16 November 2009

Better Recheck That List

UPDATE 3/3/13 The owner of the list mentioned in this post emails and provides a comment below notifying me that the paper was finally removed.

UPDATE 11/11/11 By email, Professor Russell Dickerson, University of Maryland has asked that I add his comment to this post:
After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading.  That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical."  Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.
My attention has just be called to a list of "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming." A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does.

53 comments:

  1. You and your father have repeatedly called into question the "science" and the conclusions of various scientific studies and supposed "assessments" upon which alarmists have built whatever remains of their case. Regardless of your own feelings about the science, every time you point out that the alarmists are wrong you diminish the credibility of their arguments.

    If the alarmists say that hurricanes are worse because of increased CO2 (see e.g. Algore) and you show that they are wrong, your work supports skepticism toward Algore's alarmism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why would you assume that, Roger? Looking through the list the first Pielke paper I find is your dad's "initial value problem" paper, which certainly seems reasonably called "skeptical" of some of the methods used and their adequacy for long-term modeling.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gee I don't know Roger. The powers that be have been pretty dead set against looking at land use issues in a serious manner. Anyone who insists on doing so (like your father) is taken as a skeptic (or a "clever denier"...oh wait that was you.) Not to mention your hurricane work does contradict the more alarmist takes out there. Like it or not, pointing out the lack of evidence in the hurricane data is now the "skeptical" position.

    ReplyDelete
  4. -1-Stan

    Yes we have, and that is our job as academics. You are confusing good scientific practice (i.e., asking questions, challenging results) with one pole in the misleading two-sided debate over climate.

    -2-StY

    Yes, that is indeed a good paper and part of an important scientific debate about predictability. But it doesn't question a human influence on climate.

    -3-TIM

    The "mainstream" or "consensus" position is that a signal of GHGs has not yet been proven in hurricane activity, and certainly not in landfalls anywhere. Some are indeed skeptical of that perspective;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr. Pielke,

    Just curious:

    On the Wikipedia page for "Energy & Environment", a source for a disproportionate amount of the links in the 450 list, there's a quote from from you that seems to detract from the journal's credibility.

    Just curious if the intent it was quoted with on that page is in line with your views on the publication. There are some around the net claiming that E&E isn't peer-reviewed at all, which seems to be inaccurate, but even if it is, if its process isn't good faith, "peer-reviewed" wouldn't seem to mean as much as whatever it may in other cases.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roger, no one is stating you or your dad is skeptical of a human influence on climate. The papers listed support skepticism (my skepticism) of the current alarmist position on climate.

    People posting here, have read them and can clearly see my point. Since I am in no way implying a certain hypothesis to you or your dad's position (nor any of the other author's of the papers) I am not removing them from the list.

    If you can show me where I am assigning a certain position to you or your father let me know as I made clear how the post is worded. And I am well aware of both you and your dad's position on the issue.

    The fact that you said "assuming" means you are not even aware of why they were listed.

    The papers on predictability call into question the forecasting ability of climate models, this supports skepticism of alarmist claims.

    The papers on hurricanes and natural disasters support skepticism of these events getting worse due to AGW, this supports skepticism of alarmist claims.

    ect...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Roger, your papers undeniably represent skepticism towards AGW.

    Amongst your repeated claims, you question whether or not increased warming will lead to (has lead to) more bigger disasters.

    You also question whether or not the surface temperature record exaggerates amount of warming that our planet has experienced.

    YOU may believe in AGW, but you have advanced arguments that undercut those of the IPCC on both counts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Roger, To me the questio is not whether or not there is human influence on the climate. There has been, is and sill be.
    The assertion of modern alarmists - that the changes are catastrophic globally and driven by CO2- is what most skeptical people I know are saying is untrue.
    You, your father and the other scientists who are hated by the AGW promoters and true believers are condemned by them because you question their asertion. That you point out land use, particulates, water flow changes, and the other forcings that mankind also influences the climate with is unacceptable to them. That you point out that things in fact are not changing dramatically in the world cliamte irt hurricanes,etc. is unacceptable to the promoters of AGW. They need an apocalypse, and they need it yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They say in the Notes:
    "Notes - The papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count."

    So you can be sceptical of the "economics effects of man-made global warming" without - note the "or" - being sceptical of MMGW.

    Not they say that you're sceptical, Roger, only that they believe some of your papers support a sceptical viewpoint on the views expressed in their rather broad-brush description of a collection of hypotheses.

    So what?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I-not being the above Andrew but a different Andrew-have to agree that at the very least the list doesn't fit with the title.

    Here are a couple problems with it:

    1. It doesn't seperate the good papers from the rather poor papers.

    2. Several are at least redundant, meaning it seems "padded"

    3. They aren't all "journal articles"

    4. It doesn't distinguish questioning impacts with questioning attribution, at least in the title.

    Now I sympathize with the sentiment, but this is not a good way to make and argument anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  11. -6-Andrew

    Please do tell the criteria used to decide what was on and what was off the list. the title of your post is:

    "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"

    There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category. If they sopport _your_ skepticism then I suggest retitling the post to be:

    "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting My Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Roger, the papers included were any that would support a skeptical position of either AGW is not real or AGW is real but skeptical of certain alarmist conclusions, either environmental or economical.

