2011-09-16 04:31:00Welp, that didn't take long -- Pielke's back
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/my-response-to-the-skeptical-science-post-one-sided-skepticism/

 

Doesn't answer any questions.  As I noted in the other thread, he just sticks to discussing joules of heat in the ocean.

However, there is NO delayed warming when we measure in units of heat (Joules).  A measurement of the heat in the oceans at two different time periods tells us what heating has occurred over this interval; e. g .see

Palmer, M. D., D. J. McNeall, and N. J. Dunstone (2011), Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balanceGeophys. Res. Lett., 38, L13707, doi:10.1029/2011GL047835.

C. A. Katsman and G. J. van Oldenborgh, 2011: Tracing the upper ocean’s ‘missing heat’. Geophysical Research Letters (in press).

as I have posted on in Additional Information On The “Ocean’s Missing Heat” By Katsman and van Oldenborgh 2011]. 

 

Then resorts to cherry picking:

Skeptical Science can accurately state that the climate system is warmer today than it was several decades ago. However, the weblog is in error in stating that the “most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming”.There has not been warming significantly, if at all,  since 2003, as most everyone on all sides of the climate issue agree. The real world evidence in these two figures document their erroneous statement.

 

And finally:

Summary

The failure of Skeptical Science  to present  diverse viewpoints on these issues (and on the others in the posts on Skeptical Science) indicates that their weblog is not balanced in the presentation of the existing research findings in climate science.  John Christy and Roy Spencer are very well-respected climate scientists by most everyone in this science community.

Skeptical Science would do more of a service to the science community if they accurately presented their (and my viewpoints), even when they disagree,  rather than disparage those who disagree with them. As Skeptical Science is currently presenting their information on climate on their weblog, everyone just needs to recognize that the weblog is not presenting all peer reviewed perspectives.

He going for our collective throats at this point.

 

 

 

2011-09-16 04:40:43
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

So basically he's on the record standing up for S+C, cherry picking, and citing papers that don't really make his point. 

2011-09-16 04:44:14
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Just dumb.  He completely ignores everything we said, except to repeat the claim that the series titles are ad hominem.  The only thing he says about Spencer and Christy is:

"John Christy and Roy Spencer are very well-respected climate scientists by most everyone in this science community."

Which is bullshit, but not the point anyway.

Oh I also love Pielke's summary:

"The failure of Skeptical Science  to present  diverse viewpoints on these issues (and on the others in the posts on Skeptical Science) indicates that their weblog is not balanced in the presentation of the existing research findings in climate science."

Pot, meet kettle.

I don't know if this even merits a response.  It's just a goalpost shifting Gish Gallop.  It would be good to examine his claim of no warming since 2003, but as a seperate issue, since it's irrelevant to the Crocks (which he can't seem to spell correctly) and Slip-Ups.

2011-09-16 04:49:33
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Just citing it as an update might be worth it so people can make comments about what he's said.  I think that might be useful for people.

2011-09-16 04:51:50
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Dammit, that's why I wanted to pin him down on a few specific statements!

If you let him wiggle away, he's won.

2011-09-16 04:55:49
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

neal, clearly didn't even read the post (or if he did, is ignoring everything we said), so it wouldn't have mattered what we said.  We tried to pin him down on Christy's '70s cooling myth, but he didn't say a word about it.  In fact, he only said one word about Christy and Spencer in his entire diatribe.

grypo - I referenced the "response" in an update at the bottom of the post.

2011-09-16 04:57:25
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Then pin it down, hard and fast: "What is your answer to this?" He's linked to us, so his readers will see it.

2011-09-16 04:57:32nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

He would have never directly answered the questions that you had posed, nor allowed himself to be backed into a corner.

2011-09-16 04:59:12Some other Pielke links
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/02/15/science-errors-or-at-best-cherrypicking-in-the-2007-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/update-to-andy-revkins-question-in-2005-is-most-of-the-observed-warming-over-the-last-50-years-likely-to-have-heen-due-to-the-increase-in-greenhouse-gas-concentrations%E2%80%9D/


"Roger Pielke Sr. was elected a Fellow of the AMS in 1982 and a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union in 2004. From 1993-1996, he served as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the IUGG (1991-1994) for the American Geophysical Union. From January 1996 to December 2000, he served as Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Science."

Why don't we check back and see how many articles he let go through in a month to see if the recent one was as "unprecedented" in terms of its speed.

His response is ridiculous, can't believe he is so well-respected.



2011-09-16 04:59:19
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

As usual, we play to the readers, not to the interlocutor.

2011-09-16 05:00:06My two cents...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Pielke has given SkS a lot of free publicity.

Pielke has not said anything about SkS that has not been said before by other climate deneirs.

Expect an up-tick in comments on SkS articles. 

2011-09-16 05:03:03
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Agreed neal - I updated the update to directly ask Pielke whether he approves of Christy misinforming Congress.  I'm sure he won't respond though.

Very, very tempting to start a Pielke series at this point.  The first entry could be his claim of no warming since 2003.  Outside my area of comfort/expertise though.  Anybody willing to respond to this?

2011-09-16 05:03:15
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Don't abandon the post now. The battle has just begun. The fact that he has linked to us means that his readers can follow the back & forth. If you don't respond, it's a wimp-out. There's no other interpretation.

2011-09-16 05:11:18
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.51.204

Please listen to Neal this time! Let's see how his strategy plays out.

2011-09-16 05:12:06
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think starting a Pielke series would be a great response.

The only other possible response I can see is to draft up a short post just saying that he completely ignored everything we said.  I don't see a whole lot of point in that.  I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but it would certainly be an out of character post for SkS.

2011-09-16 05:13:08
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Please update the post explicitly and pin the SOB to some specific statements by S&C: Yes or No.

2011-09-16 05:13:19
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

He is full of bluster...he has nothing.  The rational and reasonable reader will see this.  The deniers will see what they want, but we are not "after them". Reasonable people will really be turne doff by Roger's style.

