Comments pielke has made

I agree, but huh?

amazingdrx:

I'm all for empowering women, it should be center in any adaptation agenda.  But you lost me with this:

It's we environmentalists that are killing the poverty stricken by opposing unlimited growth, pollution, use of toxins like DDT, chemical agribizz, nuclear power, unregulated corporate power, genetically engineered crops, and all of your other pet causes?  Right?

Where in the world do you come up with that nonsense?  It seems common practice on this site to argue by completely misrepresenting other people's views . . .

Roger Pielke, Jr.
University of ColoradoOn It's seductive -- and wrong posted 2 years, 9 months ago 54 Responses

Adaptation nonsense

Dave Roberts writes

In today's political reality, focusing on adaptation is in keeping with the essential conservative message: we've got ours, screw everybody else.

So lets see if I have this straight:

1. Those of us calling for rich countries to invest more money in adaptation are in fact contributing to the political agenda of those who say "screw everybody else"?  Right, that makes sense.  It seems to me that Dave Roberts and his conservative straightmen are the ones who agree that we should not be investing in adaptation.

2. So are you implying that those people in developing countries who are calling for more attention to adaptation (you know, because their children are dying and stuff like that) are in fact supporting US conservatives?  How narrow minded of them! Don't they even think about our domestic political squabbles before speaking out?

3. Dave Roberts writes:

does anyone think the world's developing countries are going to get aid sufficient to allow them to prepare?

Pretty ironic in a post about defeatism. They surely won't get any aid with defeatists simply giving up on the billions of people around the world who are suffering today.  But it is a lost cause anyway, eh, Dave?  Lets talk about Republicans instead! ;-)

Note: Tongue firmly in cheek in the above, but there is a message too.On It's seductive -- and wrong posted 2 years, 9 months ago 54 Responses

check this

Charles-

You should check the accuracy of this statement, it is scientifically incorrect, or at least incomplete:

"Every percentage drop in emissions will translate into some mitigation in sea level rises, violent storms, and other harms from global warming."

A reduction in the rate of emissions will only buy time, it will not have a proportional impact on those impacts, "harm reduction" as you say.  

I discuss this here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files ...

Further details here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/cli ...On Game over? Hardly. posted 2 years, 9 months ago 10 Responses

cherrypicking among consensus views

Andrew-

So you suggest that non-experts should respect the consensus view of the world in your area of expertise, but then you feel free to completely reject the consensus view of experts in another area of expertise?

Sounds like cherrypicking to me! ;-)

For the social science parallel to the IPCC, and in paticular the literature review led by Rayner and Jasanoff on "science and decision making" see:
http://www.battelle.org/bookstore/BookTemplate.aspx?ISBN=...

You comment to my ears makes about as much sense as some one saying "Global warming?  While an excellent debating point, I just don't see that it actually exists anywhere."
On The former says nothing about the latter posted 2 years, 10 months ago 21 Responses

a few comments, reactions

Hi Dave-

Thanks for the exchange.  A few responses to your comments.

1. On Wigley's work.  He is a prolific scientist; in fact, one of the all-time-greats on climate change.  I am happy to play "count the papers and books" on tropical cyclones.  But so what?  If I have more peer-reviewed papers on hurricanes, then are my [political/scientific/both] views correct?  I don't think so.  (And, yes, I do have more on this specific topic;-)

2. On "political advocates" -- It may seem subtle, but what I actually am concerned about are those in the scientific community who say they have no agenda or are "value free" but really are using science to advance a political agenda.  I've got a lot of respect for regular old political advocates. They are essential to a healthy democracy.  This includes me, you, Al Gore, and Senator Inhofe.

3. As far as my own political views, (it seems to me) I've been quite forthright about them:

If you have questions about the details, then ask.  I'll answer.  (And, are you really criticizing me for blogging?!?)

4. As far as buzzwords like "denialists," "Lomborg," "Gray," "Cato," "Milloy" ... they probably resonate with a few folks, but for most readers I'd assume that they'd want to know: is there anything in the substance of what I've written that you take issue with? Or is it just an effort to impeach by association?

I've argued that "cherrypicking" of science is not a misuse of science.  It is often business-as-usual in highly uncertain, contested areas of science.  But in doing so it does take away the ability to criticize your political opponent for doing the same.  And in uncertain, contested areas of science the inevitable result is political gridlock.  

The more important question (to me at least) is what action might be both broadly supported across political divisions and robust to the reality of  scientific uncertainty?  On hurricanes, at least, I think from what i've seen of your writing that you and I are in 100% agreement about the answer to this question.  Now if we could only convince Mr. Gore ... ;-)

Thanks!On The former says nothing about the latter posted 2 years, 10 months ago 21 Responses

reply

Odograph-

Flip this thinking around and ask yourself, given these statistics and the strength of the relationship bewteen global warming and hurricanes, what sorts of policies make sense from the standpoint of disasters?

It seems pretty clear that there is a strong case for better preparing for disasters and for reducing greenhouse gases, but these are not the same thing.  It would be improper advocacy and bad policy to argue otherwise.On Decoupling Katrina and climate change posted 3 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

reponse

Hi Dave- Thanks for discussing this issue!  Here is how I have responded to your questions over at our blog:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

I actually don't think that the issue is at all limited to climate change, though climate change is a fully developed and very public example.  Here are some examples we've discussed here over the past year related to various issues of small and large significance and from across the political spectrum:

Council on Bioethics:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/biotechnology/000373politics_and_bioethi.html

Hubble Space Telescope:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/space_policy/000288two_points_on_the_nr.html

Perchlorate and Human Health
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/000315nrc_perchlorate_repo.html

Stem Cells
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000391science_versus_so cie.html

Evolution
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000391science_versus_so cie.html

FDA and Drug Approval
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/000272wanted_honest_broke.html

AAAS on several issues
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000230its_time_to_clari fy.html

And there are more.  I'd be less concerned about the issue of honest brokers versus issue advocates in science if it was in fact limited to climate change.  But it seems pretty clear that what we see in climate change is more symptomatic of changes in science more generally.On Is it appropriate for them to act as political advocates? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses