Roger Pielke, Jr. is a believer in man-made global warming. Pielke Jr. directs the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research and also is an associate professor of environmental studies. So the article below is a very significant slam against Andrew Dessler, Eli Rabett and Raymond Pierrehumbert.
Pielke JR (not SR) Takes on Critics of Senate 400 ‘Consensus Busters’ Scientist Report!
Pielke Jr. Slams ‘Attack Dog climate scientists’ engaging in ‘Character Assassination’ of Scientists on Senate Report
Excerpt: And this leads to the repugnant behavior of the attack dog climate scientists who otherwise would like to be taken seriously. By engaging in the character assassination of people who happen to find themselves on Senator Inhofe’s list they reinforce the absurd notion that scientific claims can be adjudicated solely by head counts and a narrow view of professional qualifications. They can’t. (See this enlightening and amusing discussion by Dan Sarewitz of leading experts arguing over who is qualified to comment on climate issues.) But by suggesting that knowledge claims can be judged by credentials the attack dog scientists reinforce an anti-democratic authoritarian streak found in the activist wing of the climate science community. Of course, from the perspective of the activist scientists such attacks may be effective if they dissuade other challenges to orthodoxy, but surely climate scientists deserving of the designation should be encouraging challenges to knowledge claims, rather than excoriating anyone who dares to challenge their beliefs. […]The climate science community – or at least its most publicly visible activist wing – seems to be working as hard as possible to undercut the legitimacy and the precarious trust than society provides in support of activities of the broader scientific community. Senator Inhofe is a politician, and plays politics. If activist climate scientists wish to play the Senator’s game, then don’t be surprised to see common wisdom viewing these activists more as political players than trustworthy experts. If this is correct then maybe the Senator is a bit more astute than given credit for.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Why do pro AGW people, as well as progressives and social democrats have this disquieting habit of vilifying anyone with whom they disagree politically?
The recent passing of Padraic McGuinness is an example – Bill Hadyn, former Governor General, wrote a kind obituary, as he would but Paul Keating and Bob Carr, wrote quite nasty ones.
And as we know all to well here, the resident Gobbleygookers have no difficulty in vilifying climate sceptics.
What is it with these people?
That Senator Inhofe is regarded as he is by most climate scientists tells me that most climate scientists are progressives, social democrats and other members of the political left.
I have yet to encounter a member of the left who isn’t vile; Bill Hadyn, with his working class background, is an exception and IS one who has honour and morals.
Sad world we live in.
Louis,
Agree with you about Hayden, he is a decent chap, but not a good politician, as he found out. There were quite a few like him in the Labor party, competent, good men and women, but alas most of them gone.
I’m not surprised by the reaction of PK. And to think he once lead this nation!?
About climate activists, I don’t know why you bother?
I gave up even arguing with them, facts matter not when faith is at hand.
Louis – don’t get too precious – I almost cried after reading your analysis – then I slapped myself – establishment scientists have been libelled and abused to the nth degree on here and across the blogosphere. Pull the other one.
Why do neo-cons like funding skunky little think tanks and secret societies.
It’s war on science is what it is.
All out war.
The politicisation of the debate into liberals versus the righter right is a fabrication of the denialist fogosphere.
As for McGuinness – he wouldn’t wanted Keating to have said anything else.
So I take Pielke Jr is on the 400 list?
According to the AMSU-A satellite measurements [1 km], the planetary temperature is now 0.96 degrees F COOLER than one year ago, and this figure is increasing systematically.
I find it very strange that little comment on this appears despite large parts of China being buried in snow and parts of Canada suffering historically low temperatures.
A fall of another degree will put mid-latitude wheat crops in serious jeopardy.
I think Pielke Jr is on RC’s ‘list.’
Louis,
I think you might like this!
http://www.longnow.org/press/articles/ArtLookingLong.php
It’s funny, since the main point of attacks on the list of ‘400’, was that the claims for their qualifications. If Morano says there are 400 eminent scientists, and there aren’t, then there aren’t.
Jonathon,
heh heh, quite good, and you might appreciate the definition of a geologist quoted in AIG News latest issue, (www.aig.org.au) or Google it, where it was copied from.
Yes I enjoyed it.
SJT
So far as I have checked, scientists is what they are.
Scientists practice the scientific method – that was what Marc Morano was actually pointing out, and from this practice, scientists conclude, from measurements, that CO2 does not drive temperature.
I have always been wary of scientists who are devout in a religious sense, because it seems to me that the thinking patterns that characterise religion, tend to wash over into the scientific area, with ugly consequences.
Last word should be results, not consequence, incase a nit picking nitpicker is here.
Luke,
I think you will find out that establisment scientists have not been libelled but that their arguments have been criticised.
SO, chief gobbledygooker, suck that egg for once or come up with some hard evidence (if there was I would be engaging a brief).
Oh and Luke, neocons fund whatever because our opponents are funded by our taxes.
Work THAT one out goebellsygooker.
“SJT
So far as I have checked, scientists is what they are.
Scientists practice the scientific method – that was what Marc Morano was actually pointing out, and from this practice, scientists conclude, from measurements, that CO2 does not drive temperature.
I have always been wary of scientists who are devout in a religious sense, because it seems to me that the thinking patterns that characterise religion, tend to wash over into the scientific area, with ugly consequences.”
You are good for a laugh.
Frederick Bailey.
“Being a naval architect required an advanced understanding of the four-dimensional behaviour of masses on the move through rough seas under the influence of gravity and the elements”. Solar system research is his hobby – it actually says so in his notes.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/makin-list-checkin-it-twice-here-is.html#c3664090012938715046
That’s strange Louis given the anti-AGW neo-cons are in control of the government in the US and until very recently also in Australia. Are you saying they don’t know what they’re doing with their science funding – wow!
