2011-09-17 01:10:13Pielke 3
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Another response.  He answered some questions.  Gave his views.  Stood up for Spencer and made it seem like we disgree with 'Spencer's politics' not his words.  That's a shift and duck there.

 

Then we get questions about our 'views' and how we portray the debate.  He uses Hulme.

 

My advice would be to not answer those types of questions directly, but say we give credence to both views as long as the views are backed up by science.  I'm sure there are many different views here at SkS  on the way in which we deal with CO2 -- or his pet 'land use'.  To me these are are not opposed to each other and both can be reconciled in different legislation depending on local needs, but that's just me.  make sure to mention that 'yes' we do speak to policy, but our goal is to open up to different policy ideas, not close off possible avenues.  you can use my posts and Paul Scadden's posts about opening up to other ideas besides top down global treaties.

 

Otherwise, have at it.  This post is much more ammenable to conversation.

 

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/my-further-response-to-skeptical-sciences-questions-of-september-16-2011/

2011-09-17 01:15:18
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Question3

 

3. What is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming?

 

Is this a real question?  Why does he want to us to use one when there are many?  We have several posts on this.

2011-09-17 01:18:07
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249
Meanwhile, Trenberth et al publish a rebuttal in remote sensing http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/
2011-09-17 01:18:24
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Question 5

 

5. Is global warming (and cooling) a subset of climate change or does it dominate climate change?

 

Huh?  Some of these q's are gotchas.  Is anyone here an expert in land use and climate?  

2011-09-17 01:33:40Another shout out to Pielke...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

for re-posting so much of the text of Dana's update.

2011-09-17 01:38:33
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Well, he sort of answered our direct questions, but mostly ducked them.  Then he tries to play games:

"Now it’s my term to ask Skeptical Science several questions"

His turn?  Why are we taking turns here?  We only asked him questions to force him to actually address the content of our posts (which he still hasn't really done, for the most part).  Quasi-answering those questions doesn't entitle him to ask us totally irrelevant questions to the discussion at hand.  He's still just trying to shift the goalposts and change the subject.

The question is, if we don't answer his questions, does it look like we're being chickens or something?  Personally I would vote to respond by pointing out that he still is refusing to address Spencer and Christy's long history of misinformation, and his questions directed at us are completely off-topic.

2011-09-17 01:49:55dana1981
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

"Off-topic?" Why did you or anyone else on the SkS team believe that Pielke would play by our rules?

As I previously stated, "Beware of the unintended consequences."

Pielke has put the ball back into our court by essentially challenging SkS to "Put up, or shut up."

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

2011-09-17 01:54:48Lets respond
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.205.182

This is our opportunity to respond and get him to legitimately answer questions without making him duck them if we can respond curteously... Lets answer his 6 questions as best as we can (a team response) and lets give him a set of 6 questions. These questions should be "gotcha" ones where we specifically ask about maybe his statements or examples where spencer and christy have shown their biases or made false statements. I think this is by and large the best approach and is the one that allows us to catch him off guard. Lets not hurl accusations lets respond and actually have a constructive dialogue. In our questions we can force him to go on the record about his views regarding Anthony watts and so on also.

I very much urge my course of action.

2011-09-17 01:59:18
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

Robert's way sounds best to me...

I expect he'll dodge it though. I've tried similar things with Lindzen & Monckton via email in the past. I'd be surprised to find an honest climate 'skeptic'.

2011-09-17 02:08:24Public
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.205.182

I think what he has done is opened himself up in ways that other researchers have not. This is a public affair and he wants us to answer those questions as best we can. We will do so and then we get to ask him more questions. If he does not respond (because everyone sees he is watching) then it is an example of skeptics backing away from the fight which we can highlight... if he does respond and weasels away from the questions it will become clear that we answered concisely and he dodged...something we can highlight later... it being a public affair where we know he is paying attention is important... the readers now get to see us answer direct questions and him to then see whose approach to this has been more credible.

2011-09-17 02:09:41
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

MarkR...  That's okay.  Let him dodge, but call out the fact that he is dodging.  I agree with Robert, this is a great opportunity to pin him to the wall on key questions.

I'd also suggest that it is highly likely that there are key players out there watching this exchange.  SkS needs to keep up the pressure on Pielke.  If SkS backs down or goes quiet it will be taken as an acquiescence.

2011-09-17 02:24:29Weird questions (or wording of them)
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.193.102.149

Just wondering: are there existing posts/rebuttals to address Pielke's questions quickly? If you have to come up with completely new answers for some of the questions, it could become rather time-consuming. Also, some questions like the ones about "climate change" and "global warming" seem to be rather beside the point as these terms are often just used as synonyms and I don't really think that there is a right or wrong answer to it - just a lot of wiggle-room for Pielke to deem SkS's answer wrong or whatever.

Most of the questions feel like stuff put in front of pupils to then "interpret" the meaning of the author. I might be wrong about this, however (but it's the impression I got while reading them: Pielke as teacher putting a test in front of SkS)

2011-09-17 02:25:29
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

You can see where Pielke is trying to hedge himself.  OHC.  

My response to him on what the "preferred diagnostic" would be is: All of them.  Ultimately they are all in agreement.  They have varying levels of uncertainty, varying unknowns.  Good science looks at any problem from many angles in order to gain full perspective.  OHC would be a great direct measurement if it were easier to measure.  There are obvious challenges with this method of measuring global temperature.  Satellite measurements are much easier to come by being that we can measure various levels of the atmosphere with a great deal of accuracy over broad areas of the planet. But the challenge there being that we are only measuring a small percentage of the actual heat energy, and we are left with thermal inertia from OHC.  Radiative imbalance is also very important to look at (I'm not as clear on what the pros and cons are with this one).  

Again, what we do is look at ALL the data, not just the data that fits what we want to believe.

2011-09-17 02:36:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hang on.  This is not school folks and he is not our teacher.  We are under no obligation to answer his questions.  The point of our post was crystal clear-- this is about him turning a blind eye to Spencer and Christy.  We asked him if he is on the side of science of the misinformers. Very simple.

"This is welcome as now we have something to specifically respond to. I will also be asking them questions later in this post."

Again BS.  He had some very specific questions to answer inthe original post, which he did not do.

By asking his cherry-picked questions, he is trying to fabricate debate, detract attention from Spencer and Chrtisty and his indefencible support for them, and call our credibility into question.  He does not get frame the debate.  He mans up and comes to SkS to engage us, or he opens up his blog to comments-- EOS.  This is bullshit and we should not fall for this trickery!