    Clearly none of your papers support the conclusion that AGW is not real. Regardless I am not applying your personal view to any of this.

    It is my argument in support of skepticism.

    ReplyDelete
  13. -12-Andrew

    Thanks for that clarification. I'd suggest then that you clarify your post and its title to more accurately reflect what it purports to show.

    And if you want a good set of citations against certain "alarmist" conclusions (whatever you mean by that) I'd suggest the IPCC.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Roger, you and your dad are sceptics. This is not something to be ashamed of. It is something to be proud of. All scientists should be sceptics. Scepticism is about questioning things. Your latest paper questions the surface temperature record, suggetsing it might be warm-biased. That paper supports global warming scepticism, in the sense that a global warming sceptic like me could use it in support of a sceptical argument.

    ReplyDelete
  15. -13-Roger,

    1) Augmenting -12-Andrew (and expressing my initial reaction upon reading this post)…

    Is it not possible for any given paper to support a degree of skepticism which any given author does not personally adhere to?

    Of course it is!

    There is no need for Andrew to change the title or any other aspect of the post.

    2) What is the meaning of your last sentence? Are you noting that the most extreme among the alarmists go far beyond the (ever lessening) histrionics of the demonstrably laughable IPCC?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Roger, seriously, I think you're off-base here: I looked at the list with nothing in mind particularly either way, and my only surprise was that you were surprised. Andrew's description is pretty clear. But you're objecting to merely being included in a bibliography of things supporting skepticism.

    I can sympathize with the apparent impulse, I live in Boulder too, but I think you're mistaken.

    #10 Andrew, it's a bibliography. If you're trying to compile a complete bibliography, especially when you're not commenting on the papers except to categorize them, you don't want to pick and choose; if some of them are somewhat redundant, well, at least it's complete.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Roger, I know it's vital to your professional self image that you claim not to be a sceptic, but its obvious to the most casual reader that you are respected by most sceptics but treated with anger and derision by realclimate and its fellow travellers.

    It is perhaps useful to make a distinction between the consensus (the evidence based scientific consensus that most reasonable people could sign up to) and the "consensus", the largely manufactured alarmist nonsense we see at, for example Global warming will bring killer heat, floods and storms to Britain. As a signed up member of the consensus, but a vocal opponent of the "consensus" you are their worst nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  18. SBVOR-15-The problem is (still) that the argument from the title is that the papers are against "Man Made Global Warming". That presumably refers to papers which question the attribution of warming. But papers about, say, disasters, have nothing to do with that.

    The post doesn't say supporting skepticism about alarm. It says skepticism about AGW period.

    ReplyDelete
  19. -18-Andrew,

    Okay, I will concede that the (already excessively long) title of the post would be slightly more accurate if the word “Alarmism” was appended to the title.

    But, it could also be argued that this word is already implicit in the existing title.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 'Skepticism' isn't a good word, as it seems to assume a black/white argument, without various shades of grey in between.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Roger

    It seems to me that the virulent responses of the many who disparage yourself and your father, provides a significant argument that your papers do indeed warrant inclusion on Popular Technology's list. "Scepticism" of AGW these days encompasses much more than simply questioning any human influence, but also extends to questioning the possibility of other types of human cause (than CO2), its supposed disastrous effects, and the efficiency of proposed mitigation measures. You are both clearly guilty of these "errors" in the view of most alarmists, so it is unsurprising if your views, and papers, are counted as sceptical by an opponent of AGW.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The following has been added at the top of the post,

    "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary."

    ReplyDelete
  23. -22-Andrew

    I always tell my students to define key terms when making an argument. I suggest taking a closer look at that first sentence. Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.;-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. The terms are clearly defined,

    Supporting Skepticism of,

    1. "man-made" global warming
    2. environmental effects of AGW
    3. economic effects of AGW

    Actually using my logic it is impossible to find your papers in support of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

    ReplyDelete
  25. -24-Andrew

    I'd be interested in your definition of #1, which is neither a scientific term nor meaningful in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hello Roger,

    The conclusion of the IPCC is that the recent warming is MOSTLY due to emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus, IPCC apparently adopt position 2b which you criticize.

    Perhaps that is why it was included?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Roger, "man-made" global warming is a layman's term (slang if you will) for recent climate change being solely caused by humans. I made no attempt to imply it was a scientific term. I am surprised you have never heard the term used before and disagree that it is not meaningful.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This has long been corrected but since it continues to be brought up and people do not understand the context. Regarding Dr. Pielke Jr's comment,

    "I suggest taking a closer look at that first sentence. Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus."

    The original sentence,

    "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of."

    has been corrected to,

    "The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW."

    A disclaimer has also long ago been clarified and added to the top,

    Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm

    ReplyDelete
  29. Roger, do you feel the wording clarifications and disclaimer address some of your concerns?

    I realize this is an old post but it is frequently referenced.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Roger, is this comment addressed with the corrected wording,

    "I suggest taking a closer look at that first sentence. Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus."