It is quite cowardly of him to refuse to engage us here at SkS and to not open up his comments section?  And we know why that is, he will be trounced.  And here at SkS we daily entertain different views in our comments, he doesn't even allow bloody comments!

Funny that nowhere on his blog does he discuss Thorne et al. (2010) which totally ripped his 2010 paper with Christy-- he is biased beyond belief.

Hold off on the Pielke series.  Yes, he cherry picks 2003, meaningless statistically, but not in a PR misinformation campaign.  He also sites some blog science by Lucia (a "skeptic")to try and question the models.

I'm biased, but his "response" really does him no favours.  Just bluster and more misinformation.

2011-09-16 05:14:07
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Hey, if Pielke wants to play the "Post for a Post" game, by all means, let's accomodate him!

This has obviously gotten under his skin.  Also, let's tag team him on this one.  A series of posts from different authors responding to Pielke would be fantastic!

2011-09-16 05:16:57
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Albatross: That's the point! Keep him talking! Make his ducking & weaving clear!

2011-09-16 05:17:24
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

As I assume, SkS has many defenders outside these virtual walls that understand the mission of defending consensus science against evidence based opinions and Pielkian word play.  That's what I consider his no warming since 2003.  He knows why this is not an important claim for normal humans, but continues to propogate it.  His son is a apple from the tree.

 

Perhaps it's time to call on the scientists we trying to defend?  I'm sure this fight will go beyond Pilek's site soon.  Jr's definately.  Watts, for sure.

2011-09-16 05:20:33
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Pielke Peccadillos?

2011-09-16 05:21:33
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

The major channel of contact will be through updates to the official SkS post: mere comments may be missed or neglected.

Don't sign new names on the official Updates: a visible tag team is not appropriate. If you want to get together offline (or otherline) and craft an update, that would be OK. It doesn't look good if he seems to be the lion fighting off a pack of jackals.

2011-09-16 05:22:05
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.51.204

So the readers see you as wimping out Dana. Come on buddy, this isn't rational discourse, this is PR. You've allowed him to gallop all over the show.

Also, Pielke is wrong about ocean warming. See my post on ocean warming: Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again

Note the graph: Looks suspiciously like ocean warming. And why is Pielke linking to the two modeling studies? Giddyup! 

2011-09-16 05:23:46
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Alby - I don't think it matters that Pielke isn't engaging in a PR misinformation campaign.  I don't even necessarily agree, since he has a blog.  It may not have the audience of Spencer or Christy, but he's still misinforming the public.

But regardless, a myth is a myth, and I'd be interested to see how this 'no warming since 2003' stacks up to reality, especially when accounting for the deep oceans.

Perhaps neal could draft up a response to Pielke's response?  Maybe write it in first person so it's clear he's not representing SkS as a whole, since I know a lot of people don't want to engage in direct communication with Pielke.

2011-09-16 05:25:48
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Rob P - how about we combine your ocean cooling corrected post with those on deep ocean warming (i.e. Purkey) in the first entry for a Pielke series?

2011-09-16 05:29:50
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Dana: I already gave you models before, again and again:

1) Pick a climate-science relevant statement that S/C/L made that is ridiculous

2) Ask him if he supports it? Yes or No?

Rinse & Repeat

I am NOT in command of the record for S/C, or else I would have filled in the blanks myself. Like I said, we need to b&w correct on this.

The post is by SkS, there is no reason for the Updates to be by anyone else: it doesnt' make sense. If he's got nothing, he's got nothing.

2011-09-16 05:30:23
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.51.204

Dana, there's a more recent study on the same Purkey data- Kouketsu (2011). It's got some nifty images. It's been on my to do list. 

2011-09-16 05:32:31
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'm not talking about updates to the post, I'm talking about a totally seperate post, neal.

Rob P - sounds like that would be a good one to move up the list eh?

2011-09-16 05:32:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Don't "Obama out" on this. Respond via Updates in the main body of the posting.

2011-09-16 05:36:54
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

The two papers he quotes in his first point do not say what he claims (though, after a very quick and superficial reading) and contradict his second point. Definitely he's getting nervous, this is a false step.

2011-09-16 05:37:20
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

dana: I'm talking about Updates, because if you let him wiggle out of this = he wins this round. The comments don't count, they will be discounted by his readers.

A separate post is VERY LOW PRIORITY at this moment. Like ordering more brass polish in the middle of a pitched battle.

2011-09-16 05:39:38
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

There's some sub-text to his criticism that we may be missing.  It's that we don't include all "peer-reviewed" science in our synthesis posts and that we purposefully neglect work that doesn't "fit in".  That might be worth some thought down the road (when reflection is appropriate), ie 'just being peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's correct or fits in with what else is known about the climate', etc etc.  This would be the only thing that he's said that might make hay with people who don't know a lot (which is most people) or don't have the tools to put 'other opinions' in perspective.  

 

Does anybody else understand what I mean?

2011-09-16 05:41:42
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.36.172

Grypo - No.

2011-09-16 05:48:41
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Not important right now.  I'll bring it up later :)

2011-09-16 06:00:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana a good example:

1) Ask Pielke who said this and when:

"Satellite data are the only truly global temperature data scientists have. But contrary to surface readings, satellites have shown a slight cooling trend since readings began in 1979. Mr. Wentz and Mr. Schabel claimed that adjusting the data to account for gradual changes in the orbits of these satellites would result in a slight warming trend. As a result, newspaper headlines trumpeted "the satellite data finally support global warming." This is quite misleading."

From same:

"With those corrections made, our detailed review of the satellite data between 1979 and 1997 still shows a cooling but at a smaller rate - dropping at 0.01 degrees Celsius per decade. Given the measurement uncertainty, this is no temperature trend."

It was Spencer in the Washington Post in 1998.  He conceded that they had made an error, but then tried very hard to play down the implications.  in the end, there estimate was still way too low and the planet was warming.

