Comments on: Climate Tribes

By: Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:46:12 +0000

While it is no fun to be mischaracterized by Pielke Jr, the fact that he feels that he cannot engage me on the substance, and instead resorts to the strategy of “attack the man,” probably indicates that he feels that he cannot win an argument on the substance of the matter.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:26:05 +0000

This is the comment section of a blog Roger not an encyclopedia. Your paranoia is your problem. We bunnies merely try and be considerate. But yes, Eli fell off the turnip truck there.

But yes, you know you do contradict yourself when you say

“1. I have studied predictions for many years, including how to evaluate them. So yes I continue to be interested in the evaluation of climate forecasts. I do count this as an area of my expertise. I expect to continue researching and discussing the production, use, and evaluation of predictions in many areas.”

as contrasted to your saying

“I don’t know anything special about glaciers, solar variability, or the issues which are often discussed by Fred Singer or Pat Michaels”

but somehow you manage to avoid discussing their predictions about CFCs, environmental smoke (Singer) and more.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:38:02 +0000

-25-Tim- No, no mistake; no confusion. Keep walking further out on that limb.

-24-Eli- That is not really the full story is it? You are welcome to comment at our blog, as is anyone. Your choice not to do so is, of course, your choice.

Guys, as much fun as this, I’ve really got to get back to other work (seriously this time). If you’d like to continue with a conversation, hopefully on matters a bit less trivial, please visit Prometheus.

By: Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:31:33 +0000

And there you have Pielke Jr in a nutshell. His initial as hominem was likely a mistake, possibly because he had me mixed up with someone else. But when challenged he realized that he couldn’t support his claim, hence his evasions. And now he’s taken it one step further. Roger, you and I both know that there is no such answer.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:27:31 +0000

Roger shaped his comment section in his own image. After tossing a bunch of us who were commenting pseudonymously most of those who were not, but disagreed with him and his attempts to dominate, got up and left.

Roger also appears to think that Eli chases him around the net. Paranoia can be comforting when you are wrong. We merely are interested in the same things. Eli sends regards =:>

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:22 +0000

Tim- I’ll keep the answer in my back pocket, meantime you can keep wondering

By: Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:56:57 +0000

Note that after opening with his ad hominem against me Pielke Jr has posted yet another evasion. He insinuated that I don’t know how to adjust economic data for inflation. When challenged he did support his claim but evaded the challenge again and again.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:51:07 +0000

Tim-

As much fun as it is to go round and around on this with you, it is time for me to move on. I think we’ve aired our respective views sufficiently for any interested audience to come to a judgment about where we stand.

My last comment on Hansen this go round — if you think that Hansen’s conclusions that observed forcings are below IPCC 2001 does not mean that they are also below his 1988 forcings, well, I suggest you have another look at both. I am happy for anyone reading to look up the information themselves and come to their own conclusions. Of all the things that you could choose to pick nits about, it is odd that you choose this weak argument.

All the best to you, perhaps we might go round on this exact same issue again in 3 more years . . .

By: Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 04:38:41 +0000

Roger your very first response to me at this blog was ad hominem — you insinuated that I don’t know how to adjust economic data for inflation. When challenged you didn’t support your claim but tried to change the subject instead. And you are still evading.

1. That’s right you don’t just blog about climate and disasters. Which means that the reason you gave for not writing anything at all about George Will is wrong. Can you tell us the real reason?

2. It may be a coincidence that your criticism of Gore and the scientists at the AAAS was posted right after bloggers got stuck into Will. But there does seem to be a pattern here.

3. You quote from a 2004 paper where Hansen talks about the IPCC (2001) scenarios. And then you pretend that he his really talking about those in his 1988 paper. Which he does not even reference. Again, this is not something on which it is reasonable to disagree. And you don’t just get into these sorts of disputes with me — see, for example, James Annan.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 04:19:52 +0000

Keith, personality and self-promotion issues aside, downplaying the urgency of the problem and emphasizing adaptation over mitigation are precisely what has gotten RP Jr. into trouble. The quote isn’t evidence of those views, but it does reflect them.

I am curious as to the extent of your knowledge on the science. My general impression is that climate scientists are rather more concerned than science journalists, although greater knowledge is probably only part of the reason for that. Likely the other is that scientists are drawn from a more alarm-prone segment of the populace.

Are those Audubon issues viewable on-line by non-members, BTW?