Pielke Junior on: The climate debate is ‘over’

Pielke Junior on: The climate debate is ‘over’” (2011-12-12). Wow, this must have been a whopper if Anthony Watts didn’t just brave it out as per usual! How nasty were his supporter’s comments?  So much for Anthony’s version of editorial review, in this case a blind copy-and-paste of a “Global Warming Policy Foundation” book review screed.

I have removed this guest post [by Shub Niggurath] because it has been brought to my attention that it is unfair and has caused inflamed reactions [especially in comments] that were unintended. It was my mistake for posting it without seeing this, and my decision to remove it. – Anthony Watts

What brought this on? Roger Pielke Jr., author of last year’s tepid “science” book The Climate Fix and until now a reliable comfort to denialists, recently said:

The debate over climate science is over and has been won by those who assert a human influence on the climate system.

This seems to have made him the target of denialist’s Two Minutes Hate (did Al Gore feel a momentary abatement in the voodoo doll pricking?). The jilted Global Warming Policy Foundation sniffs that Roger’s “wrong and irrelevant”. The comments on Anthony’s blog post must have been vicious.

Perhaps Anthony realized that if Roger was consumed in the righteous flames of denialist wrath there would be effectively no-one with even faint public policy credibility to point to as a “mainstream” supporter. A follow-up post containing more of Shub Niggurath’s reasoned criticisms was also deleted.

Take note Anthony; this is how your viciously doctrinaire followers will one day treat you. Praised as melding of Galileo and Martin Luther one day, Despised and hated the next. You are the tail, not the dog.

14 thoughts on “Pielke Junior on: The climate debate is ‘over’

  1. Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 1061

  2. “and has caused inflamed reactions [especially in comments] that were unintended”

    Interesting turn of phrase, as opposed to the intended inflamed reactions[especially in comments]?

  3. Perhaps what RPJr meant was “the debate over climate change is over, and I need to start writing reasoned stuff because I ostensibly have two or three decades left and my opinion-for-sale approach should be brushed under the rug.”

  4. To Sahel And Back” (WUWT,Dec13,2011)

    ……….Which part of the Sahel is being studied? Willis Eschenbach’s Sahel Rainfall graph is labeled 10W-20E. But his (University of Washington) linked source for ‘Rainfall Sahel Index’ is 20W-10E !!!

    Also, there is a quote from the abstract that suggests a need to read the paper itself:
    “The Sahel, the Sudan, and Guinea ecological zones shifted southward”

    ……….Willis Eschenbach improves his argument against the paper’s conclusion by the addition of two other precipitation data sets. Notice how his “average of the medians” understates the ‘Rainfall: Sahel Index’ precipitation before 1970, and grossly overstates it after 1970.
    There is no explanation given for this change.

    ……….He further distorts the paper’s methodology by using (apparently) ’12 month’ rainfall totals. The paper uses ‘June through October’ figures.

    ……….References to the “greening of the Sahel” don’t necessarily apply to trees. Shepherds (and satellites) are looking mostly at grasses and bushes. This is a paper about trees.

    [You can always count on Willis to slaughter science and facts in his charge towards opinion. - Ben]

  5. Now as the world governments, slowly react to the environmental changes brought by climate change/global warming, they will be forced by sheer panic, to now spend trillions of dollars of tax payer and borrowed money on Climate change mitigation projects, only after half the Maldives/Chagos/Lakshadweep Archipelagos sink below the tide line.

    By pulling the right strings within the chain of government/World Bank, much of this money can be directed towards very profitable for the builders that is, short term projects, which are all doomed to fail. Such a classic example of futility or King Canute conundrum, would be the Thames Tidal Barrier!

    ! do believe, RPJr. is being very cynical of Anthony Watts pure head in the sand science fiction! What he sees now, is an opportune time, to stop flogging Anthony Watts one legged dead horse called “Koch’s Denial” at the starting gate and jump on the race favorite to win the “Mega trillion dollar climate change stakes”, by a deep bank account, the World Bank entry called “Easy Money”!