2)And another. Spencer claiming that breathing from humans increases CO2 levels. Here is the relevant information:

Good grief, and another.  He is trying to be funny here, but is perpetuatuiing a myth that humans exhaling ncrease CO2 levels;

"  5) Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon 
        dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by 
        joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem. "

This myth has been addressed at SkS here.  the fact that he is joking about this serious matter means that he has not intention whatsoever on anyone taking action on AGW, no action whatsoever.

2011-09-16 06:02:51Pielke projecting
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Very interesting that Pielke responds so quick. Unsurprising that he commits the same error as before because if, as I theorise, it's a psychological reflex of disconfirmation bias, it's very difficult for him not to gravitate towards those areas he's comfortable while veering away from any uncomfortable areas like S/C howlers.

So I submit that Pielke (like it seems most deniers when they attack warmists) is projecting - he claims we don't include diverse views and yet he cherry picks his arguments (damn, I'm turning into a Freud here, it's getting very annoying).

On a practical level, he fixates with laser focus on upper ocean heat but ONLY ONCE have I seen him look at deeper ocean heat estimates and in that moment, he conceded that the ocean may indeed still be warming. We discuss it here and here's Pielke's original post:

Nonetheless, if we assume the analysis of Song et al 2011 is robust in that there is significant ocean heating below 700m (~1/3 of that between the surface and 700m if the steric sea level rise scales linearly in Joules), then this is a significant sink for this heat with respect to the rest of the climate system. 

Of course Pielke goes on to say this means warming won't affect us so no need to worry about climate change, nothing to see here people, move along!

2011-09-16 06:03:13
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

We say we look at the full body of scientific evidence.  Pielke says we selectively look at the scientific research that confirms what we want to believe.  It's psychological projection - he only looks at research that confirms his biases, so he's accusing us of behaving the same way.  He doesn't really provide any evidence to support this claim though, except in his 'no warming since 2003' argument (basically saying we're ignoring the research that shows no warming).  So if we (by 'we' I mean Rob P :-) show that he's wrong (especially if we use his own references), we'll prove that he's the guilty party.

2011-09-16 06:04:15
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Hah! John and I (correctly) accuse Pielke of projection 1 minute apart :-)

2011-09-16 06:09:40
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

dana & albatross:

Can you take my framework from 16 Sep 2011, 5:29 AM and apply it to 16 Sep 2011, 6:00 AM and put it iin the Update?

2011-09-16 06:12:52A cautionary note
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Many (including me) believe that Al Quieda won the war because of the USA's disproportionate repsone to 9/11. We've essentially brankrupt the country fighting two wars without paying for them.

Let us not become so consumed with this Pielke brouhaha that we loose our better judgement and ignore everything else that is on our platter.

2011-09-16 06:13:20
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.36.172

Alby, awesome find buddy!

2011-09-16 06:14:38comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

The response to Lucia's argument is easy. Models are not incorporating additional human aerosols and volcanic aerosols so if them and observations are out of whack it is for that reason.

2011-09-16 06:15:45The convergence of the borg and the cyborg
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Dana, we must be becoming like an old married couple, thinking alike and finishing each other's sentences :-)

If we do a series on Pielke (just answering the question of whether we do or not, I smell another 200+ forum thread), first thing to do is establish the narrative of the series. What is our elevator pitch on Pielke? It's probably the cherry picking - that he laser focuses on the data/arguments/info that he likes while dodging/avoiding/running-away-screaming from inconvenient evidence. This theme would need to be reinforced in every post with concrete examples. If possible, with nice visuals that show the full body of evidence and show which tiny part Pielke is focusing on. 

2011-09-16 06:16:53
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

B.: We have a window of just a few hours in which readers may be interested in the goings on between Pielke's blog and SkS. Tomorrow, it will be old news, as interesting as yesterday's newspaper.

2011-09-16 06:19:40
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

neal - done (I think).

John - I'd say cherrypicking is definitely Pielke's M.O.  In the comments on the recent Santer post, Alby points out that Pielke likes to cherrypick 13-year trends in satellite data, since 1998 was 13 years ago.  He's a serial cherrypicker.

2011-09-16 06:21:31nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I don't buy that. This is going to play out like the Hatfield-McCoy feud and last for years. Let's avoid shooting from the lip while agitated.

2011-09-16 06:25:22Pielke series
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

On that note from my last comment, it's not alliteration, but how about "Pielke's Cherries" for the series title?  I'd be tempted to call it "Old Man Pielke's Cherries", but we wouldn't want to be accused of ad hom again ;-)

2011-09-16 06:30:53
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

B: I've played these sorts of wars before, in a professional settiing. There are battles and there are opportunities; and they have timeframes. You miss an opportunity, it's gone: You can't go back and pick it up again.

dana: Looks good; but have another one prepared, in case he responds. He can laugh this one off as an "obvious joke."

2011-09-16 06:37:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I posted several examples of inane things said by Spencer on the epic thread, they start on page 2.

Well, this is a pretty bad one:

"warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning."

20 April 2010 (Source)

Can't laugh that off so easily.  
And RC took him down hard in How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

Pielke actually featured the cooked graph on his site.

2011-09-16 06:38:27Pielke Pickings? :-)
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Am starting to add quotes to Pielke's page in preparation for adding him to http://sks.to/skeptics (and beating my Myth Monitor drum again, encourage others to look for quotes/links/external blog posts to add).

Found it weird, that photo at the top of his response blog post. Thought, "who is that old dinosaur? Wait, that's Pielke?! The pic I had in our database must be decades old!!!" Our white haired brigade at sks.to/skeptics is about to get a little whiter.

And what's up with the posting of the photo? Is that a way of saying "I'm a distinguished old academic with my finger thoughtfully placed on my chin while you SkSers are a bunch of young whippesnappers!" :-)

2011-09-16 06:39:17
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

I would propose adding it already, then.