 

2011-09-17 02:40:28
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

"This is a “tongue-in-cheek” statement. Of the comments from Roy, why would one be picked that was intended as a joke?"

Why is Roy belittling and making fun of such a serious situation that will kill people/  WOuld it be OK for people to make jokes like this about HIV/AIDs?  No.  He is a scinetists , he is aiding in perpetuating a myth, people will take him seriously (look on the internet).  H eis making a joke about AGW becasue he thinks AGW is a joke.

2011-09-17 02:41:52
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

And then he trots out his carefully crafted  three hypotheses that he published in EOS. 

He has also not cenced that he was wrong to try and implicate us in the UAH tiff with Trenberth et al.

Stick to your guns folks.

2011-09-17 02:43:13
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Alby...  So, let's call him out on not answering the questions and also call him out for trying to cherry pick his own pet framing for the issue.  Pin him to the wall.

You can see what Pielke wants to do.  He wants to make his point that OHC is the best metric for measuring global temperature.  And he would be correct IF we could get a good measurement of OHC.  What he does though is cherry pick the incomplete data that he believes supports his preferred position.  That is bad science.  

2011-09-17 02:44:36Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.205.182

This isn't about letting him frame the debate. This is about knowing when to pick our battles and knowing when an opportunity comes about. This is a gift to us. We get to reiterate our points by answering those questions in rock-solid fashion and we get to return by asking Pielke direct questions that we can pin him on. Because we answer his respectably he is forced to answer ours in the same manner if he doesn't wanna lose credibility. So now there it is. We get to ask him any question on his record or any of Christy, Watts, Spencer etc...'s record and he has to answer. We so rarely get the opportunity to literally pin down a skeptic that this could be a wonderful chance. Sure it could backfire but this is about making him squirm and exposing him for who he is.

2011-09-17 02:44:48
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

"In our questions we can force him to go on the record about his views regarding Anthony watts and so on also."

Robert. Yes,  just what is his "relationship" with Watts and WUWT...?

2011-09-17 02:52:11
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Here is my idea.  I does open us up a little.

We are glad that Dr. Pielke has decided to an open exchange with SkS.  Some of his questions to SkS will be difficult to answer with absolutes due to the varying nature of our vast group of professional and lay experience and opinions.  We will do the best we can in short time.  This fractured nature of SkS leads us to many opinions and options, and this has been seen in this exchage as well.  Several members did not want to respond to Dr. Pielke's initial salvo toward SkS.  We were all not in agreement on how the response should be worded, or even if it needed our attention, which could certainly be more valuable in other areas. What we are mostly all in agreement on is that Dr. Pielke's initial post undermined the credibility and integrity of SkS.  This was not acceptable and, therefore, those arguing to respond won out.  We are also in agreement that the responses from Dr. Pielke have contained inaccuracies.  Because of our intended mandate, these will be dealt with forthright also.

Just an idea...

2011-09-17 02:59:14
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Robert...  "Sure it could backfire..."  But my opinion is, nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Gotta take a calculated risk.  I agree with you, let's make Pielke squirm.

I have an analogy that I think pinpoints the falacy he's proposing in regards to his "preferred diagnostic."

When I drive a car I use all the instruments available to me, and I use all my sense.  With all of these I can best determine how to get safely from point A to point B.  What I don't do is cover up the instruments, plug up my ears and take off my glasses.  Why would we want to rely on once single diagnostic to determine global warming when none of them gives us a perfect view of the situation?

2011-09-17 02:59:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'm going to bow out of this one.  Had enough of a headache with the first Pielke post, so somebody else can draft this one.  Maybe neal or one of the Roberts.

Baerbel - I got the same impression, that Pielke is trying to quiz us to seem like the teacher vs. student.  And he's trying to drag us into his comfort zone of ocean heat content, as Rob H. notes.

We do have a few posts that are relevant to some of his questions.  Like we can use Rob P's Ocean cooling corrected again post and my recent Santer post to show that we prefer to use all the data, and both oceans and atmosphere are warming.  But most of his questions are rather conceptual.

2011-09-17 02:59:30Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.205.182

I think that although I understand the spirit of the text I think that unity is important and maybe we can find a different way of wording it. Either way, we should answer all his questions. So no need to say anything about the difficulty to answer them. Lets give a straight up response. I don't think his questions are as big of traps as others believe. I think perhaps waiting to get dana, neal, John's and others opinion on the subject might be useful. In the meantime I think it may be good to prepare some of our answers to his questions.

2011-09-17 03:01:21Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.205.182

That's okay Dana i'm sure you'll still give input. I think that some are conceptual and yes he may want to goat us into a certain argument but the option of being able to ask him direct questions on spencer and christy's behavior andmake him go on the record is just too appealing to pass up on...

2011-09-17 03:04:08
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

grypo...  Too much information.  SkS should just make a collective response.  I don't really care if any of what I write here gets used (clearly being one of the lay persons here).  Mostly I want to just encourage a timely and pointed response.

2011-09-17 03:06:36
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Okay, yeah it is a little too much info.  

2011-09-17 03:07:43
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'll certainly still give input, I just don't want to have to deal with drafting and revising the post a dozen times again.

I think it's important to first point out that he's changing the subject - that the discussion is about our Spencer and Christy series, the scientific content therein, and the fact that the two are serial misinformers.  But I don't have an issue with answering Pielke's questions as long as that's made clear.  And we should also note that he didn't address our question about Christy misinforming Congress.  He basically just said "I didn't know Christy said that", which he would have known if he'd read the series he criticized, and now that he knows he should answer the damn question.  Basically "do you acknowledge and/or approve of Christy misinforming US Congress?" with a link to the relevant post so he can see concrete examples.

2011-09-17 03:15:36We should definitely respond
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

I fully agree with Robert, MarkR and Rob-H: We ought to fully engage Pielke. I think this is an opportunity, not a danger:

1) If we aren't satisfied with his answers to our questions, we should expatiate a bit and pin him down - respectfully.

2) We should, as a group, work up answers to his questions. I recommend that we assign each one of these questions to a subject-matter expert (SME), the best-informed person on that topic in our group; and then let that individual lead a separate thread to whip into shape a good tight response. If we feel his question is not well-defined, explain that to him, and give him the opportunity to clarify it.

3) If we don't think we can generate a solid response to a particular question, I think it is perfectly fair and honest to say that we don't have an agreed opinion on that. We only fall into a "gotcha" if we try to give firm answers on topics about which we're not well-informed. Honest ignorance is not a vice in science - as long as you yourself know it first!