    “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” Winston Churchill

  6. It is over.

    As a meteorologist I am now looking forward to ever stranger and more spectacular weather incidents. The Moscow Heatwave of 2010, the Texas Drought, the tornado season, the drowning of parts of Asia: they are only the beginning.

  7. Hi Ben,

    OT, just wondering if you had seen this:

    “In an exclusive interview with the Independent, Dr Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he had never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

    “Earlier, we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1000m in diameter. It’s amazing,” Semiletov said. “I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area, we found more than 100 but, over a wider area, there should be thousands.”

    “We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were 1km or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was 100 times higher than normal.”

    Shakarov who first wrote about the increased Methane release from beneath the East Siberian Sea stated that sudden release of resevoir could occur at any time, this is now occuring. it seems that the “Methane burp” effect can now be measured real time.

    James Crabb

    [That phenomena has been worrying me for a while, it seemed like a precarious system. No doubt Anthony will continue with "Nothing to see here." - Ben]

    • I give it 5 years before it’s 50 degC at night considering the size of the reservoir.

      A friend at the Australian Bureau of Met. also thinks the Siberian event is very serious.

      My plan is to build partially underground with Greenhouses and then hope for the best with a team of Scientists working on nanotech as a long shot chance. leave

      • I just did a Google search with ‘methane shakarov’ and my first post was top, what is peculiar is there is a link provided to disregard all ‘wottsupwiththat.com’ results, never seen that option provided before.

        [As much as I'd like to think that's a generic Google search feature. But please, don't click it... :-) - Ben]

  8. “But the long-term trends are again misleading.”
    – Bob Tisdale in his latest post…

    [They may lead a mind toward reality! Only trust carefully cherry-picked extremely short-term trends. - Ben]

  9. Global Warming and Walnut Trees: a Case Study in Deception” (WUWT,Dec 19,2011)

    ……….Sad, but true, that there is an expectation of finding things wrong in any given WUWT blogpost. In this one they are just lying around on the surface. No deeper research is needed.

    ……….This blogpost is a criticism of the TITLE (the complaints about the Press Release itself aren’t justified).

    “Walnut trees may not be able to withstand climate change”

    Which David Deming pumps up to a large scale extermination prediction, in order to bash it.

    And he introduces what may become a new denier meme. That an original research paper may be good science. But the warmist scam is introduced via the Press Release.

    ……….He challenges the first sentence of the Press Release:

    “Warmer, drier summers and extreme weather events [late spring frosts] considered possible as the climate changes would be especially troublesome- possibly fatal – for walnut trees…”

    From this somewhat ambiguous sentence he challenges (blogpost 15th paragraph) the “warmer, drier summers” with statements from the original paper that are about “climate change”, as used in its more general sense.

    ……….Actually the Press Release is much more safely reasonable than he implies.

    “We suspect and predict that climate change is going to have a real impact on walnuts. We may see some type of decline of the species.”

    ……….The Press Release continues:

    “Specifically, walnuts would have difficulty tolerating droughts that could be associated with a changing climate.”

    He apparently thinks that long term or permanent droughts can be countered with his anecdote about a drought spanning only one year. Only one year!

    ……….He probes the gullibility of his readers (blogpost 19th paragraph) by suggesting that there is an inconsistency between the Press Release’s predictions of a drier climate (‘Almost all climate change models’ say this about the SW United States) and the paper’s prediction of higher mean precipitation in North America (Other parts of the United States will be wetter, thus raising the average).

    ……….His next sleight of hand opposes this quote from the Press Release,
    “Walnut is really restricted to sites not too wet or dry. It has an extremely narrow range.”
    by eliminating words to eliminate context. So
    “has an extremely narrow range”
    seems to be a geographical-extent range statement, which can be more easily challenged.
    Sad, but expected.

    ……….Does anyone know the title of a paper from early 2010 that predicted hard times for the California walnut (nut) industry? It suggested that the nuts are only produced if there is at least one day of hard frost during the winter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s