My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic

[Ricter]

Thankfully there is a lot of very high quality science re climate change being carried out. The primary literature is full of it. But it runs counter to the Hansen hypothesis.

You continue to pound on the Hansen hypothesis, but how many climate scientists today accept that hypothesis "whole cloth" anyway?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I have said this before, and I have no problem repeating it, because I am confident based on the papers I've now read, that James Hansen will eventually, but it will take a long time, be recognized as the American Lysenko. I've seen nothing yet to dissuade me from that view. On the contrary the evidence against the validity of the Hansen Hypothesis is mounting. It is only a matter of time. As a scientist, it rankles me to see bad science.

Much of Hansen's work was carried out under the Bush administration and under the auspices of NASA. The Bush cucks were too cowardly to shut him down, which they could have easily done. The other side have no such timidity when their agenda are threatened, as Dr. Pilkie's experiences demonstrate.

The now accepted tale the Russians were responsible for the Wikileaks exposes of the DNC and Podesta emails rests on a similarly shaky footing, but if they did do it, we owe them a debt of gratitude for exposing these scoundrels.

 

[Tom B]

Classic denier merchant stuff. He has not uncovered anything that the climatologists didn't know. The jury is still out on number of hurricanes and tornadoes. They admit that. The scientists know this. They also know that LARGE hurricanes and LARGE single precip events seem to be getting more frequent as are natural didasters. But he doesn't bring that up. He makes it sound like the scientists don't know this. As if this is some momentous discovery and so therefore they are wrong. No it's not. No they aren't.

And who is this guy Pielke?

Let's Google him.

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (born November 2, 1968) is an American political scientist and professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's Saïd Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year.[1]

His interests include understanding the politicization of science; decision making under uncertainty; policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade; and professional sports.

Education and background
Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), an M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado Boulder. Prior to his positions at CU-Boulder, from 1993 to 2001 he was a staff scientist[2] in the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From 2002 to 2004 Pielke was Director of Graduate Studies for the CU-Boulder Graduate Program in Environmental Studies and in 2001 students selected him for the Outstanding Graduate Advisor Award. Pielke serves on numerous editorial boards and advisory committees, retains many professional affiliations, and sat on the Board of Directors of WeatherData, Inc. from 2001 to 2006. In 2012 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Linköping University[3][4]and the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America.[5]


************************************

So has no education in climate science or physics or really anything related. He's a political guy. What a surprise. He's really not qualified to judge the science.


OK, so let's move on.....

Nate Silver has launched a new FiveThirtyEight blog with the intent of applying his data-driven approach to a wide variety of subjects. The problem is that Nate Silver is himself only one man, so FiveThirtyEight has hired a variety of contributors to write about the subjects that are outside his expertise and comfort zone. For the topic of climate change, Silver decided to hire the renowned obfuscator Roger Pielke, Jr.

This was immediately disappointing for those familiar with Pielke's work, because FiveThirtyEight is a statistics site, and frankly Pielke is not good at statistics. Instead, Pielke is known for taking a selective view of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in order to downplay the connection between human-caused global warming and extreme weather. Predictably, Pielke's first two posts at FiveThirtyEight did exactly that, and included a litany of errors:

• The headline and main point of his post are wrong.
• He misrepresents his own research.
• The references he provides don't say what he claims and don't support his argument.
• Research he neglects contradicts his conclusions.
• He doesn't include all available data.
• He incorrectly claims that weather-related disasters aren't becoming more frequent.
• He fails to account for the costs of improved technology and the damages they prevent.
• He considers only land-falling hurricanes whose damages are highly variable.
• His conclusions are contradicted by the increased intensity of North Atlantic hurricanes, and global warming's contribution to their storm surges and flooding.

for the full debunking of this climate misinformer....who is exactly in the mould of piezoe...


https://www.skepticalscience.com/fivethirtyeight-pielke-downplay-climate-damages.html

The subject of the article is obviously above your pay grade.

 

[piezoe]

You continue to pound on the Hansen hypothesis, but how many climate scientists today accept that hypothesis "whole cloth" anyway?