Let me take the 0th step along this process:

A1: On the issue of Christy's misleading testimony: I nominate dana to lead this thread.

A2: On the issue of CO2 & jogging: I am willing to lead this thread.

A3: On the dominance of natural cycles vs fossil fuels in recent global warming: Volunteer?

Q1: Are the human causes of climate change multifarious, or do CO2 emissions dominate? Volunteer? (Whoever leads this must read a few of Pielke's papers on the topic, since this is definitely one of his hobby horses.)

Q2: Are GHG emissions inducing climate changes that could not otherwise be explained by natural causes, or are they exacerbating natural causes? [I think that's what he's saying; although his further explanation brings in land-use issues.] Volunteer?

Q3: What is your preferred diagnostic for global warming, and what is your best estimate for the 10/20-year trends? Options include:  a) global annual average surface temperature anomaly; b) global annual average ocean heat anomaly; c) global average radiative imbalance at TOA. Volunteer? (Personally, as far as I am concerned, we don't have to take a strong, or any, position on this: We are not a research or policy organization, we are just trying to prevent distortion in the public-information process. We probably need to be clear about when we decide that a particular representation of the trends is off-the-wall. But if somebody wants to inject a bit more technical content ...)

Q4: What do models predict should be the best current value of these diagnostics? Volunteer? (I feel the same way about this as with Q3.)

Q5: What are your preferred diagnostics to monitor climate change? Volunteer? (I feel the same way about this as with Q3.)

Q6: Is Global Waring/Cooling just a subset of climate change, or does it dominate climate change? I nominate John Cook.

Albatross, Robert, Riccardo, I know you fit somewhere among these, but I'm not familiar enough to specifically nominate you, so please feel my eyes looking quizically in your direction.

Are we OK with this? If so:

- We need to settle on the thread-leaders.

- We need to draft a courteous note to Pielke telling him we're considering a response; I saw the beginnings of one above.

2011-09-17 03:21:45
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

He's trying to define the battlefield and to push us in the angle, as some of us warned at the time of the first response. Note the difference between the question we asked and the ones he's asking. It's a trap, we shouldn't follow him in this game, our credibilty is already in peril.

2011-09-17 03:22:36Rob Honeycutt
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

You state, "... it is highly likely that there are key players out there watching this exchange." Who are some of the "key players"?

2011-09-17 03:33:29
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Riccardo,

As long as we are not pretending to be what we are not, what do we have to be afraid of? Our credibility is based on:

- Transparent logic

- Honest citation

As long as we stick to that, what's the danger?

 

grypo:

"We are glad that Dr. Pielke has decided to an open exchange with SkS.  Some of his questions to SkS will be difficult to answer with absolutes due to the varying nature of our vast group of professional and lay experience and opinions.  We will do the best we can in short time.  This fractured nature of SkS leads us to many opinions and options, and this has been seen in this exchage as well.  Several members did not want to respond to Dr. Pielke's initial salvo toward SkS.  We were all not in agreement on how the response should be worded, or even if it needed our attention, which could certainly be more valuable in other areas. What we are mostly all in agreement on is that Dr. Pielke's initial post undermined the credibility and integrity of SkS.  This was not acceptable and, therefore, those arguing to respond won out.  We are also in agreement that the responses from Dr. Pielke have contained inaccuracies.  Because of our intended mandate, these will be dealt with forthright also."

This is "too much information": We do not need to brain surgery on ourselves in public. How about something along these lines:

"Thank you for your courteous responses to our posting and its update. We are pleased to have the opportunity to clarify each other's views on these topics. We will consult internally to prepare a well-considered statement of our answers; in addition, we may clarify further on our original questions, some of which were not answered exactly along the lines of our curiosity.

Be assured that we will have a response in due course."

2011-09-17 03:38:58
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Badger...  It's pure spectulation on my part but I would assume that pretty much all the major scientists involved in climate research watch Pielke's blog.  The RealClimate crew.  The WUWT behind-the-scenes crew.  I'm sure Romm is watching.  

If we can get a good response off I would suggest contacting Romm to see if he will pick it up on Climate Progress.

2011-09-17 03:39:51
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Neal, that is pretty much what I had in a rewrite with different adjectives. 

2011-09-17 03:41:14Suggestion
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

There are at least two different ways to respond to Pielke's post of today. Why not systematically identify and evaluate the "pros" and "cons" of each prior to making a decision on how to proceed?

2011-09-17 03:43:44
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

grypo:

If everyone likes the idea, we can fight over the adjectives (;-)

 

Rob:

Let's make sure we have a response before we send out the press releases.

2011-09-17 03:46:25
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal...  Q1,2,3 all seem a bit like the same question rephrased.  I like your take that we are not doing scientific research but are merely attempting to do our best to present the broader research coming from the scientific community (my rewording of what you said).  I'm obviously not a technical guy on this but I believe the answer to his question(s) is, essentially, all of the above.

If folks are comfortable with this approach I'll write something up.  If you think it's more appropriate to find a more technical response then I will defer to someone else.

2011-09-17 03:47:25
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal... "Let's make sure we have a response before we send out the press releases."

Absolutely.  Not jumping the gun, just thinking ahead.

2011-09-17 04:07:33
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Rob,

Unless someone wants to fight with you over it, I'm perfectly happy if you take the lead on Q1 - Q3. In any case, anyone can jump in.

But my opinion differs from your's concerning the nature of the Qs: I see Q1 & Q2 as being very similar and related to the causes of AGW; but I see Q3 - Q5 as being very technical issues related to the physical measurements.

For Q3 - Q5, my feeling is that we have to find a graceful of way of saying that we're not in the business of DECIDING which are the BEST measures, we just try to do a decent job of determining what the accepted range of these variables appears to be, at present. Probably the thing we have to be clearest about, before finalizing the response, is: What do we have to go through to decide that Pf. X's new presentation proving that there is no global warming is wrong and not backed up by the measurement record? It would be great if we have someone who's used to looking at AGW trends and could give a run-down on how you approach this question. Can anyone lead this discussion?

2011-09-17 04:10:15
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'd be happy to take neal's A1, and could probably do A3 as well.

For Q3, I think we should answer that we look at all temp data (surface, atmosphere, oceans).  As we've said many times, 10-year trends are irrelevant due to short-term noise.  They're not statistically significant.  I think we just point to Santer et al. and don't even bother to give a numerical answer, but we can give a number for 20-year trends.  I can probably address this one if nobody else wants to (though I don't know the ocean heat trends).

