2005-11-10

Rabett vs Pielke

Not everyone reads comments, so I point you to some interesting stuff in the latest RC post, in particular this by Eli Rabett criticising RP Jr's position: What you are doing here, and in your publications, and on Prometheus is to assert ownership of a series of issues, the latest of which is hurricane damage due to climate change. Your incessant self citation is a clear indication.... Strong stuff, and there is more. I look forward to the extended exchange.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

William- Here was my response.

#

Eli (#19)-

Thanks for these additional comments, and thanks also for the RC for allowing this brief foray into a subject which I am sure are far beyond the topic here. Let me just offer a quick response to your various points.

We do use our blog to promote our work and our views. Guilty as charged. We have also published other perspectives and allowed wide ranging discussions. We strive for a high level of respect and courtesy in our exchanges. But make no mistake, we do present some strongly held positions, which are often motivated by a desire for motivating serious debates on important topics on which reasonable people can disagree. We also try to be fair. This is what academics do, and blogs give a window to that world. Often in academia we argue passionately, and they go out for a beer afterwards. And as a professor who teaches policy, and directs a policy center, and publishes on policy, I am focused on policy issues. Again, guilty as charged. I do feel strongly that policy research should appear in the peer reviewed journals, and we try to share what we publish and its significance on our blog. Our blog is an experiment, and with constructive feedback we hope that it improves and contributes to informed debate on contested issues that people have strong feelings about.

Finally, I simply reject the notion that we have in any way mischaracterized what Trenberth has said, but readers of our blog can and should make up their own mind. Reasonable people can legitimately disagree on complicated, important subjects. Thanks.

Comment by Roger Pielke Jr. — 10 Nov 2005 @ 2:56 pm

8:28 pm  
Blogger James Annan said...

I'm sorry, I don't find Eli's frothing at all convincing. Sure, Roger is a bit tedious at times - aren't we all - but although I try to give people like Trenberth (oh, and the sceptics too) the benefit of the doubt where possible, when I hear that he made comments about the extra AGW effect causing the overtopping of the levees, it gets difficult!

One point that I will comment on in more detail is the difference between D&A, and prediction/estimation.

10:36 pm  
Blogger Ben Compson said...

James, could you please repost without using insider abbreviations. And William, can you please do the same? You use so many abbreviations that it's difficult to follow what you mean. What's so difficult about writing "Roger Pielke" when instead you write "RP." Do you want your blog to be readable, or not?????

11:02 pm  
Blogger Belette said...

Abbreviations help keep our little community alive. And typing the same again and again is tedious.

D&A: detection and attribution

AGW: anthropogenic GW :-)

11:13 pm  
Blogger EliRabett said...

Well, as I said, this is probably a far, far better place. My thesis is that Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr. is consciously using his training as a political scientist and his platform (Prometheus, nee Zeus' Eagle) to shape the debate about global climate change. He has is doing this to further both policy goals that he favors and his career.

Nothing about this is wrong per se, but those who disagree with his policy goals and the assumptions from which they either precede or follow need to recognize that his playbook is political and scientific not solely scientific. Trying to meet him on the basis of science alone will, in the long run, be a losing game. In other words, the issue is not only the science, but the tactics.

Prof. Pielke uses a number of tricks which can only be dealt with if they are recognized. Among them are "working the refs", complaining that he has been ill dealt with when, in fact he has not. The best example of this was his rant about how dishonest it was for Donald Kennedy, editor of Science to refuse his paper on hurricane frequency. To be fair, Prof. Pielke soon recognized that his paper had been rejected by Nature and apologized, http://tinyurl.com/aagwl, but his "work the refs" technique was awesome (the original post was erased, nothing wrong with that except the loss of amusement value).

Still, I think it fair to say that Prof. Pielke still is no great fan Dr. Kennedy and his editorials in Science on global climate change. One wonders how he justifies this, given the evolution of views of Phillip Abelson, former editor, from full blown skeptic to a view close to that of Kennedy http://tinyurl.com/9zegw As I pointed out, Science also gives short shrift to quantum mechanics deniers.

The recent set to with Environmental Science and Technology and Judith Curry is another fine example: http://tinyurl.com/acq72 . Contrast all the nice things that Prof. Pielke has been saying about Trenberth, et al, and his wounded cries in this case. IMHO both the magazine and Prof. Curry should have replied to this jeremiad with a polite but firm pot kettle black. The other way of doing this is to respond to Prof. Pielke's ad hominums with cries of pain and demands for apology.

Still, the point remains, when the ref recognizes he is being worked, the coach gets tossed.

2:35 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home