SJT,
Have not read your reference to Eli Rabett but masses are routinely described in 4D + time.
Rabetting on a bit are you?
Luke
Neocons are in charge of the government? What? Which bit? Congress? Noooo. Public Service? nooooo, (that’s 90% of government by my experience), so what are the Neocons really in charge of?
The Executive? White House?
My what a gobbledygooker you are.
Drat, the Portege is being a pest – Masses are defined as 3D plus time, so it’s double Rabetting.
Lost track of all my grand kids but I’m well aware of doodling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doodle
“Have not read your reference to Eli Rabett but masses are routinely described in 4D + time.”
Of course not, just do the usual, stick your fingers in your ears, and say “I’m not listening, la, la, la”.
Here, bone up on this, Gavin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Pay special attention to the part titled “The Second Law”.
Here’s an excerpt to get you started.
Two important consequences are that heat cannot of itself pass from a colder (troposphere) to a hotter body (surface of the Earth) : i.e., it is impossible to transfer heat from a cold to a hot reservoir without at the same time converting a certain amount of work to heat. It is also impossible for any device that can operate on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work; it can only get useful work out of the heat if heat is at the same time transferred from a hot to a cold reservoir. This means that there is no possibility of a “perpetual motion” which is isolated. Also, from this it follows that a reduction in the increase of entropy in a specified process, such as a chemical reaction, means that it is energetically more efficient.
Climate scientists such as Rabbet and Gavin are trying to sell the world a perpetual motion scheme.
Sorry Gavin. Before you can float Global Warming due to CO2 you have to explain thermodynamic law violations and how they are overcome.
James,
You have it SLIGHTLY wrong.
The Sun heats the Earth’s surface, which then heats the atmosphere.
There’s no problem with the 2nd law.
No one is suggesting the Troposphere will heat the Earth’s surface.
CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) works by enabling the atmosphere to heat up MORE.
Oh James, I got it slightly wrong. The atmosphere will heat the Earth’s surface when it is warmer than the Earth’s surface. In line with the 2nd law. So if the atmopshere is at 10 degrees c and the surface is at -4 degrees c, the atmopshere will heat the ground.
“Two important consequences are that heat cannot of itself pass from a colder (troposphere) to a hotter body (surface of the Earth) : i.e., it is impossible to transfer heat from a cold to a hot reservoir without at the same time converting a certain amount of work to heat. It is also impossible for any device that can operate on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work; it can only get useful work out of the heat if heat is at the same time transferred from a hot to a cold reservoir. This means that there is no possibility of a “perpetual motion” which is isolated. Also, from this it follows that a reduction in the increase of entropy in a specified process, such as a chemical reaction, means that it is energetically more efficient.”
Radiation. It allows quanta of energy to be transferred from the atmosphere, even if it is colder, to the ground. But it doesn’t break the 2nd law. The nett effect, ever time, is that the earth will cool, as the radiation also leaks out into space. The atmosphere is just acting like a dam with a spillway. Build a higher dam, you hold back more water.
“The atmosphere is just acting like a dam with a spillway. Build a higher dam, you hold back more water.”
SJT, that’s a good analogy. You just need to add that parts of the dam that are analogous to GHGs only hold back a portion of the water and that this decreases logarithmically, and other such complexities.
Sadly, however, the analogy breaks down when we think of CO2 as a feedback.
James I’m amazed that you’ve totally got it wrong and accuse Gavin and Eli of making up a perpetual motion machine. What utter nonsense. Do you even think for a microsecond before posting? Clearly you have made zero attempt to understand the basics of the greenhouse effect. Zero.
“SJT, that’s a good analogy. You just need to add that parts of the dam that are analogous to GHGs only hold back a portion of the water and that this decreases logarithmically, and other such complexities.”
I got it from RC :). It’s just an analogy, not a model.
Well lets think about it for a minute.
We are all familiar with candles.
In SJT’s hypothesis the candle flame is shooting a hot spot at the candle holder. You have an observational problem. Candles don’t melt from the bottom up.
Your analogy is wrong.
Re Milankovitch cycles & ice sheets
“most of the ice was removed by feedbacks in the climate system, and CO2 feedback was the largest of these”
http://www.physorg.com/news72982748.html
see also
http://oscar.virginia.edu/researchnews/x8516.xml
“Environmental scientist provides a novel explanation for the rhythms of the ice ages”
Tamino at Open Mind on a thoughtful post about deciding if AGW is on or off by 2015.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/#more-569
Poor tragic deluded thoughtless Louis H. Quote ‘I have yet to encounter a member of the left who isn’t vile’.Get a life Louis and get some facts , rebalance your portfolio, Louis, get out a lot more, meet some warm, caring and loving people, or at least occasionally get to a neat centre ( L=R) spot where observing a bit of the sweet rewards of social justice in action would make your miserable self centred day. Read more Wordsworth ‘for I have learned to look at nature not as in the hours of thoughtless youth, but hearing oft the still, sweet music of humanity’. Somebody must have said that the members of the left rest uneasy while someone in the world is worse off than they, and doubly so when they ponder on the right taking the opposite position.
Sorry WW, it is of course ‘the still,sad music of humanity’.
bazza
“Somebody must have said that the members of the left rest uneasy while someone in the world is worse off than they, and doubly so when they ponder on the right taking the opposite position.”
Whoever said it, was wrong, or one of your political clan.
We just help those who are worse off.
Bazza,
Actually I mostly stay, when in Perth, with devout lefties whom I have known since 1971. Politics are not eer discussed but I wince a little when opinions are made about conservatives. Some dear to me told me that they simplay hate George W. Bush. ???? When asked why, they could not answer.
But I see from your comment above that you are a well credentialled Lefty, confirming my initial post here. QED.