2011-09-17 04:12:14cherries
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

A question - should we hold off on the Cherry Pielk-ing series while this exchange is going on, so we don't appear to be antagonizing Pielke?

*edit* nevermind, neal suggested that we hold off on it, and I agree.  We'll wait on the Cherry series until this exchange is done.

2011-09-17 04:12:45
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Neal a few points that should make us think twice before acting.

- Pielke is trying to move the discussion where he is more comfortable.
- Trying to make us decide between two claims he chooses is by definition a trap.
- He uses someone else's claim to push us to make ours.
- He picked up some always debatable choices (e.g. the best metrics or the best diagnostics) while not defining in which context.
- He put up regional climate impacts where he's an expert and it definitely is a relatively weak point of our current understanding. Here he will get an easy win, the science is weak and regional impacts matters more to the layperson.
- Linked to the previous point, he stays far for the more general problem of the reality of AGW, where WE would get an easy win.

His first post was to provoke us. He won't attack now, he is trying to circle around us waiting for a false step to undermine our credibility. We are taking the risks of a failure while having nothing to win.

A quote from a commenter:
"This site contains a wealth of scientific information of great use to the general public. Don't let it turn into a personal grudge forum. Most people could care less about blog-vs-blog grudge matches. Rise above it. "


Directly asking him questions has been a mistake and we now need to find a way out and go back to our work, like for example the Pielke series. But (unfortunately) we still need to respond in some way.
In my opinion we should note that he didn't correct the false attribution to SkS of claims against the UAH dataset and of ad hom against Spencer, that we're not interested in a blog war and restate our "mission" which, in the end, is to inform the general public, not to convince him or anyone else specifically.

My two cents.

2011-09-17 04:13:23
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal... Whoops, I got my Q#'s mixed up.  I was referring to Pielke's questions on which "diagnostic" was preferred.  I guess that's Q3-5.

I'll write up something and you guys can pull it apart.

2011-09-17 04:18:36
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

The other option in how to proceed, per Riccardo's comment, would be to just start the Cherry Pielk-ing series, but add a note at the top of the first one about Pielke refusing to acknowledge his errors.  It could be a nice long summary of the exchange and SkS policy and why we're not directly engaging in a discourse with Pielke.

I think we should certainly get John's input before proceeding with a direct response to Pielke.

Also I mentioned this in another thread - I contacted Romm with details about our initial 'one sided skepticism' post because I figured he'd be interested in weighing in.  But he hasn't yet.

2011-09-17 04:28:18
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.103.184

If you feel a need to respond, just say that our questions addressed Pielke's specific statements but Pielke's questions are off-topic. Riccardo's suggestion is a good one too. Answering Pielke's questions doesn't do our readers any good, it just gives Pielke what he wants - an illusion of debate where it's difficult to know who actually is correct if one is not well educated in climate science issues.

2011-09-17 04:38:14
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob,

"He wants to make his point that OHC is the best metric for measuring global temperature.  And he would be correct IF we could get a good measurement of OHC."

In the real world there is not single metric that is perfect and all encompassing. Even if we could measure OHC perfectly, that would still not give us the cmplete picture.  That is why we look at the body of evidence.  That is what SkS does, it considers the conislience-- multiple, independent lines of evidence.

It ultimately it all really boils down to this. one simple question.

We ask Pielke if he agrees that we should we reduce our GHG emissions?  If he says  "No", then he is a denier of AGW (contrary to his claims).  If he says "Yes", then we nail him for aising and abetting those who are stalling and delaying us taking meaninglful and prompt action.

I am not interested in debating hypothetical or hypotheses, especially ones crafted by Pielke-- that is a stalling and debating tactic, and I do not advocate or suggest that we go down that path.

2011-09-17 04:39:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

"A question - should we hold off on the Cherry Pielk-ing series while this exchange is going on, so we don't appear to be antagonizing Pielke?"

Yes.

2011-09-17 04:47:07
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Riccardo,

I respectfully disagree:

- Pielke is engaging on a 1-1 level. Given that he is a very well-known climate scientist and figure in the controversy, that is doing very well for us.

- Of course Pielke is going to try to see if we make a mistake. The solution? Don't make mistakes. Don't answer yes/no questions with a yes or a no when you don't think there's a yes/no answer. Stick to what you know and be honest. Sometimes a "It depends" is a pretty good answer.

- If we can go toe-to-toe with Pielke and not fall flat on our faces (and I think we can), I think it's a feather in our cap. We win by being able to stand up to him. I think people will notice that: ad majorem SkS gloriam.

- The specific answers to the specific questions we asked are not, in themselves, really important, although we can press him on them. What's important is that we make him accountable for what and whom he is supporting. By putting him in the position of having to answer for them, we're already holding him to account; so if we keep this door open, he's gonna know in the future that we're still going to be there, with a "What did you mean by that?" This may put a damper on his blind support for S/L/C.

In the telecommunications standards arena, I've gone head-to-head with experts that frankly towered above me technically. But the real point of contention is hardly ever the technical aspect, that is just being used as the medium of discourse. The real issue is commercial, political, or the advantageous selection of the choice of criteria. As long as you are very clear about what is going on, and don't let the issue get condensed into a narrow technical point, it's OK. Or, if you blow it and get caught on something, you have to be willing to quickly say, "You're right about that." and get the credit for being an honest technical guy. (But of course, it's much better to not make those mistakes to begin with.)

I spent several years fighting one standards war on VDSL technology. On the opposing side was a technology guru who was also a very good businessman and politician. I had to be very careful dealing with him, because he knew the technology much better than I did, he knew the business much better, and he had connections all over the industry; and he was extremely articulate and fast on his feet. But our side also had legitimate interests, commercial and technical. I had to walk VERY carefully around him, not to get caught in any technical traps (fortunately, we had technical experts I could consult), and if I got pushed into an area in which I was unsure of the footing, I just said we'd have to get back to him on that. By such means we stopped him for 4 years. I found out later from a mutual acquaintance that he haaaated me.

2011-09-17 04:48:05
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Quick write up response to Q3...

3. What is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming?

All of the above.  This is how science, as we understand it, operates.  It's extremely important to look at a problem from as many angles as reasonably possible.  Each of the methods for monitoring global warming has it's own challenges.  We know you prefer ocean heat content, and specifically the upper 700m data.  OHC content, I think you would agree, is very challenging and nacent research.  Ocean circulation and sparse coverage of the ARGO data leaves uncertainties regarding whether all the data is indeed being fully captured.  Satellite data is relatively easier to collect and process, it has much broader coverage and can be measured in greater detail.  We know we can capture good data but that data is also challenged in that it's only measuring a small portion of the heat energy in the climate system being that most of the actual heat energy is in the oceans.  TOA radiation imbalance is merely another tool, or dial on the control panel, that we should be using to evaluate and monitor global warming.  All of these have to make sense within the broader context of the physics of the atmosphere.