2011-09-16 06:40:53comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Another thing about Pielke is that not only is he cherrypicking 13-year trends but hw uses graphs not updated to present (and oddly ending on lows such as his UAH one...)

2011-09-16 06:42:50
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

"And what's up with the posting of the photo? Is that a way of saying "I'm a distinguished old academic with my finger thoughtfully placed on my chin while you SkSers are a bunch of young whippesnappers!"

Yeah, that was basically the impression I got.

2011-09-16 06:46:36
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.36.172

Nice addendum! Now you're pinning him down. 

2011-09-16 06:47:59
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

dana:

I suggest adding the example from 16 Sep 2011, 6:37 AM

It cannot be dismissed as a joke.

2011-09-16 06:50:51LOL at 'Pielke's cherries'
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Not sure about that title - has a hint of euphemism about it :-)

2011-09-16 06:52:52
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

How about "Cherry-Pielking" ?

2011-09-16 06:56:08
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Updated as requested, neal.

Oooh and I like Cherry-Pielking :-)  How about it John?

2011-09-16 07:03:52
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
198.96.178.33

I'm purdy sure that's just a stock photo of "distinguished older academic-looking guy", not Pielke. I don't even think it looks like Pielke. Just saying.

2011-09-16 07:05:50
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Great!

Now, if Pielke doesn't respond to the Updates, we can create a follow-up post based on the Updates and on the best of the Comments, as a direct challenge; and also the other stuff you've been cooking up.

But the tone of the Comments needs to be more courteous. The knife goes in the more deeply, the thinner it is.

2011-09-16 07:07:33
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John C,

Re psych analysis, did nt understand evberything, but I think that you might be right about projection.  He is also trotting out, in his mind at least, what he considers to be his 'killer' points.

Pielke and I currently work in very simialr fields, and his behaviour the last few years and now this fiasco has really made me reevaluate my positioin on him.  Was repsected, now disgust.  Interestingly, he is now in the same boat as Spencer and Christy, they used to do pretty good work, they used to take the science more seriously, buy as their cause has weakened they have had to adopt ever increasingly drastic measures and that has meant abondoning serious science (for the most part).

And that photo just shows how egocentric he is.  

2011-09-16 07:10:42
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,

"But the tone of the Comments needs to be more courteous"

Mea culpa.  I'll stop for now..it is beginning to look like I'm arguing with an imaginary person, never a good thhing ;)

But despite the argumentative tone, I think i've done a good job of showing his bias, his logical fallacies and his double standard.

We'll see how it goes.

2011-09-16 07:17:51
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

At this point, we need to check in 12 hours or so for a response.

If there's a response, keep the flame burning.

If there's no response, launch post #2.

2011-09-16 07:18:56John Cook
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Pielke is giving SkS the "evil eye" a la Larry David. (Do you get Curb Your Enthusiasm down under?)

2011-09-16 07:22:26photo
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

This is Pielke Sr.

sr

Rust is right.  Pielke used a stock photo called "A skeptical looking, intelligent senior man over a black background."

2011-09-16 07:22:34My suggestion...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

"Pielke's Piques"

 

2011-09-16 07:25:26comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

I think the comments under the post are a little excessive in some instances... The tone is definitely something that I'm not sure represents SKS well...

I really have to question why no moderation has been done asking people to tone them down a bit. Yes he is lying but he is a distinguished academic and yelling at him like he is steven goddard is only giving him ammunition. This will come back on us.

2011-09-16 07:31:37John Cook & Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

One of you should fill in the folk at SourceWatch and DeSmog blog about this brouhaha. Both should be encouraged to cross-post Dana's article w/ the addendums.

Deos anyone have an open-channel to investigative reporters at Mpother Jones, Rolling Stone, etc?

What about giving PlanetSave a heads up?

2011-09-16 07:37:33
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

"But the tone of the Comments needs to be more courteous"

[grumble grumble grumble]  Okay.  Mea Culpa as well.  

The analogy I originally wrote on one of my comments, and then changed, was that Pielke is basically saying the rape victim should apologize to the rapist.  But it's even worse.  He's saying that Roy's tone is okay, even justified, but SkS's is not.  It's perfectly reasonable that he raped her but she should really say she's sorry.

2011-09-16 07:42:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Robert,

Re the tone-- I assume people are referring to some of my comments on that thread. Noted.  With all due respect, please feel welcome to post your own polite and cordial comments to someone who does not give a shit, really, he does not.  He thinks he knows better than the rest as does Spencer.  

I love how he suddeny develops a thin skin when other critique him, yet he is quick to defame and disparage his colleagues.  Had he showed an interst in engaging in a reasonable manner in his blog reponse, then my tone would be very, very different. but he didn't, he elceted to go on a Gish gallop, duck all pertinent questions and make insinuations of incompetance by SkS.  That is offensive and disingenuous on his part. And remember, he is the one who started this mess....not us.

We have Pielke up against the wall and only a couple of us are taking him seriuously to task on that thread.  People like pielke  do not play nice and thhik that they are above critique-- how long before we realise that.  Read his blog, read what he has written and said elsewhere.  At this point I am all for fighting fire with fire and calling a spade a spade.

Pielke and I work in the same field, he is essentially a colleague so I have no compunctions calling him on his bullshit.  Really, playing nice has gotten us absolutely nowhere the last two to three decades.

With that all said, if my comments have violated the comments policy, someone should please do edit/snip the offending text.

Sorry for the rant Robert, no offense to you intended.

2011-09-16 07:44:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Would people be OK if I went in and edited the more rhetorical aspects of my posts?

Robert, re distinguished academic, maybe he was at one time, but not so much today.

2011-09-16 07:50:20
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Honestly, it's Pielke's double standard that's killing me.  He's either willfully ingorant of Roy's tone of writing (and the general tone that comes from the denier set) or he just doesn't read any of the blogs.

I'm really curious what set him off on this.  Maybe Roy expressed his own annoyance.  Maybe there is talk in their private circles that SkS is a real threat.  Maybe he just had bad milk with his breakfast cereal.