It's is somewhere in the vacinity of 30:70 when only global warming researchers are considered. With ~30 % having bought into the Hypothesis 'whole cloth', and the other 70% having rejected the hypothesis or unsure, with the majority of the 70% in the unsure category. This is the HANSEN HYPOTHESIS: Anthropomorphic CO2 is going to cause catastrophic warming via its greenhouse effect combined with positive feedback. This is the hypothesis behind all of the initiatives to limit CO2 emissions. If the hypothesis is wrong, i.e. if the feedback is not positive, or CO2 rise is not primarily due to anthropomorphic contributions, than an alternative justification for the initiatives must be found, or else there is no justification for the initiatives. Let me add that if feedback is positive, than the origin of CO2 becomes a moot question. Without a tipping point mechanism, however, the assumption of positive feedback is absurd. Positive feedback systems are inherently unstable for obvious reason. Negative feedback is a requirement for stability.

Everything so far is telling us the feedback is negative and CO2 is a minor player in moderating and stabilizing the Earth's surface temperature.

 

[stu]

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic
By ROGER PIELKE JR.
Dec. 2, 2016 7:05 p.m. ET
I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax.

... the rest being somewhat academic

 

[java]

Classic denier merchant stuff. He has not uncovered anything that the climatologists didn't know. The jury is still out on number of hurricanes and tornadoes. They admit that. The scientists know this. They also know that LARGE hurricanes and LARGE single precip events seem to be getting more frequent as are natural didasters. But he doesn't bring that up. He makes it sound like the scientists don't know this. As if this is some momentous discovery and so therefore they are wrong. No it's not. No they aren't.

And who is this guy Pielke?

Let's Google him.

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (born November 2, 1968) is an American political scientist and professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's Saïd Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year.[1]

His interests include understanding the politicization of science; decision making under uncertainty; policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade; and professional sports.

Education and background
Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), an M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado Boulder. Prior to his positions at CU-Boulder, from 1993 to 2001 he was a staff scientist[2] in the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From 2002 to 2004 Pielke was Director of Graduate Studies for the CU-Boulder Graduate Program in Environmental Studies and in 2001 students selected him for the Outstanding Graduate Advisor Award. Pielke serves on numerous editorial boards and advisory committees, retains many professional affiliations, and sat on the Board of Directors of WeatherData, Inc. from 2001 to 2006. In 2012 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Linköping University[3][4]and the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America.[5]


************************************

So has no education in climate science or physics or really anything related. He's a political guy. What a surprise. He's really not qualified to judge the science.


OK, so let's move on.....

Nate Silver has launched a new FiveThirtyEight blog with the intent of applying his data-driven approach to a wide variety of subjects. The problem is that Nate Silver is himself only one man, so FiveThirtyEight has hired a variety of contributors to write about the subjects that are outside his expertise and comfort zone. For the topic of climate change, Silver decided to hire the renowned obfuscator Roger Pielke, Jr.

This was immediately disappointing for those familiar with Pielke's work, because FiveThirtyEight is a statistics site, and frankly Pielke is not good at statistics. Instead, Pielke is known for taking a selective view of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in order to downplay the connection between human-caused global warming and extreme weather. Predictably, Pielke's first two posts at FiveThirtyEight did exactly that, and included a litany of errors:

• The headline and main point of his post are wrong.
• He misrepresents his own research.
• The references he provides don't say what he claims and don't support his argument.
• Research he neglects contradicts his conclusions.
• He doesn't include all available data.
• He incorrectly claims that weather-related disasters aren't becoming more frequent.
• He fails to account for the costs of improved technology and the damages they prevent.
• He considers only land-falling hurricanes whose damages are highly variable.
• His conclusions are contradicted by the increased intensity of North Atlantic hurricanes, and global warming's contribution to their storm surges and flooding.

for the full debunking of this climate misinformer....who is exactly in the mould of piezoe...


https://www.skepticalscience.com/fivethirtyeight-pielke-downplay-climate-damages.html

Who paid him to say this? "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax"

 

[jem]

Does anyone care about what he believes? We should care about the science and the data.
But... lets break that statement down...

He believes in climate change. Yes we all know climate changes... the question is whether man made co2 causes warming or cooling, nothing, or we don't know.

he believes human emissions risk justifying action?

what the hell kind of specious sentence is that. it makes almost no sense but... sounds good.
technically it looks like he is saying emissions risk sanctions not climate change.

It takes devious skill to write a sentence like that. I would not trust him with anything...

 

[smallStops]

May be scientist should be left alone debating and researching the matter.
Whenever, they come to a consensus backed by data, should politicians start to meddle in it.