Hanging your hat on only one best diagnostic would be a mistake.  A pilot does not fly an aircraft by looking at only one dial on the panel, nor should we rely on only one diagnostic to monitor global warming.

3b. What is your best estimate of the observed trends in each of these metrics over the last 10 years and the last 20 years?


2011-09-17 04:50:11
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I really cannot hammer this point home enough, it is hopeless to have this tit-for-tat discussion.

Why does Pielke refuse to come over to SkS and engage not only SkS, but the general public too?

Why does Pielke refuse to open his blog open to comments?

I think that should be a condition for taking this forward.  Either he posts here at SkS or he opens up his comments.  Otherwise it is just impossible to have a constructive and meaningful discourse.

If we do devicd to make a braod answer of his questions we have to hammer him up front for avoiding our other questions, for not conceding he was wrong about impicating us, not answering if he is standing up for science, and for dodging other issues.  That and some other cavetas all have to be stated up front.  

We then ask him our question as I asked at 17 Sep 2011, 4:38 AM.

Then we are done.

Thoughts?

2011-09-17 04:51:20A Hobson choice?
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Has Mike Hulme correctly "framed" his two alternative explanations for manmade climate change?

Are his constructs the only two possibilities?

PS -- Who is Mike Hulme and why should anyone care about his views?


Memo to self: Do some reserach before posting dumb questions like the above.

2011-09-17 05:01:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Albatross,

I disagree. We are not compelled to play by Pielke's rules and he is not compelled to play by our's. A discussion can only be conducted on mutually agreeable grounds. If he doesn't like to deal with moderating idiotic comments, I must say I can't blame him. In any event, since we need to consult with each other to generate well-considered answers, it is to our ADVANTAGE that the discussion is carried on off-line, and NOT in on-line response.

As one of the folks most adamant about putting him the spot for answers, I am now willing to say that those specific questions are just a tool towards the end of forcing him to be accountable. If he wants to twist the question, no problem: We twist back. Take a breath. All we have to do is to not say something stupid.

If he doesn't want to apologize for misattributing a position to us, to my mind that is a very small issue compared to the fact that we are putting him on the spot for his positions.

All we have to do is avoid being stupid.

2011-09-17 05:02:43
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Alby...  I actually disagree with you on this one.  Comments sections have a way of turning into a mosh pit.  That would be a fairly ugly scene if Pielke started commenting.  There would be too much of a frenzy of everyone who wanted to get a shot in.  Even with heavy moderation I think it would be challenging to make it work.

Conversely, having an open dialog with Pielke greatly enhances SkS's position as a go-to blog on climate.  

This is slower and more deliberate but the impact can be much greater in the long run.

2011-09-17 05:03:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Pielke just posted a comment in the thread, but didn't say much.

2011-09-17 05:03:58
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Neal
you will never make him accountable of his claims by answering to his questions and there's no SkS gloriam waiting at the end of the war. There will just be our proudness for the achievement and the derailment of SkS.

2011-09-17 05:06:41
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Riccardo,

I honestly don't know why you are so afraid.

2011-09-17 05:06:57
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Pielke commenting here is a much better opportunity.

2011-09-17 05:10:05
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Neal

because SkS style has been different and makes a difference. And I'm afraid it may be lost going to war even if we manage to win it..

2011-09-17 05:10:40
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Pielke commenting here is a much better opportunity for us to make a mistake and blow it.

With off-line discussion, we have a chance to pool our knowledge and concerns, and answer in our own timeframe.

Riccardo, do you think you are personally ready to talk about every technical climate issue with Pielke? I know that I am not; but I think that SkS, as a group, is capable.

2011-09-17 05:11:44In Hulme's own words...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

One way to answer Pielke's questions about choosing between Hume's two constructs would be to point out that Hulme identified six possible constructs in his post, "You’ve been framed: six new ways to understand climate change."

As Hulme says in his post, all six are correct.

The SkS response to Pielke could be quotes from Hulme's woven into an appropriate narrative.

 

2011-09-17 05:16:18Q3
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Rob,

Could I suggest that you create a separate thread for Q3, so that you can maintain continuity on that while we hash out the overall direction separately?

Maybe the first post could state the issue and then start building on it.

B.,

Maybe you could paste into that new thread?

2011-09-17 05:21:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Riccardo,

Another point is that if we are now discussing back & forth, the nature of the argumentation does not have to be so antagonistic. We have a war anyway, because that is the situation (acknowledge it or not; or, to quote Trotsky, "You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in you.")

But as long as we don't do stupid things, like make technical errors, or strong unsupported claims, I don't see how we can be "destroyed". What exactly are you afraid can happen?

2011-09-17 05:23:22
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Neal
this is not the point I'm trying to make. My point is the blog war itself, regardless of the winner. We're here to be "skeptical about global warming skepticism" and in the process we better inform people on climate science. This is what we're known for and our glory. A blog war doesn't fit.

2011-09-17 05:29:13
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Riccardo,

A properly conducted discussion between SkS and a prominent somewhat-skeptical climate scientist can be extremely educational for the public. We are very well positioned to hit him from many different angles. We have the literature at our finger tips. We have people who have thought about each issue. We can draw him out on things he would rather be brief about. We can bring out points that he would rather avoid.

If we're doing all that, it would be very educational. That would be our win. We wouldn't have to be declared the winner.

But WUWT would sure be pissed.

2011-09-17 05:32:04Suggestion
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Someone should alert Mike Hulme about Pielke's post and challenge to SkS. Who knows, he may want to weigh in directly, or offer us sage advice.

SkS should also seek permission to repost Hulme's You’ve been framed: six new ways to understand climate change."

 

2011-09-17 05:48:00
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

@Neal

 

In our response to Pielke, if we decide to answer his q's, we should alert to him that we allow all our science posts to go through a brief peer-review to allow for those with other opinions or expertise to make suggestios and changes.  It would be better than ust saying "internal" I think.

2011-09-17 05:49:11
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Neal
I see a big difference between a "properly conducted discussion" and a war. The problem is that in this cse it didn't started as such and our response has been on the same line.
As I said before, we now have the opportunity to engage him in the comments and have a "properly conducted discussion" and see wat will come out. Maybe John should step in.