2011-09-16 07:55:53Cherry Pielking
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

That title is genius, it's officially the title series unless something better comes along (which I very much doubt). I LOLed when I read it, it fits the narrative perfectly, is sticky, we can use images to reinforce it. Beautiful from a messaging point of view. Great stuff, Badger!

Dang, that photo wasn't even Pielke. And I updated the database and everything! What a weasel, posting a stock photo, that is really bizarre!

I thought it did look like a much older version of that other pic of Pielke.

Alby, sure, edit your comments.

2011-09-16 08:00:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

Thanks I'm doing so now, trying to make them sound less snarky....

2011-09-16 08:00:53BTW, this hasn't had a discernable effect on traffic yet
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Can't really see a difference in traffic yet so it's not that much to get excited about from a traffic point of view:

The dips are days when the web host stats package didn't work for whatever reason. Hmm, should have a closer look at that spike in July, wonder what caused that.

UPDATE: note, today's traffic isn't up yet and Dana's follow up post went up today. Plus you'd have to wait to see if WUWT, CP pick this up.

2011-09-16 08:07:19
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Pielke's site ranks pretty low on Alexa so his site is not going to drive much traffic over to SkS.  If WUWT would pick it up then we might see a nice pop.  

2011-09-16 08:13:42
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OK, I have edited almost all my comments, some of them quite a bit.  The tone is terse, but I 'm hoping the posts now appear more civil.

2011-09-16 08:37:50
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Actually, the source of the Pielke picture has a message for us.  He has a link to image on the  bottom of his post to a 'seriously' blog, as if to give us a 'seriously lol eleventy!!111!!' type internet meme.  Also the post in which that picture appears is 

Hmmmm…You Should Leave.

2011-09-16 08:46:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I might have to update the Santer et al. post and make it a Cherry Pielking post too, given his comments about no troposphere warming since 1998.  That's even worse than Christy's comments on the subject, and a perfect example of a cherrypick.

Should be pretty easy to come up with a button for this series, eh John?

2011-09-16 08:47:09Confirmed that old pic is not Pielke
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

So he posts some stock photo at the top of his blog post? That is messed up.

2011-09-16 08:48:12Further editing of comments needed
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Rob:

"his supposed caliber" => "his caliber": too snarky

 

Alby:

"Agreed, very astute observations Rob." => "": too self-congratulatory

"rather shameful examples" => "rather egregious examples": too personal

"on a pseudo-science site like WUWT": Unprofessional to refer to a rival website in this way

"That last paragraph also applies to scientists, including Dr. Pielke. While some scinetists are turning a blind eye to the risks, others (including SkepticalScience )are being pro active in this regard." : Spelling; also SkS are not all scientists.

 

dana:

"I'm starting to wonder if he has problems with reading comprehension.": Below the belt.

 

B:

"Pielke Sr. has just provided the Climate Denial Spin Machine with a truck load of poppycock to spread around. Oh well, we knew he would do so.": Inappropriate, snarky

 

Riccardo:

"Should we learn from him, with a rapidly spiralling credibility?": This isn't for us to say.

 

KR:

"I hope you have some idea of just how poor a light you are currently painting yourself with...": This isn't for us to say.

2011-09-16 08:51:19History
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

JC:

"Cherry-Pielking" was my idea.

2011-09-16 08:56:48
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.54.84

In a court of law, a good attorney would pounce on the words "this science community".

 

"John Christy and Roy Spencer are very well-respected climate scientists by most everyone in this science community."

 

This scientific community?  This?  Surely you mean 'the'?  Surely there is only one thing called science and hence one community.  Or are there two or more communities which call themselves scientific?  If so, of which one or more, sir, are you and they members?

 

2011-09-16 09:03:24Agree with Neal's remarks
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

I agree with neal's edits there.


Albatross,
I recognize that he is in your field and that he has lost your respect but civility is still civility. I'm sure John can attest that overly negative comments turns off those in the middle who might lean one way or another. Yes I do recognize though how ridiculous his behavior is and that is more of a reason to show a contrast between the opposing sides. One group (skeptics) who are running around running their mouths off and criticizing us for no reason other than to divert attention from their own issues, and another side remaining composed, calm and collected and pushing for scientific critique after scientific critique.

I am also in the field myself Albatross and although it is just at the masters level and mostly focused on glaciers right now I am doing work with a lot of colleagues on climate variability in eastern Canada and so I've heard the rumblings about him in that regard to... Let me just say though that i've heard some negative things about the work done but some prominent proponent scientists too so it isn't quite as easy to decipher sometimes. That being said I think we have to remain terse but in control. Our advantage is how many people we have and the varying experiences we all have that together have made this such a fruitful venture. If we remain above the fray to some degree then we are the winners. We need not treat Pielke like a punching bag before he has responded to our challenge. We just continue to prepare posts in the background and "swing for the fences" the second he gives us a reason to.

That is my goal at least.

2011-09-16 09:04:43
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal, making the changes now.  Thanks for the constructive feedback.

2011-09-16 09:04:44Pielke is a piker when it comes to...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

blogging. He's posted the text (albiet in chunks) of most of Dana's article. Way to go Roger!  

Should JC send him a thank you note?

2011-09-16 09:06:12"Roger's Dodges"
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Another suggested buton title.

2011-09-16 09:09:16
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Fixed.  Thanks Neal.

2011-09-16 09:09:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

B:

We're not on first-name basis with Pielke.

2011-09-16 09:10:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Robert,

Thank, I appreciate your response. I am in the process of working pretty much all of my comments and I have deleted one of my own.

Yes, there are indeed rumblings about Pielke-- it is quite sad really, I wonder what motivatews people to seld destruct in this manner? 

And hey and you are selling yourself short when you say "although it is just at the masters level", don't cave to the ivory tower mindset that sometimes prevails out there.

2011-09-16 09:11:41
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

A & R:

Just among us chickens, what rumbles have you heard?