    If not please explain.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Roger, I am trying to see if the corrected wording addresses your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Roger, regarding your statement,

    "I suggest taking a closer look at that first sentence. Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus."

    The original wording was,

    "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of."

    This has been changed to,

    "The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW."

    Does this correction address your statement I quoted? If not please explain why as your comment is frequently quoted out of context to what I believe you meant. My understanding was that the sentence originally ended "...effects of." and this can be implied to anything since there is nothing qualifying this. I have now added AGW as a qualifier.

    ReplyDelete
  33. -3-Andrew

    Sill no. My papers say what they say, and it is my opinion that your characterization doesn't do the job. We have gone around on this several times now. You can of course characterize my papers however you want, that is your business, but I have no interest in your list, sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Roger, I realize your papers say what they say, I have not stated otherwise. Why you keep bringing that up I have no idea. As the purpose of the list has nothing to do with your personal position in any way.

    Your papers are listed because they can be used by skeptics (whom you may disagree with) to support certain arguments against AGW Alarm.

    I realize you have no interest in the list but you have implied false reasons as to why they are listed, which is why I keep bringing it up.

    If you can find a single instance of where I have ever misrepresented your position on AGW I would like to know.

    ReplyDelete
  35. -35-Andrew

    I wish you the best, but I won't be endorsing your list or your characterization of my papers via the list. Sorry. So you can stop asking for that endorsement, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I am not asking for your endorsement, have never asked for your endorsement nor will ever ask for your endorsement of my list.

    If someone was arguing that Hurricane's damage will be catastrophic in the future due to AGW and I used one of your papers on this issue to argue against this position. Would you consider this an acceptable use of your paper?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Roger, could you answer my last question please.

    ReplyDelete
  38. -37-Andrew

    Depends on the details, the uncertainties found in my 2007 paper (Trans Royal Soc) are probably wide enough for someone to selectively cherrypick both "catastrophic" and "benign."

    ReplyDelete
  39. Roger,

    Would you consider it an acceptable use of your paper to argue against a catastrophic position on hurricane damage? Yes or No?

    Also thanks to one of your latest comment I am now being falsely accused of asking for your endorsement of my list. To set the record straight, have I ever asked you anywhere to endorse my list?

    ReplyDelete
  40. -40-Andrew

    The answer to your question is "it depends" -- what does it depend on? (a) projections of future hurricane behavior, (b) the damage function that you use, (c) rates of development, (d) definitions of what one considers to be "catastrophic."

    The climate debate has been poisoned by black/white yes/no framings. The answers are more often grey and, sorry to say, "it depends."

    I have indeed interpreted this exchange as seeking my endorsement of your list, in much the same manner as you have asked for my endorsement of your "yes or no" framing of the hurricane question above.

    I hope this helps to clarify. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I didn't ask you what your incorrect "interpretation" was, I asked you if I have ever explicitly asked for your endorsement of my list? Yes or No?

    That is a yes or no question.

    ReplyDelete
  42. If a, b and c meet your criteria for acceptable within my definition of catastrophic could your paper(s) be used to argue against this "catastrophic" position?

    ReplyDelete
  43. -42-Andrew

    I'm not sure what you want or expect, though I am pretty sure that asking the same questions over and over is not the most effective communication strategy. Both of these questions have been asked and answered. As this exchange has run its course, you are welcome to the last words.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Your avoidance of answering the questions tells me what I want to know.

    1. You papers can be used to support a skeptic's argument against a "catastrophic" position if a, b and c meet your criteria for acceptable within my definition of catastrophic.

    2. I have never asked for your endorsement of my list.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Changes made in direct relation to this blog post,

    1. The title was updated to add the word "Alarm",

    850+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

    2. A Disclaimer was added and updated,

    Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr.) yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm.

    3. The following note was moved to the top of the list and updated,

    Read: The following papers support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

    I feel I have done everything possible to address all of Roger's concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Roger, did I list your papers because they support your Hypothesis 1?

    ReplyDelete
  47. What written requests? You have never emailed me once. One of your co-authors did but was irrational and made up strawman arguments as to why your paper was listed. Your father also contacted me and provided rational suggestions and I implemented some of them.

    Please quote from the paper where it states,
    "man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment."

    BTW do you consider "man-made climate change" to be a scientific term but not "man-made global warming"?

    ReplyDelete
  48. The paper in question is,

    "Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gase"

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO450008.shtml

    It does not include any of the following words,

    man-made
    substantial
    danger
    human health

    ReplyDelete
  49. -48, 49-Andrew

    It looks like your comments are directed to Prof. Russell Dickerson ... As I doubt that he monitors old threads on this blog, I'd suggest contacting him directly. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  50. The Dickerson paper is not even on the list anymore are you going to update this post to correct for this?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Roger, can you please update your post in reference to the Dickerson paper,

    "Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases"

    which is no longer on the list and has not been for over a year.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thank you for adding the update.

    Roger, do you agree with Dickerson that the paper,

    "Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gase"

    supports this view,

    "Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment."

    ReplyDelete