2011-09-17 05:57:03
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal...  "Could I suggest that you create a separate thread for Q3, so that you can maintain continuity on that while we hash out the overall direction separately?"

Will do that right now.

2011-09-17 06:03:46I have created a Q2 thread
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Critique of content welcome

Issues of strategy: Let's keep them in this thread.

2011-09-17 06:09:46
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

grypo:

To be honest, since we conduct the review within SkS, it really is an internal review. Also, "peer review" could be interpreted as a very formal process, such as that which a science journal undergoes to ver articles for publication. We don't do that, nor do we always send out articles for external review (I would say, rarely). We shouldn't use the term "peer review" for our process.

Riccardo:

Why don't you see what the response looks like before pre-judging it?

2011-09-17 06:26:40
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Neal
prejudging? I did not judge anything yet to be written, i judged the situation, our first response and the idea of continuing a blog/PR/whatever war which you mentioned several times.
Whatever, the first thing to do should be to keep Pielke accountable of his accusation to SkS. He didn't say a single word on this, I can't see on which basis we could initiate a "constructive dialog", as he call it, or a "properly conducted discussion" as you call it.

2011-09-17 06:32:55Alerting others...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

In addition to alerting Mike Hulme about this brouhaha/dialogue/discusision, it would make sense to also alert Trenberth, Tamino, and others. 

2011-09-17 06:39:59
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Riccardo:

- I am not continuing a PR war, we are in one. There is not a choice about that. It's just a question of whether we choose to defend ourselves. What did you think Climategate was about? Destroying the credibility of mainstream climate science. Did it work? Not completely; just as 9/11 did not destroy the US. Did it hurt? You bet: It probably reduced the number of educated people who trust climate science by 20%, I would guess.

- I don't see any reason to play that game, Riccardo: "Mommy, he hit me" is not a winning card. Accountability means he has to watch what he says going forward. If we can get Pielke to stop giving cover to LSC, that is much more important than his saying, "Oh, you're right, SkS didn't mention UAH." If that comes up, fine; but in my view it's not a priority. When you are worrying about being in a war, I really wonder why you are so hung up on that point. We're playing for the future, not for the past.

- Basis: Watch me.

2011-09-17 06:48:15
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Neal
I'm missing something. How can you talk of war and constructive discussion at the same time? And how can you say that the basis is "watch me" while playing his game and responding to his questions?
Having Pielke commenting at SkS we won the first battle, responding to his question you'll lhave him again inside his fortress.

2011-09-17 06:52:18
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

As a more general note, I'd like to repeat here what I wrote in a comment in the other thread but passed unnoticed. What I see in this discussion is two different views of what SkS should be/become. We can keep discussing ad infinitum but we'll come up with nothing if we do not agree on this.

2011-09-17 06:55:13
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I agree with Riccardo's comment at 6:52 AM, which is why I'm holding off with further comments until John weighs in.  We're at a bit of a crossroads here determining the appropriate path to take, because this sort of dialogue is not the norm for SkS.  The norm would be to go straight into the Cherry Pielk-ing series.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed to the dialogue path, but as a new path, it warrants further consideration whether we want to take the site in that direction.  Right now we're leaping head-first, and the site creator/owner/leader hasn't even weighed in with his opinion yet.

2011-09-17 06:58:45
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

John can weigh in whenever he likes.

In the meantime, I'll work on the content.

It doesn't go out until we get general consensus.

2011-09-17 07:05:31Outside help/input?
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.193.99.163

I'm basically watching from the outside and I'm wondering if it could make sense to get some input on the best path forward from folks known to support SkS? Reading through the threads it seems that there are at least two rather opposing views on how to move forward best. A forum thread - just like email - may not neccessarily be the best place to hash this out (too much is often lost with only writing and reading). Just my 2 cents....

2011-09-17 07:07:38dana1981
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I concur with the need to get the Grand Poobah's input before proceeding.

BTW1, you'll be able to mine the comment thread to your article for numerous articles in the "Cherry Pielke-ing" sereis. 

BTW2, I still do not like the label. Pielke is is guilty of much more than cherry-picking. "Smoke & Mirriors" (obfuscation) or "Mr Bojangles" (tap dances around everything) would be more appropriate in my opinion.

2011-09-17 07:11:04
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.62.225

Boy, this is progressing fast and I'm losing track. Dana, I'm doing a Cherry Pielking post on "No warming since 2003?" Is that right? And it's on hold for now?

I'd really like to tie him down on the OHC thing at some point, seeing as it's a hobby horse of his.

2011-09-17 07:11:36
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

I think the simplest approach is to let the content of the proposed response be developed, and judge it at that point. Before that point, people seem to be getting nervous about material that doesn't even exist. Take a breath, guys, I'm not going to sneak it to publication without consensus: I don't think I even know how!

2011-09-17 07:33:03
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

I'm with Baerbel (and others)

I think some outside opinions (from someone who can only see the public posts) would be helpful. Perhaps someone like Michael Tobis, Joe Romm, Tim Lambert, the Policy Lass etc could be approached privately to give an outsider's perspective, which we could post here. (Planet 3.0, a closed Google Group, is a possible resource for John, Baerbel or me to go to for opinions ).

My feeling is that we have little to gain in this scrap, while there's a risk to the reputation of the blog.  At best, we may get to show that RP Sr is biased, but anyone who has being paying attention has already made up their minds on that. At worst, we may dent SkS's reputation of being a calm, fair-minded blog where personal attacks are not tolerated. Blog bun fights are tiresome for those not in the fray.

Having said that, I'm sympathetic towards those who don't want to take any crap from RP Sr lying down.

2011-09-17 07:40:47
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.62.225

The only issue I have thus far, is the snarky comments some have used in the thread. Cleaned a few of them up yesterday. As long as we keep a lid on that, no worries. Pielke has made a few comments on Dana's post too, by the way.

2011-09-17 07:45:41
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Andy and Baerbel,

Until we have some content to show them, how are you going to describe what we're doing?

Let's get some ducks in order, and take counsel after that.

2011-09-17 07:58:15
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Rob P - yes please proceed with the 'no warming since 2003' post.  We'll definitely publish it in the near future.  The only question is whether we first want to continue with this dialogue with Pielke, in which case initiating a Cherry Pielk-ing series would derail the dialogue.

But it's a myth well worth addressing.

2011-09-17 08:02:47Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.205.182

Maybe I'm not as articulate as the rest of you sometimes but I think that what I'm about to say has some value.