2011-09-16 09:17:00
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Robert, just one more note, had he been civil with us in his reply then  I would have reponded likewise.  My parents taght me that respect is "that one earns respect".  Pielke has long ago lost my respect, in that context, I think my responses to his inane commentaries have been quite measured. 

Anyhow, I have tried to make all of my posts less snarky.

2011-09-16 09:18:35
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Alby,

Keep in mind, we're not doing it for him: We're doing it for the readers; some of whom will be coming over as HIS readers.

2011-09-16 09:21:36
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,

I realise that-- that is one of the reasons I decided to change my snarky posts. Can we now all please move on?

2011-09-16 09:26:07
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Dana, wrt your comment here, is it true that when Pielke says:

However, there is NO delayed warming when we measure in units of heat (Joules).  

in response to us saying

A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.

This is a blatent misrepresentation of climate science knowledge.  He knows that when we talk about delayed warming, we are talking about, not only deep ocean, ice, etc, but we are also talking about the CO2 already emitted. It is part of the knowledge base accepted by all.  We could really hammer him on this.  Not only is misrepresenting our argument but he failing to alarm his readers to truth about what is meant by heat 'in the pipeline'.  He should he taken to task for this one, and it deserves a post in Cherry Pielking if I'm correct.  It's pretty egregious. 

2011-09-16 09:52:41
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

In fact here's the post from James Wight where he got that quote from.  He clearly didn't read it.  He cherry pielke'd his own strawman.  

2011-09-16 10:41:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
I'm trying to wrap my head around the physics of the situation and what Pielke is trying to argue with is Joules comment. If we were able to measure all of the energy in the climate system, that would just tell us about its current state. But given that there's a TOA energy imbalance, how would there not still be 'delayed warming' until the system reaches equilibrium? I presume Pielke is referring to warming at the surface, which is delayed due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. So I guess Pielke is saying that if you account for the energy in the oceans, you don't have to worry about also accounting for the delayed surface warming, because that ultimately comes from the oceans. But Pielke is neglecting the global energy imbalance. Have I got that all sorted right?
2011-09-16 10:49:40
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

It is the energy imbalance and the already emitted CO2 that sticks around in the carbon cycle that are used to calculate 'unrealized' or 'delayed' warming as I've read it.

Earth's energy imbalance. We infer from the consistency of observed and modeled planetary energy gains that the forcing still driving climate change, i.e., the forcing not yet responded to, averaged ∼0.75 W/m2 in the past decade and was ∼0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 in 2003 (Fig. 1C). This imbalance is consistent with the total forcing of ∼1.8 W/m2 relative to that in 1880 and climate sensitivity of ∼2/3°C per W/m2. The observed 1880 to 2003 global warming is 0.6° to 0.7°C (1122), which is the full response to nearly 1 W/m2 of forcing. Of the 1.8 W/m2 forcing, 0.85 W/m2 remains, i.e., additional global warming of 0.85 × 0.67 ∼ 0.6°C is “in the pipeline” and will occur in the future even if atmospheric composition and other climate forcings remain fixed at today's values (3423).

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1431.full

 

I guess KR put it best by saying 'forcing' imbalance.

2011-09-16 10:51:42
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
99.232.158.68
Again, I am on a wee iPod so a bit constrained on reading and writing, but @dana, the way I would think about it would be to consider an instantaneous slug of CO2 added to the atmosphere. Say equivalent to 50ppm or 100ppm. Pielke seems to be saying that if we measure the change in OHC a week later or a year later or whatever then we have demonstrated what the change has - and WILL - be in response. Egregiously wrong. But hey, iPod disclaimer.
2011-09-16 11:47:07About "Cherry Pielking"
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Isn't modifying a person's last name in order to make a cute-sounding button title a tad snarky?   

2011-09-16 11:55:44
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
99.232.158.68
"Cherry Pielke'ing", then? Or "Cherry Pielke-ing"? If the shoe fits?
2011-09-16 11:56:36
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
99.232.158.68
2011-09-16 13:55:29
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.24.108

Pielke's statements about Joules is ridiculous.  The very fact that there is an energy imbalance disallows you from looking merely at energy to determine how much warming will or will not happen, especially from coming to the conclusion that there will be no more warming.  It is the imbalance that is important, the forcing that has "not yet been responded to" as the other paper brought up says it.

This is very demonstrable with a simple box model, I already made one in Excel.  As the body gains energy due to the incoming forcing, its temperature will increase (by dQ = mc(dT), I presume?), causing it to emit more (following Stefan's Law) and thus decreasing the forcing imbalance.  Less difference = less energy increase = less temperature increase = less increased outgoing radiation = approaches EQ temperature eventually.

Pielke is saying that looking at energy allows us to see that there is no more warming to be expected - WTF?  It's not the change in energy that is dependent on the change in temperature, it is the change in temperature dependent on change in energy!  And if we have a change in energy (the imbalance, anyone?) then we have a change in temperature.  There's no getting around that.

2011-09-16 14:15:43
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Want to draft up a Cherry Pielk-ing post on it Alex, or are you too busy with school?

I drafted up the first Cherry Pielk-ing post by the way.  It's in the blog post forum for review, on his 'no TLT trend since 1998' cherrypick.

2011-09-16 15:00:19
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.24.108

I don't know if I would have enough to go off of anyways.  I will look more into it later, I might be able to get something but no promises.

The model I have right now just demonstrates a few basic concepts, like the idea of thermal equilibrium, increasing OLR as temperature goes up, so on.  I modeled it to to fit with the CO2 forcing, so that the system I have is being heated by a forcing matching the logarithmic relation from an increasing CO2 concentration - some interesting results, it appears that the forcing approaches a diagonal asymptote and that temperature keeps increasing... I'm probably doing something wrong, I need to play with it a bit.

