2011-09-25 02:07:21Pielke backs off some of his rotten cherries
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Pielke posted an update to his "more bubkes" argument with RealClimate.  He admitted RC was right and he was wrong on Arctic sea ice, but he stands behind his cherrypicked position on sea level rise and ocean heat content.  However, he did admit:

"This heat may be deeper in the ocean as hypothesized by Meehl and colleagues"

So we'll see if/how he responds to our questions regarding TLT and OHC.  We could still do the OHC post, but note that Pielke is now being more reasonable about it, if that's the case.

2011-09-25 06:56:26
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.42.63

There are two aspects: tone and issues.

If Pielke's being more reasonable, we can back off on tone, but keep pushing on issues.

I'm a believer in rewarding improved behavior.

2011-09-25 10:18:50
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Yeah, though Pielke was pretty dickish about it (claiming RealClimate was only right on one out of three, therefore they were the ones with the 'bubkus').  What Pielke neglected to mention was that at best, he was only right on one out of three too.  And even there (OHC), he's only "right" because he's ignoring most of the ocean.  At least he did admit he was wrong on sea ice, so a small step in the right direction.

2011-09-25 20:24:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.113

It's like the carbon tax: criticism provides an incentive to change. If improved behavior does not result in reduced "intensity" of criticism, there is no incentive.

Some people used to oppose carbon taxes and cap & trade on the grounds that they give "permission to pollute." That's the wrong way to look at it.