Although there is a point in continuing on with the Pielke series and doing as we do I see many perils taking that route. Our credibility IS in harms way when people with high credentials criticize us and we do not respond accordingly. Imagine the bruhaha in the blogosphere that will occur if instead of taking a constructive approach and letting our egos stay at the door we decide to respond criticizing him. We have been handed a hidden olive leaf. We have the potential here to not only reach those who are already on our side but some in the middle and some fairweather skeptics. The way it works in the blogosphere is that many of the lukewarmers and those who are slightly skeptical consider SKS to be biased towards AGW to the point where we do not see opposing viewpoints. This gives us the opportunity to show that we can do more than just find flaws in his arguments, we can in effect have constructive dialogue and bridge some of the gap between the opposing sides. Yes Pielke misrepresented us but we have to turn the other cheek on this one. It does us NO favors to respond negatively to him and in fact it makes us look like cowards when we back away and just say that he insulted us first so we won't play with him. By answering his questions honestly without spite or snark we can begin a precedent that forces him to answer in the same manner. We can ask serious questions of a skeptical climate scientist where he has to respond respectfully because he knows all the climate community is watching (including skeptics).

There is some inherent danger in that we have to be careful what we say but we should be doing that anyways... This is only a net gain situation for us and we all have to get away from the attitudes displayed by some of our fellow AGW scientists and actually engage. I'm going to be honest, i'm very critical of when people miss out on these sorts of opportunities and I would hope that we can produce something tangible with haste that answers his questions and asks some very pertinent questions of Pielke.


<> Do you approve of X done by Christy, is this scientific etc?
<> Do you approve of X done by spencer...etc...?
<> Do you believe that we need to reduce our production of greenhouse gases?

Etc...

I might be okay to contribute to A3 and Q2... Natural Variability and climate change.

2011-09-17 08:12:59
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Gawd...what an awful lot of waffling and obfuscating by Pielke.  But this is good, the more he waffles the more he gives away and the more we can pin him for not directly answering questions, and the more he sounds like someone interested in spreading doubt and confusion, and who is applying a very clear double standard when it comes to name calling.

And since when does "rankexplits" become a reputable, credible source for statistics?  Does anyone know of papers speaking to the time required to extract a stat. sig. signal from GAT or similar data?  Santer et al. (2011) found at least 17 ayears...are there any other papers?  I think that Tamino, who is a statistican of course, has addressed this in the past, but the post/s elude me right now.

Can I ask Pielke if he agrees that we should reduce our GHG emissions?  I have explained the rationale for that question up thread...

Unfortunately [or some here may think fortunately  ;)] I do not have time to participate much, if at all,  on this until Monday. It concerns me that Pielke has gotten people here so rattled.  Remember everyone, we have truth, science and facts and consilience on our side.  Don't be initimated by him.

For the record, I guess we can addres his questions, but not before making it very clear that he has dodged giving a proper answer those questions directed at him, I think that I mentioned some other caveats above as well IIRC.  Update:  As someone noted he is clearly trying to conrer us with OHC, but I think it wads Rob pointed out, there is not perfect metric and even then no one metric gives the whole picture.  one looks at multiple, independent metrics.

2011-09-17 08:22:59
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.23.51

As I seem to drop in on these threads well past 80 comments in, this may seem late and may have already been discussed, but I did see Alby that you had posted before that Pielke should not be allowed to reframe the debate - OF COURSE HE SHOULDN'T.  And that is exactly what he is trying to do, his answers are extremely vague and dodgy and only lead into questions that have absolutely nothing to do with what we were initially discussing.

If we do decide to do a post answering him, I would highly recommend that it be framed to bring us back on course.  Leave him any sort of hole through which he can escape, and he'll continue to think he can walk over us.

His civility is a taunt, don't let him get away with it.

2011-09-17 08:42:02
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

- Heck, this is scaring me: I am agreeing more and more with Robert Way. Feel free to start a thread on A3 and Q2. I started my A2 thread by quoting our original question and Pielke's answer; and then putting a draft under that.

- Albatross: Please address your concerns in the context of the writing we have set out to do. Work is underway on A2 and Q3 at present.

- Alex C: Reframing: Feel free to participate in the creation of the responses; wherein we will frame again what he unframed. But frankly I don't care if he hurt someone's feelings concerning our non-insult of UAH: We should have insulted them! And civility is always a taunt when in argument: That's how the game is played.

2011-09-17 09:20:15In case you haven't noticed...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Dr. Roger Pielke has posted his third set of comments on the comment thread to Dana's article. A number of us and other SkS readers are engaging him mano to mano there. In fact, I may have hoisted him on his own petard with respect to his second question re Hulme's framing of climate policy.

2011-09-17 09:24:40Riccardo
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I'm still unclear about why posting an SkS response to Pielke's set of questions would take SkS in a new direction. When you strip away the veneer, what's the difference between doing that and rebutting a climate deneir meme?  

2011-09-17 09:40:08
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,

"Please address your concerns in the context of the writing we have set out to do. Work is underway on A2 and Q3 at present."

I did manage to find some time, thanks to the children being very good at entertaining each other, but we now have friends coming over for dinner and a busy weekend planned.

Anyhow, I'll do my best to provide some feedback over the weekend.  Right now I have to sign off or else my wife is going to 'kill' me.

2011-09-17 13:04:14
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I'm increasingly hesitant to respond on Pielke's terms.  If you look at his behavior in the thread comments, he refuses to discuss any issues outside his comfort zone.  About a half dozen commenters (including moderators) have asked him specifically to address the 'ad hom' accusation and related comments, and he refuses.  I think if we continue to push the issue, he'll just continue to dodge anything he doesn't want to talk about, and we'll just end up in the stupid little arguments he wants, like what's the "best" measure of global warming.  He's just playing games.

2011-09-17 14:31:41
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

"I'm increasingly hesitant to respond on Pielke's terms.  If you look at his behavior in the thread comments, he refuses to discuss any issues outside his comfort zone."

I agree.  As you will note, I'm increasingly making it clear in the comments  that we are happy to answer his questions, but that  if he does not address that the 'ad hom fiasco first then we can not move tjis forward.  I think that is fair-- he initiated this, we repsonded and asked some questions, which he evaded, and he has since evaded all inconvenient questions, and instead has tried to reframe the argument and derail the thread.  He simply cannot do this.

I realize that I may be biaseded, but he is not looking good on that thread (KR in particular has done a sterling job), and I think Pielke is beginning to relaize that and that is why he is now trying to make it sound like we are not willing to speak to the science. WFT?!  We did speak to the science in those two series; he is the one who got emotional and fired off unwarranted accusations. Talk about projection.