In either case I don't have much to make into a post.  I might be able to simplify the model back down though, to get to a fixed downwards forcing higher than the upwards forcing, and let it reach equilibrium.  Then, maybe some discussion on what is actually happening, and how an energy imbalance will lead to more energy which will lead to warming.  It's a lot less complex than the climate but I don't think that's an issue here.

2011-09-16 17:15:45
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

I find it astonishing that Pielke is pushing the "no warming since X" cannard.  If you look at an 8 year trend it is not at all surprising that it fails to reach statistical significance as the expected warming due to increased CO2 is small compared to internal climate variability on that kind of scale.  Only someone statistically clueless would make such an argument.

Having said which, failing to reach statistical significance doesn't mean that there isn't any warming, just that there isn't sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility that the true trend is not zero (frequentist statistical hypothesis testing is notoriously easy to misunderstand as the basic method is deeply counterintuitive).  So Pielke gets a fail on that one anyway.

For the two papers Pielke says we should discuss, we ought to ask him to write a guest article on them; if there is an interesting case to be made, lets hear it!

2011-09-16 17:22:50
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

On the snarkiness of "Cherry Pielking": It is no more snarky than the names of the other series. It's a gimmick SkS uses. Pielke won't like it, as I'm sure the other guys don't like their series' names. But I don't think the readers will mind.

By contrast, when we are rude to the person, we are putting ourselves in a bad light.

2011-09-16 17:24:56
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

Alex
if you force the one box model with a roughly exponential increase in CO2 you get a linear forcing. In this case the system will move to a state of constant imbalance, i.e. equal rate of forcing and OLR increase, and temperature will increase linearly as you found.´╗┐

2011-09-16 18:06:38
Ari Jokim├Ąki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.211

There's a new paper out on sea level and energy budgets. They mention in the abstract that Ocean has continued to warm "through to the end of the record" which is 2008.

2011-09-16 18:09:26Time to take a breath
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
144.131.181.57

If I can make an observation here. With one or two posts on Pielke happening and him replying, is it time to take a step back and get some perspective. A flame war in the Denialosphere isn't our mission. We are here to rebut the so called science of the skeptics and provide that to the broader masses, particularly those outside the denialosphere. Most AGW skeptics aren't on the Net debating climate change. That is the passionate (or loopy) few. Our mission is to reach out to the broader masses of skepticism.

So show why he is wrong, and move on. If he attacks SkS, GOOD it means we are winning. Therefore, IGNORE HIM! As the advertising guys say - there is no such thing as bad publicity. Lets not give him any. At the end of the day we don't want to defeat Pielke/Spencer/Lindzen/Christy/Monckton/Carter/Loehle/... we want to isolate them. Like cutting off the blood supply to a cancer. Too much engagment with them just keeps the blood flowing for them.

I am reminded of the end of Bob Heinlein's novel 'The Number Of The Beast'. In a universe of multiple parallel universes, he defines a new fundamental particle of Physics - the ficton, the fundamental particle of Fiction. Any fictional character that has ever been written exists somewhere. And in the last chapter he describes a huge convention. Not of Sci-Fi fans. Of Sci-Fi characters! And there is even special facilities for The Critics. A 'Hospitality Tent' that is actually a Klein Bottle - You Can Check In Any Time You Like, You can Never Leave. That is what is needed for the Pielke's/Christy's/Watts.

If they get out of the bottle, like testifying to Congress - turn the gatling gun on them. If they are still in the bottle, ignore them.

Look at the conversation on the 2 forum threads about Pielke. 317 comments and climbing. Get something else out then ignore the poor sad git! Time to start publishing some more science. Or summaries of science, or filling out some rebuttals. Articles thn can be disseminated to a broadxer audience - on & off line.

You don't win a war by defending. Lets go on the attack. Drown the sad gits out.

Only worry about the black hats if they get out of the bottle. And the denialosphere is the bottle. If they are still just in there, let them have their sad little bit of fun. It doesn't rate. Its what they do in the wider world that is the only thing that counts

See my recent post in Communicating Science about a new documentary being produced where a skeptic and an AGW advocate get to try and convince some audiences. Then it goes onto TV. That has more impact than any of the Denialosphere wars. What we do here is primarily about empowering broader communicators, not fighting in the cyber trenches.

Whack R P Snr and move on. We have bigger fish to fry.

2011-09-16 18:59:20
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Glenn,

I  respectfully disagree:

- We are not having a "scientific discussion": We are in a PR war. That is the way things are. We can win it or we can lose it. Collateral damage if we lose: The planet.

- Pielke is pretty well-established. We are not drawing attention to HIM, he is drawing attention to US. That is to be encouraged.

- Go on the attack? That's the very definition of what I'm proposing. You don't go on the attack by leaving the "black hats" alone. You go on the attack by calling them on their distortions. And Pielke has done plenty of distortions: both actively, through his own writing; and by proxy, through providing defensive cover.

- We cannot stop Pielke from giving his point of view. All we can do is to slowly change how people see him. If they get the picture that the image of the "wise elder stateman" is incorrect, then his impact and influence go down.

- To summarize: This IS a PR war, and as such, it IS ZERO-SUM. No broken eggs => no omelets.

2011-09-16 21:21:12
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I totally agree with Glenn.

In fact taking a step back was exactly what I was thinking this morning.
Some members here are I think making Pielkes comments far to personal and responding in a way that doesn't actually represent 'SkS' IMO.

Maybe there is a PR war, but I don't see the responses being made as being suitable.

I hope members don't leave SkS because over this, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

SkS shouldn't be taking on personal battles.

Re: losing the planet??

You can only do the best you can't guarentee that you won't lose the planet (the issue isn't about losing the planet in any case, it is about human survival). It isn't about winning, it is about bringing about change in peoples minds. Being antagonistic tends to polarise views rather than achieving change.

2011-09-16 21:25:31
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

Fighting a PR war requires specific experties which we do not have and is outside the line that SkS has been following.
From the purely scientific discourse, John pushed to consider the way we communicate science, which in my opinion greatly improved the impact of our posts.
What Neal is proposing is yet another step. Right or wrong it may be, we need to recognize that it's something completely different from what we've been doing. Engaging in a PR war means setting different priorities, giving relevance to things we didn't consider up to now and using science as a weapon to push our agenda.
In a few words, we're discussing the future of SkS. Should we keep going along the same line or we better switch to something different? I think this question needs an answer.

2011-09-16 21:41:09
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Paul:

- Views ARE polarized. Otherwise we really wouldn't need SkS, because WUWT et al. would dry up and blow away from lack of interest. Ultimately, we have to reduce the credibility the readers place in Spencer, Lindzen, Pielke, et al., because it is so much easier and more comfortable to believe what they are saying ("relax, don't worry, AGW is just an intellectual pastime being used by Al Gore to make million$") than what we are saying ("AGW is real, CO2 emissions need to be reduced - in fact need to go negative, major commercial interests need to be upended, dramatic changes in industry need to be implemented"). Believe me, if I could believe the deniers, I would: It's a much cooler world view to have.

-"(the issue isn't about losing the planet in any case, it is about human survival).": Reference "tree fallling in the forest, lack of viewer"

- Your acting as though it were a scientific discussion. It ain't: It's a worldview discussion that happens to rely partly on scientifiic arguments. I have worked for some years in the standards arena for telecommunications: Lots of technical arguments; funny how the results always magically align with the commercial interests of the proponents. Most of the argumentation is technically solid - but based on certain sometimes hididen assumptions. But when someone actually tries to pull a fast one, you need to make that real clear real fast, or your position will be underwater. If someone makes a habit of using invalid arguments, he's cheating, and if you let him get away with it, he has a great advantage over you: He can always claim better performance than you can get. So it's very important to make clear that some folks are not playing fair and that their sums don't add up.

2011-09-16 22:12:57
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

One thing I will say is that Pielke is attempting to undermine SkS's credibility.  He is doing this very slyly.  If SkS is to survive and grow, it needs to combat any 'credible' source that attempts to do that.  There are different ways to do this, but I believe Neal has the right idea.  

 

I can't agree with him more about the science v worldview.  

2011-09-16 22:50:36
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Neal. You don't undo the polarisation by participating in it.
And you are not going to stop Pielke and others continually saying the same thing, if you think that, then you will drive yourself crazy. I have tried it and people like Pielke and Spencer will continue forever, they will be replaced with others that will be saying the same thing 100 years from now.

All that can be done is to issue rebuttals and present the science in a way that the majority can understand. Basically education.

But people that want to learn will be turned off by personal battles.

2011-09-16 22:57:41
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Comment 46 on Danas post:

"I am surprised that no one has pointed out that it actually has warmed from 2003 to 2011, so Pielke is mistaken about 'cooling'.

There are plenty of facts out there; it is better to avoid working oneself up in a froth but to keep pointing out the errors."

2011-09-16 23:36:58
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Paul,

And you don't undo polarization by ignoring it either. Obama has tried that with the GOP. Successful? Meh...

Sometimes, it's make toast or be toast.

2011-09-17 00:26:51
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Obama is a politician, what is new?

I didn't say ignore it, I suggest don't participate within it, but participate outside it.

2011-09-17 01:25:29Glenn Tamblyn
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I concur with your analysis and have made many of the same points on this comment thread.

In his rebuttal post of this morning, Pielke has challenged SkS to answer a series of questions. Do so, will undoubtedly suck up a lot of SkS time and effort. Not doing so, will make SkS look like a weanie.

As I stated in a prior comment, "Beware of the unintended consequences."

Once the dogs of war have been unleahsed, it's damn hard to put them back into their kennel. 

2011-09-17 01:26:58nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Why haven't you posted any comments on the comment thread to Dana's article?

2011-09-17 01:56:21
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I agree Pielke warranted a response because he misrepresented SkS in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the site.  I don't think we need to go much further in terms of this back and forth blog dialogue with him. 

I think the best continued response is to show where he's scientifically wrong with the Cherry Pielking series.  I've already drafted up the first post.  I agree we need to address the 'no warming since 2003' comment, which I think Rob P is going to work on.  Basically show that he's just a garden variety denialist who cherrypicks and perpetrates climate myths.  I discussed the matter with John last night on Skype and he said the same thing - the next step is to engage Pielke on his cherrypicks.

2011-09-17 01:58:50See Pielke 3 thread
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.205.182

See Pielke 3 thread

2011-09-17 02:00:49
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

That thread is starting to get a life of its own now, over 50 comments and only one making a weak defence for Spencer.

People havce taken note of Pielke's bias and his tactics, and that he does not allow comments on his blog.  I'm not saying we've one or anything remotely like that, but it seems that the audienc eis now chiming in and it looks bad for Spencr, Pielke and Christy.

NewYorkJ made some excellent points about the satellite saga.

As for the claim that we have bigger fish to fry, I respectfully disagree-- Pielke is every much as big a fish as Spencer and Christy, SkS has devoted much time to taking down much smaller fish.

2011-09-17 02:20:23
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Badgersouth:

I haven't made comments to the public comment thread because:

- I don't have much specific expertise to contribute on the topics we are discussing at the moment: I'm depending on the other folks who've been contributing to the text for hard-core info: dana, albatross, etc.; and

- Most of my input concerns strategy & tactics, motivatiion and wording: Things that I do NOT want to discuss publicly. When playing poker, keep your cards to your chest.

 

All:

As Robert points out, Pielke has responded to the Update: This means we don't need to summarize the Update, as a separate quote. I've taken a quick peek at his response, and it seems rational and fair enough. I believe that we should engage with a matching tone. I'm going to head on over to Robert's "Pielke 3" post to get caught up.

Note: I noticed that a few individuals in the comment thread thought we were getting too personal; but I think that if we maintain a high tone in general, we will be OK. Also, I think a few of the harsher comments that were not edited out were not from Forum people: I believe I got all of those changed last night.