This is really no big surprise. Just Google Pielke Jr.'s name and you'll notice that he's the sweetheart of the right on climate change.

I can only guess that Pielke will come up with a "but I get invitations to talk from ALL across the political spectrum" excuse.

Right.

He got an "invitation" to write for the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine, and now he's getting an "invitation" to speak from the Republicans in Washington. I'm sure there's no direct link.

Benny Big Eye

David -

I'm sorry, but this is just a cheap ad hominem. Great red meat for the Grist audience, but this can hardly be called journalism.

If you're going to play this game, the only way this makes any sense as a line of argument is if you are also willing to make the same implicit argument against the others who have been invited to testify. "I hear from reliable sources that the Democrats on the committee specifically requested Piltz."

What matters here is not who invited who, but what they actually say. Roger's testimony is available. How about a critique of the testimony, rather than an ad hominem attack?

There seems to be a great deal of sensitivity over pointing out that Pielke was invited by Republicans. Apparently, this has even been described as an "ad hominem." (see above)

A rather odd understanding of the term.

My only concern is that the Democrats have three people advocating for them, and only Roger Pielke Jr. is advocating for the Republicans.

It seems a little unbalanced.

Benny Big Eye

Benny -

An ad hominem is an argument against one's personal characteristics (for example, by pointing out who invited the speaker) rather than the substance of one's argument. David has something of a history of offering ad hominem arguments against the good Dr. Pielke Jr., rather than addressing the substance of Roger's arguments. Grist readers would be well served if David were to familiarize them with the substance of Roger's arguments, rather than simply slapping on a tribal label (the Republicans invited him!) which makes it easy to dismiss him without considering what he's saying. It plays to the sort of "cognitive miser" behavior that Matthew Nisbet so eloquently talks about - the way people take their cues from opinion-makers and labels rather than engaging the substance of arguments.

jfleck,

How does pointing out that Roger is affiliated with Republicans an ad hom attack. You still haven't answered that.

Does pointing out that Roberts works at Grist also an ad hom?

Your point is a bit opaque. But keep hammering on it over and over again.

Benny Big Eye

I guessed Chrichton first. But No, just RPJr.
Looks like they´re making progress.

I am going to have to disagree with you on your take on Pielke Jr. His argument is much more nuanced than you are making it out to be. Pielke argues that by focusing solely on mitigation we have put climate science in the middle of the political debate, requiring it to tell us definitively whether or not we should take mitigation measures. While there is a consensus on climate science now, we all know there is still uncertainty, as there is with all science (particularly when you are talking about the entire climactic system!). This uncertainty is exploited in the political debate as we have seen, and has led to political gridlock.

I am not sure what Pielke is saying in his testimony, however, some of his publications argue that there should be a renewed focus on adaptation (not to the exclusion of mitigation!). Talking about adaptation removes the debate about whether or not climate change is natural or human-induced as we must adapt to climate variability in whatever form is comes.

Unfortunately, such a nuanced argument about the politicization of science and society's response to climate change, is often misconstrued (what the Republicans may be doing) or misunderstood (what is happening on this blog).

Phd Student, IGERT Urban Ecology Fellow, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

I don't think Rodger is a skeptic, but his main thing is that he seems to like to debate.

If you read his blog it sometimes gets to the point where he argues for the sake of arguing rather than making any really substantive points. Its hard to figure out what his point is.

I made a comment on RealClimate and he took that comment an said it was a comment by climate scientist Judith Curry. He was trying to provoke a response and he was publicly misquoting me and Judith Curry to do it.

I wrote on RC that I liked the NRDC's and Environmental Defense's web pages on global warming and then Rodger took that comment and said it was from Dr Curry and said that she was publicly endorsing ED and the NRDC.

He later complained that no one criticizes environmental groups. When I called him on that he backed down from that position. I think he got caught up in the debate and acted without thinking about what he was really saying.

Challenging the credibility of experts involves evaluating their cash flow nowadays.  That is not ad hominem.  Propaganda and corruption of science are the norm from industry friendlies.

If their rent comes from industry sources and they take industry friendly positions regardless of the facts, they are no longer scientists.  

Heidi Cullem's  point in calling for the ouster of those who take the money and ignore the science.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Nuance is fine. But how about clarity? Why make the provocative statement "cherry picking is not science abuse" if he doesn't mean it? His approach starts to seem gratuitously socratic...

The Republicans on the Hill love Pielke Jr. and have called him to testify more than once. He's constantly cited on right-wing blogs -- including Inhofe's -- and in conservative op-eds. He's every right-wing nutbag's favorite "reasonable voice."

Why is that? Are you telling me that it's an illegitimate question to ask -- further, that I have some sort of journalistic obligation not to ask the question? That's a peculiar sort of journalism.

www.grist.org

David -

Asking questions is just the first step. Journalism is about answering them.

You have a journalistic obligation to answer this question for your readers by a substantive discussion of what Roger says, rather than simply and repeatedly dismissing him by labeling him as a member of the opposing tribe. You're not really asking questions here, you're slapping a label on Roger and presuming that is sufficient. That's a peculiar sort of journalism indeed.

Benny -

Some context here, please. Roger's not using the passage you selectively quote from to label or criticize Oppenheimer. He's merely pointing out Chris Mooney's double standard: labeling the conservative connections of scientists like Legates,  with whom he disagrees, while not labeling the liberal connections of the scientists like Oppenheimer, with whom he agrees. Which, ironically, is precisely the tactic David has used here.

but as one who has constantly argued that we need both mitigation and acclimation, please point me to where Roger Pielke Jr has advocated serious mitigation.  (I use the word serious, because air capture is space cadet stuff).

Did anyone besides Dr. Curry actually look at the document from which Dr. Peilke briefly quoted?  She points out (in the thread at RC) that Dr. Peilke, in his presentation, cherry-picked --- quoting only part of a paragraph out of the statement by the meteorologists.

As always, the real scientists teach the real lesson, which is --- trust, but verify.

He was sworn "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" so we must presume he tried his best.

"That's fine for you to do that if you want, Benny, but David's a journalist."

Ho, ho, ho!  A journalist! Good one!  

Mark Bahner