I am trying to be super, super polite and nice to him on that thread now-- not sure if that is coming across.

I warned people ealier that he is slippery, and he is not disappointing.  Probelm with slippery, it may play well with those symathetic to you, but to outsiders it doesn't.  People can see that he is evading simple questions.

At the end of the day, his questions have nothing to do with the original post or his qualms about the satellite record.

At this point I really think that we do not need to overthink this and get ourselves all worked up.  I think that his questions can all be addressed quite easily, but I would not feel obliged to do so should he refuse to come clean on makeing false allegations against SkS, or refuse to answer people's questions about one-sided skepticism.

But this is not my blog and therefore not my decision.  We really need for John to provide some input and give some direction here, b/c at the end of the day we are all essentially representing and speaking for him.  I am going to email this to John and hopefully he can speak with you and others by Skype and formulate a plan of action.

2011-09-17 14:43:59
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

" he refuses to discuss any issues outside his comfort zone."

Of course he is. That's more a function of how he's being addressed.  I count no less that a dozen posts (probably more) that he would need to address.  This is a function of addressing him in the context of a comments forum rather than a more contained forum of a weblog posting.  You can't corner him when there are so many people trying to corner him.  He's perfectly reasonable to ingore the comments he doesn't want to respond to.

If people here would pull together and help write up responses we could quite easily pin him down on each of our concerns.  

2011-09-17 15:01:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob,

I relaize that is part of the issue, so I have offered to condense all the questions into a few (say three) questions for him to answer.

2011-09-17 15:10:20
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Alby...  You have to put yourself into his position for a moment.  He's not a get-into-the-trenches kind of guy.  He's accustomed to a methodical tit-for-tat of publishing papers.  For Pielke the comments section is just going to be something to avoid.  He's just not going to adequately respond to anyone's comments mainly because there are so many of them.  He's the opposite of a Poptech.

But, engage him in a more formalized blog post response and I think he will...  well, he will avoid answering questions but we have an actual position from which to point out that he's not answering the questions.

Honestly, the comments section is just the wrong way to engage this guy.

2011-09-17 15:27:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Rob,

"He's not a get-into-the-trenches kind of guy."

I don't know, he has been in the trenches before at SkS and elsewhere, and he is used to handing out critique but does not like receiving it.  I hope he has a thicker skin when he goes through peer-review!

The way he comes across in that thread is evasive and not willing to concede that he made a false accusation and has a double standard.  That thread can work if it is moderated strictly, but I do not have time to assist with that unfortunately, as I really need to spend some time with my family this weekend.

He is not going to answer the questions about Watts, for example, b/c he would have to lie if he said he has condemned him fo, or admit that his pal is not playing nice.  So he is not answering questions b/c they are inconvenient and would make him admit things tht he is not willing to admit or concede.

But I agree that the sheer number of questions is a problem, that is why I offered to condense them into two or three.  That is very reasonable and fair offer IMO.  If he ignores that or refuses that then it reflects poorly on him.  There is nothing stopping him from answering two or three pertinent questions. 

The fact remain that he initiated this, and we asked our questions first-- so he ha sin a way brought this upon himself.  I have very little sympathy for him right now I'm afraid, and i cannot justify him not even coming close to mannning up to making a misake.

2011-09-17 16:02:31Coming into this very late, sorry
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
Slept through all the excitement then went out all Saturday with the family. Pielke responding and Dana trying to establish 'Grand Poobah' as my nickname, all points of grave concern.

I haven't read much of the SKS comments thread yet involving Pielke but reading his blog post, it reminds me of that scene in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure when to distract the bad guys, they point and yell "look, the Goodyear Blimp!!"

Pielke's questions are him pointing and screaming "Goodyear Blimp". He's desperate to change the subject and move into warm, fuzzy areas of discussion that are familiar and comfortable. He criticizes us for calling out S/C's misinformation by pointing at the Goodyear Blimp of UAH data. We confront him about S/C's misinformation and suddenly there's another Goodyear Blimp over our shoulder. We've been so distracted by his questions (it's very hard not looking for the Goodyear Blimp), has anyone noticed he completely dodged the Christy 1970s myth, completely exonerating Christy with a jocular "oh, I'm sure he didn't mean that, there, there, now, silly little bloggers".

Not sure of the best response just yet, need to go read the comments thread now. But not a big fan of playing his game and running after the blimp.

2011-09-17 16:26:01
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Welcome John. Yeah, several of us have noted that if we respond, we need to begin by pointing out that Pielke has not yet addressed our first questions. Basically point out the 'blimp' strategy. But that could be accomplished at the start of the Cherry Pielking series too, with a comment that we're not pursuing the so-called dialogue because of Pielke's insistence that we look at his blimp rather than his cherry [no innuendo intended here, honest!]. I'm not very eager to chase the blimp either. Anyway, am going to sleep, will check back in the morning.
2011-09-17 18:25:33
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

I think our best angle is just to develop our responses to his questions (and refine our own questions, which he somewhat evaded).

Some people don't like dealing with a crowd of interlocutors. I know that I don't: I conducted a group questioning for David Parker (the UHI guy) with WUWT a few years ago: It was fun to develop that set of questions (boiling down WUWT questions and getting them finalized), but dealing with their collective hostility later was rather wearying. I felt like a lion hassled by a pack of jackals.

I think turning down the heat and the volume is a reasonable approach. I think we channel things through the set of responses to Pielke. wrt "admission of guilt" in Pielke's mistaken attribution of attack on UAH to SkS:

- First of all, I'm not particularly disturbed about Pielke's mistake anyway; but

- Secondly, if we pose the question in a public well-framed manner and he fails to respond, I think that speaks for itself; and we can "put that on the record".

If he doesn't have the courage to admit he's made a mistake, that's his problem, as long as we make it clear enough to people who are reading the proceedings. But we have to let the whole process calm down, we're falling over ourselves for the attack.

Two images:

- Lion hassled by a pack of snarling jackals, vs.:

- A stag taken down by an organized wolf pack.

Let's play the wolf pack.

2011-09-18 00:18:02Speaking of the wolf pack...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Daniel Bailey has deleted many of our comments on the grounds that they are "off topic." Why hasn't he also deleted most of Pielke's comments on the same grounds?

I'm not sanguine about the fact that Daniel took unilateral action without discussing it with us first. 

In addition, other SkS readers undoubtedly read the deleted posts and are now scratching their head about what's going on.