO2 (predominantly regional effects, as that's where his research focuses). | |
2012-02-17 08:07:21 | ||
Dikran Marsupial Gavin Cawley gcc@cmp.uea.ac... 88.108.208.125 |
the second question looks like it is setting up a straw man, the model projections don't assume the ability to predict these atmosphere-ocean circulation patterns, only simulate them. I'd be interested to hear from Prof. Pielke how he would even estimate the changes in the statistics of the PDO in the observations, never mind predict them! I agree with dana, he would be welcome to post here, but I have no interest in responding to these two meaningless/misleading questions. | |
2012-02-17 09:52:01 | ||
Albatross Julian Brimelow stomatalaperture@gmail... 23.17.186.57 |
His questions were largely ignored because they are bullshit and do nothing to advance nor improve our understanding of the science. They are designed to obfuscate and help him argue a straw man-- in other words, bait. As others here have noted, other sceintists have answered his questions, and were not exactly enthralled. Pielke sounds incredibly petulant in thie above exchange. He is so focussed on trying to get people to chase his blimp (i.e., the two questions) that he is ignoring that we spent a great deal of time engaging him-- perhaps he is doing this to try and help forget how we convincingly dessimated his other arguments. As for this claim made by him "The questions would challenge them too much, I assume, so they have ignored them." Nope, his assumption is wrong. The reasons are those given above. That, and we are not interested in chasing blimps and debating nonsensical statements. | |
2012-02-17 10:40:41 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 84.151.46.217 |
Chris, As I recall it, a lot of time was spent trying to pin him down on issues related to these "questions". All of this is archived somewhere. If you hear from RPs later, you might spend 5 minutes to find the discussion, and stick the knife in by mailing him the link. | |
2012-02-17 12:33:00 | ||
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 71.137.108.231 |
You can just do a search for "Pielke" - all the relevant posts have his name in the title. As Alby says, he was trying to get us to chase his blimps (irrelevant, goalpost shifting questions), and then would throw a temper tantrum any time we tried to focus on the issues we were discussing, or caught one of his many errors. Then he would write blog posts about what big meanies we are at SkS. It was pathetic. | |
2012-02-18 11:41:23 | ||
Riccardo riccardoreitano@tiscali... 2.33.129.9 |
OT but ... how come Pielke always pushes his papers, appropiate or not to the discussion at hand? He looks much more like a salesman than a scientist. | |
2012-02-18 12:38:02 | ||
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 71.137.108.231 |
Same reason he insists that we focus on regional effects (his area of research). He wants to feel important. That's my theory anyway, I'm no psychologist :-) | |
2012-02-18 15:10:26 | ||
KR k-ryan@comcast... 68.34.93.62 |
Regional effects and mesoscale interactions are his hammers. Everything therefore looks like a nail - or, perhaps, a potential threat to the importance and income of his hammer business. |